The Chicago media and choice supporters are whooping it up because Stacy Davis Gates, the head of the Chicago Teachers Union, sends her child to Catholic school. Big deal. It doesn’t matter where you choose to send your child. What matters is whether you demand that taxpayers pay for your private choice.
I was anxiously waiting for the six o’clock start of the U.S. Open semi final match between Coco Gauf and Carolina Muchova last night.
It was no disappointment.
But I had to wait for the end of the local news.
I thought local political reporter Mary Ann Ahern was going to have a stroke reporting that local Chicago Teachers Union President Stacey Davis Gates sends her kid to Catholic school.
Apparently Ahern has been on this story for days.
This morning the Chicago Sun-Times runs the story front page.
It’s a phony controversy.
Former CPS schools chief and perpetual losing candidate in every office he runs for penned an op-ed piece for the Tribune attacking Gates for her position against taxpayer funding of private and parochial schools.
That’s what this is all about.
It is no coincidence that this phony controversy over where Stacy Gates sends her son to school just happens to take place when the Illinois General Assembly is considering ending public money on private school vouchers.
Former mayor Lightfoot, Rahm Emanuel, the Obamas, and former secretary of education Arne Duncan all sent their kids to private schools.
Paul Vallas sent his kids to parochial school, as did ex-Mayor Richard M. Daley.
As do thousands of Chicagoans who are willing or able to afford it.
Me? I’m a public school grad as are my own kids and grandkids.
And I’m a retired public school teacher.
But my decision to send my children to public school and to teach in a public school was a personal one as is Stacy Gates’ decision to send her son to Catholic school.
The real issue is one of public policy: Should public money go to fund private and parochial schools?
Illinois and Chicago public schools are notoriously underfunded.
The legislature is now debating school funding.
So, suddenly CTU President Stacy Davis Gates sending her kid to a Catholic school is a headline and Mary Ann Ahern is spending days investigating this non-story.
That’s why I say it is a phony distraction.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
School is about fitting the student to the situation. Paying for more choices is the job of the parent, not the poor man. Of course, the privatizers would find ways for the poor man to pay taxes so the rich man can have choices.
LikeLike
Yeah…I disagree. If you believe in public schools, you should send your kids to them. It’s elitist imo. Schools aren’t good enough for your kids.
LikeLike
Some people are bamboozled by their religious faith beliefs. Davis Gates being one of them. But hey it’s their choice but their choice shouldn’t be put on the back of the taxpayers to pay for that faith belief indoctrination. Having gone through K-12 Catholic education myself, there is no doubt it is indoctrination.
LikeLike
She’s fighting for Public schools. And in reality schools get money based on pupils…so there you have it. Her money is being taken out of public schools.
She has a choice but still don’t agree with it. If I were voting for union president and that president sent their kids to private, I wouldn’t vote for them
LikeLike
It does say something about her views about the quality of Chicago public schools, though.
LikeLike
The quality of the schools varies unfortunately.
LikeLike
I would put “some” in front of Chicago in your statement. We all know that in large urban districts the quality of instruction varies greatly, usually depending upon the wealth of the area surrounding each school.
LikeLike
Very very true.
LikeLike
Exactly, Duane!
LikeLike
True, but it’s hypocritical. She’s sending out the wrong message by sending her child to a Catholic school.
LikeLike
I don’t agree that it is hypocritical. Religious faith believers, especially Catholics, have been indoctrinated, usually from birth onward to believe that non-Catholics are heathens and less than Catholic humans. She is only doing what she has been indoctrinated to do.
LikeLike
I’m not sure she’s Catholic or even very religious.
LikeLike
I didn’t say that she was Catholic. I don’t know. One certainly doesn’t have to be Catholic to send their children to Catholic schools. The main thing is that they have enough money to do so.
LikeLike
You suggested that she chose a catholic school because she is “a religious faith believer” who is “doing what she has been indoctrinated to do.” So I noted that I wasn’t sure she was Catholic, “or even very religious.”
LikeLike
No it does not say anything about the quality of Chicago public schools. It says that she wants her child to have a religious education.
LikeLike
That’s fair, assuming she’s actually a religious Catholic.
LikeLike
Doesn’t seem like the religious aspect is why she chose that school. This was her explanation:
“ For my husband and me, it forced us to send our son, after years of attending a public school, to a private high school so he could live out his dream of being a soccer player while also having a curriculum that can meet his social and emotional needs, even as his two sisters remain in Chicago Public Schools..”
LikeLike
Yeah, it says their son loves soccer and cannot get a program in the public schools that would allow him to develop his soccer skills and get a good academic experience. Does her son have to sacrifice his dreams because of his mother’s professional career?
