The Deseret News published my response “‘Social Democracy’ a Dangerous Idea” to BYU English Professor Brian Jackson’s op-ed piece of a week and a half ago. Please check it out here:
Here is the text of my response.
In response to Brian Jackson’s op-ed piece (“Political sentiment is far from reason,” June 2), I would like to respond as one of the chief “McCarthyites” he chastises for taking issue with the Alpine School District’s mission statement, “Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy.”
This is ironic. Jackson, an English professor at BYU, is defending a man (John Goodlad) who redefined the term social democracy and is apparently completely OK with that. Then Jackson ridicules parents who mentioned a definition for “social democracy” from Wikipedia. Perhaps Jackson would like these similar definitions better from Merriam-Webster’s: “(1) a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means. (2) a democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices.”
What Goodlad openly espouses is that we should vote on not just candidates for office, but as a society we need to vote on knowledge and morals. In his atheistic view there is no God, so we as a people need to determine what truth is and what morals we should subscribe to based on their relative current value to society. This is called moral relativism.
In 1966, Goodlad wrote in the NEA Journal, “The curriculum of the future ‘will be what one might call the humanistic curriculum.’ ” The Humanist Manifesto was written based on the Communist Manifesto, and John Dewey was one of the original signatories. The Manifesto actually declares itself a “religion” that espouses atheism and moral relativism. I wonder if Jackson would be OK if educators were given LDS, Jewish, or Muslim teachings in their professional development training? No? Then why humanism? It’s simply another religion.
In 2001, Goodlad wrote in “Developing Democratic Character in the Young” that “parents do not own their children. They have no ‘natural right’ to control their education fully.”
From “Education for Everyone: Agenda for Education in a Democracy,” Goodlad says, “In the quest for learning, educators must resist the quest for certainty. If there were certainty there would be no scientific advancement. So it is with morals and patriotism.” This is utterly ridiculous. If we have no certainty then how do we measure and confirm “scientific advancement?” If we have no certainty then we have no basis for measurement.
We have a serious case of affinity fraud in Utah where the public so trusts the people in educational positions of power, they don’t take the time and effort to dig into what’s being taught. If you do, and openly declare it, you are castigated by people who support the power and authority of people who have given us gems such as “investigations math,” where for three straight years children were not taught the times tables or long division in Alpine School District (another “gift” from Goodlad the constructivist).
I encourage you to dig a little deeper into Goodlad and awake to the fact that his organizations, the National Network for Educational Renewal in particular, are an affront to all people who believe in moral absolutes and natural rights that come from God. If you search the Web, you’ll find plenty of troubling things like how his NNER is trying to push the homosexual movement into BYU. His organizations are nothing more than “enculturation” centers for educators, lapping up a dangerous and destructive agenda that when fully realized will overthrow constitutional government and public morality. Do I think it is the intent of the people in Alpine School District and the BYU McKay School of Education to do this? No, I’ve never espoused a conspiracy there. I just think they’re willingly ignorant because Goodlad is such a prominent national education figure. He’s dangerous but well-respected.