Join the conversation

Linking yourself or your political goals to Dr. King is kind of like picking the low fruit in rhetoric. New rule: whoever invokes Dr. King first loses. The other instant-loser rule in a debate is invoking Hitler. First person to to say "Nazi" also loses the debate.

In fact, if Dr. King were alive today, he would... ooops.

How about this analogy then: Dan Quayle invoking JFK?

Thanks, David--

My own sense is that Dr. King is appropriate in the context of school reform. The continued inequality with schools naturally brings Dr. King to mind. The fact that low-income students and students of color are less likely than their peers to have experienced and effective teachers is a question of justice--and it has long been justice delayed. I thought Secretary Duncan effectively framed the urgency of the problem by invoking Dr. King.

I think it becomes challenging, however, to use Dr. King to justify putting specific reform strategies on a very fast track. The moral argument underscores the need for action and, yes, change, but it doesn't illuminate exactly how we should go about change--and how quickly. Tom VanderArk worried that fast-tracking ESEA authorization in this environment could make health care look easy. Some very important reform discussions are going on these days, and undo speed might actually do damage to the reforms under discussion.

Thanks again for your comment.

Is there real disagreement on the question of education as a civil right? When we argue about Secretary Duncan's rhetorical props (and state "new rules" as if we are on a talk show vying for sound bites) we all lose, because we miss the larger point--the urgency of correcting the longstanding injustice of inequality of public schooling in the United States. Many, including Secretary Duncan and the President he serves, see the problem as urgent and, therefore, are motivated to act with all deliberate speed to transform our nation's public schools, and not to continue embracing old worn out ideas that have proved, over and again, not to work, i.e., not to mitigate the injustice. If we are committed to making schooling more just, then change (call it innovation, restructuring, reform)delayed results in justice denied.

I recall years ago working for President Carter's newly formed Education Department,and working to enact Title IX in schools and colleges. Back then we heard chorus after chorus cautioning us to "go slowly", "don't be too innovative", --arguments for limiting what we believed we could achieve. Our charge then was move with all deliberate speed.

Then, as now, change and reform required vision and passion, and deliberate speed. Secretary Duncan does not lose by reminding us of our history and invoking a moral argument for reform in education. Nor does he lose by encouraging us to act with deliberate speed. As best I can tell, on his watch the Education Department is hardly acting recklessly by promoting rapid change and reform, or by demanding that we act with "undo speed." He is simply and forcefully demanding that imbue education with the can do spirit of American business. That we enact change and reform, and not stifle innovation in our schools and colleges.

Howard, the question here is what "all DELIBERATE speed means! I think people, champions of reform, can be uneasy about the speed of NCLB reauthorization, just to give one example. They can also be uneasy about expectations for big results in a short time, because reforms take time. They can be uneasy about the possibility that states will open the floodgates to charters before they develop good charter school authorization laws. That might actually dilute the power of charter schools and giver charter enemies ammo in the long run.

Speed is very important, yes but please understand that there are people out ther who want to see reform but want to see it on a workable timetable. That doesn't mean that they're happy with the way things are or think we shouldn't bring big, big changes to schools.

I'm also less happy with the MLK references than vonzastrowc is. The recipients of the BIrmingham Jail letter were white clergy who wanted to put brakes on reform even though the moral choices were crystal clear. There was no ambiguity about what the right thing to do was. It's not as easy with school reforms, because the RIGHT thing to do is less clear. We don't delay because we want to preserve inequality or aren't troubled by obvious injustice. We delay because too much speed might not have the intended effect.

All DELIBERATE speed. People can disagree about what that means.