|
|
Third Speech Before the Dearborn Board of Education
By Eric J. Lakits
23 Mar 98
Good evening ladies and gentlemen,
I have appeared before you twice before in an
attempt to appeal to your ability to reason.
I have now concluded that you have no such ability. Robert Nasir, Amy Charters, and myself have
argued that each individual has a right to his own life and that it is proper
for each to live his life free from compulsion. We have argued that charitable acts should be chosen NOT forced;
that morality, like religion, should be taught in the homes NOT mandated by the
government via our school systems; that mandatory servitude is not a proper
method for learning, but rather a punishment for criminal offenses. I, in particular, have pointed out that it
is unconstitutional. As we spoke, you
sat there with your glassy eyed stares, your hidden guilt, evading eye contact,
and glazed looks of indifference fell across your faces--much the same as
tonight. It is quite obvious that you are
not listening to what we have to say.
Unlike last time, I will not repeat what I
have already said. You did not listen
then, you will not listen now. Instead,
Amy, my girlfriend Shelley and I have passed out copies of our previous
speeches to everyone present tonight so that they can judge for
themselves. Not having chosen careers
as public servants, I have full confidence in their ability to reason.
Instead, I have decided tonight to address
what was talked about in your last meeting after we made our speeches and to
reveal to everyone just what kind of vicious and immoral people you really are.
At the last meeting, Dr. Jeremy M. Hughes
made a presentation in which he used a visual aid explaining the “mission” and
the “core values” of the program. The
mission was to promote “personal and social responsibility” and the core values
where “respect” and “responsibility.” I
do not know how Jeremy defines his words, but I uphold that respect and
responsibility are things to be earned rather than granted
unconditionally. When you teach a child
that every person born into this world is just another mouth which is his
responsibility to feed and to respect regardless of character, then what they
will learn is not respect, but resentment--resentment of the fact that people
are not a value to him, but dependents who use their need as a claim on his
ability.
Jeremy also defined community service as “time
spent without pay helping a person, organization, or agency in the community
that is in need of assistance.” I
ask you now, what right do such persons, organizations, or agencies have to
assistance that they are unable or unwilling to pay for? What is more, your definition was not
complete. The phrase “through coercion”
was purposefully left out. You have yet
to explain by what right is it that you force people to work against their
self-interest for no pay.
Later, Jeremy discussed what people and
resources would be necessary for the program and how much it would cost. Here’s an idea: how about making each of you
fill the positions without pay as a requirement for you to keep your jobs? That idea doesn’t sit too well does it? Well that is the precedent that you are
setting.
Also discussed were the options that each
student would have in choosing what form their particular service would
take. The choice to abstain was not one
of them. He mentioned that one of the
considerations was safety. Safety? What could be more unsafe than living in a
community which enslaves its citizens?
Part of the presentation included a survey of
377 parents. The results of which were
that 68% of them were in favor of the proposal to 32% who were against. What difference does it make whether 99% of
the people are in favor of this measure?
Dictatorship by the majority is still a dictatorship. If one person does not want to participate
in this program, no one has a right to force him.
Also that evening, Dr. Alex Shami related his
story of how he was originally against this proposal. However, his mind was changed after he talked with Judge Callahan
and Representative Agney Zubrowski over dinner at his house. Aside from his pitiful attempt at
name-dropping, he did not offer any of the alleged arguments that changed his
mind. I don’t know what was said in the
confines of that social setting, but let me ask you this Alex: hasn’t anything we
said meant anything? Implicitly, your
argument is this: “I was like you once, but now I am more enlightened.” Yet, you do not explain exactly what it was
that enlightened you.
I can drop names too, Alex. How about Thomas Jefferson? Not that I had dinner with him, but you
remember him don’t you? Did Callahan or
Zubrowski have anything so eloquent to say as Thomas Jefferson’s classic
formulation of an individual’s right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness?” If so, why do they not
publish their philosophies and make them public as did Thomas Jefferson as
opposed to having their pillow-talk reach us indirectly through the strange
bedfellows they have made--such as yourself?
Perhaps the parents in the audience tonight
and myself could come over to your place for dinner sometime and explain our
position. We could each bring a dish if
you like.
Now I come to Frederick Linder, perhaps the
worst one of your bunch. You talk of
meaningful experiences as your reason for supporting this program. You said that it was “for this reason
that I support the program, not the warm feelings that were condemned so
roundly here this evening of community service.” I am not exactly sure what that statement was supposed to mean,
but you are wrong, Fred. We are not
condemning you for “warm feelings” of which you have none. We are condemning you for attempting a human
rights violation!
But you know that don’t you? You are fully aware of the fact that
community service has a negative connotation.
That is why the suggestion that you made later did not surprise me. If you’ll remember, you suggested changing
the name from “community service” to “service learning.” To quote you directly, you said “Service
learning is the term that I prefer to Hitler youth. Yes.”--in response to an outburst from a member of the
audience.
Just what kind of fools do you think we are?! Do not insult our intelligence! What the hell kind of cover-up are you
trying to pull? Did you honestly think
that we are so stupid as to fall for that?
Do you honestly think that changing the name will make a
difference? The concept is still the
same. Changing the name does not change
the concept. To reword Shakespear’s
formulation, slavery by any other name is still slavery.
Stealing and murder have negative
connotations also. Would it change
anything if we were to give them warm and fuzzy names also? We could call stealing “re-allocation of
property resources.” And call murder
“existence enhancement.” Would that
make it alright? Of course not!
Fred then went on to give an example of how a
girl could do service in a hospital which might help her choose a career in the
medical profession. What kind of
rationalization is this? You liken
slavery to career day? What about the
many people who have already opted for careers in the medical profession
without the help of community service programs? What if after community service a person still does not want to
be in the medical profession? His time
is wasted. And if it does influence
students toward a particular field of work--which I don’t believe it
will--wouldn’t it steer them away from careers such as engineering and
architecture which are not service related?
And Julie Morrison. Julie disputes what types of service should be count and what
should not. But, do you ever question
whether or not this program should even take place?
The arguments that my friends and I presented
were based on moral principle. We have
argued for individual rights. That is,
each man’s right to his own life. We
have argued that need is not a claim on ability. We believe that man’s only responsibility to society is to
refrain from violating the rights of others.
What have you countered with? Not once did any of you offer an argument
based on moral principle. You have
presented nothing but pragmatism, rationalizations, and evasions. Do any of you even know what a moral
principle is? Do you? What is the moral principle that gives you
the right to do what you are proposing?
To defend your position, you would necessarily have to argue that the
individual exists to serve the community.
That he exists by permission of the group, the collective, the folk, the
proletariate.
I know what your motives are. You talk of serving others, but what you
mean is that you want to control others.
You want to take advantage of minds that are in the process of cognitive
development so that you can control them.
When the mob rules, people such as yourself become its spokesmen. You, then, hold the seat of power. What you seek is the power and the prestige
that you have not been able to achieve in your own lives. You devoted your lives to public service
when you chose your jobs. You speak of
enrichment and such. You’ve been
serving the community for most of your lives.
You don’t look enriched to me.
Those spiritual rewards that you hoped for, where are they now? Now, realizing that you have thrown away
your own lives and personal happiness, you wish to control the lives and the
happiness of others.
I hope all of the parents here tonight see
you for what you really are--spineless power lusters who are after their
children in [the worst way possible].
Well,...I would say that my time is up now,
but it is your time that is up. Mine is
just beginning. Thank you.