The salient issue
Owen Robinson has been following the issues and candidates in the upcoming West Bend School District election, and discovers there’s a lot of talk about what is not at issue.
I think it’s a manufactured controversy by some zealots on the Left who are looking for an issue to oppose some specific candidates. As I have said in the past, there is a single important issue in tis election: the budget. That’s why eight candidates filed for two seats. That’s why the community is in upheaval. That’s why the district is facing very tough decisions. But, of course, the lefties can’t get any traction in the community opposing candidates who want to control the district’s spending, so they manufactured the creationism issue to get their base riled up.
Ignoring the rest of Owen’s blog post (that boy writes too long sometimes), he does hit upon the real issue. It’s not as if there’s a huge movement among West Benders to suddenly toss the science curriculum out of the schools. They just don’t want to build shiny new temples to worship and adore the teachers union. I would be more concerned about the economic superstitions of the current school board members than I would about the possibility of a conspiratorial cabal of Creationists creating a new science curriculum. There is no more likelihood of Creationism becoming the salient issue in West Bend than it is in the New Berlin school district, run by a center-right school board for several elections now.
If Creationism or Intelligent Design ever do threaten to become part of West Bend’s curriculum, put me down for $20 to oppose them. Until then, it’s worth noting that those screaming the loudest are the same people who hold the absurd belief that money grows on trees. How absurd is that?
I could not agree more with you on this. I think its just the latest shiny thing in the corner to try and sway attention away from the real issues the District is facing. I think it is more than coincidence that the candidates that are being targeted with the creationist label are the ones that are talking the most fiscally conservative.
[Reply]
The real issue is the fitness of the candidates to serve the taxpayers and students of West Bend. Voters have to judge candidates whom they may not know well by what they say in public responses to questions.
These candidate’s willingness to diddle in curriculum needs to be taken into account. If elected the might be in the minority for a cycle or two. But we’ve seen that side issues will often drive out good people from government. Look at Delevan or Lake Geneva for examples of lunatics who have been given the keys to the asylum (That’s a metaphor, not a slander, BTW.)
There’s no good reason to elect candidates who bring these side issues to the table. And, lest people believe that bit of, “zealots on the Left,” rubbish, it was The Eagle Forum who brought this issue to the table. Point your finger at them.
[Reply]
Grumps,
While I agree with you on the public responses to questions, did I miss something? I didn’t know saying they support the idea of creationism being taught as they will diddle with the curriculum. I also notice you did not mention Milwaukee in your analogy – the best example of how to ruin a school district with individuals who spend and tax to the max at all times. And again, the real issue is how West Bend will continue to afford quality education.
[Reply]
As a general rule, I completely agree with your notion that this shouldn’t be a big deal — but alas, it isn’t manufactured by crazed lefty zombies: there are precedents here in West Bend. A local group (with whom at least one of the candidates is affiliated and which has been pressing a fundamentalist Christian agenda here for some years, including our little hate-speech battle and that library censorship business last spring) began pressing for creationism in science classes here in 2006 — with enough pressure to catch the attention of the NCSE and ACLU. There was noise about this in Kewaskum around 1995 and before that a big blow up at a school board meeting in WB in 1985 or so.
Maybe it’s cyclical?
What Owen is irritable about is that a few of his favored candidates outed themselves on the Eagle Forum’s blog and, I guess, it is a little embarrassing to endorse candidates who then, publicly, express an opinion that opposes both federal court findings AND well established science. — and which happens to be a hot button issue nationwide.
Tiddly pom. It’ll be interesting to see what happens next.
[Reply]
James Wigderson Reply:
February 5th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
You’re throwing in a bunch of issues unrelated to the question at hand, but I’ll tackle them anyway since the answers reinforce my point.
What might have happened (but didn’t) elsewhere does not mean it will happen in West Bend. If anything, that a concerted effort was made in Kewaskum and failed should demonstrate just how difficult it is to make such a change to the curriculum.
As for the library issue, the issue was less about religious fundamentalism than it was the protection of children from pornography. Just as I was opposed to the library’s decision in that matter, so too would I be opposed to letting children read Hustler. Yet the library (and its supporters) were unable to distinguish between what is acceptable for children, and what is acceptable for adults. Unfortunately the issue was caught up in a pro-homosexual political correctness that obscured the larger issue. Regardless of whether an adolescent has homosexual tendencies, we should at least draw the line at exposing them to obscene (yes, not the legal definition) material. That the library prevailed, despite the outrage of many in the community, demonstrates a certain institutional momentum against a more conservative standard. If we were to equate the two issues as you do (I do not) again the bias would be against imposing a religious curriculum in the school.
However, I find it interesting that those were supposed absolutists in favor of free speech when it came to giving a child pornographic material at the library are in turn so adamantly opposed to any mention of God in the classroom, as if the idea of a Creator is more harmful to children than a gross depiction of oral copulation, and therefore the concept of God is not worthy of First Amendment protections.
Yes, it was Eagle Forum that asked the question. I suspect that if Congressman Sensenbrenner announced his retirement and I ran to succeed him, some of my more interesting positions would come up. However, despite my preference for a privatized postal service, I also suspect that many postal workers would feel comfortable in voting for me with the understanding that privatizing the post office is not a salient issue. This despite that such privatization has been accomplished successfully elsewhere.
If there is anything cyclical, it’s the amount of bulls–t flying around in the tornado hoping that it sticks to those that are fiscally responsible.
[Reply]
John Foust Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Maybe next time you can explain why Weigand thought it was so important to explain his views on “origin studies” on his web site. You think he doesn’t intend to act on his beliefs? That they’re incidental to his larger mission of using a magic wand to lower school spending and simultaneously improve outcomes? It was so important that he jumped right to his anti-evolution platform after his summary platform of “The Community’s Voice on the School Board / Great Schools / Common Sense / Priorities that reflect Community Values / Getting the Most for Our Tax Dollar”.
[Reply]