LikeLike
In St. Louis at least Catholic schools and soccer go together like peas and carrots. https://youtu.be/-pYA8Nu2dDM?t=60
LikeLike
Duane, that’s un-American.
LikeLike
To some people, soccer is a religion.
LikeLike
It’s not about religious education at the HS level…..the ‘indoctrination” happens in the younger years( 1st communion, conformation). My family doesn’t “practice” any religion, yet I took my 2nd out of public school and placed him into a Catholic faith based Independent school. The public schools had too much testing, too much teaching to the test and the HS’s were pushing for 9th graders to start taking AP classes and going to the community college for HS credits. The amount of homework (busywork IMHO) was ridiculous. It was an inhumane environment and my 2nd was already a behavior problem in MS because of ALL the Deforms. Yeah, I had a 7th grade ELA teacher suggest that he may need some pharmaceutical intervention (drugs for ADHD).
It was the best school experience he ever had and he never got into anymore trouble. It mirrored the public HS of my youth (late 70’s-early 80’s). Students were treated with respect and in turn the students reciprocated with good behavior. Administration was caring and kind (and the Principal and VP each taught a class). The religious aspect was minor….1 class a year (the last year was World Religions) and maybe once a month Mass service. Not all “religious” schools are the same.
LikeLike
While I can appreciate that she is paying for catholic school, I know from experience that having a teacher in public school who sends their kids to private is just not a good feeling.
LikeLike
When I started kindergarten at five, my parents sent me to a parochial school. They had me baptized Catholic as a baby and made sure to take me to mass every Sunday. I had to go to confession each week too. At five and six I’m not sure I knew what I was confessing to but I had to confess my sins every week.
To be honest, that was my mother’s doing, not my father, who let my mother do pretty much whatever she wanted so he could live in peace and quiet. Still, he had to pay for it since he was the one with the job.
A few years later that all ended when my dad’s union went on strike, a strike that lasted for months drying up his income.
I don’t know what I felt then but it must have been elation to leave the strict nuns who were my teachers and move to a public school where my knuckles didn’t get smacked with wooden rulers and I didn’t have to go to the corner in front of the class and pray to Mary to forgive my sins because of whatever the nun-teacher thought I had done wrong.
I must have prayed to Mary thousands of times as a five and six year old for sins I didn’t understand if I the nun bothered to tell what I did wrong.
That is one reason why I think we have to fight like the world is going to end, to save our public schools and make sure they are funded properly.
LikeLike
Thank you Lloyd for sharing your story.
The Guardian posted a report that should interest everyone who shares your concerns about tax funding for the Catholic Church. The article relates to an archbishop’s letter about who should pay the costs of priest abuse.
LikeLike
If you send your child to a religious school over a public school it says you have more faith in the religious school than in the public school. (Pun intended)
LikeLike
Personally, I have no faith in religious schools.
Then again, I have no faith in religion in general.
LikeLike
“Public school” versus “parochial school” in the abstract doesn’t have a lot of meaning. There are all kinds of public schools. A lot are great. A lot are fine. Some are really awful places. It’s not hard to imagine why someone, even someone who doesn’t care for religion, might find a parochial school (a good one, because there’s a lot of variation among parochial schools, too) better than some public school options.
LikeLike
I have more faith in chatbots, which isn’t saying much.
LikeLike
Are you saying my view of religious schools is too parochial?
LikeLike
Ha
LikeLike
Mark Porter Magee, CEO over at 50CAN, has picked a few cherries from the latest NAEP results to throw public schools and even charter schools under the Catholic school bus…
“Perhaps the brightest spot of all in the 2022 NAEP results is the performance of Catholic schools.”
https://50can.org/blog/the-new-reality-roundup-week-138/
LikeLike
I’d say it’s obvious that Magee doesn’t realize that the NAEP is not an assessment device made to compare schools. It supposedly assesses student learning. As such it is invalid and unethical to use NAEP to make any statement about what the different school sectors actually do.
LikeLike
Duane,
NAEP scores are not released by student or by schools.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even worse then that he uses them to make any statement at all about school quality.
LikeLike
NAEP Reports are by urban district and by state.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, NAEP scores are not released by students or by schools. However, the NAEP Data Explorer makes NAEP results available associated with lots of categorized and subcategorized “variables.” Both “Student Factors” and “School Factors” are a category and a subcategory of variables. Variables can also be combined to get NAEP results not directly available.
LikeLike
NAEP scores are available by race, ethicity, income, gender, disability status, English language proficiency, poverty status.
