There is another bizarre story out of our public school system where a school official at Denair Middle School in Sacramento, California told 13-year-old Cody Alicea to remove an American flag from his bike because of fears that it would trigger “racial tensions.” According to this interview with the Superintendent, Cody has now been informed that he can display the American flag after a review of the supervisor’s decision — and a national outcry.
I remain perplexed by such decisions of officials. As with the mindless application of zero tolerance that we have seen on drugs and guns with absurd results, I cannot imagine why an official would view the solution to such a threat as being to silence the student’s first amendment rights. This is akin to saying, “your free speech is bothering a bully, so stop speaking.” If there is a student or students who will turn violent at the sight of an American flag, they need to be removed from the school. Ironically, Cody has been flying his flag on his bike for two months but was told to strike the colors just before Veteran’s Day. Nice timing.
There is no indication of whether the superintendent considered the decision by this official to be fundamentally at odds with free speech and good judgment. Superintendent Edward Parraz agrees that “the First Amendment is important” but adds “[o]ur Hispanic, you know, kids will, you know, bring their Mexican flags and they’ll display it, and then of course the kids would do the American flag situation, and it does cause kind of a racial tension which we don’t really want. We want them to appreciate the cultures.” The evidence of such appreciation of other cultures appears to be forced silence. It is rather easy to achieve the appearance of cultural harmony when when students are told to be silent on their cultural or national values. The idea is to promote pluralism with the expression of different views — not claiming success by avoiding any expression (and rejection) of views.
The official insists that he or she was trying to protect Cody, but that is a rather sad statement when students are taught that they should hide their views to avoid being attacked in our public schools. If that is the reality of the situation at Denair Middle School, the entire school needs to be placed under special supervision with added measures to protect the students and their free speech rights.
Source: KCRA
Jonathan Turley
MJK,
Did I mention you by name? No.
If the barb stung, then there’s the rub, sport.
“A level playing field is not egalitarianism.”
Really?
You’re going to argue the position that egalitarianism does not advocate a level playing field?
“a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs”?
Since equity in social, political and economic affairs by definition requires equity let’s examine the word “equity”.
The word is derived from the Latin “aequitas”, meaning literally and equally as equity – which in turn is derived from “aequus” which means equal, level, even, calm, fair, or impartial depending upon context of usage.
You say that a level playing field is not egalitarian. Your exact words. You want a playing field that is not level – the desired implied outcome of your statement.
“Not” is a negating qualifier and logical operand.
By definition, something that is not level is also not equal and something that is not equal is not equitable in a social, political, and economic manner and ergo is not in line with egalitarianism. Therefore – with the negating qualifier “not” removed, a level playing field, simply by virtue of being level, is precisely in line with the concepts, practices and definition of egalitarianism.
Logic and vocabulary don’t seem to be one of your strong points in argument. The proof? If they were you wouldn’t claim manifestly untrue things like “[a] level playing field is not egalitarianism” and expect to not get called on it in a space full of people who actually know the proper meanings of the words they use, not the made up definitions used either out of ignorance or in a self-rationalization of either simple greed or a lust for power over others – all of which say much more about you and where your opinions are rooted than about the ideas Jefferson was addressing.
“Call it “social darwinism” if you will, but wouldnt leaving the care of the poor and infirm, to the goodwill of their fellow man be an affirmation of faith in natural human charity and kindness?”
********************
It would also leave people dying in the streets.
Another example of Madison’s observation that, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
the history of charity contradicts that statement.
“Adam Smith was a Lockean egalitarian, a Rawlsian egalitarian, and a limited monetary egalitarian.”
Locke was no egalitarian and John Rawls was no John Locke.
I think you need to read to the end of the Second Treatise on Government. He was merely making a case for government in the first parts where he talks about equality in nature.
But enough of that, a question. If Locke is such an egalitarian as you claim then how come he believes in property rights? He is also at odds with your claim in that he recognizes men are entitled to the “sweat of their brow”. Surely a man as smart as Locke, which you seem to acknowledge, would understand some men are capable of more work than others.
