So that's irony number one: In order to educate children on how to be civil, understanding, well-rounded students—in short, to learn about others—some students will be denied an opportunity to learn what their current President has to say about education.
Here's irony number two: President Obama taught at the University of Chicago as a Constitutional law professor. It's obvious that he has spent a great deal of time inside of the classroom. Having come through rigorous academic avenues, it makes sense to see what a lifelong learner can accomplish: the Presidency of the United States. His position of power is obvious, and it can be wielded to help provide the type of motivation that many students sorely lack. This is not to say that anyone need believe in his politics or policies. Just the opposite, actually. What it should show students (but won't if they aren't allowed into their classrooms on Tuesday) is that education pays off.
Irony three: The President has not said, as of the time of this writing, what the talk will entail, save that it will be about “the need to work hard and stay in school” (as reported in this Associated Press article). The heated debate about preserving health care Darwinism (survival of the richest) is not listed as part of the ticket. Sadly, many people argue that he 'changed what he was going to talk about' and, even if he does only talk about education, it will be filled with 'subliminal indoctrination' and other potentially insidious tricks of rhetoric. I cannot see how this is a legitimate fear. In fact, the only thing approaching a reasonable response (and I use the term loosely) as to why President Obama shouldn't address the nation's schoolchildren was, as one person at The Washington Post opined, “The speech will take up class time.” (Arguably, then, the recitation of the Pledge of Independence could be considered a similar sort of waste.) If anything, it should be a prime opportunity for parents who are against President Obama's policies to have a rational discussion with their students. How can one justify arguing against an argument they aren't allowed to hear? A major part of education is about learning to judge actions, events, and results, as well as to engage in dialogue (which, of necessity of the word, requires two interlocutors—not one shouting out any chance to hear from another). How is pandering to paranoid delusions and unsubstantiated theories—to refuse to listen—going to enhance this goal?
And then there's irony four: Liberals are crying foul about the other party taking issue. Conservatives are crying at all about this issue. Look, both Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush took time to address the nation's schoolchildren. I couldn't find much to go off of in terms of Democratic response to Reagan, but there is a documented outcry about Bush's use of time and money to tell kids to stay in school because it's the right thing to do. Back in 1991, it was, apparently, a good idea for a conservative president to speak to students, despite protests from the opposing party. Now, in 2009, it is also apparent that such a use of time and money to educate children on the possibilities that education has is considered inappropriate and (some argue) unconstitutional. Even the paranoia of indoctrination (a word I've plucked from Glenn Beck—thanks, Glenn!*) can't stand as grounds for barring the President from pursuing this: Reagan spent some of his discourse, which was shown nationally, talking politics, including a plug for all of his efforts in reducing taxes. The fact that the conservatives' poster-boy RR addressed the nation's kids should mean that the liberals' poster-boy can do the same.
Last one—irony five: You can feel whatever you'd like about President Obama's 'liberalism' (he's pretty darn centrist, if you can stand looking at a nonpartisan interpretation of him) or 'socialism'. That's fine. But the great irony of this whole issue is that the vast majority of people in this country are all products of each state's school system. It is, to use a common phrase, a 'public option' for education. To put it baldly: Public schools are a socialistic enterprise. They do not generate money. They operate because of the taxes that other people pay. The wealth of one area of a state is spread to other, less affluent areas paying for the education of others within the state. So the greatest irony of this whole debacle? That parents, incensed at the idea of a 'socialist ideologue' speaking to the students and possibly 'brainwashing' them with his politics, will pull their children out of government-funded schools—all to prevent them from understanding something they've heard before (stay in school, don't do drugs) from a man they quite possibly know little to nothing about—save for the endless lies and vicious fear-mongering that is promulgated about him.
