More Kentucky blogs begin to moderate comments

When Kentucky School News and Commentary began there was a problem to resolve. How does one manage the natural conflict between free speech (a very good thing) and the abusive name-calling (a bad thing that detracts from the public debate) that can dominate the comments section of a blog.

Should KSN&C allow anonymous comments and take whatever we get? And if we do, would that drive the tone of the blog into the mud and undermine legitimate authority?

Or is it better to require all commenters to identify themselves, perhaps stiffling legitimate comments from insiders who may have something to lose when commenting on matters of public policy, or politics?

I chose to moderate the blog.

Recently, I've noticed several other blogs ("liberal" and "conservative") following suit.

Over at PolWatchers, John Stamper wrote,

"We've had to spend way too much time the past few days deleting comments that don't comply with our comment policy. It's getting old. Therefore, those who comment must now submit a valid e-mail address before their comment will be published."

Pat Crowley noticed the same problem at his Northern Kentucky Politics blog and wrote,

"I busted five posts this morning. I'm going to do my best to kill the comments [w]here public officials and potential candidates are called "morons" and are the focus of gossip and rumors. Not going to happen. I'll allow criticism all day, but every comment I busted made some decent points except for the name-calling and rumor-mongering. It's a few days before Christmas folks. Make your points, but don't be so darn nasty."

Earlier in the week at vere loqui, Martin Cothran said,

"I'm instituting a new policy on comments, which is that I'll let your comment run as long as you don't needlessly insult someone or call into question someone's honesty or integrity without some kind of justification. There are people who want to post on this blog without giving their names and want to hide behind their anonymity while calling other people's integrity into question.

What's particularly ironic is when, while using anonymity to avoid responsibility for their own behavior, they accuse me or someone else of hypocrisy. I'll just call it hypocrisy squared."

Naturally, I applaud these decisions - much as I applaud anyone who agrees with me on just about anything. My hope is that the overall tone of public debate in Kentucky will achieve a kind of civility that is far too often missing on too many blogs. Rather than advancing useful ideas, "flaming" seeks the most outrageous expression of dissent, that is often personally destructive, whether it advances a legitimate argument or not.

Will this kind of decision reduce the sum of comments received on the blogs? Probably. But I'm OK with that, if in turn we get a more reasoned tone that creates a free space for expression without creating fear that one's comments might produce personal retaliation.

KSN&C continues to invite comments whenever a reader is moved to contribute one. Make a strong point if you wish - all we ask is a professional tone. We also invite tips, copies of official memoranda or other documents that illustrate official practice. Feel free to email the moderator - but take care to indicate if you wish your identity to remain anonymous on the blog.

Some may consider this censorship -not government censorship - but censorship nonetheless. In a literal sense, I suppose that's true. There are blogs out there that seem to invite personal attacks. If that's what you're looking for, you can find it. But not here.

The 'campaign" for Kentucky's next Education Commissioner begins

What? You thought the Board of Education was going to select the next commissioner? I heard that too. But apparently that doesn't prohibit a selection campaign.

Afterall, rumors are swirling now - legislative intrusion - anyone close to leadership of the Council for Better Education OUT - hand picked successors - why not a campaign?

Penny Sanders has a track record of tough-mindedness, knows the Frankfort terrain and served Kentucky well in the early days of reform. Penny deserves a look. But shouldn't the board at least review a few folks first?

This from Family Foundation head Martin Cothran's vere loqui blog:

Penney Sanders for State School Commissioner

While the State School Board was scouring the country looking for someone to fill the post of State School Commissioner, they apparently didn't notice (or chose to ignore) an obvious candidate.

After the Barbara Erwin fiasco, maybe one of the things they need to do anyway is look a little closer to home. Penney Sanders, the former head of the Legislative Research Commission's Office for Education Accountability, would be an excellent choice for this position.

Here are some reasons for considering Sanders for the post:

• She knows the educational lay of the land better than any other candidate the Board could find
• She has established relationships with state lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, many of whom know her well
• She is not afraid to take on the educational establishment when she needs to
• She knows not only the policies of Kentucky education, but the politics
• She not only hasn't padded her resume, but doesn't need to
• She's available ...

I see your Moloch...and raise you a Jesus. My response to the Family Foundation's celebration of the Louisville school desegregation decision

Yesterday, Martin Cothran of the Family Foundation wrote a brief celebration on the Supreme Court decision in Meredith on his blog vere loqui. It is a ruling that has many historical overtones that must be understood. Since the issue hit me in my wheelhouse, I thought a response might be in order.

Cothran implies that those who think diversity is a good thing...(actually he says it better than that)...He says those who "sacrificed children to the idols of egalitarianism and diversity" are the modern descendants of the Canaanite god, Moloch.

