|
|
Second Speech Before the Dearborn Board of Education
By Eric J. Lakits
Good evening ladies and gentlemen,
There is a philosophy destroying our
community. It does so because its
advocates claim that it’s the interests of the community that they wish to
protect while they go on to sacrifice the individuals of whom a community is
made up. It is the philosophy that says
your life is not your own, that the pursuit of your own self interest is
evil. It is the philosophy of
Altruism. It says that rather than
being free to choose whom we deal with and on what terms, we are instead all
bound together through sacrifice. And
it is a one-sided sacrifice at that.
The ability of some is sacrificed to the needs of others. We are to sacrifice fortune to misfortune,
ability to disability, competence to incompetence, and sacrifice our honor students to the mentally handicapped. (As well as every other student for that
matter.)
There is a large segment of our community
that needs our help. And I am here to
do my best to see that they get that help.
The group of people that I refer to is not poor, it is not homeless, it
is not going hungry. The group of
people that I refer to is helpless in a deeper respect, because it has no
political voice in our community. It is
the group, composed of individual students, which
is in danger of being forced into slavery against its will.
Whether you call it mandatory servitude,
community service, or volunteerism makes no difference. All are just politically correct ways of
saying slavery. Our schools are
government institutions. Since students
are required to attend by the government, any requirements of servitude are a
direct violation of the individual rights of each student who attends. Our federal government has taken the lead
with its discussion of volunteerism, but attempts to hide behind the fact that
is merely taking an indirect role that is influential at best. We are supposed to feel safe that any such
measures are made at the local levels of government in a forum such as
this. Government, whether local or
federal, is still government. Whether
people are voted into slavery by the nation as a whole, or by a small group
within their own community makes no difference. The result is slavery nonetheless.
At this time, I would like to take a moment
to refer to what it usually considered by most to be the final authority on
such matters--The Constitution of the United States of America. I assume that you are all familiar with this
document and I can only hope that progressive educational reformers have not
eliminated it from the history classes, yet.
Amendment XIII [1865], Section 1.--Although
there are other parts of the constitution concerning this issue, this is the
perhaps the most relevant. It states
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United
States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Let me repeat: Neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude...except as punishment for a crime. The 13th amendment explicitly declares that
involuntary servitude shall be enacted only as punishment for a crime.
What kind of lesson are you trying to impart
to students when you teach them about the United States Constitution and how it
explicitly forbids involuntary servitude, yet contradict yourselves by sending
them out into the world to perform mandatory community service? How can any student possibly take his
education seriously when faced with such a glaring contradiction? Of course, there is also the possibility
that you do not plan on teaching students about the constitution at all--in
which case you are not doing you jobs as educators.
This brings me to my next point. Let’s suppose we ask ourselves “why? What is the purpose of sending our children
to school?” Is it to teach them morals
and values? If so, whose morals? What values? And by what standard?
Furthermore, how do we insure that all morals and values are represented
equally and fairly? Or, if this is not
possible, how do we decide which get included while others are excluded? Another answer to our question is that we
send them to school so that they may receive the necessary tools to choose
their own rational values--tools such as reading, writing, history, and
arithmetic. However, this implies an
act of choice and of self-interest. It
implies the long term goal of bettering oneself so that one can earn his own
living, support his own life and pursue his own self interest. Or in a more classical formulation, the pursuit of happiness. Which is better? Should we be forcing
students to empty bedpans against their will?
Or should we be teaching them how to earn their own way in the world so
that they don’t become dependents themselves?
You might ask, “what if someone wants to sacrifice for others? Couldn’t they at least get credit for an elective course?” For those who want to partake is such activities on their personal time, no one shall prevent them. However, let’s not reward students for making the choice to do so with credits toward graduation, while not rewarding others for making the choice to do otherwise. The favoritism of such a policy would imply that your life is not your own--that serving others brings rewards while pursuing your own self interest does not. Let us remember that charitable activities should be acts of choice NOT of compulsion. Thank you.