Politics, with all its intricacies, subterfuge, and bureaucracy, is an adult concept.
Earmarks and income taxes are words that are almost foreign to many elementary and middle school children. It's not until end of middle school and in high school that these concepts really begin to solidify into genuine aspects of government.
For children, the government is not about health care reform, gun control debates, corrupt representatives or political lobbyist.
For children, government is part of community and civil studies. It's a subject in school that gives them a taste of how their country works, generally in a very patriotic way.
It's not uncommon for elementary age children to write letters to the president or even to see cartoon representations of him on television shows - like an episode of the children's show "Arthur" when the character D.W. gets lost in the White House.
The president is that person who most children idolize at some point or another. The president is the embodiment of the American dream, no matter what party. By the age when this image of the president has faded, children have most likely already been indoctrinated with parents ideals, or aggressively fought against it, enough to understand that just because the president says do well in school, it doesn't mean you have to adore the guy.
Yesterday President Barack Obama asked schools around the country to show a speech he gave to Wakefield High School in Arlington, Va. People of all ages, including students here at Virginia Tech, were concerned that exposure to the speech would leave the kids more sympathetic to the president's policies, possibly forming an unwanted bias.
The speech itself contained no political lesson. Obama simply told students to take personal responsibility for education and tried to inspire students with examples of kids who have faced tough life experiences and still managed to dedicate themselves to their studies. The only part of the speech that can be considered controversial is when he said that by quitting school, students are "quitting their country."
Of the five elementary schools in Blacksburg, one school chose to postpone viewing the speech until the faculty watched it themselves to decide whether it was appropriate. If the faculty decides it is, they'll send home letters alerting parents so that they can decide if they want their children to see it.
One decided not to show the speech at all, and another was unavailable for comment.
Two schools showed the speech and said they found it appropriate for the children and without any real political bias. Administrators from these schools said only a handful of parents chose for their children to not participate in the viewing.
So, while parents do have the right to have their children abstain from participation in activities they do not agree with, this speech was non-threatening. To a child, he's just a man in a position of high respect - the President of the United States - encouraging students to do their best in the upcoming school year.
The editorial board is comprised of Debra Houchins, Sara Mitchell, and Peter Velz
Leave a comment 16 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
"The speech itself contained no political lesson." The speech, in and off itself is a political lesson. It teaches students to look towards national government to solve problems. It reinforces the idea that the office of presidency is some sort of king like position with limitless powers to run the economy and manage your life. This attitude is apparent even in this editorial ("The president is that person who most children idolize at some point or another. The president is the embodiment of the American dream, no matter what party." Read "The Cult of the Presidency" for more on that http://www.amazon.com/Cult-Presidency-Americas-Dangerous-Executive/dp/1933995157/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252508885&sr=8-1). Where is the constitutional authority for the president to give this speech, or run the economy, or manage your life?
Reply to this Top
Wow, anonymous, it must be tough living life so frustrated all the time. First, I believe the right to free speech would handle your first question. Second, he doesn't run the economy, businesses with poor practices do, which is why the economy sucks so bad. Third, he doesn't manage my life, I am free to make the choices I need to make. If you feel the government is managing your life, you clearly have lost your grip on your own sanity.
Reply to this Top
for real, he does seem frustrated. i think his head will explode if the health care bill passes. nothing wrong with giving an address to a captive audience. maybe the idea of being self sufficient will pay off and people will stop begging for hand outs. the problem with obama is he has like 5 different mouths and you cant tell which one he is going to speak out of on a given day
Reply to this Top
It's simple, Adam. Because the children see him as an icon, they see he's giving them motivation, they are sort of "traumatized" for lack of a better term into supporting him. Kids grow up and remember, "I remember when that guy talked to me on TV, it was awesome and I love him." Gained support. I think that's the big deal. I THINK. Other than that, you are right somewhat. Government does NOT run your life. YET. Obama is trying to with all this spending and "reform." Let us as people do our own thing. We don't need to be babied. Small Government > Obama Government
Reply to this Top
That's so true George. I saw Tila Tequila on TV once, now I do anything she says.
