Tortured Logic from Teachers Unions, Cont'd.

The National Education Association has been circulating some talking points trying to refute findings in the paper Education Sector released last week describing how the NEA has been giving money to a wide range of organizations, not always in a transparent manner, in its fight against NCLB. (See the comments section here). Some are absurd on their face ("Myth 1: The NEA opposes the No Child Left Behind Act), others adhere to the time-honored strategy of "refuting" allegations the report doesn't actually make.

But one point is worth discussing at more length, because it sheds some light on the logic and psychology governing the way teachers unions engage with those who disagree with them. It says:

MYTH 7: Education Sector is an independent think tank.

FACT: Contrary to its claims, it is not an independent think tank. One of Education Sector’s founders and a co-director is Andrew Rotherham. Formerly with the Progressive Policy Institute at the Democratic Leadership Council, Rotherham regularly wrote pieces highly critical of NEA. The other cofounder and co-director, Thomas Toch, has also written many pieces critical of NEA and teachers unions. Education Sector’s board of directors also lacks the representation of teachers or other public school employees.

Last week the AFT blog made the unfortunately familiar assertion that people who disagree with teachers union positions on public policy issues are, by definition, anti-union.

This goes a step further down the rabbit hole. It seems to say that an organization staffed by people who have been critical of teachers unions are, by definition, not independent. Since the NEA's positions are apparently infallible, any disagreement with them is, ipso facto, a sign of being compromised or unduly influenced.

What accounts for this mind-bending logic? I think the culprit is what I'll call "moral altitude sickness."

Teachers unions, by their nature, have extremely strong moral standing. First, by being a labor union, and thus being on the right side of history when it comes to the struggle for worker's rights. Second, by being supporters of public education, and thus strong advocates for one of society's most important and egalitarian institutions.

To be clear, I don't dispute that status. But the rarified air on that moral high ground appears to be pretty oxygen-poor, leading to bizzare flights of logic like the one shown above. The downside of being above everyone else is that there's nobody else to talk to, nobody to let you know that you're steadily cutting yourself out of the mainstream discourse. Everyone else starts to seem smaller, lower, and far away. Eventually you stop listening, and nobody can hear what you have to say.