THE PUBLIC MIND: READER RESPONDS TO DEBATE ON EDUCATIONAL FUNDING

Dear Peter:

I really can't go on writing you like this. I already have a pen pal. Besides, there must be better ways to use valuable newspaper space than printing letters from me.

But I feel I have no choice but to respond to your comments in today's (Friday's) paper. Of course, I have no one but myself to blame. I violated two cardinal principles which I often advise others to follow: (1) be careful with satire because it is often misunderstood and (2) never get into an argument with some who (in this case by virtue of control of the medium of communication) will always have the last word. So here I go again, ignoring my own warnings.

First, I don't know where you got the idea that I hold you or anyone who disagrees with me in contempt. I am contemptuous of some ideas and I admit I have no fondness for fallacious reasoning, but there are few people I despise, even if they don't always agree with me. Perhaps you took some of my remarks too seriously. I really do not intend to require my students, who are not really as impressionable as you might think, to use your columns as a textbook. And I do understand the concept of free and open debate. Even the publisher of your newspaper hardly a political comrade of mine has been to my classes.

But as one who has studied communication I know that the effective meaning of a message is in the mind of the receiver. So if what I meant to be good natured teasing offended you, please accept my apologies. (I have more than once used the same tactic with Gary and we both get a chuckle out of it. Maybe I'm just too facetious. Then again, maybe you should lighten up a bit.) Perhaps in our recent "dialogue" we both have strayed too close to another fallacy of reasoning, the ad hominem argument.

More importantly, I disagree that my letter contributed nothing to the discussion. True, I did not present figures of my own, but figures aren't really of much use in a debate if they are offered in support of assertions which are not central to the proposition. Had I taken the trouble to challenge your statistics (and they can be challenged for example, some of those impressive percentages you cite are the result of nothing more than taking money already being spent and shifting it from one government account to another) I would have simply committed the same error I charged you with: arguing about the wrong thing.

Let me repeat that I think the vital question in the debate over educational funding is whether the state of Missouri is investing enough in education for its citizens to be served effectively (and the corollary question of whether more money would make a difference). It is not whether the Governor is anti-education. It is not whether we have come a long way since 1982. I decry with equal fervor those on either side who would attempt to divert attention away from the fundamental question.

Finally, in what I hope will be my last letter to you (at least for a while) I accept your invitation to be a guest on your television program at a mutually convenient time. Please understand, however, that I am not a spokesperson for the university or for the backers of the proposed education tax increase. I am merely a private citizen with a modicum of experience in education who is willing to share his views. On that basis, I look forward to joining you.

Sincerely,

Tom Harte

Cape Girardeau