(no subject)
Nov. 4th, 2002 10:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xiphiasI've been involved in an email debate about Massachusetts Question 2, which would make bilingual education illegal in Massachusetts. I asked the person I was talking to why not simply to try to convince school boards to use immersion programs, if the benefits of immersion over bilingual education were so obvious. I'd like to post my response here, too, since I think there's some stuff here that may be interesting to others, if only to see how I think about these things:
>>What's preventing them from doing so [using immersion programs]?
>Nothing, actually, and a couple of cities have instituted immersion. The
>problem is like Enron-
>they "could" reform at any time, but in reality will they? 30 years is a
>long time to wait, and results have not improved.
I don't see how the problem is like Enron: in the Enron situation, there were people gaining a direct financial benefit from their actions. Who is benefiting from not instiuting immersion?
Why not use one's energy to explain to the school boards in the cities where it's not been done the benefits of it, rather than using a forcible legal remedy?
Remember: every law passed is a restriction on freedom. Therefore, a new law should only be passed when the direct benefit to the society (or direct harm of lack of passage) is great and obvious.
The truth is that, while it's quite possible that immersion has great benefits, it is not so obviously true that that is the case that a law is required or defensible.
It really bothers me when people attempt to use the legislative process to force a resolution to what should be a debate among experts.
I'm reminded of Aristotle's classifications of inquiry. Factual inquiry, or scientific inquiry, is done by scientists, specialists, and experts in a field. The decision makers in scientific inquiry are those with knowledge of the area of inquiry, and it determines questions of fact.
Political inquiry, however, is done by laypeople -- voters, or the "polis" in Aristotle's terms. It properly deals with questions of *values*, not facts. We pass laws to express our values: murder is wrong, people should not starve in the streets, it is not acceptible to treat people differently because of their skin color. Those are not questions of *fact*, those are questions of *value.*
And referendum questions therefore should deal with questions of values.
The supporters of Question 2 have been attempting to use the language of the argument of fact. And that's not appropriate. If one method of teaching is more effective than another, then that is a question of fact, which must be tested in the scientific arena, by the agency of those with specific knowledge of the field.
If it's in the legislative system, then it must be dealing with questions of value.
And my question is, "what is the *value* which states that people must not be taught in their native language?" There are values which support such an idea: the idea of national unity above ethnic origin unity, for instance. But that's not what people are talking about.
>>What's preventing them from doing so [using immersion programs]?
>Nothing, actually, and a couple of cities have instituted immersion. The
>problem is like Enron-
>they "could" reform at any time, but in reality will they? 30 years is a
>long time to wait, and results have not improved.
I don't see how the problem is like Enron: in the Enron situation, there were people gaining a direct financial benefit from their actions. Who is benefiting from not instiuting immersion?
Why not use one's energy to explain to the school boards in the cities where it's not been done the benefits of it, rather than using a forcible legal remedy?
Remember: every law passed is a restriction on freedom. Therefore, a new law should only be passed when the direct benefit to the society (or direct harm of lack of passage) is great and obvious.
The truth is that, while it's quite possible that immersion has great benefits, it is not so obviously true that that is the case that a law is required or defensible.
It really bothers me when people attempt to use the legislative process to force a resolution to what should be a debate among experts.
I'm reminded of Aristotle's classifications of inquiry. Factual inquiry, or scientific inquiry, is done by scientists, specialists, and experts in a field. The decision makers in scientific inquiry are those with knowledge of the area of inquiry, and it determines questions of fact.
Political inquiry, however, is done by laypeople -- voters, or the "polis" in Aristotle's terms. It properly deals with questions of *values*, not facts. We pass laws to express our values: murder is wrong, people should not starve in the streets, it is not acceptible to treat people differently because of their skin color. Those are not questions of *fact*, those are questions of *value.*
And referendum questions therefore should deal with questions of values.
The supporters of Question 2 have been attempting to use the language of the argument of fact. And that's not appropriate. If one method of teaching is more effective than another, then that is a question of fact, which must be tested in the scientific arena, by the agency of those with specific knowledge of the field.
If it's in the legislative system, then it must be dealing with questions of value.
And my question is, "what is the *value* which states that people must not be taught in their native language?" There are values which support such an idea: the idea of national unity above ethnic origin unity, for instance. But that's not what people are talking about.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2002-11-04 08:58 pm (UTC)