Anger

I was looking through the February 15 & 22, 2010 issue of The New Yorker when I found a letter by David Marshak of Bellingham, Washington written in response to an article about Secretary of Education Arne Duncan ("Class Warrior," by Carlo Rotella, February 1st). Mr. Marshak had the same reaction to the article as I did. Duncan's and Obama's talk about reforming education doesn't ring true to me. It sounds like the movement to national standards could easily lead to a movement enforcing national best practices and this could lead to a national curriculum, which would invariably result in all students nation wide being on the same page on any given day. Statements like "all fourth grade english classes will discuss comma splices during the second week of February" started ringing in my head. As I read the article I remember shaking my head and thanking the gods that I had retired just in time.

The difference between Marshak's reaction and mine is that Marshak got angry and his anger manifested itself in some loaded language. Obama and Duncan "are repeating the educational-policy con game that George W. Bush enacted." The "Texas school miracle" "hyped" by Karl Rove "turned out to be a fraud. . ." Marshak rightly points out that Duncan's efforts in Chicago have had little effect so far, but he goes on to say that "Duncan's failed policy in Chicago are exactly what he and Obama are selling to the nation in the Race to the Top."

I understand Marshak's points and agree with them for the most part, but I don't see why he had to sound so inflexible. Can't we all get along? I like Obama and I sympathize with the task he has in front of him. I also agree with his positions on most everything, but when it comes to education policy his prescriptions seem as hollow to me as everyone else's. But this difference of opinion does not infuriate me. I don't think Obama and Duncan are trying to sell me a bill of goods. I don't think they are being fascist, or socialist, or communist, or elitist. I just think they are well-intentioned and mis-informed. Furthermore, I don't believe that if their ideas become reality the fate of public education will suffer. Besides, it is just possible that they are right and Mr. Marshak and I are wrong. The problem is that Mr. Marshak's language doesn't admit of the possibility of him being wrong.

I just wish that our public discourse weren't so strident.

I don't know why this surprises me. After all, I spent thirty-five years of my life in a public school classroom and nearly every time a parent called the principal for a parent-teacher conference I knew what the real agenda was. The parent in question usually called because of some "outrageous" thing I had said or done in my classroom and simply wanted to have a conference to straighten out any misunderstandings we might have. But what the parent really wanted was a quick admission of guilt, heartfelt apology, and assurance that no such misunderstanding would happen again. There was never a possibility of compromise. The teacher is always wrong, just like the parent is always right. They do, after all, pay our salaries.

The idea that in some differences of opinion both sides might be right rarely occurs to anyone. I was sitting at my desk one day after school when a mother and father of one of my juniors showed up at my door. They both walked in rather tentatively, but after I asked how I could help, the father puffed up and told me that they had been asking around the neighborhood and the scuttlebut was that I was a "different kind of teacher."

"I certainly hope so," was my admittedly smart-ass rejoinder. But they went on to say that I expressed strong political opinions and they had heard that I would give bad grades to anyone who disagreed with my positions.

"If you were in my place would you let a student's politics affect his grade," I asked?

"Of course not," he said.

"So what you are actually saying is that I am not as good and open-minded a person as you are," I shot back. (I had had this conversation before.)

The couple was momentarily taken aback.

"Look," I said. "A lot of the things we talk about in this class are issues that have no right or wrong position. For instance, looking at you two I'll bet that on the abortion issue you are both pro-life. I, as you have probably guessed, am pro choice. But I undertand your position completely and I sympathize with it. Just like I'm sure you understand mine (insert smiley face)."

The discussion went on like that for a while until the couple finally left. They never called the principal to freak out about this pro choice liberal who was ruining their son and for that I am eternally grateful, but I don't think they ever accepted my middle ground position.

I'm sorry to sound like an ex-journalism teacher, but here is another example, from The Denvber Post this time. In today's editorial ("Bennet doesn't get the message" Thursday, February 18, 2010) it sounds like the editorial board asked Rush Limbaugh to write the piece. The Post doesn't like what has become of the health care reform bill currently languishing somewhere between the House and the Senate and has been calling for weeks for Congress to junk the current bill and start over. This is not an extreme position, but then neither is it extreme to want to build on the current bill to get something passed. However, the Post's editorial makes Michael Bennet out to be a traitor to the people of Colorado and someone who has forsaken sound centrist policies for wild-eyed liberalism.

Bennet's trangression was to write a letter to Harry Reid signed by something like seven other senators to stick to his guns, reinstate the public option, and push the whole thing through with reconciliation in order to get around the certainty of republican filibusters. Given the recalcitrance of congressional republicans this seems a regrettable, but reasonable solution.

But the Post's choice of language casts it as something else entirely. Bennet is ignoring the voters' will in order to "cram health care reform down our throats." The editorialist conveniently ignores the fact that 70% of people polled consistently favor health care reform.

The Post goes on to say that Bennet ignored the message voters sent in Massachusetts and is instead "leading a pack of liberal senators" to push through health care. I guess that seven senators constitues a "pack." I think that twelve senators equals a "gaggle" or something like that. It's all written down in senate by-laws right next to where it talks about how one senator can hold up all presidential nominations just because he's in a snit. Furthermore, no one, except maybe at the Post editorial or at Rush Limbaugh's microphone, seriously believes that the Massachusetts upset was about health care only.

The Post goes on to say that the Senate "failed miserably" and "poisoned" the bill. It then goes on to question what used to be Bennet's strong moderate position because of his vote for the senate bill.

The Post's editorial is like so much media talk now. It isn't a reasoned argument; instead, it is a shouted accusation based on nothing more than opinion and conjecture. The Post's problem with Bennet is that he is a moderate and a centrist; he is not an idealogue. He doesn't follow the party line. It is possible to lament the broken procedures of the Senate and still vote for health care. It is possible to realize that reconciliation might be the only way to get anything done. Is that being liberal? Conservative? Green? Red? Pro business? Pro labor? Or is it just voting on each issue as it arises? Isn't that how it is supposed to work?

The point is that the strident tone makes such principled behavior seem opportunistic to some and weak-kneed to others. You can't win in a toxic atmosphere like that as Evan Bayh reluctantly concluded. I just hope Michael Bennet and others like him will keep fighting the good fight. Someone has to do it.