LikeLike
Using those invalid NAEP scores for anything is “vain and illusory.” Crap in crap out. A huge waste of monies, time and resources in doing the wrong thing righter. . . which nets being ‘wronger’. (paraphrasing Ackhoff). Educational malpractice disguised as supposedly helping the decision makers make their decisions. . . which are many times a disaster for the students.
LikeLike
That’s a pathetic comparison. Catholic schools are not required to accept everyone who walks in The door.
LikeLike
Yep.
LikeLike
Catholic School Discrimination
If Satan applied
To Catholic school
Would parents abide
And let him car-pool?
LikeLike
She’s fighting for Public schools. And in reality schools get money based on pupils…so there you have it. Her money is being taken out of public schools.
She has a choice but still don’t agree with it. If I were voting for union president and that president sent their kids to private, I wouldn’t vote for them
LikeLike
When I was a kid, public schools were underfunded to the end that my parents, who were very supportive of public school, sent me to a private school. The rest of our society was unwilling to make the sacrifices my father felt was necessary.
The result was that there were some great experiences I missed. If I had stayed, I would have missed some great experiences as well. Who ever knows what path will will yield what results?
In my case, the end result was 34 years of dedication to the school that descended from my public grade school. My private school experience made me more accepting of others who were different from me (by contrast, other private school experience often have the opposite effect). My experience teaching in my Community high school made me appreciate my community more than I did growing up in it.
For he individual, it is about what is good for the individual. For the community, it’s about what is good for everyone. For that reason, public money, generally hard to get, should go to everyone, not to private schools. And certainly not to religious-based schools—that would violate the first amendment.
LikeLike
Who cares where she decides to send her kid? She has that right. What is not right is another matter altogether–taxpayers having to pay when a parent makes the decision sent a child to a private school, especially a private religious one.
LikeLike
Exactly right, Bob.
I believe parents have a right to make a choice of schools.
I do not believe that taxpayers should pay for private choices.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do parents have a right to have their children educated in their “school of choice.”
Yes, they do.
However, when that parent is a teacher union president, at the very least, the optics are different.
This column captures some of what some of those differences are”
“Chicago Teachers Union President Stacy Davis Gates has in the past pointed with pride to the fact that all three of her kids attended public schools. While others often chafed at reporters’ questions about their children, Davis Gates did just the opposite, centering her children as part of who she is as a progressive activist.”
“…it came out last week that Davis Gates was sending one of her kids to a private Catholic school…She had to have known this would blow up in the news media. The CTU has held protests outside of elected officials’ private residences, so Davis Gates couldn’t possibly expect a privacy pass. And you don’t just walk in a day before school starts and register your kid for a private high school, so she had plenty of time to contemplate her response.”
“…the union president initially stonewalled when faced with questions and then offered up an explanation to a local public radio station which threw the South and West sides under the bus and, more importantly, just weren’t true…Davis Gates said basically three things last week to a WBEZ reporter: 1) Course offerings for high schools on the South Side and West Side “are very marginal and limited”; 2) Selective enrollment and magnet public high schools were just too far away and would’ve forced her son to, according to the article, “spend hours traveling”; 3) A public high school with a good soccer program (a sport played by her son) and strong extracurriculars are just not available close by, or are in Latino neighborhoods that were too far away.”
“Davis Gates lives only three miles from Gwendolyn Brooks College Prep, a high quality selective enrollment high school which has a soccer team and extracurricular activities…Lindblom Math and Science Academy in the West Englewood neighborhood has a pretty darned good soccer team and is 6 miles from the union president’s home…The Catholic school her son is attending, on the other hand, is almost 9 miles from Davis Gates’ home…Davis Gates’ public explanation just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.”
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2023/9/8/23865072/chicago-teachers-union-president-stacy-davis-gates-public-schools-son-private-rich-miller
So, there is clearly an issue of perceived hypocrisy here. There’s also the issue of honesty.
LikeLike
About 20% of public school teachers send their children to private schools because they realize that all the Deforms are bad for children. These #’s have been pretty stable for quite some time yet no one wants to talk about it. The only other “group of employees” sending their children to private schools more than teachers?…..politicians.
My 2nd attended private HS and most of his classmates were from public school systems….many of the teachers were former public school teachers who left the public system when they were offered severance packages from school systems adopting the full CC curriculum.
https://www.educationnext.org/teachers-more-likely-to-use-private-schools-for-their-own-kids/
LikeLike
“About 20% of public school teachers send their children to private schools because they realize that all the Deforms are bad for children.”
Please provide a link to this supposed certainty.
I went to the link you provided, and it was a poll of “school teachers” — ALL teachers — without any reference to them being “public school teachers” or teachers in some Christian right, white supremacist private school.
“we surveyed approximately 4,000 adults, including 851 parents of school-age children, 206 of whom were school teachers”.
