Education and the Constitution

Jonah Goldberg, you may know, is another right-wing pundit who, according to most views, can manage to open a door as long as he has an instruction manual. So of course, it's no real surprise that he is a regular columnist for the LA Times. He has taken the perhaps not surprising, if vastly ludicrous position that fulfilling performance requirements to obtain federal funds is "slavery." His target this time -- and there's no real surprise here -- is Barack Obama.

For those not familiar with Goldberg's level of thinking, try this:

here's a weird irony at work when Sen. Barack Obama, the black presidential candidate who will allegedly scrub the stain of racism from the nation, vows to run afoul of the constitutional amendment that abolished slavery.

For those who don't remember, the 13th Amendment says: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime ... shall exist within the United States."

I guess in Obama's mind it must be a crime to be born or to go to college.

I find it very interesting that the Constitution becomes a rallying cry when it's a matter of attacking Democrats. (OK, fine -- it's not interesting, or surprising, or even remarkable. The Constitution, in the Republican mind, is a matter of convenience, after all.)

Goldberg's objection this time is Obama's linked proposals for community service requirements for schools -- federal aid will be contingent on participation in the program, and Obama is also proposing a federal tax credit for college students basesd on community service. Goldberg thinks that linking federal support to participation in such a program is heinous, tantamount to slavery. Unfortunately, I have really, really bad news for Goldberg: federal aid to schools is already contingent on participation: kids don't come to school, the amount of aid goes down. Goldberg also ignores one significant difference between Obama's proposal and current requirements as embodied in No Child Left Behind: Obama's actually proposing to give money to schools, rather that require particpation with no funding in sight.

Of course, Goldberg is one of those who holds the position that participation in American society -- at least, the hard parts that actually require effort -- should be "voluntary."

Actually, as far as I can tell from what Obama actually said, he's proposing new funding, so Goldberg's statement that schools and students will lose money they can't afford to lose is so much trash.

Andrew Sullivan, while he claims to agree with Goldberg's basic point (and what would that be? compulsory education is unconstitutional?), grants the piece a Malkin Award. Hilzoy is succinct and devastating in her critique, as is Jeff Fecke.

The bottom line is that Goldberg is a sloppy thinker with only a passing acquaintance with reality, which these days is ample qualification for a slot in the opinion pages of a major daily.