Egalitarianism, uber alles

Letter to Joe Crummy (KFYI 550 AM)
Phoenix, Arizona
February 18, 2006

Joe, I listened intently to your radio broadcast Friday afternoon, February 16th and thought your opposition points were sincere in regards to the proposed AZ legislation that would restrict political discourse in AZ classrooms. With the same facts that you have, my conclusions are somewhat different. Please indulge me for a moment.

What should be taught in the classroom is the subject material published by the school, in the course catalog, expected by the student, and not material solely chosen by the instructor. Isn’t that a novel concept!

The course catalog should contain an accurate description of the course, which it does not; otherwise students would not be caught unawares. The course catalog should also include a statement regarding how the student’s performance will be measured. For example, will it be measured objectively (based on facts/objective testing) or subjectively (based on opinion).

Secondly, most courses at accredited educational institutions have something called “terminal performance, skill and knowledge objectives.” The name may have changed in recent years, however there is such a document behind every single course of instruction at an accredited institution. This document describes the specific content of the course and what the student is expected to learn during the process of instruction - precisely. If properly written it even includes the testing methodology - an example of which would be “criterion reference testing.”

If there is subject material that is being presented in the classroom that is not contained in the TPSKO’s, and clearly unrelated to the advertised course content, then it is readily evident to even the most casual observer that a teacher is shoveling onto the students what we shall call politely a personal agenda. In fact, if the courses are not being taught in accordance with the TPSKO’s, the school should loose its accreditation and the teacher should lose his or her state certification. Why, because it is the institution’s responsibility to know what is being taught in their classrooms. What teachers are doing when they ignore the TPSKO’s and engage in unsupervised aberrant behavior is arguably willful malpractice in their trade. As an aside, teaching it is not a profession.

If the student signed up for a chemistry class, then the subject material should be chemistry; not politics. If it is supposed to be an algebra class, then no politics. If it is an under-graduate accounting class, then no politics. However, if a student were to sign up for some soft subject like "contemporary viewpoints in political science," a student should reasonably expect exceptionally divergent views.

Additionally, all students have core courses that are required of them, like them or not. Those should not be a hidden trap-door or rabbit hole to a liberal socialist hiding in the darkness like a predator. Core courses are supposed to be a foundation for future studies, not a political indoctrination which contains severe penalties if you hold or express differing views.

There is a significant difference in a course of instruction and a course of indoctrination, just as there is between an instructor and an ideologue. The former is more often than not grounded in facts and history and the latter in opinions. If it is supposed to be a fact-based classroom, then it should remain so. Save the opinions for a cold beer enjoyed with associates outside the academic environment.

Additionally, courses in education, particularly in earlier stages such as K-12, are FACT courses, not opinion courses – whether multiplication tables or state capitals. There is no basis for deviation from facts except and unless it is the teacher’s insidious intent to indoctrinate a particular racial, moral, political or sexual agenda - since opinions cannot be fact by definition.

Those teachers who would object to being denied a podium for their opinions are trumpeting from the rafters that they want unfettered latitude to indoctrinate and spew views that cannot be challenged either by students themselves or by citizens outside the educational establishment.

Putting one's head in the ground, ostrich-style is no different whether it regards the threat of Islam, whether it applies to enforcing existing laws on immigration, or whether it applies to classroom education vs. indoctrination. Teachers/professors and the education industry may want YOU and me to ignore the threat, but make no mistake, we have for too long and the results are evident. All of these aforementioned cultural issues, and many others, are strongly correlated in the tactics being employed and are the subject of relentless daily indoctrination in every imaginable academic setting.

Please take note that by our merely challenging the agenda of university professors and K-12 teachers, it has abruptly and dramatically changed the debate. Suddenly, if you are critical from outside the classroom, you are accused of limiting free speech and the open exchange of ideas (often ideas and opinions not relevant to the particular class in the first place). Soon there will be a suitable label such as "racist" for those who are critical of trap-door ideologues at universities.

