On not showing the president's address to school children

President Obama's upcoming speech to the school children of America has become a major hot potato for school administrator's across the country, largely as a result of the campaign of conservative politicians and media pundits to force schools not to show it. Those against showing the address claim the speech is a thinly veiled attempt by the president to promote his "socialist agenda" to American children.

The result has been that many in charge of school districts have decided to not show the video, despite similar, previous addresses by Republican presidents (Reagan and Bush I). What follows is an open letter written to the school superintendent of Georgetown, Massachusetts in response to her decision (delivered in an email to parents) to not air the video.

Open Letter

Superintendent Jacobs,

I was extremely disappointed in your email of 9/3/09 detailing why Georgetown students will not be shown the presidential address scheduled for next week. As the father of children in the school system's care, this is not the behavior I expect from school leadership.

First of all, the email's subject matter was the presidential address, yet it was not until the third paragraph that you talked about the president's presentation, and only then you mentioned that it would not be shown. I know of a handful of parents who didn't know of the choice not to show the presentation simply because of the ambiguous email subject and because of where the explanation was buried. It would have been simple to title the email something like, "Georgetown Schools will not show the President's address to School Children ... Here's why." Not being clear makes it appear that you did not want to draw attention to the decision while also being able to say that the decision was made with full public knowledge (to put it in another way -- to cover your backside). While it could be argued you simply did not write a clear email, it certainly looks like it was intentionally misleading.

Second, and more importantly, the actual reasoning is more disturbing:

"After careful consideration we have decided not to air the speech to the student body primarily because there is not adequate time to make the necessary arrangements and to plan thoughtfully. In order to ensure that we provide the best possible instruction for students we like to preview materials that are used in schools however we do not want to our students to miss an opportunity that may be useful to them. Therefore, we will tape the speech and determine as a district to either show it to certain grade levels with parental notice at a later date as part of the curriculum or determine not to use it in our instructional program."

Since when is a presidential address to school children considered something that requires parental notice? Obviously, what you have failed to mention is that the conservative/right/Republicans, inspired and encouraged by high-profile media personalities, has made the president's address a major issue (in many cases claiming that the President is using this time in front of children to promote "socialism," with the underlying message that somehow America's youth will suddenly buy into the President's supposed socialist worldview and subvert the thinking and parenting of their non-socialist, true patriot parents).

Leaving aside anyone's politics, it is amazing to me that the school system reacted in this way. It is clear that a certain number of parents who subscribe to the right in terms of politics have complained, and that rather than face the issue directly, the school leadership has taken the lamentable position of blaming the decision on logistics, technicalities, and the need to plan. At the very least, I would hope you and the other school administrators would be willing to admit why you have chosen this course -- to placate a vocal group of parents that have complained. Instead, you have chosen to pretend it is for reasons that don't seem to hold much water.

Perhaps you assume the majority of parents won't care? Or is it that you care too much what a small group of vocal folks say because they can make your job more difficult, impact funding, or alter the school's political structure? I would like, for example, to know how many complaints you received. You mentioned "numerous." I would hope that numerous -- which is obviously a tiny percentage of town parents -- cannot change school policy whenever they feel like it -- whether the parents are hardcore Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, or anything else. If so, this decision sets a dangerous precedent that parents of any political leaning can barrage your office anytime they want to and impact school policy. Yes, we live in a democracy, but democracy is not "ruled by the mob." You already teach controversial subjects in school. Why not have the same courage of conviction in supporting this decision as with those? I assume sex ed, evolution, and teaching tolerance about people with different religions, races, ethnicities, and sexual orientation is not subject to the whims of "numerous" vocal parents.

It is ironic in a school system that rightfully spends much effort to eradicate bullying from the student body that you have apparently been bullied itself. And worse, you and the other leaders won't even admit it -- making excuses that nobody on the left, right, or middle will believe! If you are going to avoid showing a presidential address -- that supposedly is apolitical -- at least have the courage to explain the real reason.

It is not encouraging to see that our school system, designed to help our children become thoughtful and contributing citizens to a democracy, will cave into pressure simply because of what appears to be a small but organized and vocal protest. What kind of message does that deliver? I can't imagine what may be acceptable now with regards to discussing foreign policy, healthcare reform, end of life issues, financial regulation, etc.

I am not the only parent upset that the school district apparently has no courage to either show the video in the face of critics, or at least admit that it won't do so in order to avoid pressure or to protect its leaders from critics. You know, we, like our kids in your care, aren't stupid. Please don't treat us as such.