Ann Coulter: She Hates Public School Teachers

I am ashamed to admit that I wasted ten bucks on this book on CD, but curiosity got the best of me. Ann Coulter is clearly the most pessimistic person in the media; she is not happy. According to her in The Church of Liberalism:

Liberals love to boast that they are not religious, which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all attributes of what is generally known as religion.

Funny, but I see liberals as those who manifest social, gender, economic, and racial  progress; I think back to the 1960s when white liberals, black liberals, and Christian liberalism advocated for social equality. Her take on what defines a liberal and liberalism is very unclear to me. Moreover, I feel sorry for her cult followers who too are misguided in the rhetoric of ideology.

But through her long misguided rant, it was her chapter on education that bothered me the most; I will admit that I agreed with one or two points, but much of her rant was off target. Essentially she states that public school teachers are the high priests of liberalism. Democrats protect public school teachers at all cost. And if one speaks ill of a teacher, he or she is a heretic. Much of her argument(s) center(s) around teachers’ union, particularly the NEA. This organization allows a band of teachers to nurture students into a state of stupidity. Teachers are an overly glorified band that complain about being paid too little, when in actuality, they make more than a number of white-collar professionals that do not get holidays, summers, and snow days off. She goes on to state that teachers are responsible for 32,000 sexual abuse cases per year — making catholic priests look innocent.

Coulter asserts that teachers are always presumed heroes, and are spoken of in “reverential terms,” but are busy “inculcating students in the precepts of the Socialist Party of America—as understood by retarded people.” She cites Jay Bennish, the high school teacher caught on tape comparing Bush to Hitler and saying the U.S. is the “single most violent nation on planet Earth,” as evidence. She also lists a number of schools busy banning Christian faith references, while forcing students to participate in activities of other faiths. Coulter uses information from David Salisbury of the Center for Education Freedom at CATO Institute to illustrate the failure of public education. “Throughout the twentieth century, the scores of preschool age children on IQ and kindergarten readiness tests have climbed steadily upward….It’s not until they move up through grade school and on to high school that their performance declines.”

I do agree with Coulter in that too many public schools have too many administrators. She states that “over 80% of the faculty at private schools do indeed teach, only 50% of public school faculty members do such.” Thus, public schools are nothing more than a bureaucratic factory pumping out stupid kids. She argues that in American public schools, the longer one is in school… the dumber one becomes.

It is hard to believe that my college, Harding University, invited her to be a guest speaker. The only reason she did not make it is because too many students protested. Seeing the number of public school teachers Harding produces, I am assuming they did not read chapter six of this book. Good job Harding students.

Inside Higher Education, an academic news journal, noted:

“If one were to draw up a list of American colleges and universities to characterize as Ann Coulter country, Harding University would almost certainly be on it.” Ouch!!! The article, which can be read in its entirety here, also stated:

That view was echoed by Greg Kendall-Ball, a graduate divinity student at Abilene Christian University. He cited comments Coulter had made about countries that harbor terrorists — “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” — and about campus radicals: “When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.”

In inviting Coulter to the campus, wrote Kendall-Ball, whose father and sisters are also Harding alums, the university had “failed to uphold the Christ-like spirit that Harding seeks to embody.” It troubled him, he said, that “someone advocating violence, forced conversions, physical intimidation and who has routinely expressed anti- or non-Christian views is welcomed and given one of the more prestigious speaking engagements on the school’s calendar.”Perhaps prodded by the bloggers, who saw visits to their sites shoot up from their standard levels in the last two weeks, alumni sent a slew of e-mails and letters urging Harding officials to reconsider.

And Tuesday, they did. In an e-mail message to faculty members, David Crouch, the director of public relations, said that the administration had “re-evaluated” its original decision to include Coulter in the 2005-6 lecture series, and replaced her with Jose Maria Aznar, Spain’s former president.

“Harding and Ann Coulter are probably on the same page on many issues,” Crouch said in an interview Wednesday. But he said that the alumni agitation — and seeing some of Coulter’s more outrageous comments, which he said “we did not know about” — had prompted “second thoughts” on the part of administrators. “We grew concerned with the manner in which she presents her ideas. We believe that some of her comments are very controversial and confrontational, and we just weren’t confortable with that.”

Yet in the days after Harding’s announcement, a small group of Harding alumni began voicing their discontent on their blogs. Mike Cope, a minister at Highland Church of Christ in Abilene, Tex., complained that Coulter lives in a “black/white ‘I’m-right-and-you’re-an-idiot’ world. If you don’t agree with her then you’re a bleeding heart liberal who doesn’t deserve to live here.” The problem, he said, was not that Coulter is conservative, but that her views are un-Christian.


