Skip to main content

School Days/Golden Rule Days


 

Let me bring you up to date. There’s even more disingenuous campaigning going on right now and I want you to think about what it really means. I’m jumping in because I feel uniquely qualified to comment, by virtue of personal experience.

I’ve been seeing negative campaigning based on where candidates’ children go to school. 

Some years back I had a sudden and ongoing problem with people who claimed I didn’t have the right to express my own opinions on this blog because of where one of my children went to school. Eventually they went after both children. And my spouse.

What would you do? What would you think? 

Choices you make for your own children are personal, mostly because they concern the privacy of a minor. No one has the right to ask you to betray that child in order to justify family choices. 

Here’s the thing: this didn’t really have anything to do with where my kid went to school. It was solely because these folks didn’t like what I was writing and they were willing to use any tactic to discredit, embarrass, or frighten me. 

In response I wrote this: The Rules of the House, 10/24/2020. Some excerpts are below.

In the disclaimer posted on my blog are the following words:

I encourage discussion in the comments section but I have no patience for trolling, or really any kind of nastiness. 

Over the past year I have been moved, more than once, to remind commenters that they are welcome to disagree with the contents of my blog but that I will have zero tolerance for people who go after my family. Imagine needing to tell people that dragging someone’s family is out of bounds. 

It is stunning to me that Columbia/HoCo has people who feel so justified in their point of view that they believe absolutely no filter is necessary when engaging in online discourse. The results have been disastrous. I can’t control the whole world of local social media, of course. But I can set boundaries for my own small part of it.

Comments are welcome, but commenters should realize that for each blog there are rules of the house.

Going after my family is not an acceptable way to interact. It has nothing to do with the blog. It is, frankly, the last resort of people whose arguments are so thin that they cannot win on their own merit.

So I’m going to update the disclaimer. It will now read:

I encourage discussion in the comments section but I have no patience for trolling, or really any kind of nastiness. Warning: my family is off limits. Transgressors will be banned.

When I see candidates being targeted with the same tactics I feel obliged to respond. They are in a tougher position than I was. They can’t block or ban anyone, but they still can’t address the attack without violating their children’s right to privacy.

That’s why I’m jumping in. Let’s try paraphrasing to see if that helps.

Going after family in this way is not an acceptable way to campaign. It has nothing to do with a candidate’s qualifications and experience.

Here’s the biggie:

It is, frankly, the last resort of people whose arguments are so thin that they cannot win on their own merit.

When you go after someone’s minor children you are telling the whole world that you approve of going after the privacy of minor children. You are also revealing that your candidate isn’t strong enough to win on their own merit. If you don’t have enough examples of why your preferred candidate is the best then either 1. you should do more research or 2. your candidate isn’t worth supporting.

The Golden Rule I referenced in the title of this piece? I’m sure you’ve heard of it. 

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.





Comments

  1. Julia A. McCreadyMay 31, 2026 at 5:21 AM

    Please do not submit comments here. This function will be disabled shortly. Use the link above instead. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Teacher Gifts

Today is the last day of school before the Winter Break. It’s a good time to remember the far-reaching nature of our public school system. You may not have children. You may have sent your children to independent schools. It matters not. You will be impacted one way or another. Yesterday I read a long thread on Facebook about several waves of illness in the schools right now. There’s influenza A and norovirus, I believe. And of course there’s COVID. Apparently in some individual schools the rate of illness is high enough for school admin to notify parents.  When I was little the acceptable holiday gift for a teacher was one of those lovely floral handkerchief squares. (I don’t know what it was for male teachers. They were rare in my elementary years.) These days the range of teacher gifts is wider and I have fond memories of Target gift cards which I have written about before. I think it’s safe to say that giving one’s teacher Influenza, norovirus, or COVID is not the ideal holiday...
1 comment
Read more

F ³: We Are Not Entitled

  A college student went missing. His family and friends were distraught. The community was encouraged to be on the lookout and spread the word.  Days passed.  They must have been agonizing days for those who cared about the missing student. Thoughts that foul play had been involved cannot have been far from their thoughts.  Then, at last, the student was found. Alive. The news was shared with the public.  So. Much. Relief. A family had been reunited with their child. Even though we know that life is complicated, I think it is okay to accept this as a happy ending and leave it at that.  But the world of social media says no. For every expression of joy at the news came questions and even judgement. It became clear to me that some folks felt entitled to an explanation. They wanted the backstory. It’s as though they felt that, by enlisting the help of the public on social media, the authorities now owed them all the details. Television dramas often weave curr...
2 comments
Read more

Separate and Unequal

  Remember “Separate but equal”? Remember how that really meant that Black schools languished in  broken-down buildings without adequate heat or toilet facilities, with cast-off, ragged learning materials, underfunded and largely ignored? The Supreme Court struck that down in 1954. The evidence was clear that separate was not equal. Plessy v Ferguson had led to - - no, endorsed - - deeply unequal schooling and opportunities. We tend to think of Brown v Board as being purely about racial integration. It was not.  It was about the logical consequences of segregation. And they were not, not, not equal. The ruling in 1954 didn’t transform public education for non-whites into a land of milk and honey by any means. But it articulated some essential truths in a way that made including everyone a legal precedent which could be relied upon and built upon. It was better than what came before it but it rested upon unsteady ground. It did not necessarily change the hearts or minds ...
1 comment
Read more