Not that I need to preach to the converted here, but I love the internet. How else could I read every daily edition of my hometown newspaper back in the US if not for the web? I like keeping up on who is engaged and who got married, who got arrested and which baseball coach got sent to prison for selling crack cocaine – it is local gossip news through a global channel, and I can never resist tuning in.
It is also interesting to note the range of opinions that co-exist in my largely conservative hometown. It is a wonderful place to grow up, and a wonderful place to grow old, full of lovely people, but I was somewhat surprised to read an editorial in Monday’s edition which stated that taxpayers have to be willing to foot the bill for public schools’ physical education classes. What surprised me was not that such an unquestioning, statist line could be uttered in the kind of place that was built on a can-do attitude and pride in one’s own ability to do for oneself; what surprised me was how the editorial writer did not even bother to craft an argument in favour of his or her opinion.
So I wrote my first ever letter to the editor. I do not think it will be published, and I would hate to have totally wasted the one minute it took me to read the article and the five minutes it took me to dash off a response, so I reproduce it here.
According to Monday’s Gazette editorial on gym classes in public
education, “Schools cannot turn their backs on students’ health, and the state and taxpayers have to be willing to foot the bill.” This is nonsense, at least if you accept the fact that it is up to individuals to decide to be fit or to be unfit. In the case of children, it is parents – not school systems – who must bear that responsibility. It is a scary state of affairs indeed when the notion that parents ought to be the ones taking responsibility for the food their children consume and the activities in which their children participate strikes so many as strange and unthinkable. “But it’s the schools’ job to teach that!” comes the cry. No, actually, it is not.The incontestable fact of the matter is that our ability to do things for ourselves – including the ability to think, in some cases – is diminished when the government does those things for us. (Anyone who doubts this should look to those countries where Communism was not so long ago the order of the day, where people who lived under those brutal régimes quite literally struggle to make basic choices for themselves after years of having the government make almost all of life’s decisions for them.) This also diminishes us as human beings. The question we must really answer is whether we give priority to a population that may overeat and under-exercise and that consequently does not live as long as it may, or to taking away citizens’ autonomy “for the common good”. Such collectivist thinking ignores individual rights and responsibilities, and in doing so encourages moral and intellectual passivity. It is also, not coincidentally, the kind of sentiment with which any proud Communist would agree.
As for the question of Medicare and Medicaid, not everyone swallows the statist line that citizens must submit to having our finances looted by the government in order to pay for such services.
On the same note, it is a regrettably radical concept in this day and age, but I do not believe – as the Gazette editorial stated – that I or any other citizen must be willing to foot the bill for any other parent’s child’s physical education. Our schools have their work cut out for them as it is when it comes to guiding children in academic disciplines. There is no reason to pin the blame on them if Johnny and Susie do not realize that physical activity is a good thing. Of course the fact is that Johnny and Susie and any person with a functioning brain knows this; it is – and must be – up to them to decide whether or not to act on this knowledge. If Johnny and Susie’s parents wish to be let off the hook for parenting their children in this area, they need only look to editorials like the one in Monday’s Gazette to feel absolved of any such responsibility.
What I did not mention in my letter is that I experienced in two local school districts, as a child and teenager, downright lousy phys ed programs. In high school, it was so bad that your phys ed grade was based solely on whether or not you bothered to bring a change of clothes for the class. The teacher, who also served as athletic director and head basketball coach of the high school, would give you 50 per cent credit just for showing up. Calling that “physical education” was nothing short of a joke, especially as most of us used the period to do the homework we’d neglected to do for the next period’s class.
Is this really the reason why some kids are overweight? Hardly. But if I have learned one thing from growing up in an area with very little in the way of fee-paying schools, it is that the parents of kids who attend state (public) schools will always complain about all the things the schools are not teaching their kids that they are entirely capable of teaching their children themselves, be it how not to get pregnant, how not to catch a sexually transmitted disease, or how not to grow obese. It is time someone started making parents feel as crummy as they should for this attitude, so get guilt-tripping today.
The thing that gets me is, what are we to do about it?