12 thoughts on “Ann Coulter: She Hates Public School Teachers

  1. Ann Coulter is not stupid, but she thinks her readers are. She does not offer cogent arguments, instead relying on button points. Some suspect that she is a liberal posing as a right-wing nut-case as a strategy to undermine the credibility of the Right. Perhaps, but it’s a strange way to make a living even if it is lucrative, as it clearly is in her case.

    Try Thriftbooks–you can probably find most of her screeds for $0.01 plus five bucks shipping.

  2. The new layout of your blog looks even better on my new MacBook.

    I am willing to bet that educators (public and private) are responsible for more sexual assaults on minors than we would care to admit, but I would really like to know where she gets her numbers from. That being said, I would love to see some way to make public schools as good as (generally speaking, because there are some crummy private schools out there) private schools. Realizing that what I just said were essentially generalizations, please anyone who gets the urge, recognize the spirit of my comments and do not attack me.

    • To make public schools as good as private schools, you must take government money out of it. Period. As well as all involvement from government. That is the only way.

    • I have a question. Is compulsory schooling a form of involuntary servitude? Granted that education is important and also the fact that schooling and education are not one and the same since one can exist without the other being present.

  3. Just as I have no problem with a university asking the President of Iran to speak, I have no problem with a university asking Ann Coulter to speak. Personally I think we often learn more when we listen to those we do not agree with. I know I don’t agree with much my Marxist or “left” leaning friends say (or believe in) but I would defend their right to say it. Shouldn’t a university be a place where different opinions and ideas are discussed? Just a thought

  4. I have to admit that, once I heard a piece of an interview with Coulter, I stopped listening to her altogether. She, and people like her, do not forward the conversation in this country.

    I agree with the comment that the University had every right to ask her to speak, but I also agree that the student body had every right to protest that decision, and believe that the University was right to honor that protest by un-inviting Coulter. Just because someone has the right to speak does not mean they should be offered every microphone…

  5. I’m a Harding grad and remember meeting Greg Kendall-Ball’s dad as we were there at the same time. I haven’t kept up that well, but I think I’m on safe ground in saying that Harding only invites speakers from one end of the political spectrum. It would be better to have “responsible” representatives from across the range.

  6. Steve: I understand what you are saying about equal representation; but on the other hand, the school does have the right to invite anyone to speak that they wish and can only present one side of the political spectrum if they so choose. Question: Would this issue be less significant had Robert Byrd been invited to give a speech at Berkley and (in an alternate universe) been denied the opportunity by its student body on the basis that he was a former Klan leader? I suspect so but you can disagree if you wish.

    Moderator: After reading a few of your posts, and garnering the courage to post here, I think that I know well enough what liberalism means to you. However, I asked myself a series of questions with regards to what liberalism really is and if liberals do truly wish to bring about change. Question: Were liberals the ones who voted in majority towards ratification of civil rights or were they the ones who wished to keep “African” Americans in bondage? Question: Have liberals really brought about change with regards to race in the past forty years or have they just enabled racism to shift its focus and now exist as a tolerable practice of arguments over class conditions rather than the color of ones skin? Question: Are all American races tolerable of one another or has racial rivalry become more intense? ex: Would a white comedian make a killing in a night performance at the Apollo or could a black man make it big performing on the stage in Hamilton County, Texas? I really just don’t see enough progress coming from the liberal side of politics to suggest that they are making or have made genuine progress towards making our society a better place.

  7. Lamar: I do not think of liberals as a political party one group that favors this or that; I see it as a term that represents one who favors allowing members of the United States the rights to practice their own beliefs, expressions, and thus participate in activities that are in disrespect or of a threat to other members of the polity.

    I do agree that institutions have the right, as they should, to invite whom they deem right for them; however, as an alum to the school, I’m concerned that it does not look to create academic discourse, but to encourage ideological robots. From the left or right, it is not academic. I am not sure politicians are really the ones that advocate for true progress; it is everyday people such as us that do it in how we engage with others. I know, I am an idealist.

    Mrs. Chili: I love this “Just because someone has the right to speak does not mean they should be offered every microphone”

  8. I actually feel the same about Ann Coulter as I do about Michael Moore or Dick Cheney or any one of a number of people in the public eye (Miss Spears comes to mind). They make money peddling half baked thoughts and ideas. Perhaps she should not be offered a microphone, but I do have to ask, would an over paid windbag from the left be protested against?

    Eddie, you are not an idealist, at least not in this case. Inviting politicians and their spin doctors really does not further the cause of education, at least not in any fruitful way I can identify. You are right, it is us, the people who advocate and further progress (and enlightenment). The problem with Coulter, Moore and the rest of these types is they simply shout at the other side instead of engaging in reasoned debate.

  9. I think anybody who listens to her or reads her books are dumber for the experiance. It is to bad she has such a big platform in the media.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s