Common Core offers a lopsided bargain
Andrea Neal's recent op-ed on the Common Core curriculum controversy ably captures many of the problems with this education power grab, but a few points merit clarification.
First, the adoption of the Common Core by 46 states can hardly be said to be “voluntary.” A man dying of thirst may accept a ladle of cold water voluntarily, but he is hardly in a position to say no. The federal incentives to adopt the Common Core through the Race to the Top bailout boondoggle and, more recently, the waivers of onerous provisions of No Child Left Behind put enormous pressure on financially struggling states.
Washington can always do one thing the states cannot: print money. By accepting these incentives, Indiana is trading its proud leadership in education for a national illusion.
Second, voluntariness is in the eye of the beholder – or, in this case, the officeholder. As Neal reports, Indiana's embrace of the Common Core was negotiated by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Such a transfer of authority over the content of education ought to require the voluntary assent of elected legislators, not appointed officials and quasi-private associations. Neither Congress nor state legislatures were consulted. Is that “consent of the governed”?
The Common Core is rushing forward, supplanting our state's strong English and Language Arts standards, putting Washington in charge of classroom content, and fashioning national tests to consolidate this change. We still have time to rethink this lopsided “bargain.”
Erin Tuttle
Indianapolis
Libertarians not devils
“And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.” This is how my 1952 Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible quotes Jesus in Luke 6:31. Another, perhaps more familiar, phrase is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Some have called it “The Golden Rule.” This is the creed to which this Libertarian subscribes.
“Anything That Is Peaceful,” is a book by Leonard E. Read. Signing a declaration that I do not support or advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social ends in order to be become a (large “L”) member of the Libertarian Party. Believing that I have a natural right to defend myself against anyone or anything by any means I see fit. Believing in, even as flawed as it is, the Constitution of the United States of America — a document that I have sworn an oath to uphold, defend and preserve. Believing that perhaps, just perhaps, people are actually capable of trading a value for a value in the marketplace and not simply just trying to rip each other off. Golly, what devious concepts. From Hank Achor's letter (“We must end class warfare in America” on June 20) one would have to believe Libertarians are the devil incarnate.
His first several paragraphs give some impressive statistics about the American economy. But, it begged the question, who was in power when American growth and living standards started to go down? Obviously, it wasn't Libertarians. The rest of his letter read like true/false statements on a really silly test. Bottom line, I just don't get why Achor so vehemently and viciously attacks libertarianism. What has he read to lead him to such a deranged attitude about this?
Dan Headlee
Readings perplexing
Mark Souder's readings of Bonhoeffer and Wilberforce were perplexing, especially in the context of his Republican political heritage and history. His lamentation of the absence of such public heroes is predictably shallow, self-serving and ridiculous. There are hundreds of such heroes all around the world, and some of them are even Republicans. None, however, would ever be elected in any tea party arena.
Where in this Hoosier Republican Hell was Souder when he had the chance to champion such a world leader in the person of Sen. Richard Lugar?"
Fred Gilbert
Health care industry about making profits
I saw an advertisement objecting to “Obamacare” with a picture stating, “Keep your hands off my Health Care.”
It seems to me that, broadly viewed, our nation's health care industry is in the hands of folks implementing the free market enterprise. The first responsibility of the managers is to protect the investors in these businesses. At its base, our present health care industry is providing (and supported by law) profits for investors, not health care services.
Paul Row
Monroeville
