Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Justice Breyer Offers A Useful Dichotomy

The terms "liberal" and "conservative" seem silly and superficial these days, when liberals are more conservative than conservatives ever were, and conservatives believe in comprehensive government control over the minutiae of citizens' personal lives. The classic terminology fails us, it provides no insight into the true nature of the most important issues we concern ourselves with.

WTOP had a little story the other day about a talk Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer gave at the American Bar Association's annual meeting. One statement of his seems to shed some light on the situation, maybe this is a better dichotomy than the familiar ones:
After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Breyer said: "I began to see that the true division of importance in the world is not between different countries. The important division is between those who are committed to reason, to working out things, to understanding other people, to peaceful resolution of their differences ... and those who don't think that." Breyer Says Last Term Was Difficult

Our sex-ed controversy in Montgomery County has been, since the start, a battle over the process. The school district is managed by an elected board, and the organization has clear and effective ways for developing new curricula, with lots of community involvement, expert advice, it's all slow and steady and deliberate. But this time, in the middle of a routine Health curriculum revision, a handful of extremists decided they would agitate to recall the entire Board of Education, they would undermine and slime the whole process, because it wasn't coming out the way they wanted.

I talked about this a couple of years ago in a post about the third group, which was picked up and passed around the Internet a little bit at the time. There are, obviously, more conservative and more liberal views about what sex-ed should be. Some parents believe their children should be given the facts, should be told what the real consequences of various sexual behaviors are, and trust that when the time comes they will be able to make responsible choices. Other parents are concerned that their children will be exposed to too much too soon, they believe that sexuality is a personal matter that should be learned in the home more than the schools. In fact, all parents feel both ways to some extent. The trick here is to find a balance or compromise, a way to present the topic that satisfactorily meets both standards -- a vast majority of citizens everywhere agree that sex-ed belongs in the public schools, there's very little debate about that, the question is what to present, and how.

That means people have to be able to talk. "The liberal side" understands the concerns of a parent who worries about influences that might affect their child's values. "The conservative side" understands that things need to be talked about in school, and that sometimes their kids will learn things that make them uncomfortable. There's plenty of room there for discussion and adjustment.

Those two sides of the lower-level dialectic are one side of Breyer's dichotomy.

The other side believes they are absolutely, divinely right, that there's no need to talk about it, that discussion will only result in a dilution of their "truth." This group feels obligated to interrupt the dialogue in any way they can, they will only declare success when the process has been dragged to a standstill.

We have looked at the news about the next legal phase, as described on the Thomas More Law Center web site. Some of their complaints are pure fiction, and some simply insult your intelligence. The gist of it is that they don't like the new curriculum. That's a great back-fence talking point, it's fine when you're yakking with your friends, but it's not a legal argument. We have seen the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, through a bogus web site (linked to from their home page), bragging about how much another lawsuit will cost the taxpayers, and all the good things the schools could have done with that money. It's a joke to them.

It's true, it will be expensive for the school district to defend itself. At some point, the anti-MCPS groups hope, they will wear the system down until the other side can't afford to fight any more: this is the great victory they dream of. As civilized people, we must prevent that outcome. "Those who are committed to reason, to working out things, to understanding other people, to peaceful resolution of their differences," must win this one.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing this with us.

"The important division is between those who are committed to reason, to working out things, to understanding other people, to peaceful resolution of their differences ... and those who don't think that."

The suers are one example of people who "don't think that." They are *not* people who are "committed to reason, to working out things, [or] to peacefully resolving their differences":

"This board is NOT going to recant anything because of "supplicant" appeals to listen to our position. The only thing that is going to get their complete attention is:

1. Continuing outrage streaming in to their castle headquarters
2. John Garza proceeding immediatley with his lawsuit. (Lawsuits tend to get peoples attention - merit or no merit because it forces them to deal with their legal team on a continuing basis)
3. 50,000 plus signatures between the paper petition and the on-line petition.
4. Tabulation of all the outrageous things said about us and this issue, and posted on both web sites.
5. Massive email campaign to inform and INFLAME.

In other words, aggressive tactics.

[Date=01-13-2005] Name:ADMINISTRATOR support@recallmontgomeryschoolboard.com, [Msgid=763681]"


The CRC is a perfect example of a third group that seeks only to disrupt. The way they have chosen to make their point involves no attempts at peaceful resolution or reasoned understanding. Instead, they intentionally chose outrage streaming intended to inflame and aggressively filed a lawsuit regardless of merit, wasting everyone's time, energy, and money.

No wonder they don't sleep at night.

August 15, 2007 3:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As civilized people, we must prevent that outcome. "Those who are committed to reason, to working out things, to understanding other people, to peaceful resolution of their differences," must win this one."

When does a suggestion become a lie? CRC is just as "peaceful" as TTF! It's a war of words!! Nothing more!!! Beware TTF deception!!!!

August 17, 2007 1:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"When does a suggestion become a lie?"

When there is a suggestion that the curriculum says something it doesn't say, that's a lie.

"CRC is just as "peaceful" as TTF!"

I don't remember TTF getting a cease and desist letter from the MCCPTA for stealing PTA property.

I don't remember TTF shutting down a sister website's message boards because the comments got so hateful, including referring to BOE member Sharon Cox by a rude misspelling of her name.

I don't remember TTF threatening to sue any individuals because of comments made on community listserves.

I don't remember TTF filing any lawsuits whether or not there was any merit to their case.

I don't remember TTF launching a campaign to INFLAME the community by outrage streaming.

I don't remember TTF urging the use of aggressive tactics.

Every one of these belligerent tactics was employed by the suers and none was used by TTF. Your concept of "peaceful" is about as far off as your concept of "Respect for Differences in Human Sexuality"

August 17, 2007 1:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home