_"For the love of God, people, a public school classroom is not some sort of marketplace of ideas. Not every viewpoint can or should be taught. Time and resources and curriculum space are scarce. The state thus has a legitimate role in defining what counts as an adequate education."
_First sentence: True.
_Second sentence: True.
_Third sentence: True.
_Fourth sentence: Laughably false non sequitur.
It's not clear why you say it's a non sequitur, Dr. Thompson, but would it still be a non sequitur if the context, public schools (government schools), had been specified, had he concluded with: The state thus has a legitimate role in defining what counts as an adequate education in public schools?
The contradiction is in having government schools (compulsory, tax-supported "public schools" or "public education") and then complaining that the government doesn't have a legitimate role in defining what counts as an adequate education in government schools. If we're going to have government schools, who else is to define what counts as an adequate education if not the government?
And if people don't think that government has a legitimate role in defining what counts as an adequate education in government schools, then perhaps we should finally consider getting the government out of education altogether.
Who else besides government is to decide what constitutes a proper education? The people whose rights have been violated: the PARENTS!
_"For the love of God, people, a public school classroom is not some sort of marketplace of ideas. Not every viewpoint can or should be taught. Time and resources and curriculum space are scarce. The state thus has a legitimate role in defining what counts as an adequate education."
_First sentence: True.
_Second sentence: True.
_Third sentence: True.
_Fourth sentence: Laughably false non sequitur.
It's not clear why you say it's a non sequitur, Dr. Thompson, but would it still be a non sequitur if the context, public schools (government schools), had been specified, had he concluded with: The state thus has a legitimate role in defining what counts as an adequate education in public schools?
The contradiction is in having government schools (compulsory, tax-supported "public schools" or "public education") and then complaining that the government doesn't have a legitimate role in defining what counts as an adequate education in government schools. If we're going to have government schools, who else is to define what counts as an adequate education if not the government?
And if people don't think that government has a legitimate role in defining what counts as an adequate education in government schools, then perhaps we should finally consider getting the government out of education altogether.