Also, this is a quote from the article you linked to: “It is true that 87% of school teachers (and 85% of the public as a whole) have placed at least one of their children in a traditional public school.”
Does that warrant a sweeping statement from you that “87% of teachers in non-public schools send their children to public schools because they realize all the privilege, smug parents, and entitled kids are bad for children”?
I have no doubt that not identifying the TYPE of school the people who responded to the study taught at was intentional. It allows folks who don’t take the time to read carefully to misrepresent what the study said, as you seemed to be doing.
And the author of the study was Harvard’s Paul Peterson, a fellow at the right wing Hoover Institute, who Diane Ravitch correctly described a few years ago as “Peterson is the foremost proponent of school choice, charters and vouchers, in the academic world.”
LikeLike
NYC PSP…..Google for yourself because there are many articles and surveys and they are NOT all “right wing”. These numbers have been this way for a number of years. In my district, most Principals and many VPs send their own kids to private HS.
Anything I post will you will deem a right wing talking point so get off your lazy butt and do your own research if you don’t like an article that I post for reference. Oh, and by the way, you could have made your rant in 1 single paragraph instead of the word salad garbage that you post continuously….which makes you seem like a raving lunatic.
TaTa! and have a nice day!
LikeLike
I cite why your argument is unconvincing using the link you provided to support your statement, and you sling insults and attacks and tell me that I should look up the facts myself instead of DEFENDING the link you posted to support the typical anti-public school pro-Catholic school comments you make.
If Diane Ravitch does not at least call out your post and ask you to be polite, then I am out of here. The hypocrisy and double standard of too many folks here who seem to get their jollies by insulting me when I post is not something I need.
LikeLike
NYC PSP…You are the one who comes to this blog and hurls insults and name calls (racist, bigot, fascist, Nazi etc). Whenever someone calls you out on it, you ask for the host of this blog (Ms Ravitch) to defend you from the big, bad meanies. I have refrained from arguing with you in the past. You are a bully and a troll and you need to be called out on it. I bet you wouldn’t dare say the things you do to your neighbors or family (or maybe you do and they avoid/dislike you?), but the internet (and this blog) provides you with the anonymity to be a truly despicable person.
Ms. Ravitch….I’m sorry I responded because you have asked me not to, but I’m tired of the tirades and the name calling by this person and it needs to be called out.
LikeLike
LisaM,
I cite your comment you made RIGHT HERE that was full of insults and attacks.
And you give some vague allusion implying that I am constantly insulting and attacking people here WITHOUT GIVING A SINGLE REAL EXAMPLE.
I commented right here, so surely you can point to how my comment was so nasty that you had no choice but to be even nastier and attack me in your reply.
Except you can’t. I guess everyone will have to take your word that you feel compelled to be excessively insulting because of some past comment that you can’t cite. That’s called bullying. And if Diane Ravitch is fine with you continuing to do it, this blog is no longer for me.
LikeLike
And instead of insulting me yet again, how about you explain why you believe saying “20% of public school teachers send their children to private schools because they realize that all the Deforms are bad for children” is relevant to post to undermine and attack public schools, but “87% of non-public school teachers send their children to public schools because they realize that the privilege and entitlement of private schools is bad for children” is not relevant.
I know many parents who chose private schools for their kids. Only a very few felt the need to justify their choice by denigrating their public school and basically implying that parents who chose to keep their kid in that public school were doing something that was BAD for their child, as you did.
Your posts reek of the same kind of insecurity I see in a few parents who always justify their own parenting choices by cutting down the other choices. It’s fine that you chose a private school that was best for your specific kid. But your need to make your choice about the horrible public school instead of your own child’s learning preferences sounds like someone protesting too much.
LikeLike
NYC PSP…..DARVO!!!! You try and use this tactic with anyone who doesn’t agree with you 100%. Sorry, I am not victim and I’m not oppressed but I’ll say it again….you are a bully and a troll and you need to be told so! Oh, and stop it with the word salad as it clogs up space. TA TA!! My one last comment on this thread and likely to you.
LikeLike
I’m a bully and a troll because I asked you to defend your attack on public schools, after I did you the courtesy of going to the link you provided, which did not support your statement that “about 20% of public school teachers send their children to private schools because they realize that all the Deforms are bad for children.”
And you respond by calling me names. You do realize that is right out of the right wing playbook. Accuse others of doing what you are doing, because you can’t actually defend your position with argument.
It’s sad that folks too often believe that people must have strong facts to back up their positions because they posted a link. I always read the content of the links posted before I challenge someone who posts something I disagree with, because it’s certainly possible that they know something I don’t that would change my mind.
