# Speaking of idiocy in education... **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 2, 2004, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736 "2004-12-02T18:50:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/81 "2004-12-04T04:25:43Z")
> [@Chotii](#): > > Who, in your estimation, is “qualified” to set a curriculum? Why, based on what we know of the history of education in America, should we believe that some group of ‘experts’ somewhere knows best what our children ought to learn - and not learn? Suppose, as a homeschooler, I want to focus very heavily on early American history - indeed, suppose I want to put a very heavy focus on history of all kinds (in addition to all other subjects covered), far beyond what the state would decree as necessary - is this a problem? If so, why? Why am I not qualified to decide this is highly important? > > –angela As long as your kid can pass a test at the end of the year, I don’t give a fuck. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/82 "2004-12-04T04:26:45Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Wow, that’s a breathtakingly ignorant statement. > > Please, do explain what basis you have for claiming a “federal right” to any sort of education, legitimate or otherwise. And “because **Dio** says so” doesn’t count. Equal protection. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/83 "2004-12-04T04:31:37Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Haven’t you been advocating for certain federal control over the curriculum? No. I’ve been complaining that federal money is being used to lie to kids. > [@](#): > > Agreed, and those people are elected by?? PARENTS!! How do you think it works? I’m not advocating for elected officials setting curriculums. That’s exactly what I’m complaining about. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/84 "2004-12-04T04:36:18Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Yes, but he still made a statement about what he thoght the SCotUS should do. Then he claimed not to have said anything about the SCotUS. I wasn’t accusing him of lying, I just wanted to point that I wasn’t pulling shit of my ass. At least in that instance I wasn’t! 🙂 This is a little disingenuous. I never said I _wanted_ to bring SCOTUS into anything, I only answered a question about how I woud rule IF they were. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/85 "2004-12-04T04:42:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Hypothesis: I want to send my kids to a school where they will be taught: > > 1. Killing is always wrong. > 2. Adultery is always wrong. > 3. Sex outside of marriage, and between same-sex partners, is always wrong. > 4. Theft is always wrong. > 5. Lying is always wrong. > 6. Evolution is a theory that holds that [correct synopsis of evolution here]. > 7. What actually happened is that God created the Earth, with all the fossils in place. > > Which of these, if any, would you forbid as violative of kids’ civil rights? The violation lies not in what they are taught but in what they are _not_ taught. I haven’t seemed to make myself clear on this but what I’m objecting to is parents _withholding_ an education from their kids. If you teach your kid that 2+2=5 then the violation is not in that particular instruction but in that the parent is _preventing_ the kid from learning how to do arithemetic. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/86 "2004-12-04T04:44:16Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > This is a little disingenuous. I never said I _wanted_ to bring SCOTUS into anything, I only answered a question about how I woud rule IF they were. Er…how I would want THEM to rule…I’m not on the bench. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/87 "2004-12-04T04:46:04Z")
> [@Chotii](#): > > Beyond this, as long as the children participate in annual tests (either a non-test assessment by a qualified certified teacher, or the standardized tests)…it’s up to the parents, quite literally, what they want to teach, and how to teach it. At least, that’s the way it is in Washington, and I frankly like it that way. This is my position exactly. Just make sure the kids can pass the tests. You can tell them that “evilution” is false but at least make sure they know what it \*is. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/88 "2004-12-04T05:14:07Z")
Biggotry somtimes becomes endemic and even institutionalized. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/89 "2004-12-04T05:27:16Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Equal protection. Please elaborate. The equal protection clause certainly would not, for example, forbid the states from deciding to cease funding education altogether. The only thing the equal protection clause demands is that whatever educational system state and local government puts into place does not impermissibly discriminate based on certain distinctions (most notably, race). It in no way creates a generalized federal “right to education.” So again, I’d be interested to hear your reasoning leading to such a right existing at the federal level. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/90 "2004-12-04T05:43:29Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Please elaborate. The equal protection clause certainly would not, for example, forbid the states from deciding to cease funding education altogether. > > The only thing the equal protection clause demands is that whatever educational system state and local government puts into place does not impermissibly discriminate based on certain distinctions (most notably, race). It in no way creates a generalized federal “right to education.” > > So again, I’d be interested to hear your reasoning leading to such a right existing at the federal level. **Bricker’s** hypothetical would be an example of class discrimination. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/91 "2004-12-04T08:58:59Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I’m not advocating for elected officials setting curriculums. That’s exactly what I’m complaining about. I’m confused then. If elected officials don’t set the curriculum, who would set it? Appointed officials? Appointed by whom? They woudl have to be appointed by elected officials, so what’s the difference? > [@](#): > > This is a little disingenuous. I never said I wanted to bring SCOTUS into anything, I only answered a question about how I woud rule IF they were. There is \*\*nothing \*\*disingenuous about it. You made a statement about the SCotUS. Whether or not that statement was in response to my post is irrelevant. I was simply responding to your statement. If you want to withdraw your statement, go ahead, I will then withdraw my response. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Death](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecccb3/32.png) [@Evil\_Death](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Death)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/92 "2004-12-04T09:40:57Z")
For Christ’s sake, will people _please_ stop putting vital information in Quote boxes? You know that it will be stripped when someone wants to reply. > [@Chotii](#): > > In the state of Washington, here is what the law says: \*RCW 28A.225.010 (4) A. The 11 required subjects are reading, writing, spelling, language, math, science, social studies, history, health, occupational education, and art and music appreciation. B. These do not have to be taught separately. A unit study on frogs could include reading, writing, spelling, science, math, art and occupational education.\* What exactly is included in the subject of health in the US? In the UK, health education includes sex education (so it’s probably a good job we don’t do unit studies on frogs). ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/93 "2004-12-04T15:02:53Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > **Bricker’s** hypothetical would be an example of class discrimination. Which is nice and all, though it’s inaccurate to suggest the equal protection clause forbids all distinctions based on socioeconomic background. But that wasn’t what you claimed, and it’s really a hijack from the thread topic. You claimed a generalized federal right to education. Specifically, you wrote: > [@Diogenes](#): > > The desires of parents are the problem. The desires of morons cannot be allowed to override their childrens’ federal right to a legitimate education. Civil rights are not subject to popular referendums. The right of children to a basic education cannot be abrogated by a vote. There are time that children need to be protected from their buttwad parents, when abuse or neglect are in play, for example. Cockblocking a child from getting an education is a violation of that child’s rights and a form of neglect as much as failing to provide food or shelter. And later on, you wrote: > [@Diogenes](#): > > I don’t thinks so. Children are not property. There is no right of a parent to prevent education. As a matter of fact, it’s illegal. Parents do NOT have a right to set the curriculum because they’re not qualified to set the curriculum and they have no right to deprive their kids of their own civil rights. Children have rights independent of their parents. They are not pets, or slaves or wind up dolls. They are citizens. It’s abundantly clear that you aren’t talking about school funding. You’re talking about curriculum choice. You’re claiming a federal right to have a basic education. So again, I’m asking you upon what basis you find such a right at the federal level. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/94 "2004-12-04T15:26:33Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > Which is nice and all, though it’s inaccurate to suggest the equal protection clause forbids all distinctions based on socioeconomic background. > > But that wasn’t what you claimed, and it’s really a hijack from the thread topic. You claimed a generalized federal right to education. > > Specifically, you wrote:And later on, you wrote: It’s abundantly clear that you aren’t talking about school funding. You’re talking about curriculum choice. You’re claiming a federal right to have a basic education. > > So again, I’m asking you upon what basis you find such a right at the federal level. I’m claiming it in a negative sense. I’m saying that parents do not have a right to _prevent_ their kids from getting an education and that if tax money is going to be used then all kids have a 14th amendment right to the same _quality_ of education. Do you think that parents have a right to kep their children illiterate? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/95 "2004-12-04T15:37:03Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I’m confused then. If elected officials don’t set the curriculum, who would set it? Appointed officials? Appointed by whom? They woudl have to be appointed by elected officials, so what’s the difference? Appointed according to certain criteria. It’s not perfect, I suppose but at least an empirical test can be imposed on the factual accuracy of curriculum. > [@](#): > > There is \*\*nothing \*\*disingenuous about it. You made a statement about the SCotUS. Whether or not that statement was in response to my post is irrelevant. I was simply responding to your statement. If you want to withdraw your statement, go ahead, I will then withdraw my response. _You_ broght SCOTUS into this, not me. I was responding to a hypothetical about IF. Don’t try to backdoor me with an implication that I _invited_ SCOTUS into the conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/96 "2004-12-04T15:45:57Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I’m claiming it in a negative sense. I’m saying that parents do not have a right to _prevent_ their kids from getting an education and that if tax money is going to be used then all kids have a 14th amendment right