In sum: Irony is crippling. This debate is certainly a storm in a teacup. In fact, it's even more irritating to think that all of this is done in the name of education. We become educated through exposure to ideas and thoughts that were not originally ours. Through the process of exposure, what is acceptable, appreciated, and even believed can be developed. Censorship, in this heinous, perfidious way—done by those who are entrusted with the education of the child—is almost tantamount to embracing fascism. When we cannot be allowed to learn from those different from us, we are bound to perpetuate ignorance. I'll let Aristotle seal this one for me. “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
By that measure, those objecting so forcefully to President Obama's speech on Tuesday are running a serious danger of themselves becoming mindless sheep. Then again, the entire point of censorship is to ensure the sheep will never be exposed to the idea that, perhaps, they can become something more than a fleck in the flock.
_____________________
* You can watch his unfiltered hate-mongering here. His indoctrination stance—certainly something that he can't be accused of doing himself—starts in about 01:15 into the video
Comments
That said, I am also glad to hear your opinion as a parent, teacher, and basic intelligent person.
I hadn't even heard anything about this until I noticed a status update on my friend's facebook, where she said she was signing a paper for her child to opt out of hearing the speech.
It made me remember sitting in the library writing a paper while my fellow students watched an R-rated movie in my social studies class.
The opting out that is, not the president. :)
Anyway, thank you for sharing your opinion, because I found it very interesting.
I would also find cute pictures of your family interesting. Just sayin' . . . :)
I would like to point out, though, that your example is a bit of a weak analogy (which you acknowledge in passing at the end of your post).
Doing as I probably would have done in high school and avoiding a rated-R movie in social studies is being 1) somewhat aware of the content beforehand and being able to judge based upon synopses and summaries and 2) knowing that, for lack of any other indicator, the rating system is indicating such content might be considered objectionable.
In your case, you were standing up for your morals based upon sound logic and hard proofs. The opting out of any assignment is a protected right; any student can refuse to do any project, based upon moral grounds. (If your student ever does that, of course, comparable work will be assigned—you can't dodge school work!) What doesn't make sense about this situation is the fact that the content was reported as being about personal responsibility and focusing on academic success. You can find the whole text and read it on whitehouse.gov.
Boycotting because of a genuine gripe is fine; that's people's prerogative. Touting ignorance and mingling ad hominid attacks as justification for censorship is ludicrous at best and potentially despotic (or fascist, depending on which side you're on) at worst.
As for pictures, I've put up a new blog, just so that you can see the fam.
You can use a free site called Stat Counters and see how many times your blog is visited. I used to wonder if people ever read mine, because sometime I get no comments or only a few, but now I see my website is loaded (if not read haha) a lot more than that. It is also interesting to see what keywords people google that make your blog show up in your search results. You'd be surprised.
It's also cool to see that two people in Russia have looked at my blog this past week. Random.
If you're curious: http://www.statcounter.com.
Ah the wonderful logical fallacies of politics. It reminds me of last year’s commencement at BYU when Cheney spoke. All of the liberal BYU students (yes, I know, there's a post all in of itself…) cried foul and had Ralph Nader come and speak at an alternate commencement for the students who were basically against Cheney and the war. I don’t understand where this idiocy comes from. No matter what your poetics are, at a minimum you need to respect the office, if not the man/woman. He is the President of the United States for crying out loud, disrespecting the office disrespects the Country. It is like when you are in the military you are required to salute higher ranking people, even if you hate their guts. You are saluting the rank, not the person. This maintains patriotic integrity.
All parents are doing when they teach their kid not to listen to Obama is they are telling them not to honor the office of President. Ergo, they are weakening the Constitution and putting the US at grave risk. Our founding fathers knew we wouldn’t always have moral Presidents, that’s why they instituted checks and balances. Heck, (for all the BYU liberals out there) Thomas Jefferson was a borderline anarchist and was severely on the left side of what we now call the aisle until he became President and realized how extremes hamper freedom and democracy. He thought that every twenty years or so the country should have a violent revolution of sorts, hence his famous quote, “The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants; it’s a natural manure.” He said this in comment about Shay’s Rebellion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion
All in all I couldn’t agree more with your ironic points. The parents who have a problem with their child watching a blurb from the President of the United States are most likely the same parents who don’t know what grade their child is in, or any of their teachers. Way to get involved deadbeat dad!