Scoundrels, Scoundrels and More Scoundrels!

I asked a question at the end of the Ayers post:

Why do scoundrels like Ayers gravitate to public education when Plan A fails?

That remains unanswered.

Sherman Dorn has, however, thrown another tire on the fire re: dealing with scoundrels.

Incidentally, this is one of those “teachable moments” [eduspeak!!!], as was his “diabetes-sized buckets of cheap beer” comment. All burn-barrel-crazed rural heathens, myself included, know that vintage vinyl siding, stacked in a cross-hatch pattern, makes for a more economical base - and a more noxious odor for the neighbors! - for a good ol’ fashioned, week-long burn. And, as you’re cooking marshmallows on it, I recommend Genny.

Instead of a ballet on the palate like cranberry wine might perform, Genny holds more of a Hee-Haw kneeslapping hoedown in the gullet - and you don’t even have to poke your pinkie finger out when you drink it!

But I digress.

Dorn, that thrill-up-the-leg of Jay Mathews [I thought I felt it once, too - turns out it was just a rash] weighs in on dealing with scoundrelism in the education ranks:

I know that legally, all of these individuals have rights, and you don’t have be Mother Theresa to have those rights respected. Socially, I know what Miss Manners would say. On the other hand, neither of those answers the question that Petrilli asks, which is about public, professional recognition. My thoughts on the subject are usually along the lines of, “Okay, what do I do if I meet Scoundrel X in Situation Y, where I know of some pretty disreputable private or professional behavior, but where there is some work to do in that situation?” And my general answer is that if Yitzhak Rabin could shake hands with Yassir Arafat, I should be able to hold my nose and work with a lot people. (Don’t tell me about the results of that handshake. I’m talking about ethics, not a strict parallel on consequences.)

But saying that I will work with almost anyone to accomplish some good end doesn’t really address Petrilli’s question. I will confess that I have no good answers to the question of what we should do publicly with scoundrels. But I’m not sure Petrilli is willing to follow his own advice, either, because what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Will Petrilli read the riot act to scoundrels on the right, publicly denounce them, and distance himself and the Fordham Foundation from them? And if so, what happens if he decides later that he needs to work with one of these individuals?

And here’s my take:

If one chooses to deal with scoundrels differently based on partisanship, they’re not terribly ethical.

That it’s even a question of what to do when one needs to work with a scoundrel is troubling - you do exactly what you’d do if they weren’t a scoundrel. Despising them, disagreeing, holding contempt, whatever - it doesn’t much matter. You get the job done.

Bill Ayers’ scholarship is, in my opinion, of little value. It isn’t compelling to me. That has nothing to do with his past in terrorism, who his wife is, or what his current politics are. Though looking at those things can sometimes help us understand some of his work better, a responsible judgment wouldn’t rest on them. Total objectivity isn’t possible, as we all know, but we aren’t slaves to selfish subjectivity, either.

I don’t know Mr. Petrilli, I just read and follow his work. Nothing suggests to me that his criticism wouldn’t fairly go both ways, and nothing suggests that he would throw up his hands in confusion if he were to work with a scoundrel. Positing publicly that he suffers from what is essentially a massive character flaw - the inability to judge fairly and evenly - is a bit rude.

Any thoughts?

Tagged as: bill ayers, education debate, fordham foundation, jay mathews, sherman dorn