Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1958-02-13
Letters
Conservative Club

OOiileIllIlB ike TIE OOIlSeINd-
tive Club" you state editorially
in your Febr. 6 issue, twas
bound to happen" And I might
have predicted, even more conf.
IDENTITY, that as soon as it did
happen a campaign would get
under way to paint its member
ship as slightly deranged social
reprobates., 1t is an old story.
Some of the people whose prem
Uses conservatism challenges
like to fight that way. But the
mOdus Operandi, typically, is the
whispering campaign: am
frankly dismayed that this tao
tic should be embraced by a re-
spected community newspaper.
The Conservative Club, you
advise your readers right off, is
nothing but a GROUP of dis.
gruntled parents; lest they
miss the point, you tell them
again: it is a "chip-on-the-shoui-
der organization; and just to
make sure they go away with
the right taste in their mouths,
you note finally that it is a
group of malcontents" that
wants to undermine" some
thing or other. And though this
is really all your readers learn
about us in the course of a
lengthy editorial, it is quite
enough, you figure, to do us in.
Taken at face value, to- be
sure, these charges are not par
ticularly prejudicial. We are
"disgruntled" in the sense that
Democrats are disgruntled at
the Republican Administration?
We are ''malcontents" in the
sense that Americans were mall
contented with George III? But
no; plainly you have no desire
for this language to be taken
literally. These are highly
charged catch-phrases, aimed at
your readers emotions, and cal
culated to divert attention from
what the Conservative Club is
saying and from the substantive
positions it has taken. You evil
IDENTIFY wish to cut off debate on
certain matters before it gets
started.
All of which leaves us Won
dering what it is in the Clubs
Declaration of Principles" that
you don't want to talk about. Is
1t our insistence on a tougher
policy toward the Soviet Union?
Is 1t our support of free enter.
prise, our desire to restrict gov
eminent to its proper and ira
ditional functions? Our desire to
bolster the political power of the
States and local communities?
Our dissent from recent SUI
preme Court decisions? What?
Perhaps our stand on education.
But your editorial implies that
If only our motives were a little
purer, we might be worth lis
tening to on that score. Very
well: we believe our schools
should concentrate on training
minds rather than on develop
ing skills"; we believe the tend
ency to crowd out the basic
disciplines from our school cur
ricula augurs a nation of Hitter
ates; we believe that school
money should be used to buy
wise and talented teachers rath-
er than ornate school buildings:
we believe our schools should
encourage respect for tradition.
al American institutions and
values-not the very different
values embraced by so many
professional educators. / could
go on, but / suspect we are al
ready beyond the pale; these
things you probably do not want
to talk about either. Refusal to
debate is bad enough; misrepre.
sentation Is worse.
Your editorial implies, and
the headline In an accompany
Ing news story comes right out
and says, that we are trying to
mobilize an "anti-school revolt"
But the revolt we ask is not, of
course, directed against the
schools" but against the so
called experts in the field-pro-
fessional educators, who take
their cues from the NEA and
who act as though the schools
were their private monopoly.
We would have this community
and its elected representatives
assert themelves, and exercise
the responsibilities that are
properly theirs. You could not
have misunderstood this point
since 1t was faithfully reported
in your news account Cbeneath
the headline) of the address of
our last speaker, Yale's PROBES
sor Kendall. Your editorial re-
mark in this connection-that
we should work within exist.
ing machinery"-is quite beside
the point. The existing machin-
cry is an administrative sys-
tenn which is, in turn, occupied
by people - members of the
~