to the same _quality_ of education. There are several problems with this analysis. The first is the absence of state action. The 14th amendment, like all of the Constitution, only constrains the actions of government, not individuals. Along similar lines, the mods here on the SDMB can censor reading materials to their hearts content without running a foul of the first amendment. The second is in your continued reliance on equal protection when equal protection isn’t really an issue. If a state adopts a dumb curriculum, it affects all students. Everyone gets an equally bad education. The third is your notion that the 14th amendment has anything to do with education at all. Where do you get this, other than you own ass? The 14th may forbid racial and gender discrimination in education, but doesn’t say a goddamned thing about the substance of education. Upon what grounds do you claim otherwise? Those are the big-ticket objections. There are more, but let’s deal with these first. > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Do you think that parents have a right to kep their children illiterate? I do not think the federal constitution forbids parents keeping their children illiterate, nor am I aware of any federal statute that would forbid as much. Thus, I do not think that such an action violates anyone’s federal rights. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/97 "2004-12-04T16:26:48Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > _You_ broght SCOTUS into this, not me. I was responding to a hypothetical about IF. Don’t try to backdoor me with an implication that I _invited_ SCOTUS into the conversation. So what if I brought it up? Jesus H. Christ, this is just silly. Of course I invited SCotUS into the discussion. You then responded about SCotUS. BFD. If you want to pretend that you didn’t, that’s fine with me. Everyone who reads this thread can see as plain as day that you did. That part of the discussion, about the SCotUS and “truth”, is really not of interest to me anyway. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/98 "2004-12-04T16:45:09Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > The 14th amendment, like all of the Constitution, only constrains the actions of government, not individuals. Along similar lines, the mods here on the SDMB can censor reading materials to their hearts content without running a foul of the first amendment. Am I allowed to own a slave? During Prohibition, would I have been allowed to drink? If I were twelve, would I be allowed to vote? The Constitution constrains both individuals and governments. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2004, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/99 "2004-12-04T18:09:05Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Am I allowed to own a slave? No, but not because of the 13th amendment. The 13th amendment prohibits government from recognizing slavery as an institution, and enforcing legal rights thereto. It does not constrain individuals. If you were to try to own a slave, you would be tried and convicted under ordinary penal law, not under the 13th amendment. > [@jsgoddess](#): > > During Prohibition, would I have been allowed to drink? Not because of the 18th amendment. The 18th amendment established a policy (alcohol prohibited) and then authorizes Congress to enforce that policy. The amendment itself doesn’t affect individuals. No one is prosecuted under the 18th amendment directly. During Prohibition, you would have been tried under the Volstead Act. I also note that your premise is technically incorrect. People _could_ drink during Prohibition. What was illegal was the manufacture, importation or sale of alcohol. So if, say, you had wine purchased prior to Prohibition, you could drink it in the comfort of your own home without running afoul of the law. > [@jsgoddess](#): > > If I were twelve, would I be allowed to vote? That depends on the law of your state. The 26th amendment only prevents the states from setting their voting ages higher than 18. It does not prevent them from setting a lower age. Indeed, there was a thread awhile back involving a California proposal to give minors over the age of 14 a “partial vote.” If that proposal had become law, there is nothing in Constitution that would prevent it. > [@jsgoddess](#): > > The Constitution constrains both individuals and governments. Even if I cede this point (your Prohibition example isn’t terrible), it doesn’t change the fact that the provisions we’re talking about in this thread only apply to government, and thus your examples are totally irrelevant. The Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment require state action before they are triggered. They do not constrain individuals. ---
**Author:** ![EmeraldGrue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dc4da7/32.png) [@EmeraldGrue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EmeraldGrue)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2004, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736/100 "2004-12-06T03:43:47Z")
> [@carimwc](#): > > My favorite part of the article is the last paragraph. > > _(princess & dragon story)_ > > Women can never ever show up the man. Scientific fact you know. Gotta admire that man, even if he can’t get the job done and you can do it better. Way to set back women a hundred years. > > That’s what’s being taught in some of the schools. > > Didn’t you know that mentioning the word “SEX” to kids just makes them want to have sex? Worked for me. :smack: **carimwc** , unless there’s a common source, this may be lifted right out of the Mars & Venus books; the author of [this critique](http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/women_rebuttal_from_uranus/well8.htm) quotes from it. Ugh. First post in the Pit: bad, bad, bad. Will say hi properly later. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speaking-of-idiocy-in-education/277736.md?page=6)