 |
| My illustrious state senator (and local Pizza Hut franchise lawyer): David Long |
Sometimes my interest in peaceful communication gets steamrolled by snark. This is one of those times. I'm posting the text of a letter I sent to my State Senator, David Long, about his role in the attempt by some political operatives in Indiana to circumvent the authority of the Superintendent of Schools, Glenda Ritz.
(You can read about it here.)
I had contacted him before the senate vote to let him know I thought he should vote "no." Given that he's been in the forefront of the attack on the superintendent, this was quixotic on my part. I did, however, get a form email from his office after the vote in which he attempted to "explain" why he voted the way he did. My response is as follows:
Dear State Senator Long:
I appreciate the response to my email sharing my thoughts on
the bill regarding Superintendent Ritz.
Unfortunately, the attempt to explain your position only further served
to muddy the waters. In particular, the
letter engages in a tell-tale sign of political doublespeak: the circular
argument.
The rationale for the legislation given in the letter was
that Superintendent Ritz took actions you felt were detrimental to the
relationship between her and the board.
The salient fact left out, of course, is that these actions were
themselves responses to actions taken by the governor.
In essence, the reasoning of your argument is as follows:
the governor didn’t like Ritz’s positions so he made unprecedented moves to circumvent
her authority—authority given to her by the people of Indiana.
Superintendent Ritz resisted such moves and,
because she wouldn’t play ball, legislation was needed to force her.
It’s a bit like the schoolyard bully defending himself by
saying, “Don’t blame me for hitting her!
She kept putting her face in front of my fist!”
I recognize that you are counting on the average Indianan to
not fully understand the dynamics of the narrative. Perhaps that hope is well-founded. That has yet to be seen.
It’s also clear you hope that part of these forgotten dynamics
are other statements you’ve made about Superintendent Ritz. In your letter, you plead innocence about
this being in any way about Superintendent Ritz personally. But that doesn’t square with the following
public statement made last month:
“In all fairness, Superintendent Ritz was a librarian, OK? . . . She has never run a school system, and that is a bit of a problem for her — she’s on a learning curve there.”
Now, in all fairness, you’re a local pol and pizza joint
lawyer, OK? You’ve never run a school
system, or had any professional experience in education for that matter. And that’s a bit of a problem for you—you’re
on a learning curve there.
See, education isn’t a political game. It’s actually
important. The effects of decisions made
now will have consequences when your own political career is reduced to nothing
more than a footnote in a dusty, untouched reference tome in some government
office in Indianapolis.
Those of us who have devoted our lives to education know
this; neither you nor the governor seem to.
(In all fairness, Governor Pence is a former radio talk show
host, OK? He also has never run a school
system, and that’s a bit of a problem for him—he’s on a learning curve there.)
Indeed, not only do you not seem to understand education,
but your ignorance encompasses the basic aspects of democracy as well.
The thing is, democracy is messy. It’s intended to be. It’s meant to foil the individual agendas of
leaders and consign the momentary yowling of attention-starved loudmouths to
impotent silence.
You and the governor complain that after an initial period
of finding common ground, there is now friction with Superintendent Ritz. Good!
That’s as it should be. One would
think that as a self-confessed conservative, you would be more appreciative of
the ways in which the machinery of representative democracy stands in the way
of the momentary whims of individuals who have persuaded themselves that they
alone know what’s best for the rest of us.
But then again, even the most basic mechanics of democracy
seem to elude your understanding, or at least respect. Superintendent Ritz received 1.3 million
votes—more than Governor Pence. And
forty (40) times as many Hoosiers cast their ballots for the superintendent as
did for you.
Now, perhaps you, in your wisdom, know better than these 1.3
million people. Could be. But in a democracy, the people have the
voice. The people have the power. That’s the idea, anyway. Even if you are convinced that their decision
was a bad one, you are obliged to live with it until you can change their minds
and convince them to vote with you. And
if your case is so sound, that ought not be a problem, should it?
Ultimately, it’s not so much that you are participating in
an end-run around Superintendent Ritz for political gain or that you insulted
her personally. It’s that you’re participating
in an end-run around the will of the people of Indiana. You’ve insulted them by refusing to abide by
their decisions.
But In all fairness, you’re a political apparatchik, OK? You
have apparently never thought deeply and seriously about what being a public
servant in a democracy is fundamentally about, and that’s a bit of a problem
for you—you’re on a learning curve there.
Fortunately, we educators can help you out with that.
Regards,
Dr. Ted Remington
No comments:
Post a Comment