From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The New Education President
Date: 12 Jan 1993 00:16:54 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) says:

>In article <1il9p7INN465@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>
>[stuff deleted]
>
>>But in this case we have a very powerful public official who has a large 
>>influence on U.S. education policy who has chosen to use that influence to
>>try to thwart efforts to make these same alternatives available to the 
>>majority of American families.  It reeks of hypocrisy.
>>
>
>Let me try and get this straight:
>
Okay...
>
>1) Bill Clinton believes that the public-education system should be
>   retained and strengthened;
>
Or, alternatively:  1.)  Bill Clinton sold his soul to the NEA in order
to get elected.
>
>2) Bill Clinton opposes the creation of vouchers which can be used to
>   help pay for a private education, but supports a policy of choice
>   within the public schools;
>
2.)  Which is often no real choice.  Question:  Why didn't Chelsea use
this option?
>
>3) Bill Clinton has decided to use his own money to send his child to
>   a private school;
>
3.) True, but irrelevant.
> 
>THEREFORE,
>
>4) Bill Clinton is a hypocrite.
>
>
>Is Clinton, because he is President, required to send his daughter to a
>public school as a way of 'sending a signal', as a 'vote of confidence'
>in the public school system? Is this the point? If so, I would suggest
>that the same obligation applies to any President, Democrat or Republican.
>Of course, none of the last four Republican Presidents have had any
>school-age children, so the point is somewhat academic...
>
No, Clinton is not required to send his child to a public school.  Go
re-read the rest of my message...including the part you deleted.
>
>Or is the problem that fact that Clinton has not supported a voucher
>plan that would allow parents to use the voucher to help pay for a
>private school? Is this the poster's point? In other words, since
>Bill Clinton can afford, as President, to send his daughter to a
>private school, he is therefore obliged to 'make this option available
>to the majority of American families'?
>
Now you have it.  Since Bill Clinton has implicitly recognized that the
public school system does not always meet a family's needs (to put it
charitably) it is morally incumbent on him, since he is a very influential
public official, to do what he can to make alternatives available to the
rest of us.
>
>
>Don Pajerek
>
>Standard disclaimers apply.
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc