Hypocrisy hits a new high
September 7, 2004
Bookslut has noticed something quite interesting, and headache-inducing, in the Republican Party Platform. On page 56, out of 94, you’ll find the following:
Our party believes, as does the President, that reading is the new civil right.
Really? You don’t say! The same party that brought us Section 215 of the PATRIOT ACT suddenly thinks reading is a civil right? And a new one at that? What does that even mean?
The one thing I do know is: how___very___frelling___hypocritical.
September 7th, 2004 at 9:57 pm
Sarah, the___next___frelling___sentence reads “Every child must be able to read by the end of the third grade.” Does that clear up what it even means?
Section 215 of the Patriot Act was brought to you by the United States Congress, including 96% of Democrats in the Senate (including Kerry and Edwards), and 69% of Democrats in the House.
September 8th, 2004 at 7:20 am
Er, how does setting a standard achievement level make it a new civil right?
Er, if reading is viewed as an educational right (is this meaningful now?), then part of this is ensuring that this right is extended to all children equally. I have no idea what “situation” you’re referring to in your second sentence.
September 8th, 2004 at 8:07 am
“Every child must be able to read by the end of the third grade”?!! Give me a break. Kid can’t read by the time (s)he finishes with Kindergarten, and you have a case of (a) dyslexia, (b) low IQ, or (c) parental neglect. And if it really is true that enough people in this country are not able to read by the time they’re eight, nine years old that the quoted sentence from the platform is necessary, well, that does explain why certain politicians are elected, doesn’t it? Gack! Not to mention feh! and ptui! …
September 8th, 2004 at 8:13 am
Huh. Somehow the last post ate my name.
Literacy was already viewed as necessary. That’s one reason why we have mandatory educational requirements. Setting a goal of literacy by 3rd grade does not suddenly make reading a “new civil right.” Stating that it is a new civil right makes it sound like the government or educators have specifically been attempting to deny children the right to read, which they have not. Certainly some of the schools in this country need major help, but there’s a big difference between denying people literacy (as used to happen to slaves) and having children who do not learn to read for whatever reason (poor schooling, learning disability, lack of parental support, etc.)
Besides, if this is about education, then literacy should be the new civil right, not reading. Otherwise we should all be allowed to read whatever we want without fear of reprisal from the government. Somewhat pedantic of me, I know, but there you have it.
September 8th, 2004 at 12:46 pm
So, I’m still curious where the “hypocrisy” is between establishing standards for reading competency and giving law enforcement the tools they require to defend our cities? This is what makes no sense to me.
It’s gotten to the point where librarians can just jeer the Patriot Act without ever being expected to offer an actual argument for their position. Where’s the hypocrisy?
September 8th, 2004 at 12:55 pm
The hypocrisy that I perceive is this. One party (or person) cannot state that reading is the new civil right (I still don’t understand what the heck that means) and then say “Oh yes, but we can also monitor what you’re reading if we want to.” Civil rights and the monitoring of intellectual pursuits rarely go hand in hand, and in this case, they certainly do not. If they had said “Literacy by grade 3 is the new standard” (and yes, 3rd grade is rather late), I would have no problem with it.
September 8th, 2004 at 1:35 pm
Civil rights and the monitoring of intellectual pursuits rarely go hand in hand, and in this case, they certainly do not.
Okay, thanks, Sarah.
One really wonders what Republicans are supposed to do if we are going to be ridiculed for insisting on minimum requirements for reading proficiency for children (sniff). Do we get credit for anything? I assume you understand what it would mean to argue that education is a civil right, so I’m really not sure why it would not be obvious what it means to to view minimum reading levels as a civil right.
As far as “hypocrisy,” even if one grants that conducting terror investigations amounts to “monitoring intellectual pursuits,” I think even you would allow that it’s unlikely that the FBI is going to be keeping track of what 3rd-graders are reading.
Finally, as I said, Section 215 was passed by representatives of both parties, so to accuse one alone of “hypocrisy” seems very, very unfair.
September 8th, 2004 at 2:44 pm
You’re right Jack–both parties did pass the Act, much to the embarrassment of many of their constituents. However, let’s be clear on something–most of the authors of the PATRIOT ACT, including the principal author Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy Viet Dinh, were Republicans.
I’m not ridiculing the Republican Party for insisting on minimum requirements for reading proficiency. That’s actually a good idea—though they could have been more ambitious than getting kids to read by grade 3 (which is 8 years old). If a child cannot read by the time he or she is 8, there is something wrong.
The language they chose to express that wish is what I am ridiculing “reading is the new civil right.” Is it new, really? Is the physical act of reading a civil right? No. As I said, if they had said instead “Literacy by grade 3 is the new standard,” or even “Education is a civil right,” I would have no issue with this.
September 8th, 2004 at 7:15 pm
gee, that PDF is off of http://www.democrats.org/. You really trust the Democratic National Committee to tell you the Republican Party Platform?
September 9th, 2004 at 8:12 am
Well, here’s the exact same PDF off of the GOP’s site. The reason I didn’t link to it in the post is because their site was overloaded and every time I tried to get to the PDF, the site stalled out. But, it seems to be back up today.