I expect that if I write a reply about the link they themselves cited – a reply that points out that the link doesn’t support their comment – a truthful person would either present a counter argument about how it does, or acknowledge it doesn’t and post a better link, or admit they were wrong. Someone not interested in honest discussion would spew insults and order me to look it up myself.
Very sad that this is what this blog has become. I’m tired of talking to people who get their jollies insulting me, although I feel sorry for them, too.
LikeLike
You threaten to leave twice a week. Just leave already. Or don’t leave but stop threatening to leave. No one cares. It’s a big universe.
LikeLike
FLERP!,
It’s perfect that you posted here, to prove my point. You constantly insert yourself, but NOT to make some relevant point about the subject of discussion. That would be understandable — if you wanted to defend LisaM’s comment to argue that I was wrong and the link she provided actually proved that 20% of public school teachers send their kids to private schools because the deforms in their public school are bad for children, I would welcome any evidence you could provide to support that. Or even welcome you offering your opinion on a different relevant point ABOUT EDUCATION (or whatever happens to be the subject of Diane’s post). Instead you felt the need to jump in to for the sole purpose of making yet another gratuitous nasty personal attack. So much for your resolution. In fact, it’s rich considering how many dozens of times you copied and pasted someone else’s nasty comments to you, and more recently claimed you were rethinking how you interacted with people.
“Rant” “word salad garbage” “makes you seem like a raving lunatic” “bully” “troll” “truly despicable person”. All in LisaM’s two comments, all directed at me.
flerp!, rather than joining in to help LisaM make me feel like crap for reasons totally unfathomable to me (because I disagree with her and told her that the link she used didn’t support what she was saying?) how about you tell me what words I used in my comments above that you believe warrant yours and LisaM’s nastiness toward me. What did I say that so personally offended LisaM that you felt obligated to join her in attacking me? Be specific, please.
Maybe Diane Ravitch will delete this thread as she often does when you or folks you admire launch your personal attacks at me. Although I wish she didn’t. I think these comments demonstrate which of us makes nasty attacks about someone’s personality, and which of us wants to have a discussion about the subject at hand.
Be a mensch. I don’t “threaten to leave twice a week”. I have said that IF this blog is a place where “word salad garbage” and “makes you seem like a raving lunatic” and “truly despicable person” substitutes for conversation, I don’t have any interest in being here anymore. And since you (after threatening to leave yourself far more times than I ever have) seem to be here all the time now, looking for opportunities to personally insult me, I am just sick and tired of it all. Thanks for being such a mensch, flerp! I will aspire to be as kind and considerate as you and LisaM are, and model my comments after the thoughtfulness that both of yours always include.
LikeLike
So, LisaM, I’m not sure what your point is. Are you arguing that hypocrisy and dishonesty are okay?
LikeLike
You’re having a death match over what—whether 20% is the correct percentage of public school teachers who send their children to private schools? Really? Is that worth it? Log out.
LikeLike
flerp!,
What is wrong with you? You seem to be living in an alternate reality where one person trying to discuss a subject and the other person slings insults like “makes you seem like a raving lunatic” and “truly despicable person” is a death match, instead of an example of one person trying to have a discussion and the other person making inappropriate personal attacks that don’t belong on this blog. I have no idea why you inserted yourself here to defend LisaM’s right to launch personal attacks at me because I questioned the statement she made after checking out the link she posted, but the nasty tone of your comments here speak for themselves, as well as your nonstop refrain telling me leave.
Sad to see you and LisaM’s nastiness taking over this blog, while thoughtful people like democracy, who actually wants to engage in civilized conversation, is rarely heard from.
LikeLike
Seriously, you are having a to-the-wall fight here about whether her link supports the assertion that 20% of public school teachers send their kids to private schools. Why? Who cares if it’s 20 or 15 or 22?
LikeLike
Why? LisaM told you why in no uncertain terms. “About 20% of public school teachers send their children to private schools BECAUSE they realize that all the Deforms are bad for children.” That’s why, and there is even a link to prove it is true. One out of every five public school teachers send their kids to private schools BECAUSE THEY REALIZE ALL THE DEFORMS ARE BAD FOR CHILDREN. That’s the “why” that you object to me challenging. In fact, you don’t just object, you have made gratuitous personal attacks and asked me to leave multiple times because I challenged the veracity of that statement. I challenged the veracity of the percentage, which the link did not support, AND I challenged the “why”.
Maybe the bigger question is why you are so outraged at my challenging the veracity of a statement someone else made. What got you so angry that you repeatedly told me to leave and basically implied that LisaM was justified in flinging every ugly personal insult at me that she did?
