|
Yes, because it is important that both the pro and con side be thoroughly presented on the hotly contested issue of valuing education, taking responsibility for your own education, and contributing to an environment where education is respected.
I think Newt Gingrich pretty much nailed it when he said ""Why is it political for the president of the United States to discuss education?"
Though, of course, that was in 1991 when George Bush was doing the same thing (with almost exactly the same talking points as Obama has announced). I don't know if there was an uproar in 1986 when Reagan did a student Q&A broadcast nationally to schools in which he not only talked about the importance of education but also discussed actual politically controversial issues such as nuclear disarmament and taxation.
But in the stupid kabuki of national politics, when Bush did it in 1991 there were some Democrats who decried it as a political event. In the interest of fairness, let me say now that they too were being douchebags (though the Bush event was in the midst of the just ramping up 1992 presidential campaign, but regardless I think it is good).
And our national political leaders interact without pre-filtering with our students all the freaking time. Both of our senators addressed assemblies while I was in high school (the Flinstones-naming-inspired pair that was Brock Adams and Slade Gorton). Are we all aware that Michelle Obama has regularly been visiting our nation's elementary schools since January, indoctrinating children wherever she goes?
But then I honestly don't get this idea that our elementary schools are supposed to be designed to protect our children from teh complex thoughts of the real world. I am amused, however, that among certain circles our current president is apparently just as reprehensible and damaging to young minds as evolution.
|