More on WWAD (What Would Al Do?}

Which coalition would Shanker have supported?


I asked Deborah Meier to write a blog piece, following the UFT's Leo Casey post here last week. Here's her response:


I liked Leo's response. I'm a pretty harsh critic of the latter-day Shanker, starting with the two strikes (1967, 1968), but I think Leo is right about 1968. But the unwillingness, even after it was over,to understand better the nature of the divide that had opened up -- at least in part because of the UFT's "strategy"--was tragic. As was Shanker's position on the Vietnam war and his dismissal (literally) of anyone who disagreed with him on that question--like Abzug and many of my staunch democratic teacher colleagues.

His anti-communism (which God knows I shared!) was not the problem, but the allies
he made in its name. He aided and abetted the depth and rancor of the left
divide--not from communists alone, but from anyone he felt was not prepared to
reach his conclusions on principle and strategy. He made no such distinctions.
In the process he abandoned even some of his best union/teacher ideas--his
boldness about rethinking schooling. He unhappily engaged in ill-advised teacher
bashing of his own, and glibness about parents' sense of powerlessness that was
not useful.

It made it harder to build the alliance that was critical. But I found the worst aspect of the culture he left behind was an absence of respect for differences in the union, the kind of lively debate we so badly needed, the creating of a vigorous intellectually diverse climate. He was a master at the clever put-down, the quick dismissal, of scorn. Leo is also right, that Sandy and Randi both had a much deeper respect for their fellow teachers, and for the need for alliances with parents and community groups.

Now, of course, in criticizing Shanker for all this, I'm giving him magical powers.
Much of it would have happened without him, but it is a measure of my respect
when I also say that had he acted and spoken otherwise, it would have had an
immeasurably useful impact. But note, it's immeasurable so I have to leave it at
that.

He was never a straddler. But I don't care what he "would've" if he could've"--only what he "should've" when he "could've." The latter has passed us by, and the former can't take place on this earth.

But the Klein-line is and remains (see his recent statement in D.C.) plain teacher bashing,union-busting and pro-testing and more testing! Klein is who he is, and his
statement is a rejection of the argument that the Bolder approach was out to proclaim.

I doubt if Shanker would have moved far enough over to have joined Klein/Bloomberg, but that's not worth discussing.

Deb