THE PUBLIC MIND: READER DISPUTES COLUMN ABOUT EDUCATIONAL FUNDING

Dear Peter:

Thank you, thank you, thank you! I loved your column in Sunday's paper (March 24). I've been hoping for some time to read something like it.

As you know, I teach courses in public speaking, and as part of those courses I deal with the topic of fallacious argument. The various fallacies, however, are not easily learned in the abstract. For students to fully appreciate them, they must have concrete and timely examples. That's where your column comes in.

Your argument in Sunday's column, as I suspect you already know, is a perfect example of the straw man fallacy. The straw man fallacy, of course, occurs when an advocate sets up an artificial issue or argument and, because it is easier to demolish, attacks it instead of the real one. Thus, the name "straw man." (Like a scarecrow in a corn field, the phony argument appears real and relevant and is easily knocked down.)

That's exactly what you did in Sunday's column in which you discussed the legislature's proposal to increase taxes to raise additional money for education. You went to considerable length to provide statistics purporting to demonstrate that Missouri's commitment to education has increased substantially during the Ashcroft years. (Of course, when you start with a small base even modest increases when measured as a percentage of that base seem impressive. Thus, if the home delivery cost of the Southeast Missourian increases by a whopping 100% it will still cost only fifty cents.)

But the real issue in this debate is not whether funding for education has increased over the last several years. It is not even whether the government is "anti-education." (And you are right, I think, to criticize those whose sole focus is to cast blame for Missouri's low level of education funding relative to other states.) The real issue is whether the state of Missouri is investing enough in education for its citizens to be served effectively. When you present statistics about how funding has increased over the years you are not dealing directly with that question. You are, at best, refuting a straw man.

So I genuinely appreciated your Sunday column. It provided me with a good example to use in teaching students to identify defective argumentation. In fact, I'm thinking of using your columns more frequently for this purpose in my classes. I just hope I can do them justice in a single semester.

Keep up the good work!

Sincerely,

Tom Harte

Cape Girardeau