The End Justifies the Means

Benson's Reply (0.00 / 0)

I received an extensive reply from Keith Benson to this post. I'm posting it in its entirety to foster continued discussion

It was a pleasure meeting you today. You are obviously a talented writer. Your website and blog are impressive. Blue Jersey is a clever name. I think I get it: it's a blue state? Well I am blue too. I set up a headquarters for Barack Obama in 2007 at Larry Mile's bookstore, on 6th Street, in Camden, when my Democratic friends were telling me I was crazy. They wanted me to support Hillary Clinton.

We do whatever we do and value whatever we value for a variety of reasons, I suppose. However, I am disappointed by your article today. I really don't understand you having a problem with my suggesting - constitutional issues notwithstanding - in the genocidal state in which urban America finds itself - I really don't care what mechanism saves the lives of my people. I just want them saved.

I am not trying to be argumentative. I am honestly asking you what part you have a problem with? Do you not consider 50% failing to graduate high-school, genocide? Perhaps you can take a trip with me into the bowels of abject destitution, and then see if you feel the same? Maybe you will. But I doubt it.

You know there are no panaceas. We need to help public schools AND we need to do everything we can to bring these children out of situations that we KNOW are going to fail 50% of them.

I am a history major. Slavery was also once constitutional. It was still wrong. There were those that thought financial expediency was a justifiable reason to continue slavery. Many suggested freedom would be far worse. Freedom has been a struggle. Just look at today with 1-third of African American men of a certain age in the criminal justice system. But it is not worse than slavery. Freedom is choice. And when the only option you have for education is a school statistically proven to fail more than 50% Freedom is Life.

Moreover, I find it amusing that people without 1 child in these hellish schools come promote the divine right of monopoly, when you know, you wouldn't allow your own child to go to Camden High for 1 hour! Am I right about that?

Finally, you mentioned my "emotional" arguments. I do not apologize for that. I apologize for my fellow "human-beings" that do not have an emotional argument against so much carnage in America in 2011. Of course, I would also invite you to the next funeral for another uneducated, hopeless teenager, who but for want of a real education would still be alive. Maybe you'd be a little more emotional yourself?  

I thank you for your honest opinion. But lets say OSA doesn't happen because of something you write - are you responsible for the fate of any child that would have gotten out with OSA? I don't know?  

But I will keep advocating for the LIVES of people,. They don't have the luxury of debating nebulous legal theory. They are locked in a desperate, life-long struggle to survive.because their schools have failed them.  

I look forward to hearing from you.

God bless you

Keith Benson

Blog: http://www.deciminyan.org

---

by: deciminyan @ Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 10:40:03 AM UTC

Argument by Moral Authority... (0.00 / 0)

... is generally not very pretty.

Mr. Benson, your response is obviously heartfelt, but it is misguided for one reason: we know what you are proposing won't "save" anyone.

Private schools do no better than public schools when controlling for demographics. And voucher programs have never shown any ability to lift student achievement.

You expect us to make these decisions on anecdote. Would you be placated if I could find a severely autistic child who would never, ever be accepted into private school, yet lost services due to budget cuts when OSA took money away from her district? Do we have to make that example real to persuade you?

You talk of "saving" children, yet we both know there are plenty of children that even the finest private school cannot save. Are we to abandon them? OSA takes money away from these children who are the neediest among us; that's the plain truth.

What is happening to poor children - particularly poor black children - is a national crisis. OSA is like taking your kitchen fire extinguisher to a burning forest. You may make a heroic effort to save one tree, but what kind of life will it have in a woods that has nothing but embers?

And while "saving" that tree may make a few affluent folks feel better, the devastation around it should shame them. It should shame us all.

I refuse to believe that OSA is our only answer. We need all hands on deck, immediately. No more bandaid solutions.

http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com

---

by: Jersey Jazzman @ Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 00:34:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Vouchers are not the answer (0.00 / 0)

First I'd like to thank Deciminyan  for writing this review of the DVAU school vouchers debate that took place yesterday in Trenton. I appreciate that you took the time to report on the story. Thanks to Blue Jersey for publishing it here.
I thank Keith Benson for participating in yesterday's debate, but I must take exception to the "genocide" comment, as well as the notion that sending middle class kids to Catholic schools is the answer to Camden's problems.

