Alan Klein (Alan@klein.net)
Fri, 15 Dec 2000 23:16:39 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: John Axtell <newlife@theofficenet.com>
>
> You said I got it wrong about the government requiring our submission to
their
> value system in order to get tax advantages but then you clearly stated
that:
>
> Alan Klein wrote: You have it a bit wrong here. Tax-free status is a
privilege
> bestowed upon certain organizations by the people of the United
States,..... In
> a
>
> > certain sense, it is a means of providing public funds for the operation
of
> > these organizations. .... The people of the
> > United States, through their elected representatives, have determined
that
> > discrimination based on such things as race, gender, etc. is
unacceptable.
> > The government, therefore, does not give the privilege of tax-free
status
> > (ie, does not provide public funds) to schools if they practice such
> > discrimination.
It is not the government's values system, but rather the American people's
desire for actions that the tax-exempt status honors.
John went on:
> I just do not think you understand the purpose of the gay political
> organization. They have made it plain that they want people to stop
supporting
> the Boy Scouts simply because the Boy Scouts will not accept gay leaders
in
> their organization. Why should we not discriminate against those who share
a
> value system different than ours. I do not wish to have my children
associate
> with drunkards or druggies why should I be forced to let them associate
with
> gays just because the gays want to associate with my children?
I understand quite well the "purpose of the gay political organization." It
is the pursuit of this proposition: If an organization is discriminating
against someone for a quality they have, such as their gender, race, sexual
orientation, physical disability, ethnicity, or age, then that organization
ought not to be condoned. The American people have spoken clearly as to
their shared belief that people ought not to be discriminated against for
such qualities. Being under the influence of drugs, alcohol or otherwise, is
a matter of choice. It also impairs one's judgment and actions. Children
(and others) should, of course, be protected from the increased risk of harm
that would come from association with impaired people.
John continued:
> I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT WHEN I SAY
> THERE ARE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES THAT IMPACT EDUCATION.
I couldn't agree more!
John continued:
> Alan, you make the point that we have the right to associate with those we
wish
> in our own homes but not in a public building like a Suds school. Why is
that?
I was referring to spaces which are, at least in part, publicly funded. A
private, democratic school would make its own rules.
John continued:
> Does attending a Suds school mean that I have given up the right of
association
> and must submit to some rules the JC has created that says I have to
accept
> association with anyone who wants to associate with me? If I start a
learning
> experience and some other students wish to associate with me and I say yes
but
> another students wishes to associate with me can I not say no based on my
> prejudices and bigotry?
If that is what the School Meeting has required, yes.
John continued:
> I am trying to get the answers to two questions:
>
> 1. does anyone have any experience with the Suds model working with groups
of
> students of a culture other than WASPs ?
At Highland, we had mostly WASPs, but with the added elements of poverty and
rural living.
> 2. does the Suds model really allow freedom of association and allow
conflict
> or do the rules imposed by the model require students to associate with
anyone
> who wishes to wishes to interact with the student ?
No. The model says that the School Meeting will make its own rules, within
the larger legal framework in which the school finds itself. That may or may
not entail a rule such as you suggest. I suspect that in most cases it does
not entail such a rule. In the example I gave before, however, was that you
are in the Chemistry Lab and a certified user of that room wants to use it
at the same time. You would not, in my opinion, have the right to refuse
entry to that person on the grounds that you do not wish to associate with
them.
~Alan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:15:03 EST