Even worse, if you have the temerity to be critical as a student from inside the classroom, you will be unceremoniously caused to fail, regardless of your invested effort and displayed excellence. Any artificially diminished grade is a failure. Or, you will be brought up on academic ethics charges, or both. As a student, you shall absolutely comport yourself in the style of political correctness that the teacher and the university ruthlessly dictates, and you shall regurgitate the egalitarian party line, or else you can forget your entire future. This is less an exaggeration than you might imagine and prevalent nationwide.

Joe, are you old enough to remember what was done to members of the U.S. Armed Forces who were unfortunate enough to become prisoners of war in North Korea? They were subjected to years of intense indoctrination. It was called “brain washing” in those days, but it was nothing more than sophisticated indoctrination. Brain washing became the basis for the original version of the movie, “The Manchurian Candidate.” And now, pure and unadulterated indoctrination has been institutionalized in American classrooms. Americans have been made afraid to confront it, just as we have been made afraid to offend an American of African descent or a homosexual. Joe, does that Politically Correct-ness fear envelop you as it does most Americans? Remember, a man that must be politically correct, cannot by definition tell the truth. Is that what you want for yourself and the rest of us? Of course not.

Joe, you see other issues clearly for what they are. Possibly you don’t realize how many people are trembling in fear because their freedom of speech has been taken away. The AZ legislator who put forward the bill you were discussing is among the most courageous politicians you can imagine. The personal risks in trying to do the right thing for AZ and the United States are huge. This man is a leader. This man is to be commended and celebrated, not reviled.

You seemed to be saying on the radio (if I didn't misunderstand you) that it would not be Politically Correct for us to try to restrict a teacher’s opinion-based-rants from outside the classroom, even if they are unrelated to the course of instruction. At the same time, you seem to be suggesting we should allow professors to continue to restrict and unilaterally control all thought and analysis inside the classroom - and allow them to severely punish students for divergent viewpoints. That kind of thought process is dangerously PC and nonsensical. Remember Joe, the national culture ten years from now begins in our classrooms today. Do you want the whole nation to go this way, or in your opinion is it already too late to stop it? Even if it is your opinion that it is already too late, please don't enforce your opinion on me (or your listeners) and call me names and disadvantage me if I choose to disagree and stand in opposition to mentally defective ideologues. If you care about our children, and I know you do, and believe that they are the future of our country, and I know you do, then education must be seen differently than indoctrination and alternatives sought quickly. We must find (demand) a creditable alternative to our having to blindly feed our youth to the government’s indoctrination centers.

Joe, let's try it your way. Consider the following as a possible solution. The first premise is: No restrictions in the classroom. The second premise is: Let's empower the free market. Are you ready? In the future, there will be two categories of courses, opinion and factual - or if you will, fiction and non-fiction. In those classes that are factual, there will be no opinions. In those courses that are opinions, no facts are needed. Extraneous opinions are hardly needed in any form of chemistry, physics, mathematics, accounting, etc. Teaching "what is" should suffice. The course catalog should indicate if a course, supported by TPSKO’s, is based on opinion or facts. No such limits will be applied to other courses unless they are the “core courses” required of every student in the pursuit of a major. No opinions should be allowed in core courses. If the course content is opinion, by definition it should not be a core course.

Secondly, the instructors who are giving the courses should be required to annotate next to their name in the course catalog, "conservative" or "liberal," which are code words for liberty or socialism. Think of it as part of the instructor’s curriculum vitae. Let the students and their parents choose which courses they want to subsidize and which to avoid. The free market will quickly resolve the problem and these ideologue professors and faculty members will quickly go the way of Air America. The only answer is to open competitive avenues to an education rather than submit our youth to indoctrination.

There will be a mushroom cloud of response to such proposals because liberals, by definition, have never had to compete for anything in their life and competition is an anathema to everything they believe. Occasionally, as I drive by ASU, I think I can hear chanting of something that sounds very much like, “Egalitarianism, uber alles.” You would be well served to listen closely and react accordingly. We all should.

After this letter is cleaned up, it will be published on a conservative website. I would be pleased to include your response – whether in agreement or disagreement.

Red State Patriot

Posted February 18, 2007 02:30 AM
Read more on Articles - Red State Patriot ~ Education ~ Socialism