RE: pluralism and coercion

["Doug Jones" <credenda@moscow.com>]

Melynda Huskey wrote:

> Private schools, by their very nature, are exclusive.  Public schools
are
> not.  We pay for public schools so that every one may have the
opportunity
> to attend a school

By exclusive here, of course, you must mean that private schools cost
money (much less than public schools) like everything else. You're
surely not suggesting that a public school's day-in-and-day-out
assumption of Modernity throughout math, literature, history, etc. is
any less ideologically exclusive than that of any other worldview.
Neutrality always excludes. At least religious schools have the
forthrightness to 'fess up to their worldviews rather than pretend to
some fake neutrality.

> 
> Modernity is a philosophical position, not a religion. . . . 
>

This sort of claim just assumes what you're trying to prove. Notice it
only works if you assume that Modernity is true. It assumes that
anything that doesn't meet Enlightenment criteria for truth will be
designated a religion, not a philosophy. But, honestly, this is just an
old Modernist trick. Modernity makes just as many claims about reality,
knowledge, ethics, and faith that any religion does. 


>At best, a truly public school must mediate among many mutually
> exclusive philosophical and religious positions, seeking a balance
that
> acknowledges competing visions of the world.  This active and dialogic
> process is pluralism.
> 

Notice, again, how neutrality always excludes, even under the guise of
tolerance. What you describe here is a worldview (Modernity) that claims
it is officially agnostic in regard to all these "lower" competing
views; no one really knows the truth, but Modernity gets to
"acknowledge" competing visions and be the ultimate judge that sets up
the playing field. And when Modernity seeks to "mediate" and "seek a
balance" between views, it still acts as the final court, even nicely
encouraging students to choose truth as atomistic intellects. Modernity
sets up the criteria, sits as evaluator, claims neutrality, and always
wins. What a surprise. A wonderfully sly move but wholly intolerant. 


> Whatever results is bound to seem
> unfair to someone.  Since we can't all be satisfied, we must look for
the
> fairest solution possible and be prepared to amend it as further light
> breaks forth.

Okay, now the real proof of these "pluralist" convictions about fairness
means that you'd also vote in support of a private religious school
levy. After all, if pluralism permits one religion to coerce funds from
another (i.e., Modernity vs. everyone else), then fairness demands that
it should go the other way too. But we know that Modernity is far too
narrow to allow that. Hence the façade of tolerance.

>
>I cry, not fowl, but foul.
>

Guilty as charged. That's one of those things you find after you push
send. I wish I had a joke about turkey hunting or my own public
education but alas, the idiocy is mine alone.


Doug Jones