In Sam Dillon’s interesting New York Times column on Diane Ravitch and the controversy created by her new book, Checker Finn declares that Ravitch is a “conservative,” while he is a “radical.”
“Diane says, ‘Let’s return to the old public school system,’ ” he said. “I say let’s blow it up.”
As a stalwart, if somewhat superficial, critic of all things post-modern, Finn must know that words have meaning, and the way in which we use and misuse them has an impact on the real world. It is remarkable that someone who has dedicated a lifetime to opposing the Sixties in all of its dimensions, good and bad, would indulge himself in the very same sort of rhetorical excess and rhetorical violence that defined the dark side of that decade.
When one reads the rhetoric of a Finn on schools, it brings to mind the “revolutionary” assaults on the family which were prevalent during the Sixties. Without question, the patriarchal family needed to change, with the rule of the father giving way to an order of gender equality. But the notion that the family itself needed to be abolished was a profoundly mistaken and destructive one: children need the stable and secure families to grow and develop.
The same is true of schools. There is much in our public schools that needs to change, as we move from a factory model system to one aligned with a knowledge economy. But the notion that schools should be “blown up” and destroyed rather than changed is a mindless and destructive concept, one that ignores the consequences of such “revolutionary” ideas on the young people who attend those schools. Young people need stable and secure schools to grow and develop intellectually.
3 Comments:
1 Gideon
· Mar 4, 2010 at 12:56 pm
You’ve just proved Finn’s point: you and Ravitch are conservatives. Here’s Wikipedia’s definition: “Conservatism (Latin: conservare, “to preserve”) is a political attitude that advocates institutions and traditional practices that have developed organically, thus emphasizing stability and continuity.” Finn’s radicalism comes from the belief that the current education system is condemning large swathes of children to inadequate educations, is incapable of reforming itself, and require external pressure to change. It’s funny that radicalism used to be associated with a sense of urgency for expanding civil rights for all and is now criticized by those who purport to support the best interests of poor minority children. It is generally those who maintain the status quo who have the most to fear from radical change, but there comes a point when too many children have been let down by the system for society to wait for incremental change.
2 Leo Casey
· Mar 5, 2010 at 7:31 am
Gideon:
I have been around long enough to be accused of all manner of political thought crimes, and blogging has helped me develop a thick skin, so I am not about to get exercised over being accused of being a conservative. And certainly not when Checker Finn is being offered as the “radical” anti-thesis of the “conservative” position I allegedly hold. If it makes you feel righteous, go right ahead.
While I call myself a ‘radical democrat,’ the telling point for me is not how you or I describe my political views, but — in the words of the old labor anthem — “which side you’re on.” I look across the barricades at Checker Finn, and I see him shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Wal-Mart, Carl Icahn, Richard Gilder and the far right ideologue who have hijacked the charter movement here in NY and elsewhere. To use just one example, you may be able to convince yourself that the leading violator of child labor laws in the U.S. is supporting the “best interests of poor minority children,” while those have spent our professional lives in classrooms teaching students of color and students living in poverty do not, but I dare say you will have some trouble convincing many others.
The violent rhetoric of “blowing up” shows that this has precious little to do with the education of students of color and students living in poverty. Rather, it fits to a tee the analysis Hegel offered of the French Terror in his Phenomenology of Spirit: it is the politics of pursuing the totally pure, abstract idea in an utopian manner, and “can produce neither a positive work nor a deed; there is left for it only negative action; it is merely the fury of destruction.” Finn is no conservative; he is the Robespierre of his movement.
Leo
3 Anthony Wansor
· Mar 5, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Gideon,
Got a last name, or are you gutless?
The capitalists of this world more about the children than the teachers right? They want to dismantle public education because in the end they think the private sector will care more about the needs of the poor, right?
While Gates, Bloomberg, Buffet and the rest were out trying to make money…and didn’t give a damn about the kids. I was working in some of the worst crime ridden neighborhoods of this city.
What were you doing Gideon (with no last name)?
Finally, we have the most professional group of educators this city has seen EVER, and just as it has been assembled, idiots like you want to see it dismantled.
Fire all the teachers who work in the toughest neighborhoods…that makes sense. And replace them with who? Who is their right mind would take the position after that?
Public education is a progressive idea. Has been and always will.