Public Schools and the Definition of Insanity

When I was a child, my father ran the gas push mower over a colony of wasps in the ground, to poor effect upon him. Later, as day turned to evening, he effected his revenge. He quickly ran up to the hole where the wasps lived and poured gasoline into it, running away from angry wasps. He then threw a burning match from five feet away, sending up a torch of flame where the wasp nest was.

What I remember most about this, however, was what happened next. It being near dusk, the fire became the illumination of the wasps’ home. What I recall was wasps trying to fly into the fire that was now where their home was, recklessly trying to save the queen and colony at the cost to their own lives. Of course, as a child, I did not understand the social nature of wasps, and that there were no “lone wolf” wasps surviving on their own, but it still struck me as foolish for the wasps to fly back to the place of their destruction.

It is not only wasps that demonstrate this tendency. Cultural Marxism is an outgrowth of the French Revolution, that vile destroyer of ancient, evolved systems. The Jacobin attitude towards schooling and children is summed up in this quote from The Kiss of Lamourette:

“The child, (and) the citizen, belong to the Fatherland. Common instruction is necessary. Children belong to their mother until the age of five, if she has (breast-) fed them, and to the Republic afterwards, until death.”

With that in mind, an inchoate rage came over me upon reading the New York Times (ok, I asked for it!) when I saw this article amongst the most emailed: “A Terrifying Way to Discipline Children”, by Bill Lichtenstein

A father complains about the treatment his daughter received in the Lexington, MA (very nice area) public schools:

“my daughter… At the age of 5… was kept in a seclusion room for up to an hour at a time over the course of three months, until we discovered what was happening. … At school, her mother and I found Rose standing alone on the cement floor of a basement mop closet, illuminated by a single light bulb. There was nothing in the closet for a child — no chair, no books, no crayons, nothing but our daughter standing naked in a pool of urine, looking frightened as she tried to cover herself with her hands. We later learned that Rose had been locked in the closet five times that morning.”

Why would the school DO such a thing?

“Joseph Ryan, an expert on the use of restraints who teaches at Clemson University, told me that the practice of isolating and restraining problematic children originated in schools for children with special needs. It migrated to public schools in the 1970s as federal laws mainstreamed special education students“(emphasis added)

What did the man do?

“I notified the Lexington Public Schools, the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families and the Department of Mental Health about Rose and other children in her class whom school staff members indicated had been secluded. If any of these agencies conducted a formal investigation, I was not made aware of it.”(emphasis added)

What solution does he propose? The same Federal Government that caused the problem should fix it.

“The physical and psychological injuries to children as a consequence of this disciplinary system is an issue that has found its way to Congress. Legislation to ban these practices has been introduced in the House and the Senate, but no vote is expected this year.” (emphasis added)

With no evidence that the practices were changed or investigated, and no Federal Messiah having changed any laws, indirect a solution as that is, what next step did he take?

“Rose is back in public school.”

The classic definition of insanity. At least the kid has some sense:

“‘They weren’t bad people,’ she told me. ‘They just didn’t know about working with children.’” (emphasis added)

What became of the marriage of this wonder of masculinity, so quick to beg a government agency to help his child, in lieu of direct action like finding a private school in Lexington? A Times editor’s note added a week later tells that this was: “an episode on Jan. 6, 2006… The girl’s parents divorced in 2007. … the writer’s ex-wife (is) now the girl’s custodial parent”.