Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, May 16, 1993 TAG: 9305170257
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F-2 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The debate before the Virginia Federation of Republican Women between Mike Farris and Bobbi Kilberg, candidates for the nomination for lieutenant governor, was over. Farris was standing in a hallway speaking to reporters about an issue that Ms. Kilberg raised during the debate. Ms. Kilberg barged into the interview, repeating (and repeating and repeating) her allegation and, thereby, effectively denied Fraris the chance to respond.
OK, so she was rude. What about the issue she raised?
It seems Farris defended a group of parents who objected to a curriculum containing, among other books, "Cinderella," "Macbeth" and "The Wizard of Oz." Did the parents object to the books or to some other part of the curriculum? Did they find the material inherently offensive or simply inappropriate for children of a certain age? Did they object to the books themselves or to the way they were being taught? These are important questions if we want to understand the controversy, but they hardly matter in the current context.
Farris was defending the right of parents to voice their opinions and shield their children from material that they, for whatever reason, believed to be inappropriate.
From this, Ms. Kilberg concludes that Farris objects to "Cinderella." Well now, let's see. Among Louis Farrakhan's many opinions are some that are anti-Semitic. Ms. Kilberg believes in the First Amendment so she would defend Farrakhan's right to publicize his views. Therefore, Ms. Kilberg is anti-Semitic. Right? Somehow liberals have no trouble understanding that defending freedom of speech does not imply endorsing the content of any particular speech. Why, then, do they develop a collective brain cramp when it comes time to apply the same logic to the matter of parental rights in the education of children?
The article goes on to say that Farris supports "abolition of the state Board of Education, the Clean Air Act, and the Americans With Disabilities Act." I've never heard Farris take those positions in so many words. I have, however, read campaign material in which he questions whether the interests of bureaucrats necessarily coincide with the interests of those whom they are supposed to serve.
Everyone wants Americans, including the disabled, to perform to their full potential. But could it be that empowering those who administer the Americans with Disabilities Act is not the best way to empower the disabled?
Everyone wants quality education. But is continued funding of a bloated and often-arrogant education establishment the best way to improve classroom instruction? Could the money we spend on state educrats be better spent on teachers' salaries, classroom space and teaching materials?
Everyone wants clean air. But, are there market-driven approaches that would produce better results at lower cost?
Interesting questions, but ones which rarely get a fair hearing because they contradict a basic liberal article of faith - namely, that problems are best solved by empowering government rather than people. FREDRICK M. WILLIAMS ROANOKE
by CNB