Education policy thrives in a vigorous, dynamic public sphere where ideas and initiatives — new and old, good and bad, half-baked and well-formulated — are subjected to open, lively debate and contestation. What is essential in this sphere is that it is the policies, not the persons advocating them, which are the center of debate.
This New York Post op-ed commentary by Kathryn Wylde, President and CEO of the business roundtable Partnership for New York City, is designed not to enter this public sphere to contest ideas and policy positions, but to end debate and shut down criticism. From the headline of “Hypocritical Critic” forward, this op-ed is a transparent attempt to undermine the standing and credibility of Diane Ravitch as a public intellectual and a respected commentator on matters educational. It does not contest Ravitch’s ideas, but rather assaults her character; it does not engage her positions and argue that they are mistaken, but rather seeks to diminish her reputation and silence her voice. Wylde’s op-ed brings the politics of personal attack and personal destruction that has been so corrosive in our nation’s political culture to New York City’s educational policy circles.
The revelation in today’s New York Sun that Wylde acted as a surrogate for educational policy makers who were the subject of criticism by Ravitch, writing her op-ed based on arguments they supplied her, makes the whole episode all that more sordid. It seems that for some, markets should rule all education — except for the free marketplace of ideas. There, their monopoly must go unquestioned and uncriticized.
Like many others active in New York City educational circles, I have known and worked with Diane Ravitch for many years. For an even longer period of time, I have learned much from reading her classic histories of New York City public schools. Without question, she is one of this nation’s leading educational scholars. She and I have not always been of the same mind on particular issues, but agree or disagree, I never had the slightest doubt that she was an intellectual of immense learning and unimpeachable integrity. It is not she, but the authors of this campaign of personal vindictiveness, that are diminished by it.
Update:
Diane Ravitch responds here.