Maybe search your own heart to see what your obsession with me is all about. If you believe LisaM’s statement is factually correct, then say it. I dare you to say that it is a proven fact that 20% of public school teachers send their kids to private because they realize all the deforms are bad for children. Stop being disingenuous because you yourself know there is no evidence to support the WHY and no evidence to support the percentage at the link LisaM provided.
Why does it bother you so much that a statement purporting to have evidence to support both the “why” and the “percentage” is challenged when it has evidence to support neither? Since when do we need to let statements full of inaccuracies that claim to have evidence to back them up go unchallenged, or subject ourselves to personal attacks by folks like you and LisaM? What is wrong with you that you object to a discussion of the subject matter, but believe throwing personal insults and telling people to leave is acceptable?
LikeLike
Obviously nobody knows the precise reasons why public teachers who send their children to private school do so. Everybody understands that that portion of Lisa’s comment was her opinion. Dozens of paragraphs of accusatory rebuttals aren’t necessary.
Next time try something like: “To be clear, Lisa, I don’t think anyone knows exactly why the public school teachers who choose private school for their children make those choices.” Point made in one sentence, without escalating into a titanic comment battle.
LikeLike
flerp!,
LisaM posted a link to support her point. I did her the courtesy of checking that link, and if it had supported her supposed statement of fact, I would not have bothered to reply at all. It did not support it, and I took the time to quote from the link and explain why it didn’t, which was perfectly reasonable (except to you).
What YOU find reasonable is LisaM’s spewing of personal insults.
How about this: Why not suggest to LisaM that the right reply to my post would be something like:
“I see now that the link I posted doesn’t support what I said, and I don’t have time to find another one. I was trying to make the point that lots of teachers I know seem to be switching their kids to private schools because they believe that education deforms are bad for children, but I can’t say how many with any certainty, nor do I know whether most are switching for the same reason I am switching or if it is for an entirely different reason. And while I do know that there is a person on here who would rabidly support me if I now launched a series of personal attacks on you, NYCPSP, and I know that person, Flerp!, would very likely post numerous times telling you to leave, implying that my nastiest personal attacks on you are warranted, and tell you to leave again, I am a better person than that. I posted my opinion only, so take it as it is – an opinion. I certainly hope some person who has an obsession with you doesn’t butt in to gaslight you into believing that if you quote from a link I provided and explain that it doesn’t support what I said, that gives me (and that person) the right to spew ugly personal attacks. Because that would obviously be wrong.”
flerp!, I know I won’t change your opinion that anyone who would write a “too long” reply deserves having personal insults spewed at them. You have made that very clear. I suspect you have a double standard here, but your need to get involved in this discussion ONLY to normalize the spewing of personal insults at me speaks for itself. I hope this record stands.
LikeLike
Your reaction to this is weird and way out of proportion to what she wrote.
At the root of this are two things: (1) Lisa’s statement that 20% of public school teachers send their kids to private school; and (2) her statement that the reason they send their kids to private school is because they are dissatisfied with education reforms such as the Common Core.
Why that would generate a huge fight is beyond me. I did some googling, and the 20% figure seems more or less in line with most survey data I saw. As for the second part of her statement, like I said, it is clearly an off-the-cuff statement of opinion that probably isn’t meant to be taken literally. Who knows exactly why public school teachers send their kids to private school? Perhaps many do it for the reason Lisa cites. I have no idea. I also don’t really care that much and I don’t think it’s a hill for anyone to die on.
Big picture: Instead of just disagreeing and pointing out salient facts, you seem to feel the need to obliterate the person you’re responding to, in long, aggressive comments with condescension (“Please provide a link to this supposed certainty.”) and accusations of bad faith (here, suggesting that Lisa was “misrepresenting” something). It makes people feel like they’re being attacked. If you wrote your initial comment in a less aggressive way, Lisa probably wouldn’t have felt the need to respond angrily. And if you hadn’t escalated (which you do pretty much invariably in response to any comment that disagrees with you) with additional long accusatory comments, the thread probably would have died out.
Your proposed ‘reasonable response’ for Lisa gives some insight into how your mind works. It’s basically a complete concession and apology. Is that what you generally expect out of people when you respond to them with long comments that accuse them of bad faith? If so, that explains a lot.
In this context, I didn’t think Lisa’s insults are too bad. (And I agree with her that you often try to bully people and try to police what others write with accusations of racism or bigotry.) You were snotty with her right off the bat, so what do you expect? This seems to be the kind of exchange you were seeking.
If you want to get along with people, you need to meet them in the middle, if not on substance (you don’t have to concede points you think are wrong), then in tone.
If you don’t want to get along with people, what are you complaining about? You’re already not getting along with people.
