SHALL WE HAVE AUTHORITARIAN

CONTROL OF DAVIS CLASSROOMS?

By

Jack D. Forbes

The Davis Unified School District’s proposed “Educational Program” (Article III) Section 3.2 (Curriculum and Instruction), Section 3.2-7, purportedly expresses the districts belief that “controversial issues” should be discussed in the classroom. In reality, however, the proposed language will have a chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom for both teachers and students.

The preparers of the proposed section state: “A topic is controversial when some or all positions contained in that issue run counter to the generally accepted moral, political, intellectual, social, emotional or economic commitments of the country.” [underlining added].

This language is quite incredible, reminding one of very authoritarian societies and of the kind of schools found in many countries prior to the long battles waged by people for liberty of thought and expression. The inclusion of the phrase “generally accepted” introduces an ambiguity which, in effect, allows any bureaucrat to classify virtually anything as “controversial.”

Let us begin by noting that the preparers did not bother to look up the word “controversy” in a dictionary. Webster’s states that it is a Latin word meaning “disputable” or literally “turned opposite” from “contro” (opposite) and “vertere” (to turn). Webster’s adds: “a discussion marked especially by...opposing views.”

The DUSD officials have stated, in effect, that only non-official, minority or foreign (non-country) views are “controversial” and that the “emotional [etc.] commitments of the country” never are.

The dictionary tells us just the opposite: the “economic [etc.] commitments of the country” are also controversial if they are disputable [!} and we certainly know that the views of “the country” are disputable, more often than not.

So here we have a case of staff or officials trying to invent a new English language, and a very dangerous one at that! But let us change their language a bit to conform to Webster’s: “A topic is disputable when some or all positions...run counter to the generally accepted ... commitments of the country.” Now, could we not imagine such language as stemming from Communist China, North Korea, or Saddam’s Iraq? But would we agree with it?

The proposed policy contains other dangerous language. What is meant by “the country”? Is it the US government, or Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court? Or is it the people (perhaps as determined by a poll)? The term “country” is derived from Latin via French. Webster’s tells us that it refers to 1. an indefinite expanse of land, a region; 2. a. the land of a person’s birth etc.; 2.b. a political state or territory; 3. the people of a state or district etc.; 4. rural areas or rural-like. Thus “the country” is highly ambiguous but could be interpreted as the USA, a rural region, the general populace, or even perhaps “the West” or North America.

I would guess, however, that the authors intended to point towards the US government or the majority of the US population. But the term “commitments” is a clarifying one, since usually only the government can make “commitments” for “the country.”

Commitment is a French word from Latin committere, to connect, entrust, or, literally, “together to send.” The modern meaning most relevant is “to pledge or assign to some particular course or use” or ”an agreement or pledge to do something in the future” or “something pledged.” The concept of “pledging” or “assigning” certainly implies government action, since no one else can “commit...the country” to a course of action.

In any case, it is clear that under the staff policy any viewpoint which is different from the government (or perhaps majority opinion or feeling) is to be classified and treated as “controversial” (disputable). If we mean the government then, of course, we are imposing a Republican political perspective as non-disputable and non-controversial, since the government’s “commitments” at present are all determined or interpreted by a Republican administration, a Republican Congress, and a Republican Supreme Court. Clearly, the Democratic members of Congress and the court minority are not in agreement often with the “commitments” of the Republicans. Thus under staff policy, Democratic perspectives are “controversial” while Republican views (of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Attorney-General Ashcroft, etc.) are not “controversial.”

If, on the other hand, we were to interpret the staff language as referring by “the country” to “the people”, then, of course, we will always be speaking of the “generally accepted” “commitments” of the majority since “generally accepted” could never apply to a minority perspective. It must refer to a dominant consensus. Thus Anglo-American (white) perspectives will always be the “generally accepted... commitments” and therefore non-controversial (non-disputable) whereas African-American, Mexican-American, Asian-Pacific American, Muslim, and Native American views, when different from those of the majority Anglo-Americans, will always be “controversial.”

Thus any African-American perspectives must be presented in a very cautious manner, always being countered by a contrary perspective, while white majority perspectives never need to be countered by other perspectives.

Similarly, the views of all other “minorities” (or those who disagree with George W. Bush et al) must be treated as “controversial.” This would include the views of Libertarians, Greens, Lesbians, Gay men, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, peace advocates, right to life advocates, supporters of the United Nations, feminists supporting the Equal Rights Amendment, democratic socialists, and on and on with every group not commanding majority support ( or “emotional commitments” etc.) in the white population or in the government, depending on later interpretation.

In sum, the proposed language is both racist and fascist-totalitarian. It is, in fact, subversive of our highest traditions and runs counter to the free speech guarantees of our state and federal constitutions. May I suggest that any policy should begin by quoting the language of the constitutions of California and the United States on speech and then proceed with the language from a professional code on academic freedom already adopted by the National Education Association or a similar body. (2004; all rights reserved by the author).