Gathering Place
By Richard Rowland
Using schoolchildren
to ‘beg’ is inappropriate"It's for the children."
We all hear that all the time. Many who say and repeat it are honest in their care and concern. Many others are sincere in their intent to use children to further some favorite cause of their own regardless of the impact on children. A few are mistaken or misled into protecting children to the point of permanent damage. Whatever the intent, the words have become a mantra that has been overused and misused to the extent that it is like "liberty." That is, it means whatever the speaker/listener wants it to mean -- Fidel Castro touts the "liberty" of his people, as does President Bush. The corruption continues apace. The result? "It's for the children" becomes "Let's use the children."
Below is a sobering example:
I recently attended a meeting of a community association. During the course of the meeting, the desire of the leadership of the group to get the governor to release funds to buy several parcels of land that would eventually (hopefully) be used to provide space to build a facility for public use was discussed.
The president of the organization, fully aware that I probably opposed the action, mentioned that all the government school principals and many of the teachers in the area had been contacted and asked to have the children write letters to the governor asking her to release the funds. Apparently, the matter was pending. A participant mentioned that he thought all the private schools should be similarly approached.
Over the next two days and nights, I pondered why I found that event so profoundly disturbing. My conclusions are:
>> Children are in school to learn to think. Advocating use or actual use of children to promote a political agenda without a balanced, thoughtful and discussion-generating presentation is brainwashing.
>> Directing children to the preferred solution -- writing a "pro" letter -- is a manipulation of innocents.
>> Proclaiming, in public, without a twinge of guilt, that the action had been recommended to the schools indicates a heavily anesthetized sense of adult propriety.
>> School officials, apparently off course themselves, do not reject the proposition out of hand as grossly inappropriate. They thus abrogate any moral leadership, if indeed there was any there.
>> Consideration of parent opinions as voters and taxpayers and stewards of their children are not just ignored, they are viewed as irrelevant.
>> Children are being enthusiastically taught that the key to community success is to "beg" elected officials for money and that there are no costs or trade-offs involved (money drops into government coffers as if by magic).
>> Worst of all, it is my gut feeling that this is not an isolated phenomenon. I fear it extends throughout Hawaii and beyond.
By way of illustrating the one-way-street mentality, try this:
Representing a group that advocates that the government not buy the property in question, and instead find a way to solve the so-called problem using local resources, I go to the schools and ask to have the children write letters telling the governor not to release funds. Would they "take it under advisement" or reject it out of hand? I think the latter. Is the inconsistency generally recognized? I do not think so.
Now it is time for you to answer some questions:
>> At what point does child use become child abuse?
>> How many steps are there between the child use described above and the Communist Youth Brigades of the late Soviet Union?
>> What is the reason for the inconsistency between an OK to beg for government money and not OK to advocate self-sufficiency?
>> What are you going to do about it, if anything?
>> Did you think retaining the American system of freedom was easy and without any requirement for constant vigilance? Think again.
Beware of the slippery slope.
Richard O. Rowland is president of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.