I don’t want to worry about social darwanism in education – but I do
…at the risk of “crying wolf” too early
I think it best to place my “worry” in a context and then I’ll tell you why it popped into my head today.
The first contextual item is a term description. “Social Darwanism” is a philosophic view of human rights that is over a hundred years old. It has led to the development of social theories and applications in many countries, in many forms. Like most all philosophy, the tenets are open to debate which leaves advocates and critics alike struggling with contested definitions, purposes, and outcomes.
I’ll cut my rabid hatred of this philosophy short and simply state that I oppose the following rather stable tenet of social darwanism: the powerful have the right to determine [ whether said determination is explicit, implied, or unconscious] the social worth and credibility of other, less powerful, human beings.
The second contextual item is the setting. My life’s work is in public education. That may, by default, make me an idealist and I’m okay with this description. I believe in the power of public education to build a democratic society. It is the greatest gift to the common man and therefore to the evolution of human conciousness. Public schooling brought the principles of democracy within the reach of everyone and regardless of its many many many flaws, public schooling continues to carry the hope for a free society.
until recently.
When the privatization of public schools became a political agenda.
Then I began to worry about who would be allowed to go to school and what kind of education children would receive.
Which brings me this news article from Disability Scoop: May 1, 2009
Justice Dept. Sues Private School Network For Excluding Students With Disabilities
By Michelle Diament
The Justice Department is suing a network of private schools for allegedly excluding children with disabilities.
In the suit, the government cites incidents of children with disabilities who were denied admission or removed from schools run by Nobel Learning Communities Inc. Such actions are a violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Nobel is a network of private preschools, elementary and middle schools with over 180 locations in 15 states. Schools operate under unique names such as Bethesda Country Day School and Merryhill Schools.
“All parents want their child to have the opportunity to reach his or her full potential,” said Loretta King, acting assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department. “The Justice Department will vigorously enforce Title III of the ADA to ensure that children with disabilities have a full and equal opportunity to participate in academic and non-academic activities.”
Meanwhile, Nobel put out a statement saying the company “vigorously denies the allegations,” but will work with federal investigators to reach a settlement in the interest of avoiding the costs of going to court.
“The alleged violations are the result of decisions we made to act in the best interests of the children in question and the schools as a whole,” Nobel Learning CEO George Bernstein said in the statement. “Moreover, they involve only a tiny fraction of the approximately 50,000 students we have served since DOJ began its investigation in 2005. That number includes nearly 1,400 students currently enrolled in Nobel Learning schools with a wide range of disabilities such as autism, Asperger’s, Down syndrome, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, asthma, seizure disorders, depression, blood disorders, bipolar disorder, ADD, hearing and vision impairments, heart conditions, severe allergies, and behavioral disorders.”
please note
that I’m grateful for the federal ADA and 504 policies that tie education money to a Free and Appropriate Public Education and that I believe this kind of judicial stance is critical to the advancement of our society
but
what about all those children who, somehow, in someway, don’t fit whatever philosophy being used for acceptance into a private school
and
who are not protected by federal disabilty policy? I am really worried.
Tags: at-risk, disability rights, education, federal policy, poverty, social darwanism
May 5th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Well its great to hear that the federal government is standing up for the rights of Autistic People, now if only someone would stand up to Autism Speaks, Inc.
http://www.aspieweb.net/why-is-autism-speaks-so-bad/
May 11th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
there are many reasons that people, groups, and organizations do what they do-
From my years of service, I’ve come to understand that all forms of “help” cut both ways.
As a consumer of disability services I’ve often cried out to be saved from those who “try to help”….
June 30th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
One thing that bothers me about this idea of “Social Darwinism” is that it begins with a very misunderstood concept of how natural selection works in the first place.
The concept of “Survival of the fittest” uses “fittest” in the context of “best suited for environment” rather than “physically fit”, and the only real requirement is that an organism live long enough to reproduce. Many logistical and circumstantial factors can have a bearing on the minimum “fitness” necessary to survive — in our modern age of high-tech hospitalization, one can be quite debilitated and still survive long enough to reproduce. (With artificial insemination, you would basically have to be born sterile to NOT have a chance at reproducing)
Charles Darwin did not intend for his research to be used in a social-policy context when he wrote Origin of the Species, and I would wager that people are simply cribbing from it to satisfy their own bigotries and prejudices.
June 30th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
I agree with your interpretation of Darwin’s message. The considerable use of the concept “survival of the fittest” has led to a morphing of the orginal understand of “goodness of fit” toward a competitive and individualistic “top dog” mentality. This change is traceable in literature and semiotic research. Social scientist borrowed the “top dog” understanding to frame the problem of how to deal with a particular social rationale whereby some people are considered expendable. The belief that they are “not best suited” to reproduce, to learn, to grow, to belong is the issue. Given this, I believe the cribbing of the “survival of the fittest” concept to satisfy bigotry is a charge aimed at competitive individualism, not at social science.
January 13th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Find Nursing Home Abuse Lawyer, Attorney, Law – FindLaw legal information and lawyers at FindLaw.