As AU's John Bartram said yesterday, we can not compare the problems faced by inner-city youth with the actual genocide of millions of people in places like Darfur and Rwanda. It is a hyperbolic, over-the-top comment that does not accurately represent the problem.

Yes, cities are plagued by crime, and black youth are routinely the victims of crimes committed by those who lack the education and resources to rise above their situations and not resort to violence against others just to stay ahead of the game.

Defunding public education is not the solution to this problem. Using school vouchers will not save these kids' lives. School vouchers will not subsidize the entire cost of a private or parochial school education; vouchers only cover part of the cost. How will a family making less than $2700 a month possibly afford to come up with the rest of the money to pay for the tuition? The fact is, they can't. Only middle-class families can afford to make up the difference. The poorest, the neediest, the parentless, these are the kids who you want to save, Keith, and these are the kids who won't benefit from school vouchers.

Private and parochial schools get to pick and choose which students they will accept. Studies show that many students will be left out: those with disabilities, those with discipline problems, those with learning disorders, those with gay parents. Those kids who you want to save are simply not going to be helped by vouchers.

As was mentioned in yesterday's debate, the cost of public education remains the same no matter how much funding the schools have. If we cut funding for public education, and funnel taxpayer dollars to religious and private schools -- over 80% of private schools are religious -- the cost of operating the schools, and serving those students left behind by vouchers, does not change. Instead, it becomes more difficult for the schools to adequately educate the students who need the most services.

We are on the same side, Keith, we care about teaching kids, we care about the issues faced by underfunded schools. We care about kids who live in dangerous neighborhoods, who need quality education to learn how to survive in this world. Taking away money from public schools takes away opportunities for these kids.

If Catholics want more money for their schools, it is the responsibility of the Church to do the fundraising for their schools. If private, for-profit corporations want money for their schools, it is the responsibility of those businesses to raise the funds.

Taxpayers have a duty and obligation to provide excellent education to the entire public, not just to the good students whose parents can afford to pay the balance of the tuition bill that vouchers won't cover.

We need a sea change in the change the way public schools are funded. Stripping public schools of their funding, in order to make it possible for some students to attend religious schools, is not the answer.

Furthermore, it is a blatant violation of the State of New Jersey's Constitution, and a breach in the wall of separation between church and state.

---

by: Janice Rael @ Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 15:18:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Honest... (0.00 / 0)

you make the best argument I've heard yet against the program.

That is, the students targeted are too poor to take advantage of the voucher.

But that said, if deals could be cut with the private schools that they would lower tutition to match the voucher amount (and provide necessary income restrictions on who can recieve/use the vouchers), would you then support the program?

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 15:28:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you (0.00 / 0)

Thank you William, but no, I do not accept taking any funds away from public schools for any reason, and certainly not to subsidize a for-profit school. I do not accept vouchers or tuition tax credits. Private school is private. Society does not have an obligation to subsidize the private sector or the church. Our duty is to ensure quality education to ALL students through public education, not just reward those chosen for the luxury of attending a private school. We can not abandon the neediest students just so a few kids can go to a private or parochial school.

As this article is titled, the pro-voucher position is "the end justifies the means," and I find this unacceptable, and bad for New Jersey students and their families.

The well-funded voucher lobby has lied to the community and has led people to believe that vouchers are the answer, when they most definitely are not. We have to help people support public education. I fear for those who think that vouchers will solve any problem (other than increasing the bottom line for corporations and churches).

---

by: Janice Rael @ Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 20:52:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Vouchers will make things much worse. Here is something that would help break up the concentrated poverty that causes children to underperform in school. (0.00 / 0)

A targeted inter-district public school choice program that would enable children in high-poverty schools to go to school in a higher income district without stripping the sending district of resources.  It has been very effective elsewhere in the country.

Instead of putting children at risk in unregulated voucher mills, which 20 years of research has shown to be ineffective, how about an idea that has actually worked elsewhere?

If you care about these children, how can you advocate for something that will not help the ones who leave and will hurt those who stay by stripping critical resources out of their public schools?  

We also must fully fund the school funding formula for all districts and stop pretending that schools can address poverty on their own.  How about restoring funding for anti-poverty programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit and affordable housing?  That would help  children perform better in school and also would help improve quality of life for their families.  