LikeLike
flerp!, you have written excessively long, multiple posts that all have the same theme — I deserved the nasty attacks from LisaM. I brought it on myself, and LisaM did nothing wrong. You’ve made the same point over and over again – you won’t be satisfied until I abjectly apologize to LisaM for “making” her hurl nasty epithets at me like “raving lunatic”
“get off your lazy butt” “truly despicable person”.
Why do you keep extending this conversation needlessly? Are you the tone police? Frankly, I find your tone snarky on many occasions, but unlike LisaM and you, I don’t believe that the proper response to someone’s tone — even if I am offended — is to spew insults.
“raving lunatic”
“get off your lazy butt
“truly despicable person”
“I didn’t think Lisa’s insults are too bad.” said flerp!
Your hypocrisy is stunning. If I tone policed the aggressive and snarky comments made here – especially by you – by spewing way over the top and gratuitous insults, you would be all over my case. But I don’t.
According to flerp!, it is understandable to tell someone trying to engage in a subject that are a truly despicable raving lunatic, but not to say “go kill yourself.” You think you have the moral high ground, as if there is much difference between telling a person (for no good reason except you didn’t like their “tone”) that they are a truly despicable raving lunatic, and telling them to go kill themselves? There isn’t. They are both unacceptable. They both send the same message – that the person you are speaking to is worthless.
“I didn’t think Lisa’s insults are too bad” says flerp!, because NYCPSP wrote something to deserve it.
Don’t bother to keep extending this conversation. The fact that you can’t even say that there is something wrong with LisaM responding to a comment that you and she believe had an “improper” tone by spewing aggressive insults like “raving lunatic” and “truly despicable person” says it all.
LikeLike
You’ve been having this experience and making this complaint as long as you’ve been on this blog, at least a decade. And you will continue to have this experience as long as you refuse to comprehend how the style and tone of your comments — aggressive, tenacious haranguing — bothers people. I had to look up “DARVO.” It’s dead-on.
LikeLike
And, um, yeah, I think there is a clear and substantial difference between insults like “you’re despicable” and telling someone to kill themselves. And then there’s yet another clear and substantial step to threats of physical violence. I’m assuming you were referring to Greg Brozeit by bringing that up. (And I don’t remember you speaking up when he was saying all of that, which makes your complaints now ring hollow.)
LikeLike
Flerp!,
On the contrary, you should check the record. I had no problem acknowledging GregB’s comment to you was wrong. I didn’t interrupt your back and forth with GregB to write 20 or 30 replies rabidly defending GregB’s comment as “not bad”, and lecturing you on how your nasty comment justified GregB’s response. I didn’t give you “helpful” suggestions about how you should have written your comment in way that would have not forced GregB to respond to you in a negative way. I could easily have done so if my intention was simply to knee jerk defend someone I liked and pile on someone whose nasty personal attacks on me were non-stop. But I didn’t. And it is unfathomable to me that you are like this and trying so hard to parse the differences between totally unacceptable comments to deem some of them justified, because the victim “made” them respond that way.
DARVO is dead on to describe you and LisaM. Nothing like having the person who just called someone a “raving lunatic” and “totally despicable person” then accuse their victim of name calling (“I’m tired of the tirades and the name calling by this person…”.) DARVO is dead on to describe the person name-calling saying that the other person is name-calling. DARVO is dead on to describe another gaslighter joining in to say that the first person’s name calling was simply a normal response that was all the fault of the person who wasn’t calling names.
You are obsessed with excusing LisaM’s unwarranted nasty personal insults. After carefully tone-policing my comment, you have pronounced from on high that LisaM is justified in spewing ugly insults, because I made her do it by challenging the veracity of her information. That’s how gaslighting works. “You made LisaM do that.” DARVO indeed.
I ask you again to stop your obsession with me. You stepped in from nowhere not to tell LisaM to cool it, but to gaslight me that I made her do it. Stop it already, because you are starting to scare me, flerp!
LikeLike
NYCPSP and FLERP,
Please stop communicating with each other.
LikeLike
My apologies, Diane. I just wish we could dial down the intensity of disputes over minor things.
LikeLike
FLERP, please do not respond to NYCPSP’s comments. He/she should not respond to yours.
LikeLike
DARVO = this person saying “I just wish we could dial down the intensity of disputes over minor things”
“raving lunatic”
“get off your lazy butt
“truly despicable person”
flerp! says: “I didn’t think Lisa’s insults are too bad.” “I just wish we could dial down the intensity of disputes over minor things”
I don’t think gaslighting belongs on this blog. I don’t think name-calling belongs on this blog.