But again great fake, going from Jefferson to Adam Smith and ignoring my comments on Jefferson.
Do you all, here on this blog just change direction and offer up tangential material on a regular basis?
A level playing field is a good idea but then some men are going to fail or be unable to compete on the same level as other men. Life is not fair, but most men are able to compete on a level playing field with a good set of rules and fair referees.
To think that some cannot and need the field sloped in their favor or the referee to turn a blind eye to transgressions is far worse than what you accuse me of.
“Call it “social darwinism” if you will, but wouldnt leaving the care of the poor and infirm, to the goodwill of their fellow man be an affirmation of faith in natural human charity and kindness?”
********************
It would also leave people dying in the streets.
Another example of Madison’s observation that, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”
“Social Darwinists are so cute when they try to rationalize their feelings of superiority and justify oppression.
They completely misunderstand and misapply the concept of “survival of the fittest” – which in Darwin’s work functions in conjunction with other mechanisms such as compassion and cooperation.”
great fake, going from egalitarianism to accusing me of social Darwinism.
But back to the original point, egalitarianism is making all men equal in some way, whether it be physically or economically.
Jefferson’s view, in my opinion, was all men are equal before our creator and before the law. He was very careful to say we can pursue happiness, he did not say it was guaranteed by nature or by government. He understood the natural differences of men and the fact some would be graced with superior intellects or looks or strength, etc.
A level playing field is not egalitarianism. A level playing field is what allows men the ability to pursue happiness in a rational manner. Hopefully we will return to that novel idea so corrupted by our current class of “intellectuals”.
One last thought, one of the ideas of communism was to try and produce the “new” Soviet man. It failed miserably. Egalitarianism must be implemented by brute force.
Mespo im a saints fan, i know the relationship between admiration and perfection. As for jefferson though, in the context of a discussion about social and economic equality, I would think writing “all men are created equal” but leaving out the part about “except, you know, for those guys i own”, paints him as a pretty big hypocrite. I admire his ideas, but as far as admiring him as a person goes, well he didnt exactly practice what he preached. My criticism would hold true for most of the founding fathers.
Call it “social darwinism” if you will, but wouldnt leaving the care of the poor and infirm, to the goodwill of their fellow man be an affirmation of faith in natural human charity and kindness?
To assume that their subsistence must be obtained through the force of taxes, robs the provider of those resources twofold. First it is a robbery of his property, but more important it robs him of any nobility or dignity he may have had in contributing to their well being out of his own free will. It turns what would be a gesture of the highest caliber of human nature, sacrifice, and turns it into nothing more than an act of self preservation. Would you assume I gave a mugger my money out of sympathy or because i did not want to be shot? Even conceding that some people would indeed pay taxes to help the less forunate, how would you sort those people from the ones who paid taxes simply because they didnt want to go to jail? In such a system there is no way to attribute sympathy and goodwill to anyone because everyone is forced to contribute.
Elaine M.,
You wrote: “Please don’t get the idea that all or most of the public schools in this country are such terrible places for children. For some children, I’m also sad to say, school is the BEST part of their day.
In all my years spent in education, I met and knew many teachers who were dedicated to the students under their care. They and I took our educational and our “in loco parentis” responsibilties very seriously.”
=================
Elaine,
I wholeheartedly agree that there are many top-notch public schools in America, and I strongly support public education. (I should have made my postition clear.)
Teaching is one of the hardest jobs in the world, IMO, and I am very grateful to those who have chosen to teach (and parent) our children. (Both of my parents were teachers…)
James M:
I find it perfectly relevant.
Mespo,
Liberté, égalité, fraternité always reminds me of one of my favorite songs by The Divine Comedy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo-pT9wrPgQ
It’s not remotely relevant, but it’s a favorite. This is the album track, I couldn’t find the live version I prefer on youtube.
Your time at the pool hall wasn’t wasted.
BIL:
“Buddha Is Standing In Awe Of The Depth Of Mespo’s Reading.”
