ONE UNION'S WAR AGAINST CHOICE
ACTUALLY, IT'S not completely clear that the CTA and its educational allies in the fight against vouchers have adjusted to that proposition yet. In a revealing peek at the essentially totalitarian mentality of the educational establishment, the Association of California School Administrators (quoted by K.L. Billingsley in the October Heterodoxy) takes the position that, contrary to the beliefs of parental choice proponents, the purpose of education is not to provide individual students with an education but rather only "a means to the true end of education, which is to create a viable social order to which individuals contribute and by which they are sustained. 'Family choice' is, therefore, basically selfish and anti-social in that it focuses on the 'wants' of a single family rather than the 'needs' of a society."For people who believe they are working for the good of society against the "evil" of the opposition, it's not difficult to justify breaking the law on behalf of what you see as a greater good –all of which may be the reason that reports are flowing into the "Yes on 174" office from all over the state concerning the unethical or illegal use of school equipment and facilities to defeat Proposition 174. After the start of the school year at Twin Creek Elementary in San Ramon, east of Oakland, school teachers showed up in classrooms wearing "No on 174" tee-shirts and buttons; at the Folsom Cordova Unified School District employees copied an anti-174 flier on school duplicating equipment in violation of state election laws and sent the fliers home with kids; in Glendale, anti-voucher videos were shown in the teachers' lounge; at back-to-school nights, school employees prevented pro-174 people from distributing their literature even though they allowed anti-174 literature to be passed out freely.
"There are a whole lot of examples of the use of public resources and public funds to take partisan positions against 174," says Manuel Klausner, a Los Angeles attorney who represents the "Yes on 174" campaign. "The incidents range from the [illegal] use of letterhead and Xerox facilities of school districts to using the teachers during the workday to send partisan literature home with young school children."
Because the violations are so widespread, says Klausner, the "Yes on 174" campaign has asked the state attorney general to conduct an investigation. And if that doesn't produce quick results, the campaign may resort to filing additional lawsuits. "There is personal liability by any public official for the wrongful expenditures of public funds for partisan political purposes," says Klausner. Rick Ruiz, press secretary for the "174 No" campaign dismisses reports of illegal use of public funds and facilities saying he neither knows of any such activities nor condones them. "On the other hand," he says, "there are millions of citizens who are very concerned about this initiative, and they all have First Amendment rights. If [the "Yes on 174" campaign] has specific incidents they should bring them to the attention of the authorities. Otherwise, I think they should try and figure out how they are going to run their own campaign."