The vast majority of voters either voters either votes Democrat or Republican in the U.S. elections, and both want to spend spend spend on education and entitlement programs. How do Americans stop this? Do we have to go and mass protest by getting millions of people to not pay their taxes (Boston Tea Party style)? It seems to me that working the system in place can’t get us that far when politicians already wield so much power.
I notice that this news article seems to be from an Ohio based newspaper. When I was in high school in Florida, I also was graded in my P.E. class by whether or not i “dressed out” by putting on black shorts and a white T shirt for gym.
I’m becoming frustrated with our political system because we seem to just continue to slip further and further into socialism. When I graduate from college in 2 years and get a job, I’ll most likely pay 40% or more of my income on taxes alone, with no say so at all in how it is spent. I am also currently reading Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography, and seeing how accomplished he became with little formal education makes me realize how far we have slipped.
Jackie D writes of a piece in her conservative home town’s newpaper:
What surprised me was not that such an unquestioning, statist line could be uttered in the kind of place that was built on a can-do attitude and pride in one’s own ability to do for oneself …
****************
And why would it surprise you? “Conservatives” are very happy to impose their own statist solutions on anyone. Just don’t dare call them statists to their faces.
She goes on to say:
… our ability to do things for ourselves – including the ability to think, in some cases – is diminished when the government does those things for us … look to those countries where Communism was not so long ago the order of the day, where people who lived under those brutal régimes quite literally struggle to make basic choices for themselves after years of having the government make almost all of life’s decisions for them.
*******************
Point well taken. I’d like to point out, though, that Stalin, as one example, murdered upwards of 50 million people. He deliberately weeded out the smart peasants, whom he knew would cause him no end of trouble. Exceptions exist, of course; but what you have left in those countries is not exactly the creme de la creme.
For many years my hometown newspaper published engagement photos below the headline, “Engagement Revealed.”
The title of this post set me thinking of a libertarian discussion that is not what Jackie D was thinking about, but is interesting nonetheless. Just because I’m your parent do I have to raise you?
My own views on this tend to the small-c conservative and involve words like “duty” and, in fact, “privilege”. But I can think of extreme cases where the answer to the question is no.
That in no way assumes that the defaulting parents have the moral right to hive off the obligation onto the taxpayer.
Natalie: and of course there are situations where parents should not be allowed to raise their children, because the parenta are (say) so abusive that they do the children more harm than good. The state likes to use this kind of an example as a reason why they should meddle extensively into the lives of everyone and reguate how everyone raises their children, but there are some instances where this is clearly so.
Thinking about this type of arrangement makes me understand better why people of many cultures traditionally live in large extended families. Different family members can take over a portion of child raising duties as fits the parents, and/or as fits the children.
In a way, could it not be argued that the welfare state etc. grew out of the decline of the extended family system Michael mentions above, and the idea that something should take its place?
Sadly evidence seems to suggest that extended families don’t fare well in an era of flexibility, easy transportation & emphasis on individuality, where sons & daughters may end up living far away from any other relatives. I suppose maybe the rise of technologies theoretically allowing people to work from anywhere *could* go some way to changing this situation, but based on the evidence so far, I’m far from convinced.
Sadly evidence seems to suggest that extended families don’t fare well in an era of flexibility, easy transportation & emphasis on individuality, where sons & daughters may end up living far away from any other relatives
But which comes first, the relocation, or the notion that since there is a safety net provided elsewhere that one can relocate, leaving the family behind?
And why would it surprise you? “Conservatives” are very happy to impose their own statist solutions on anyone. Just don’t dare call them statists to their faces.
I am more convinced of this since I’ve had conversations with supposed fiscal conservatives who cannot imagine a world without public indoctrination. Conservatives merely look back for the rationale for invasion in individual lives, while the liberal/progressive looks forward. But in either case it is an illusory ideal that they tap into. The results, of course, are the same.
none wrote: what you have left in those countries is not exactly the creme de la creme.
With Russia, you may well indeed have a point, but the other former Communist countries are different. Certainly many clever people fled those countries as soon as they had the chance, but this is somewhat different from saying that most of the smart ones were murdered as in Russia.
As far as statist conservatives…Well, I don’t know what you want me to say, as I already stated in my original piece that I wasn’t surprised to encounter them. The sad fact is, though, that Republicans trumpet the “small government” line so often that many people who aren’t as enlightened as you, none, do buy into it.
