honest speech is not free

Via Mark Tapscott, some words of wisdom from the Washington Examiner:

the demands of political correctness too often make it impossible to speak honestly about reality.
The piece is about Canadian bureaucrats who can't speak honestly about terrorists, but it's becoming impossible for anyone holding an official position of any consequence to speak honestly about anything.

Evan Coyne Maloney (via Pajamas Media) recently brought to the blogosphere's attention the most insane definition of racism I've ever seen (and which I attempted to analyze logically). Among other things, "cultural racism" was defined as "having a future time orientation," and "emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology."

Cornered as they were by Evan's exposure of their own drivel, Seattle educrats responded by taking down the web site, and issuing a condescendingly incomprehensible explanation from Peter Daniels, school district spokesman:

"It did not have enough context for people not working on this issue, and it was poorly written," Daniels said. "... It's about institutional racism, particularly in an educational setting. There are particular structures and practices in place that disadvantage other students who are not of the Caucasian or white majority. It's really examining our own practices and education, but that wasn't very clear."
In other words, they don't want Seattle teachers to place value on time or individuality, but when they're called on it they pretend to disavow it in educratese.

Evan Coyne Maloney (who deserves the highest congratulations, BTW) is not satisfied with the "explanation" either. I'd say they're guilty as charged, and I think parents using Seattle public schools are morally guilty of child abuse.

But if I were in a position of "responsibility," I'd be fired for saying that, wouldn't I?

Because power belongs to those who can stand to spend hours in the same room listening to their dishonest bureaucratic jargon, people who speak honestly tend to be ruled by those who don't.

Furthermore, those who don't speak plainly not only hide behind special language, they rule by committees, so that ultimately, no one can be blamed for actually having decided anything.

The result -- a near-total lack of accountability -- used to go unchallenged until the blogosphere came along. It might not seem like much, but the fact that Seattle educrats removed words from their web site reveals that it's honesty they fear.

If I were them I'd get to work trying to figure out ways to shut down -- or at least counter -- the blogosphere. Because if something isn't done, sooner or later bloggers will start showing up and start live-blogging their damned committee meetings!

posted by Eric on 06.09.06 at 10:11 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3698






Comments

"It did not have enough context for people not working on this issue, and it was poorly written," Daniels said.

Translation: "You outsiders don't have enough background to understand what we're doing."

Raging Bee   ·  June 9, 2006 01:47 PM

You know, having recently read Atlas Shrugged ... your second to last paragraph holds a very solid image for me.

mdmhvonpa   ·  June 9, 2006 03:08 PM

Hey Eric,

This is in response to one of your old posts that i saw just now:

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/002502.html

You're fukking dumbass and complete idiot. It's these self-righteous people like you who claim to be proponents of education only to use it divisively to your advantage. You disseminate misleading information and then argue that the people that want to change the way history is taught are misstating history.

The truth is slaves were brought to the British North American colonies (later known as the United States of America) as early as the 1520's to the San Miguel de Gualdape colony who was founded by Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón.

1865 (the year slavery abolished) - 1520 (around the time slavery was first established) = 345 years. But who's counting?

"The United States inherited slavery." You make it seem as if the same people including the founding fathers who were enslaving people weren't the people who were responsible for it. As if the colonies were a different people than the people who founded America in 1776.

You a dumb mothefukker. Giving out misleading information and using it to support your views. And you got these people following, looks like the blind leading the blind. Either that or the ignorant leading the ignorant.

"If you don't like it fuk you," you said. Well, i'm not feeling you so i'm feeling mutual so fukk you too and all the fascists, racists and bigots on this site.

Neez Buck   ·  June 9, 2006 03:55 PM

Neez Buck, you should learn how to disagree politely. You lack manners, and this reflects poorly on you and your family.
This:
"The truth is slaves were brought to the British North American colonies (later known as the United States of America)"
is where you've gone wrong. You have failed to acknowledge that the US and the British North American colonies were fundamentally different. (For one thing, the United States were not British North American colonies anymore. As a master of the obvious I can see into the heart of such mysteries, and I don't mind showing that truth to you, sans the self-evident veneer.)
So Eric was right in that post- slavery was legal in parts of the US for 89 years- no more.

Harkonnendog   ·  June 9, 2006 04:15 PM

Thanks RB, MDM, Hark!

Neez Buck, the IP numbers from your comment indicate you're posting from the University of Pennsylvania system.

If you're a student, the accuracy of the historical information you provide doesn't speak very highly about the quality of a Penn education.

Regarding "the San Miguel de Gualdape colony who was founded by Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón" it was NOT a "British North American colony" but a Spanish colony abandoned soon after it was founded:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Colonial_America

Historians don't agree on its exact location, but think it was in what is now the state of Georgia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Miguel_de_Gualdape

Even without the gratuitous insults, your argument is simply unpersuasive.

In future, please don't leave the same comment on multiple posts, as it's distracting to other commenters' threads. Thanks.

Eric Scheie   ·  June 9, 2006 04:57 PM

Neez: You thought a colony called San Miguel de Guadalupe was British? Founded by Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón? Seriously?

Jon Thompson   ·  June 10, 2006 06:20 AM

Jon, for all we know, the man is an educrat. Perhaps we're expecting too much.

Eric Scheie   ·  June 10, 2006 09:22 AM


December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits