Please tell me we aren't trying to seek wisdom from kids again

LET ME BEGIN by saying I love children, especially my own. This does not mean, however, that I enjoy debating national or global issues with children, except occasionally with my own, preferably after they've begun paying taxes.

Indeed, when it comes to children and serious matters, I defer to the wisdom of my parents' generation, most of whom believed that children should be seen, briefly, and heard only to say, "Yes, sir; yes, ma'am; please and thank you."

Never "Du-ude," which, owing to my co-tenancy with a 17-year-old, I'm beginning to think is my real name, much the way dogs begin to think they're all named "No, dammit!"

My aversion to child wisdom began during the Carter administration when then-President Jimmy "Fidel" Carter asked his daughter, Amy, her thoughts about nuclear (pron. nukear) war, or something like that. A smart kid, Amy gave nukes the thumbs down. And, phew, America was safe.

Decades of peace and prosperity ensued during which almost no adults felt inclined to seek the wisdom of babes. Then came Sept. 11, and suddenly children are back.

A few days ago, a 7-year-old girl made the pages of The New York Times and NBC's "Weekend Today" with her commentary (albeit implied) about what President Bush should have known about Sept. 11 and when. Apparently, the girl (who shall remain unnamed out of respect for her innocence) wrote a letter that went in part as follows:

"Dear President Bush: 'Did you know Sept. 11 was going to happen? If you did, why didn't you stop bin Laden? We forgive you if you did.'"

Puleez. I feel positively irradiated from overexposure to specialness. Can you die from this stuff?

Now things start to get prickly for curmudgeonly commentators because the little girl in question lost her father on Sept. 11. He was a trader at Cantor Fitzgerald, the financial services firm with offices in one of the World Trade Center towers. She reportedly wrote the letter three months ago (get it?), but her mother only recently mentioned it to a New York Times reporter when called about her thoughts regarding Bush's alleged foreknowledge of the terrorist attacks.

Voila: A pretty little girl had it right. Adults — specifically Presidents — are dumber 'n Texas tacos.

In the May 17 Times, the reporter wrote: "(Little Girl) is more straightforward and prescient than most people twice, or even 10 times her age, which is 7. Here is the letter she wrote in February to President Bush."

When the child and her mother appeared on NBC, the mother was commendably circumspect in answering implication-loaded questions. Did she think Bush knew? No, replied the mother. Bush may have known generally that something was about to happen, but she didn't believe he knew specifically what was coming. Make that a double phew.

What's bothersome from the line of questioning on the "Today" show, as noted by Media Research Center analyst Ken Shepherd (www.mrc.org), is the implied suggestion that (sigh, alas, ahem) Bush really did know something. After all, even this little girl knew, instinctively, that he knew something. Ergo, it must be true.

It's easy to believe that Little Girl misses her daddy and might think to write a letter to the President. It's less easy to believe that she imagined three months ago that the President might have known in advance of the terrorist attacks and failed to stop Osama bin Laden.

It's almost impossible to believe that three months later, just when (mostly) Democratic moral outrage is peaking over when Bush knew exactly what, this little love letter should slip into the hands of a New York Times reporter.

If someone set Little Girl up — or helped to orchestrate these events just a little bit — we forgive him/her. Maybe. But some recompense is owed a public weary of manipulation and exhausted by conspiracy theories. Herewith, I propose a resolution for our times:

"Whereas children are by definition young, innocent, unknowing and deserving of protection, now, therefore be it resolved that adults will keep children safe from harm by sparing them adult agendas and, by the coattails of grace, sparing real grown-ups the sagacity of minor offspring."

This was published in the August 17, 1998 JWR by Thomas Sowell. It is his commentary on this very subject.

"A childish letter"

REACHING THE PUBLIC also means that the public reaches you. My mail ranges from fan mail to hate mail. But there is a special kind of letter that bothers me more than the most idiotic obscenities. That is the letter from some teenager (or younger) who is writing because his school has led him to believe that he ought to have opinions on some issue or other -- and ought to express those opinions to strangers he has read about and expect those strangers to take up their time discussing his opinions.

A single word in a recent letter from a 15-year-old boy epitomized what is so wrong with such premature presumption. He said that American military leaders "over-estimated" the casualties that would have resulted from an invasion of Japan in World War II, so that we were unjustified in dropping the atomic bomb instead.

This particular issue is not the point. The point is that people expect to have their opinions taken seriously just because these are their opinions.

Here is someone with no military training or experience, much less achievements, blithely second-guessing General Douglas MacArthur, who served in the military more than twice as long as this kid has been in the world. Here is someone in the safety and comfort of a classroom issuing pronouncements about assessments made by someone who fought on the battlefields of two world wars and left a record of stunning victories with low casualties that have caused him to be ranked among the great military minds in history.

If this were just one kid who has gotten too big for his britches, then it would only be a small part of the passing parade of human foibles. But school children all across the country are being encouraged or assigned to engage in letter-writing campaigns, taking up the time of people ranging from journalists to congressmen and presidents. Worse, these pupils are led to believe that having opinions is more important than knowing what you are talking about.

Few things are more dangerous than articulate superficiality. Glib demagogues have been the curse of the 20th century and tens of millions of human beings have paid with their lives for the heady visions and clever talk of political egotists. Yet the danger is not that a particular child will follow in the footsteps of Lenin, Hitler or Mao. The danger is that great numbers of people will never know what it is to know, as distinguished from sounding off.

They will be sitting ducks for the demagogues of their times.

If our so-called educators cannot be bothered to teach our children knowledge and logic, they can at least refrain from undermining the importance of knowledge and logic by leading students to believe that how you feel and express yourself are what matter.

It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance. Back in 1982, when I began an international study of peoples and cultures, I planned to write a chapter on India. It was only after reading books about India, visiting India twice and talking with Indian scholars, officials, businessmen and journalists that I realized what a monumental job it would be to write about this vast and complex society.

Although my study took 15 years and resulted in 3 books, there was no chapter on India. I realized that I didn't know enough to write one.

Assigning students to write letters and papers on vast topics is training them in irresponsibility. It is putting the cart before the horse. There will never be a shortage of ignorant audacity. What is always scarce is thorough knowledge and carefully reasoned analysis, systematically checked against factual evidence.

Our education-is-fun approach is setting up the next generation to be patsies for any political manipulator who knows how to take advantage of their weaknesses. Educators who are constantly chirping about how this or that is "exciting" ignore the reality that education is not about how you feel at the moment but how well the young are being prepared for the responsibilities of the future.

Classroom letter-writing assignments are not just silliness. They are a dangerous betrayal of the young and an abdication of adult responsibility by self-indulgent teachers.

Click here for source

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.