***************************
I like to read primary sources written by contemporaries to get a feel for the subject that interests me.
Leslie’s work is available on the internet, and I am an Adam Smith enthusiast given the rampant misinterpretation of his philosophy so prevalent in conservative circles today. I remembered the title to the essay, surfed on over, and lo, and behold, it expressed the history better that I ever could.
Must be that poly sci background. Could also be a misspent youth.
ekeyra:
“Didn’t jefferson own slaves? Maybe you should pick a new posterboy for equality.”
**************
Yes, as did Washington and Madison. How about them?
Grant owned at least one slave as did Andrew Jackson. Lincoln opposed slavery but had no idea what to do about it. He did not criticize Southern planters for their ownership of human beings, and was ambivalent about the problem until 1863.
Perfection has never been a prerequisite for admiration lest we admire no one at all.
Buddha Is Standing In Awe Of The Depth Of Mespo’s Reading
Do you have a time machine, mespo? Because that whole “so many books so little time” jabber doesn’t seem to apply to you.
Didn’t jefferson own slaves? Maybe you should pick a new posterboy for equality.
MJK:
Quite serious, and I believe I understand Jefferson’s views on egalitarianism, which were quite complex given the times in which he lived.
Egalitarianism means equality of treatment under the law and possession of equal human rights (Lockean view). It also refers to equality in opportunity with barriers such as sexism and racism broken down to enable a fair playing field — not equality of result (Rawlsian View).
There is a school of thought which espouses equality of wealth, monetary egalitarianism, which at the extremes calls for a collective solution. Some consider the French Revolution to be a manifestation of this sentiment. There is some merit to the utility of monetary egalitarianism, as we now see the misery of societies where the gap between rich and poor approaches an insurmountable chasm.
Bottom line is that you oppose one form of egalitarianism but likely support the other two. Adam Smith was a Lockean egalitarian, a Rawlsian egalitarian, and a limited monetary egalitarian. In what he considered his most important book, “The Theory of Moral Sentiments,” Smith postulated a moral system dispensing with religious morality and premised on sympathy.
Few realize that Smith was greatly influenced by the ideals of the French revolution with its motto of “liberté, égalité, fraternité.” The Economistes (later known as the “Physiocrates”), especially Francois Quesnay, were particularly influential. Here’s a passage from an 1870 essay by T.E. Cliffe Leslie on Smith’s political economy:
The Nature hypothesis had, however, with Adam Smith another powerful ally besides theology in the idea of liberty. The idea of civil and religious liberty, of resistance to arbitrary government and unequal laws, of confidence in individual reason and private judgment as opposed to the dictates of external authority, had begun even in the seventeenth century to spread from the world of religion and politics to the daily business of life. At the beginning of the second half of the eighteenth century the predominant form which this idea took was the liberation of individual effort in the world of industry and trade from oppressive restrictions and arbitrary and unequal imposts; and it found in the Code of Nature a quasi-philosophical basis on which to build a complete economic `system of natural liberty.’ The French Revolution, of which the seeds were then being sown by the Economistes (or Physiocrates, as they were afterwards called, from the name they gave to their system, a name denoting the government of society by nature or natural laws), was, in its origin, an economic revolution, a `rebellion of the belly,’ stirred up ab initio by the Economistes, who saw in the fetters and insecurity of industry the cause of the poverty of France, and in the superior freedom and security of its cultivators and tradespeople the secret of the superior prosperity of Great Britain. Living in such a world of human misgovernment and suffering toil, beholding, as the Physiocrates did, all the natural sources of wealth locked up by human laws, it is not surprising that the doctrine of a Code of Nature, of natural rights of liberty and property, of a natural organization of society for the increase of human prosperity and a just distribution of the fruits of the earth and of industry, came upon them like a new revelation, and carried the authority of one. Thus, like Adam Smith, on whom their doctrines had no small influence, the Physiocrates invested the ideal Code of Nature, which had come to them through the lawyers of their country from the jurisprudence of Rome, with a divine origin, and found in it a complete circumscription and definition of the province of human sovereignty. The three same fundamental conceptions derived from the three same sourcesfrom Graeco-Roman speculation, from Christian theology, and from the revolt of the age against arbitrary interference with private industry and unequal imposts on the fruits of labour, formed the groundwork of the political economy of Adam Smith and the Physiocrates: the sole difference in this respect is, that the latter gave the name political economy to the whole of social philosophy, while Adam Smith limits the particular name to a department of social philosophy relating to wealth, and that they enunciated these doctrines as laws of Nature and God with more passionate emphasis. Adam Smith had not derived any of the three fundamental ideas of his political economy from the Physiocrates for those ideas came to both from the history and philosophy of the past, and from the circumstances of the agebut he was strongly confirmed in them by his visits to France, his personal intercourse with them, and his study of their writings; he caught from them, moreover, not only particular propositions and expressions, but something of the form which his doctrine of natural distribution has taken, and also the precise limitation which he gives to the functions of the State.