---

by: NJ Voter @ Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 16:02:45 PM UTC

How about countywide school districts? (0.00 / 0)

Starting in middle school, higher performing students in lower performing schools could take spots in higher performing schools that were vacated by lower performing students in those schools, who would be assigned to lower performing schools.

While this system would not be a panacea for all of the problems facing urban america and urban schools, I think that it would create more opportunities for those urban students with the greatest potential to make the most of those opportunities.

Countywide school choice would provide as many opportunities, if not many more for urban students for the same or lower cost than the OSA, while keeping them in the system that contain the same mandates and protections and do not impose religious values on them that they might not otherwise live at home.

---

by: Bertin Lefkovic @ Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 12:35:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Vouchers (0.00 / 0)

I was the one who objected to the use of the term "genocide" and still do.

The subject was whether school vouchers are good for NJ, not the "deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group".

It is an emotional issue for all of us.  I don't believe any of us would be on that panel, or in that audience if we did not care about the education and future of the children of this country.

That said, however, no matter how many pictures you hold up of African American children, or how many success stories the Catholic Council drags in front of Sen. Lesniack, the fact remains, it is not a valid argument.

In fact I would say the opposite, it is the lack of a solid argument.

I noticed nobody, even though I asked twice, nobody had the nerve to answer my question about state funded Madrases or Mosques.

My point, which is why I wanted an answer, is very simple.  If anyone objects to tax funded Madrases, why is that any different than me, and others, objecting to tax funded Catholic Schools?

Sadly, in this day and age, the answer, which is why I suspect I did not get one would require someone to be hypocritical or dishonest.

Keith, that argument might not matter to you, but the Constitution that so many wave around when it is convenient, matters to me, even when it is not for others.

School vouchers do not work, and never have and every valid study shows that.

Urban schools need help, with that I agree.  This, however, is not even remotely close to the answer.  In fact, it makes a bad situation worse.

It takes a chosen few and leaves behind the very children you talk about with even less resources.

Do you really think that is any way to achieve you goal for Camden or any other city in need of help?

Thank you,

John Bartram

---

by: Zayla @ Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 14:35:20 PM UTC

LETS USE LOGIC TO SOLVE THIS (0.00 / 0)

Will answer first comment...

Dear Firend:

How do you know vouchers will do no good? We can get studies to support both arguments? You are a very intelligent person. So answer this simple question as best you can: If vouchers do no good, why did the parents in Washington DC virtually riot in order to get the vouchers for their children reinstated? Do you see where I'm going with this?
Second: 50% dropout (or genocide) is NOT anecdotal. It is horrifying reality for all too many human beings. Would you agree?
Third: For clarification - are you suggesting we leave upwards of 50% of our children to suffer and perish because if they are not "sacrificed" our autistic brothers and sisters will lose their funding? Please clarify that for us.
Fourth: I am happy to see that you realize this IS a national crisis. However, I am puzzled and more than a little dismayed that having noticed this crisis (I presume for more than a month) you have not offered a single cogent solution? Yet you can attack the solution of others that even you agree will save a few.
Finally, I love your tree-forest analogy. I too feel like children are burning up. And am heartened you were big enough to admit that a few would be saved with OSA. However, I am puzzled as to why you are not delighted, a few would be saved? Are you suggesting if the forest can't be saved, let them all burn?
Here's where we absolutely do agree: the devastation around me DOES shames me right now - what about you?
Please have a wonderful day. I look forward to speaking with you soon.  
Thank you for caring.
Keith Benson    

---

by: klife @ Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 19:25:04 PM UTC

The parents were lied to. (0.00 / 0)

Keith, with all due respect, the very well-funded voucher lobby and Catholic Church only care about getting free money from the government, and they will do anything to get that free money. They lie, they put out false information, they make nice people like you believe that vouchers will solve the problems faced by poorly-funded school districts. Those parents almost "rioted" because they believe the lies put forth in pro-voucher propaganda.

Redistributing school funding at the state level instead of the local level, which would help all public schools receive equal funding, would help. But using our education funds to sponsor corporations and churches? That won't do anything for the kids who you want to save.

---

by: Janice Rael @ Wed Oct 12, 2011 at 21:14:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Photos (0.00 / 0)

An album of the debate photos is on DVAU's Facebook page at:  http://on.fb.me/dvauOct1vouche...

---

by: Janice Rael @ Sat Oct 22, 2011 at 20:17:23 PM UTC