Reply to this Top
She tried that with Sean Merriman, he wasn't having any of it
Reply to this Top
I don't think she has "President" in front of her name, or would be shown in schools.
Reply to this Top
The students should look up to him. He has, to this point, stayed far away from trouble, has been a dynamic speaker (regardless of whether or not one agrees with what he says), and his intent is to better the country. I don't agree with most of the things he has done thus far, but he should still be a role model for kids. Parents should be the #1 role models, but as far as the media and pop culture are concerned, the President is a far better role model than the majority of others.
Reply to this Top
A couple of points. First, we all have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean we can have our face transmitted into all public schools to deliver a message. As to the cult of the presidency, you could see it where he talked about how he was the one working to get them new text books and at parts he used the exact language from his campaign ads. I'm happy he is imparting the message of personal responsibility, but at the same time I don't like the way it was done. Second, (tongue in cheek) are you really telling kids in public schools that they emulate the president's story? Should they force their single parents to get a second job so that they can go to private school then dabble in drug use? (Even though I'm coming somewhat to his defense I'm not anonymous)
Reply to this Top
I think all clocks in schools should have a picture of a smiling Obama with a message saying "Make sure you get to class on time" and posters of him in all the hallways with inspirational words of encouragement. How is any of that controversial? Just good life lessons there, that's all.
Reply to this Top
The real controversy was over the lesson plan distributed to teachers, which instructed them to ask their students 'how they could help the President achieve his goals.' Now, if the text of the speech had been released simultaneously, I don't think the uproar would have been quite so great - assuming the text was fixed all along. But it's more than a little disconcerting for a head of state to use his bully pulpit to suggest to young children that the appropriate course of action is always to 'help the president achieve his goals.' If that's the case, then we've had a couple generations of people (and, most recently, anyone who opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) who have acted wholly irresponsibly. This whole event was bungled by the Obama administration, which continues to demonstrate its ineptness on a daily basis.
Reply to this Top
Kyle, it is wrong to say the Obama administration "bungled" the event. First off, I highly doubt that President Obama was the one who penned the lesson plan. He probably didn't even know about it until Gelnn Beck threw a tearful hissy fit. The lesson plan was almost assuredly written by some mid-level Dept of Education administrator, who changed the wording when others didn't like it. Second, the "goals" obviously refer to the President's goals of every student getting the best education they can get and to stay in school. There was nothing political in the speech, unlike Regan's student address where he spoke to children about tax policy. I thought the speech was great, it went off without a hitch and I hope it inspired many students to be more committed to their education.
Reply to this Top
John, you may be right - it was the Dept of Education. The DOE should be abolished and the states should run their own schools.
Reply to this Top
States running schools? The feds just need to reform it back into shape. Give it some time, gees. The new administration has only been in for 9 months. They can't fix everything in that amount of time.
Reply to this Top
It's an interesting point, John, but I remain unconvinced. When teachers buy instructional materials, the suggested lesson plan normally is accompanied by the materials associated with that plan. As I pointed out before, there would have been a lot less head-scratching had the Obama Administration released the text of the speech along with the lesson plan. Whether Obama penned it or not isn't really relevant; the Department of Education is a Secretary-level bureaucracy, and as such falls under the purview of the Executive Branch. As the head of the Executive Branch, Obama ultimately is responsible for anything and everything released to the public by bureaucracies falling under his authority - the fact that he delegates responsibility to check and vet all these releases doesn't absolve him of the responsibility; and in reality, it reflects poorly on him as an administrator if his administration's staff can't do their jobs correctly. I disagree that the term 'goals' so obviously refers to what you indicate - the context wasn't clear until the speech's text was produced, which was nearly two weeks after the lesson plan was disseminated. I take issue with any President addressing a captive audience of the nation's children in general, by the way - school time is for learning, not for self-esteem boosting by the Friend-in-Chief.
Reply to this Top
"The president is that person who most children idolize at some point or another." If Obama was truly a Christian he'd have gotten up in front of those children and told them not to do so. A Christian allowing people to call him the messiah and depict him as such? Sorry, no.
Reply to this Top