Hypocrisy Raises Its Ugly Head

The Republican Party touts "the sanctity of marriage" as one of its top issues. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. It only becomes an issue when the party would have us believe that only Republicans have this value.

Whenever a focus changes from the positive aspects of one's own stance and starts pointing fingers one runs the strong risk of being a hypocrite. The old adage is true that when we are pointing an accusing finger three are pointing back at us.

The political arena is a prime example. Even though the sanctity of marriage is part of the Republican platform there are many skeletons coming to light within the Republican ranks related to adultery, illegitimate children, homosexual solicitations, and involvement with prostitutes. This is not to say that Democrats don't have their share of skeletons, too. They do, but it is the hypocrisy of some Republicans--advocating one thing and doing another-- that is disconcerting.

Then there is President Bush who recently accused some (there seems to be a consensus that he was referring to Sen. Obama although he didn't refer to him by name) while making a speech in Israel of being an appeaser. Making this accusation in another country is troubling in itself, but it is even more troubling when some within Pres. Bush's own Cabinet and army of advisors have made similar comments that would define them to be appeasers, too. Now we have the fiasco over Geraldine Ferraro accusing Sen. Obama of being sexist while in the same breath she is making racist comments.

All of this is a reminder that when we want to win over others to our point of view--whether ii is a political matter or an educational matter-- it is critical that one stick with the facts and the issues. Even though it could be helpful to compare one's view with an opposing view, the point one is trying to make will be much more powerful if the main focus is on the positive aspects of one's own argument rather than on criticizing the other side.

Liberal Republican or Conservative Democrat?

At his the 2nd Annual Message to Congress on December 1, 1862, Abraham Lincoln said: "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew and act anew."


We could use similar words to describe our education system in our day. What worked in the past is not adequate for today, especially for our diverse learners.


The recent debate and eventual defeat of the private school voucher referendum in Utah has caused me to ponder the following question: Am I a liberal Republican or a conservative Democrat? My husband says there is no such thing, but if not, there is now. I'm just not sure which.

I find that my beliefs, opinions, and feelings are in tune with the Democrat compassionate stance when it comes to education issues, especially as they relate to diverse learners. I strongly support the Dream Act and bilingual education. Yet, expecting bureaucratic agencies, whether they be governmental or social, to solve the issue, is a pipe dream. Bureaucracies by their very nature support, encourage, and foster the status quo and conformity.

If we are going to meet the needs of our diverse learners, a stance that status quo is unacceptable must adamantly be taken. To overcome status quo will take an entrepreneurial spirit and attitude which is a trademark of the Republicans.

The bottom line question still remains after the voucher referendum defeat: How are the children? (Translation of Masai warrior greeting). This refers to all children--not just family related children. That is what the voucher debate and result should have been about.

Dr. William H. Jeynes argues the following which is worth pondering, "... to the extent to which religious schools promote parental involvement, religious commitment, and an overall more disciplined lifestyle, all of which relate to positive academic and social outcomes, it becomes very difficult to argue against allowing choice without sounding insular and self-serving. After all, even with low school choice participation rates, if the participant students of color are benefiting and the academic gap is reduced, it once again appears illogical and potentially racially oppressive and discriminatory to deny minority students the right to more fully reach their potential via a school choice system" (p.15).

How I or anyone else eventually defines one's self really isn't all that important. What is important to remember is: 1) We are facing a new challenge 2) Status quo is not an option and 3) The challenge is going to require us to think and act anew. The question is: Who is going to step forward?

Reference

Jeynes, W. H. (2007). Religion, intact families, and the achievement gap. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion, 3, 1-22.