Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Is the National Education Association (the big teacher's union) looking to lose even more respect amongst the American people? Every organization goes through this. Mission creep. Activists and people with ancillary agendas look for any way to expand their mandate into highly tangentially-related issues, much like the federal government's liberal interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause allowing it to regulate virtually anything.
After all, what doesn't have to do with education? And any dollar spent by the government could be argued to be a dollar that could have been spent on education. I suppose it's up to the NEA to prevent itself sinking into disrepute and becoming a laughing-stock, and up to the rest of us to laugh. Ask the British AUT about that.
9000 NEA Delegates Call for End to Occupation - Stand is a "sea change" in NEA since last convention
- support our troops by creating an exit strategy to end the U.S. military occupation of Iraq and bring our troops home.
- provide adequate veterans benefits and meet the needs of our veterans for adequate jobs, education, and health care.
The NEA will:
- support NEA members and their families called upon to serve in Iraq by identifying and providing information about resources and services to help meet their special needs, by advocating for their interests, and by protecting their jobs, seniority, and benefits.
- advocate the reordering of national priorities toward peace and the human needs of our people.
---
Last year we could not get an anti--war motion on the floor. It died on a move not to consider. This year, the delegation defeated a move not to consider and attempts to amend the language in order to gut it. Clearly the delegates were ready to dicuss and vote on the issue. This represents a sea change in NEA and is clearly reflective of the erosion of support for the war, especially significant because NEA represents suburban and small town America. It is also significant because it reflects a change in the culture of NEA. In recent years there has been pressure, especially from the states, not to consider anything which is not "directly related to education." Of course, we always make the connections between the war budget and funding for education (Our t-shirts and bumper stickers say "A war budget leaves every child behind.") We also made every effort to disassociate the policy and policy-makers from support for the troops. I think this was also critical in winning support for the motion. While the language may not be as strong as we would like (exit strategy vs. out now), it does represent the first time in memory NEA has taken an anti-war position.
Rhonda Hanson, Chairperson, NEA Peace & Justice Caucus
