New Bill requires all Idaho kids to read ‘Atlas Shrugged’

[Dormin111]

Bill requires all Idaho kids to read ‘Atlas Shrugged’

BOISE – Coeur d’Alene Sen. John Goedde, chairman of the Idaho Senate’s Education Committee, introduced legislation Tuesday to require every Idaho high school student to read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” and pass a test on it to graduate from high school.

When Sen. Bob Nonini, R-Coeur d’Alene, asked Goedde why he chose that particular book, Goedde said to laughter, “That book made my son a Republican.”

Goedde said he doesn’t plan to press forward with the bill, but it was formally introduced in his committee Tuesday on a voice vote. He said he was sending a message to the State Board of Education, because he’s unhappy with its recent move to repeal a rule requiring two online courses to graduate from high school, and with its decision to back off on another planned rule regarding principal evaluations.

“It was a shot over their bow just to let them know that there’s another way to adopt high school graduation requirements,” Goedde said after the meeting. “I don’t intend to schedule a hearing on it.”

The 1957 novel has been embraced by libertarians and the tea party movement, in part for its opposition to “statism” and embrace of capitalism, as Rand expressed her philosophy of “objectivism,” focusing on “the morality of rational self-interest.” In recent years, the novel has been touted by conservative commentators including Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

“When I read Atlas Shrugged, and it’s been probably 30 years since I read it, but it certainly gives one a sense of personal responsibility,” Goedde said.

Sen. Cherie Buckner-Webb, D-Boise, questioned the choice of the book for a graduation requirement. “We have a wide variety of children who will be trying to graduate and reading and grasping some of these things, and their cultural context may be different,” she said.

Goedde responded, “I don’t plan on moving this forward – it was a statement.”

Nevertheless, as a formally introduced bill, the measure will be read across the desk in the Senate Wednesday morning and will receive a bill number; it will be among the bills posted on the Legislature’s website for the session and preserved in its records.

Before voting to introduce the measure, other Senate Education Committee members joked that they’d like to put forth their own favorite books for consideration.

The bill’s introduction marks a contrast, as Idaho Senate committees have sometimes refused to introduce serious legislation because they felt it wouldn’t pass. An example is last year’s bill to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation; despite a statewide outpouring of support for the measure, the Senate State Affairs Committee voted along party lines against introducing it.

The State Board of Education repealed the online-class graduation requirement Nov. 19 on a 7-1 vote; state schools Superintendent Tom Luna made the motion, saying, “Proposition 3 was overturned by the voters.”

Proposition 3 called for a laptop computer for every high school student and a new focus on online learning, among other changes. Goedde was the lead Senate sponsor of that legislation, which implemented a major portion of Luna’s “Students Come First” school reform laws.

Those laws, which also included rolling back collective bargaining rights for teachers and imposing a new merit pay system, all were overturned by Idaho voters in November.

Asked about his comment that the Ayn Rand book made his son a Republican, Goedde said after the meeting, “Well, he’s not a practicing Republican. But it certainly made him a conservative.”

Looks like a publicity stunt from a clueless Republican. We'll probably get some good publicity at least.

[mdegges]

Goedde responded, “I don’t plan on moving this forward – it was a statement.”

What 'statement' was he trying to make? Since voters don't want to pay for personal laptops for every high school student in the state, why don't we just make the requirements to graduate from high school even harder? That will really teach them.

[intellectualammo]

Well, this was his motive:

From the Idaho Spokesman-Review:

[sen. John Goedde] said he doesn’t plan to press forward with the bill, but it was formally introduced in his committee Tuesday on a voice vote. He said he was sending a message to the State Board of Education, because he’s unhappy with its recent move to repeal a rule requiring two online courses to graduate from high school, and with its decision to back off on another planned rule regarding principal evaluations.

“It was a shot over their bow just to let them know that there’s another way to adopt high school graduation requirements,” Goedde said after the meeting. “I don’t intend to schedule a hearing on it."

So far this all I can find to go by, that he was just wanting to send a message.

Edited February 7, 2013 by intellectualammo

[mdegges]

Ok.. but what does Atlas Shrugged have to do with any of that?