Diane, I rarely engage with LisaM or flerp! these day except on a few occasions when they post something misleading. I welcome people telling me if I post inaccurate information in a comment, because I am not interested in misinforming your readers. And I truly do not think I am going to start some huge back and forth if I post with an explanation of why their information is incorrect. I assume people are like me and would just acknowledge they made an error.
If you look above, on September 8 at 8:46pm LisaM wrote a long post expressing her personal opinion on Catholic schools. I didn’t respond. I respect her right to express her opinion and your blog is richer for having different voices.
The next day, September 9 at 9:45am, LisaM wrote another post making a definitive statement of fact, informing your readers that 20% of public school teachers sent their kids to private schools because of education “deforms” being bad for children. She posted a link to support that view. It surprised me that would be true, so I checked the link. It didn’t support her statement and I wrote my comment.
I wish that instead of telling flerp! and me not to engage, you would simply ask people to engage without name-calling and personal attacks. Or ask them not to insert themselves into a back and forth that two other people are having where one is lobbing nasty personal attacks and the other is stubbornly doubling down on the fact that information in the person’s earlier comment was inaccurate. Anyone who is inserting themself to condone nasty personal attacks and to tell the person receiving the personal attacks to leave is not here to “help”. That person is here to “help” excuse and legitimize ugly personal attacks aimed at someone they don’t like. They aren’t posting to “dial down the intensity”.
Diane, I can’t tell you how often one of your regulars responds to me with some snarky remark whose “tone” is rather annoying and insulting to me. Joel even admits he does it. flerp! does it regularly as do many others here.
I ask you to read how I respond to them. I focus on the content of their reply and address it. If they actually are trying to make some point, then I ignore the gratuitous snarkiness or implied insult and respond to whatever point they are making.
What I NEVER do is to respond by hurling the ugliest nasty personal insults at them and then present myself as the real victim, because their reply was too snarky and they they “made” me have to spew ugly insults and personal attacks at them instead of engaging in the content of what they wrote. What I never do is spew ugliness and insults and then blame them for “victimizing” me by their “tone”.
Making this a “both sides equally bad” issue evokes everything I dislike about how the media presents conflicts between Democrats and Republicans. It allows one side to get away with very bad behavior and silences the other side, now fearful of saying the wrong thing and thus blamed for the other side’s bad behavior.
I read a reply by dienne77 just today whose “tone” was problematic. She accused you of supporting a lying president, and “falling for” lies.
Diane, you didn’t respond to dienne77 by tone policing her comment. You didn’t spew insults at her about how she was a truly disgusting person who sounded like a raving lunatic. Despite her “tone”, you responded to the CONTENT of what she posted, as did everyone else. flerp! does that all the time — to dienne77. But flerp! has some personal need to justify some ugly attacks on me because of my “tone”. It’s become a game with some others at this blog to do this to me – some of the very same ones who regularly respond to dienne77 by addressing the points she made instead of hurling personal attacks about how despicable she is because of her “tone”.
I don’t mind standing up for myself when people do this. But I do mind if I am not allowed to stand up for myself when people respond to a comment by hurling insults. Regardless of how much someone doesn’t like what I have to say, don’t I deserve at least the basic courtesy that dienne77 is given? A genuine reply to the content of what I post instead of a hurling of personal insults, followed up by telling me I deserved the insults because I posted something in the wrong “tone”.
LikeLike
good comment.
LikeLike
Not unlike the charter school hedge fund board member that send their kids to independent schools.
LikeLike
If this Chicago Sun article is what it took to get Catholic schools into the discussion about the battles that public schools and taxpayers face, I’m glad.
I’m fed up with the propaganda about how great Catholic schools are from the echo chamber of the right wing e.g. Catholic Conferences, the Koch network, Fordham, Notre Dame – and, crickets, from the left.
The union president has at least been forced to defend choosing a Catholic school and the public’s interpretation is soccer playing time, not character building and not academics. The discussion should be forced secondly, into what students lose in religious indoctrination schools, especially in the Catholic single sex schools (30%).
Catholic schools may find themselves on the losing end when the schemers for school choice face the outrage of taxpayers forced to pay for priest abuse with funds taken from Catholic schools (Guardian article). Unfortunately, all education may end up being defunded just like the libertarians want. Even in that scenario, the Catholic Church will win because its organizations are already the US’ 3rd largest employer.
LikeLike
Taxpayers made Catholic organizations the 3rd largest employer. Catholic power brokers succeeded in usurping government function through legislative, executive and judicial influence which was largely funded by libertarians.
Jefferson- in every age, in every country, the priest aligns with the despot.
It is this argument that makes the union president’s choice of a Catholic school most egregious.
LikeLike