The Wink Wink Op Ed as mastered by the Manhattan Institute

Andrea Batista Schlesinger

The Wink Wink Op Ed as mastered by the Manhattan Institute

If Sol Stern submitted this Daily News Op-Ed to me in a writing class, I'd fail him.

But because he comes with a fancy title like Fellow of the Manhattan Institute, he not only gets a passing grade, he gets an audience of thousands who read the paper each day.

Mr. Stern's supposed thesis is that "New York City's ideal of public schooling as a means of assimilating all children into a common civic culture is under assault." The culprit: "social justice education." His evidence: an anecdotal look at three schools. His conclusion: "Social justice teaching is a frivolous waste of precious school hours, especially for poor children, who start out with a disadvantage. School is the only place where they are likely to obtain the academic knowledge that could make up for the educational deprivation they suffer in their homes. The last thing they need is a wild-eyed experiment in education through social action."

Let me clear from the beginning: I'll take on the Manhattan Institute and their views on how to best create public policy any day. But this piece is not about politics, it's about ideology. And what's the surest test: the absolute lack of rigor demonstrated through this piece. If I were Mr. Stern's writing teacher, here's what I would say:

Mr. Stern:

Good start. But unfortunately, this essay doesn't convince me, the reader, of your argument. Here's why:

1. Your thesis is that "New York City's ideal of public schooling as a means of assimilating all children into a common civic culture is under assault." You do not justify this statement throughout your piece. Instead, you rely on an anecdotal examination of three schools out of a system that educates millions. Please do some additional research. I fear that your readers will be disappointed when such a provocative and far-reaching opening statement is not backed up by similarly provocative and far-reaching pieces of evidence.
2. You do not define "social justice education." Your entire piece is dependent on the understanding of what "social justice education" is. IF you do not define your terms, how can a reader understand them?
3. Though your thesis is that the function of NYC's public schools is to assimilate all children into a common civic culture, your conclusion suggests that your real critique of "social justice education," which as of yet is undefined, is that it undermines academic achievement. Nowhere in the piece do you offer any evidence that backs up this claim. There is no examination of test scores at schools that practice "social justice education" (again undefined) versus those who don't. Your examples are similarly unconvincing. What does children wearing "Ghetto garb" and chewing gum have to do with their academic success?

Please re-write, making claims that you can substantiate, defining your terms, and making sure that your opening corresponds to your conclusion. Thank you.

- Any teacher

**
Look. What Mr. Stern is trying to do is obvious. This isn't an OP-Ed, it's a 600 word wink. Someone really interested in making an intellectual argument would use evidence to substantiate their claims. Stern lazily gives examples to define his claim, as if to say "see see. Can you believe it? It's outrageous!" Whatever "it" is. It's like using the word in its definition.

Of course, that's because Stern is only interested in advancing a knee-jerk ideological argument where you don't prove things because they are supposedly "obvious." The danger in these pieces is that so many people read them, and because no wants to be on the wrong side of the "obvious" argument, they allow these views to shape their understanding of the world.

If I were Mayor Bloomberg or Chancellor Klein, trying desperately to build up the public will to improve the schools, I would be frustrated to no end by this kind of lazy and irresponsible "wink wink" argument. I would wonder why it is that the Manhattan Institute is New York City's largest and best funded think tank. And I would think about how to change that situation, because as long as the Manhattan Institute is around to bless such intellectual laziness and insert it into the lives of thousands of New Yorkers, their jobs will continue to be harder than they should be.

Andrea Batista Schlesinger: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 10:58 AM, Jul 22, 2006 in Education
Permalink | Email to Friend | Comments (3)

Comments

What is most funny about this article is that he COULD HAVE made a point about a trend in education today. Maybe something about schools shouldn't be pulpits for the political agendas of teachers or principals, education should not be about "brainwashing" or giving young people answers or Political agendas--it should be about giving young people the tools to examine the world around them. But instead, I actually think he seems anti-change, and to actually assert that there isn't inequality in our country. In short, how did the Daily News let this get published without a point?

Thanks for your response to Mr. Stern. I was surprised to read his comments about School for Democracy and Leadership, especially since he never visited our school. He did meet some of our students and remarked that he was impressed with them--no surprise, since they are intelligent, articulate, and poised. However, his bias against social justice prevented him from writing fairly about our school.

School for Democracy and Leadership focuses on providing academically challenging work to students who previously did not have access to rigorous education. They read Antigone, study nuclear fission and fusion, and learn about landmark Supreme Court cases. They focus on activism in addition, not to the exclusion, of traditional academics. Here are the facts he was missing: in a building where the previous school graduated three out of every ten students who entered, our students have been promoted at rates consistently above the 90% mark, while showing significant growth in reading and math skills. This summer, while other high school students vacation, our young people have taken internships throughout the city.

A common complaint about young people revolves around their apathy, so it's strange that Mr. Stern criticizes our students for creating brochures about their beliefs. He argues that such actions have students focus on victimization. Actually, he has it backwards. Patrick Henry wrote pamphlets; Thomas Jefferson wrote brochures. Our greatest figures in history took a stand based on beliefs. Writing ardently about their beliefs helps students see themselves not as victims but as future civic leaders.

So if our students are proving themselves, both academically and out in the world, what issue does Sol Stern take with our school? He argued with me that all the small schools are "left-wing social justice schools." In our country, both conservatives and liberals have acted as protectors of social justice; it is one of the essentials values of the United States, as our forefathers fathers strove "to form a more perfect union."

Mr. Stern and I disagree on many things, but mostly, we agree that access to rigorous academic opportunity is necessary-especially for poor children. I don't know what he calls that, but I call it social justice.

Andrea, great post. This is part of the whole down-is-up strategy that defines far-right, non-mainstream, fringe organizations like the MI. Wink-wink is a great way to describe it because, you know, "social justice" doens't really mean social justice (which is good). It's really short-hand for extremist, commie, money-is-bad dogma that the left forces on our children with its Stalinist education system (which is bad). Right. Seems like they'll let anyone on the Daily News op-ed page these days.