Well, this sounds really bad. I believe there is strength in diversity, so I wonder... Have I just been offended?

I don't actually know. I'll have to look up Moloch first...to find out if he was particularly nasty or something. But if I've been sacrificing little children to some Canaanite god and didn't even know it...I'm gonna be hacked off.

Martin is correct to point out that school districts will find other means to promote diversity.

Today I reveal the social liberal's Double-secret Plan B.

~
Dear Martin,

Access to quality education – who gets taught, and the quality of that teaching – is the central issue in the history of education in America.

Our Constitution said that all men were created equal. But in America’s earliest days, with few exceptions, it was the sons of white male landowners who received instruction. Why is that?

Racism? Well, yes…slavery was America’s original sin - but also economics.

Poor children were not thought to be worth the effort. After all, how much schooling is necessary to work a plow? An adequate education in the 19th century didn’t have to meet a high standard – just the 3 R’s (at about a 3rd grade level) would do. This - while children of means learned the classics. Millions of poor white and black children were denied equal opportunities. It was about class and economics – one’s station in life.

As a youngster in all-white Ludlow, Kentucky, I knew what it meant to have low expectations. I believe I was one of two Ludlow graduates in 1969 that went right on to college. That was not the story at the upscale Beechwood School. As bad as it could be for poor white children, being black was an additional burden. Why is that?

Neither group found it easy to get to a high quality school. It was doubly tough in Appalachia.

But, future economic success demands a competitive workforce. That means a 21st century education for all Kentucky children – something I suspect you fully support.

So we have to get the kids to school.

Every day school folks put millions of kids (who can’t drive themselves) on buses. We bus them...all over the place. We bus them from wherever they live. Big yellow busses. Flashing lights but no seat belts. And the wheels on the bus go ‘round.

It would have been nice if we never had to bus kids for reasons of racial desegregation. The best solution is always the presence of a high quality school in every neighborhood. But it didn’t work out that way. Why is that?

I assume nobody is arguing in favor of a return to the separate and very unequal days of Plessy v Ferguson. But when the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v Board of Education I, in 1954, that separate schools for African-American children were unconstitutional the Court was largely ignored. The following year the Court in Brown II ordered schools to begin desegregating. But they didn’t. Instead over 100 southern legislators decried the Court’s “intrusion,” asserted local control, and signed the Southern Manifesto vowing to obstruct where they could.

It was not until the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the decision in Green v. County Board of Education in 1968 that school districts made any real attempt to comply with the court’s 1954 ruling, and then only under threat of losing federal funds. In the 1963-64 school year barely 1% of black children attended school with white children. By 1972 that percentage had grown to better than 75%.

Social engineering? You bet. Let’s say it together. Social engineering.

It would have been better if the Court had never had to intervene. But I think one can argue that the Court in Brown upheld unpopular principles of the Constitution on Christian moral grounds. As I read the Bible, I have trouble finding any place where Jesus did not gravitate toward the poorest, lowest class, downtrodden, sick, or otherwise despised individual and lift them up. Correct me if I’m wrong. Should we not do likewise?

Of course, the present Court’s ruling was predictable – signaled during oral arguments last March. There is even a rational legal basis for the decision. It is notable that civil rights advocates who argued the need for federal protection in Brown, were now arguing for local control in the Louisville case, Meredith. Legally, what else did they have to argue? It is fairly well understood that today’s residual racial segregation is the result of housing patterns in our cities – not the result of any intentional efforts by school districts to keep the races apart. This under lays Chief Justice Robert’s snappy retort.

So what now?

Is the Court inviting local school districts to return to the days of Jim Crow? Of course not.

I suspect what you will see now is a shift toward economics as a basis for future busing schemes. Since African Americans are overrepresented among the poor, the real impact of the Court’s decision may be limited in some places. In other places, probably in most places, it will result in a racial resegregation. The extent to which communities have built diverse neighborhoods will determine the extent of the impact.

Is this social engineering? You bet. Social engineering and busing. Different ideology, perhaps. Different set of kids maybe. Same buses.

What you won’t see: school districts ignoring the Court.

The solution today is the same as in the beginning. We must have high quality schools in every neighborhood, but the requirements of an adequate education today are much more substantial than in the past. If the citizens of Kentucky will support this effort we will all be better off and the courts won't have to do anything. Actually, our children will all be better off. We need a gainfully employed citizenry – with more employer supported healthcare and a much lower Medicare burden on the state budget. We need to care for the poor – not by giving them a handout, but by giving their children an opportunity to do better.

What would Jesus do?

With respect,

Richard