“But which comes first, the relocation, or the notion that since there is a safety net provided elsewhere that one can relocate, leaving the family behind?”
I think the relocation started well before any kind of welfare state existed. Feature of industrialisation, no?
These days, I don’t think it’s got much to do with knowing the welfare state’s there, so much as knowing that if you’re geographically inflexible you’ll probably be limiting your earning power, unless you happen to have been brought up in London or some similarly opportune place.
I’m curious… are you implying that those who move away from their families are feckless? If so how would you would propose to bring about a situation in which a modern economy could operate whilst allowing people to (if they wished) live close to their relatives?
Nice article. I grew up just up the road (Pumpkin Show!!!) from the town in question. And yes, the phys ed. program up there wasn’t any better. Of course, how do you grade the athletically non-gifted (me) against the gifted? Anyways, a school phys. ed program isn’t going to help an overweight slob of a kid. Its all learned at home.
Finally, to some extent, the whole “crisis” is a manufactured item. Weight is not and absolute sign of health and the govt’s guidelines are ridiculous. Also, there are serious doubts about the design of the food pyramid.
Small world, Chris L – as if we didn’t know that…
As far as grading the gifted against the un-gifted, well, that’s a problem with academic work as well. I did have one great year of phys ed, age 12 or so, when we had to take written exams (no, really) and do skills tests of each sport we ‘studied’ – basketball, volleyball, gymnastics, etc. It was remarkable for having been an actual challenge, and was thus quite enjoyable. All the other years, all we did was play kickball. Make no mistake, kickball is the greatest game of all time, but playing it hardly constitutes physical education. I shudder to think of what kind of budget my school had for phys ed, because other than buying a new basketball or kickball when one kicked the bucket, I don’t see where the money would have been going.
Of course, there was always plenty of money in the coffers for making the gymnasium look as spectacular as possible (mine was a real basketball-crazy district). Hmm…
I guess it comes down to what you consider the purpose of school to be. Someone, I can’t remember her name right now, proposed that once you hit fourteen you don’t have to go to school any longer. You could finish high school anytime you wanted. Her point was that many people of that age, especially boys, need to be actually doing something and not just sitting in a classroom. Appretinceships or other types of training would be better. I always thought it was an interesting idea. Plus, mixing some adults into HS might have some benefits. Let’s face it, HS is wasted on a lot of kids.
Wow, I never had gym like that. Although most of the events were organized and not just go out and do something.
toolkien snagged a quote:
And why would it surprise you? “Conservatives” are very happy to impose their own statist solutions on anyone. Just don’t dare call them statists to their faces.
Then he went on to say:
I am more convinced of this since I’ve had conversations with supposed fiscal conservatives who cannot imagine a world without public indoctrination.
************************
The irony is that “fiscal conservatives” demand indoctrination that would make people howl for horrendously costly government programs. Because “fiscal conservatives” hide behind a popular rallying cry, they actually are more dangerous than frank statists who will come right out and tell you they intend to pick your pocket for the greater good.
C’mon, would you guys prefer a state-run physical fitness test instead? I remember grueling runs at the command of the physical ed teacher. Slackers were made to miss recess and forced into the gym. Guys who fail their fitness test before enlistment in the army would have to undergo extra 2 months training and enter the army earlier before those who passed.
In primary schools in Singapore, obese children were made to exercise during recess periods.
In junior college(equivalent of HS), PE was great fun. After our first year, when we were (re)taught a variety of sports and their rules, ranging from tennis to hockey, we were allowed to select which games we wanted to play each session, and did so with gusto despite the heavy academic demands. Perhaps it was just a yearning to get out of the lecture halls and feel the sun and sweat for a while. The girls played hockey most of the time, while us guys played gut-busting soccer, great training for our 2.4 klick trials.
So what’s the purpose of physical education? To teach children the purpose of staying fit? To teach them the various sports and the rules(which parents are hardly able to do, lacking the information and basic training)? All of the above?
If a school can’t answer those questions, of course their physical education schemes are going to suck. You must have defined goals and work towards those goals.
TWG