Wirt,
I don't see the makeup of Kansas, Idaho or Mississippi as the defining
factors in a digital divide in this country. Let me expound on that for
just a minute.
The choice of politics or religion has nothing to do with education or
ability. The choice of conservative or liberal has little (if anything) to
do with providing a quality of life that is acceptable for all who reside in
an area. Just because the past developments of high tech corridors have
routinely been developed in urban, liberal areas really has no association
with education. There are pockets of highly educated people spread
throughout the country where highly intelligent people have chosen to
locate - and where high tech centers have failed to materialize. The high
tech corridors have developed in areas where either a large contingent of
young have taken up residents or in climates that are conducive to a
year-round life style. Areas around large universities are notorious for
such development (i.e. - Austin, TX; Boulder, CO; Boston, MA; Raleigh /
Durham, NC: and San Francisco, CA). However, areas such as Chicago
(Northwestern), Columbus, Ohio (OSU), Ann Arbor, MI (U of M) are equally
awash in liberal ideology and high education levels - and yet are
conspicuously absent from any list of high-tech havens.
I think that a liberalism and the link to high-tech does indeed exist, but
not for the reasons to which you allude. I think the link is because a
sizeable portion of people in the technology arena are products of a liberal
public education system that has taught that there is no accountability,
there is no such thing as absolute moralism, and that to be a success you
must be an economic success - and to be an economic success in this society
typically means association with or involvement in the high tech industry.
Our little town of St. John has a population of 1,250 people. Our community
also boasts 7 churches within the city (each averaging between 95-100 people
in attendance on a given Sunday). Now, what is interesting is that
approximately 65% of our population are college graduates, 80% of our kids
go on to college (including several who will be attending Ivy League schools
next year). Our "per capita" income is second in the state - despite the
fact that we are a farming community. What is equally surprising is that
20% of our population continues to need public assistance for everything
from medical care to clothing for schools. Of those that need public
assistance - less than 1/2 of those require governmental assistance. The
assistance is given through our churches, our Ministerial Alliance, the
local Odd Fellows Lodge, the Lions Club... There is no correlation between
education, conservative / liberal swing, religious preferences and the
"digital divide".
The digital divide witnessed in the last election was primarily the result
of differences in age and ethnicity - not education, political leanings or
religion. Those who appeared to be the most disenfranchised were the
elderly (many of whom are still afraid of or unfamiliar with modern
technology) and the ethnically challenged (many of whom have not had the
opportunity to experience education at it's finest in our suburban, all
white privileged public and private schools).
Speaking of education... To imply that the solution to the education mix
(as you did you your last post) is too simply pour more money into the
system is short-sighted. It's true that many of the finest schools in the
country are suburban schools located in wealthy districts with virtually
unlimited funding sources. However, it is equally true that the rural
schools of America continue to pump out extremely gifted students who do
well in college - and in the real world. Many of these rural districts are
cash strapped in the ultimate sense of the word. Population declines and
declines in the value of real estate and industrial facilities has left many
of these districts with no choice but to cut to the bare bones - with rarely
a real cut in the quality of education. The real problem seems to be
located in many of our inner city and urban schools... places where the tax
base is also shrinking, income is shrinking (compared to the national
average), where it takes two parents just to make ends meet, and where the
teachers won't even choose to reside out of fear for their own well-being.
Looking at voucher systems from the other side, it is wrong to assume that
everyone who backs a voucher system to provide a "should pay for their
children to attend religious academies so that they will not be exposed to
the corrupting ideas of modern science". I know of many people who prefer
the voucher system to provide their kids with a quality education while
protecting them from the violence of the schools in many urban areas. There
are those who prefer the voucher system to provide their kids with a quality
education where the students can be taught at their level in a school where
teachers are there because they want to be (instead of just because it's a
job). There are those who look on school vouchers as a way to finally
bridge the integration gap that continues to threaten our nation's public
schools because of suburban sprawl and continued white flight. I will agree
that there are many who would choose to move their kids out of public
schools to private parochial and religious schools - but not to elude the
trappings of modern science, but to ensure that their kids are no longer
taught that "anything goes"... to a place where manners, morals, and respect
are equivalent in education to "reading, riting, and rithmetic".
Glenn Koster
|