[ruveyn1]

think about this. If the state can require Atlas Shrugged be required reading and subject to a qualifying text, then why not The Bible or The Q'ran? This kind of required reading has some consequences that the originators of the idea might not favor.

ruveyn1

[thenelli01]

think about this. If the state can require Atlas Shrugged be required reading and subject to a qualifying text, then why not The Bible or The Q'ran? This kind of required reading has some consequences that the originators of the idea might not favor.

ruveyn1

The state already sets reading requirements. The argument should be abolishing the public school system, not arguing about which books the state should be allowed to require.

[whYNOT]

think about this. If the state can require Atlas Shrugged be required reading and subject to a qualifying text, then why not The Bible or The Q'ran? This kind of required reading has some consequences that the originators of the idea might not favor.

ruveyn1

think about this. If the state can require Atlas Shrugged be required reading and subject to a qualifying text, then why not The Bible or The Q'ran? This kind of required reading has some consequences that the originators of the idea might not favor.

ruveyn1

That was my first thought also.

thenelli's riposte was my next.

I suppose if there's no beating the system just yet, make it work for you.

[Reidy]

From Thursday's WSJ: Best of the Web

Not Quite Getting the Concept

• "If men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement."--Ayn Rand, "The Virtue of Selfishness," December 1963
  
• "Idaho Politician Proposes Making 'Atlas Shrugged' Required Reading"--headline, San Francisco Chronicle website, Feb. 6, 2013
  

Edited February 7, 2013 by Reidy

[ruveyn1]

The state already sets reading requirements. The argument should be abolishing the public school system, not arguing about which books the state should be allowed to require.

I agree. Abolishing the compulsory tax loot funded school system resolves the problems.

That is not about to happen any time soon, however.

ruveyn1

[Dante]

The state already sets reading requirements. The argument should be abolishing the public school system, not arguing about which books the state should be allowed to require.

Although I think this particular case of requiring Atlas Shrugged is ridiculous, we shouldn't give up trying to influence school curricula simply because schools are currently public. If a couple of creationists got on the school board in your county and started assigning creationist materials for science classes, would you push back? Or simply shrug and suggest that schools be privatized?

[Reidy]

I'd work to keep books off the list but not to put them on. In the case of creationism, some partisans tried to do just what you describe, and a court found it unconstitutional.

[intellectualammo]

Although I think this particular case of requiring Atlas Shrugged is ridiculous, we shouldn't give up trying to influence school curricula simply because schools are currently public.

I am an abolitionist, not a reformationist of the public educational system. We shouldn't, on principle, try to influence the curricula, but try to abolish the entire system as well as all of its criteria all together. BOOKS FOR TEACHERS program that the ARI has, at best, nothing forced upon them to read. Regardless of it is AS, or anything else if ARs.

Edited February 8, 2013 by intellectualammo

[softwareNerd]

..., we shouldn't give up trying to influence school curricula simply because schools are currently public.

Exactly. And, in the U.S. today, this is completely consistent with advocating getting government completely out of education. The ARI essays are a great tool in this regard.

[intellectualammo]

Also see my thread on

Education Emancipation for a video and more information:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=24698&hl=%2Beducation+%2Bemancipation

[Ninth Doctor]

This is just a play for attention, I’m not reading anything more into it. Actually, I think it’s pretty cute. At least this politician isn’t apologizing for Rand’s atheism, not yet anyway.

[thenelli01]

Although I think this particular case of requiring Atlas Shrugged is ridiculous, we shouldn't give up trying to influence school curricula simply because schools are currently public. If a couple of creationists got on the school board in your county and started assigning creationist materials for science classes, would you push back? Or simply shrug and suggest that schools be privatized?

I agree. I would push back, of course. But I think it is important to remember that it is not the primary. When you start arguing about which books are acceptable for the state to require as reading material, with the debate being whether or not the state should be allowed to require that particular book, instead of whether or not it is good education policy, you accept the premise that the state should be allowed to set the curriculum. It is similar to what Republicans did with the Affordable Care Act. Instead of arguing against the morality of government run healthcare, they argued against a subset of it, thus accepting the premise that the government healthcare system is moral. I.E. The government healthcare system is immoral because it forces churches to provide contraception, which is against their moral beliefs. This is really saying: The government healthcare system is moral and it can mandate individuals/businesses to buy/fund healthcare services as long as they don't force churches to provide contraception and act against their moral beliefs.

Edited February 8, 2013 by thenelli01

[My 99 are free]

Watch, as soon as it gets support he's going to pursue it.