Smith was himself so sensible of his debt to the Physiocrates, that he not only speaks of Quesnay’s system as `the nearest approximation to the truth that had been published upon the subject of political economy,’ but was prevented only by Quesnay’s death from dedicating to him his own great treatise. He was, however, under a much more solid obligation to a much greater Frenchman, the illustrious Montesquieu. Mr. Buckle, who in his excellent chapters on the `Intellectual History of France’ justly traces to England the origination of the spirit of liberty which in the eighteenth century took possession of French philosophy, nevertheless does injustice at once to France and to Great Britain in overlooking the influence of Montesquieu over Scotch philosophy in Adam Smith’s age. And the same oversight, coupled with a view of political economy which Mr. Buckle himself adopted from Ricardo and his school, leads him to describe Adam Smith’s method as entirely deductive. The philosophy of Great Britain, Mr. Buckle affirms, owes nothing to France; and he represents the intellect of Scotland as having~ under clerical guidance, become wholly deductive, referring as a crucial example to Adam Smith, Scotland’s most eminent political philosopher. The clerical system of deductive reasoning certainly runs through and warps the whole philosophy of Adam Smith. (“The Political Economy of Adam Smith,”Leslie, T.E., Fortnightly Review, 11/1/1870)
Careful who you call a brute.
Social Darwinists are so cute when they try to rationalize their feelings of superiority and justify oppression.
They completely misunderstand and misapply the concept of “survival of the fittest” – which in Darwin’s work functions in conjunction with other mechanisms such as compassion and cooperation.
Oooo. Trying to control my definitions. That’s cute.
Here, let me pour you a big ol’ glass of clarity . . .
egalitarianism \-ē-ə-ˌni-zəm\, n. –
1: a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs
2: a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people
When I say egalitarianism, I mean definition one as did Jefferson when writing the Declaration. Your quote there from his letter to Adams in merely recognition that “created equal” – a political right he favored as evidenced by the plain language of the DOI – was not the same as “equally created” and recognizing that those with talent are a social asset.
As to the second definition, yes, mitigating of social inequalities is such a bad thing for society. Why don’t you go ask the French aristocracy how that “let them eat cake” thingy worked out for them. Take super glue and a Ouija board.
Mespo727272:
That was actually funny, I hope you aren’t serious but if that is what you think he meant, you may want to do a little more research. Here let me give you a start:
“For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society.”
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams
Oct 28, 1813
Clearly Jefferson did not believe in the equality of people within the physical realm. I leave it for your homework to determine what he actually meant by those words. Hint it may have something to do with the metaphysical.
As a parting thought since you seem to believe in equality, I suggest we make attractive people ugly and strong people weak so that the rest of us are not intimidated by their physical virtues. Yes it is wrong, but it is what you propose.
lol
“Those who believe in egalitarianism are nothing more than brutes at odds with nature, unable to use reason and therefore rely on violence to achieve their “noble” goals.”
**********
“All men are created equal … .”
That Thomas Jefferson — Fiendish brute and devoid of reason!!
I love categorical statements in my line of work.