Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

headgasketidiot t1_jb9ogdg wrote

This is exceptionally poorly written. After reading the whole thing, I'm not even 100% sure what the argument is, honestly. I get that he disagrees with the current proposals, and he has problems with the alliance, but there's really not a consistent line of reasoning.

The first four paragraphs are entirely in the passive voice (e.g. "action has been taken"), but they're also the only coherent part of the commentary, because each paragraph acknowledges and builds on the preceding one. As soon as he moves on from giving background to making his point, he just doesn't ever actually make an argument.

From the structure, after the introductory paragraphs, in which he lays out the background, he starts his argument with this paragraph:

>From my vantage point, the alliance seems to be having a meandering negotiation with themselves that has ignited nearly 100 communities offering public tuition in some or all grades.

Ignited what? Discussion? What is the meandering negotiation? How does a meandering negotiation ignite towns? I genuinely have no clue what that paragraph is supposed to mean, but it's also clearly intended to be a thesis statement. I was hoping he'd explain later, but he does not, because every single paragraph from now on is independent of every other one. He never develops a single argument.

He also asks questions he clearly intends to be rhetorical, but which really aren't. Example:

>Independent schools educate about 4,000 publicly tuitioned students and generally report that they are doing well. Public schools educate 81,000 students and often report that they are struggling to emerge out of the pandemic. Why is a group that represents schools that educate 81,000 students focused on schools they don’t represent that educate 4,000 students?

... because those are private schools refusing public funds, and that's what we're discussing. I think he's trying to point out it's absurd, but it's not at all obvious to me why this would be absurd. Is it supposed to be absurd because of the numbers? Anybody who has ever made rules, or done anything really, knows that edge cases are often the bulk of the work, i.e. the last 10% is 90% of the work.

If you think he'll explain in the next paragraph, you are of course mistaken. The next paragraph, like every other paragraph, just starts a new, also instantly aborted argument:

> On principle, the alliance and its supporters share their perspective as a humble request to follow a few simple rules which independent schools are already following or soon will be, while simultaneously proposing to restrict public tuition to all but four independent schools, if they are designated.

Why? At least link me to something. As written, it's just an unsupported statement. It's maybe the beginning of an argument, but he offers no supporting points, nor does it do anything to support the previous paragraph, which talks about the 81000 students vs the 4000 students. It's totally unrelated. What are the rules? Even the structure doesn't work. He sets up "a humble request to follow a few simple rules" as being in tension with "proposing to restrict public tuition." Those seem like they're not in tension at all to me. It seems perfectly normal that the people who make the rules also get to decide the funding. If they are in tension, explain it!

Here's the conclusion (typo and all):

>To prevent a handful of religious schools in towns that don’t even offer public tuitioning from receiving public tuition, the alliance is pursuing a sledgehammer approach instead of searching for a credible surgical solution. It is concerning that theaAlliance has a considerable amount of power over Vermont schools and students, yet seemingly no capacity or understanding to recommend solutions that help all Vermont students.

Whatever, I make typos all the time. But also, what is the sledge hammer approach? The proposed bills? He also mixes metaphors -- are they pursuing a meandering negotiation, or are they sledge hammering? Those seem pretty different. He never explains why the alliance has too much power, nor does he really develop any arguments about how it doesn't understand the needs of students.

This is alarming shit from a legislator, whose literal job is to write words enforced by armed agents of the state. Especially when you consider he is writing about education policy, of all things.

edit: Holy shit I just learned he's a legislator and a teacher at St. Johnsbury academy, which will presumably be affected by this. That should be disclosed at the top. That's very important context in evaluating this. But also, this guy teaches kids to write?! I really hope this was an aberration, and not representative of his ability to write and communicate effectively.

7

halfbakedblake OP t1_jb9pcby wrote

Dude is a teacher too or was at one of those four private schools.

This is what I was looking for. I really didn't understand if it was me or if i stopped understanding things.

4

headgasketidiot t1_jb9qn3l wrote

It's definitely not you! There is no coherent point made anywhere in that piece.

2

flambeaway t1_jb9p3uc wrote

Those communities are still burning to this day.

2

headgasketidiot t1_jb9qgbc wrote

At least literal arson would support his conclusion that they have too much power.

2

an_idiot_i_suppose t1_jbanav4 wrote

I witnessed Scott Beck scold a player on an opposing team (for his language) while he was operating that teams penalty box during an Academy hockey game in which his son was playing; I don't think he's that concerned with acting ethically.

2

Intelligent-Hunt7557 t1_jbabs58 wrote

I’d like to agree with you completely (since I found the piece hard to follow as well) but Hartman’s Law means your launch should have been scrubbed. [reason]

Also for someone who seems like they should appreciate nuance the responsibility VTDigger has to their pieces labeled OPINION elude you. Put simply they converted their “Letters to the Editor” feature/tradition to rotating/chosen Opinion pieces some years ago. While the legislative connection is front and center and his employer is unstated, it is certainly public knowledge. Unless he is a paid spokesperson it’s not really relevant tho. Or rather I’m comfortable leaving the relevance as an exercise to the reader. There’s not really any “AHA!” moment here. But I’m pretty sure VTDigger employees would be happy to spell it out more, as the times I have reached them for editing errors they have responded to me quickly.

−1

headgasketidiot t1_jbai3fo wrote

>I’d like to agree with you completely (since I found the piece hard to follow as well) but Hartman’s Law means your launch should have been scrubbed. [reason]

Are you saying that I wrote "sledge hammer" instead of "sledgehammer," and therefore, invoking Hartman's Law, I shouldn't have pointed out that there were grammatical errors in the piece? I think you misunderstand the point of the law, and not without some irony.

I made a substantive critique, which is basically the exact opposite of the nit-picking the law pokes fun at. The few grammatical problems I point out are explicitly labeled as minor points (e.g. "Whatever, I make typos all the time"), but they still contribute to the larger point, in which I argue that this is a bad piece. I talked about typos and grammar, sure, but I actually made it pretty clear that was the least of my concerns.

Hartman's Law doesn't mean that grammar doesn't matter. It's a fun way to poke fun at nit-picking. In making the greater point that one of our elected representatives wrote gobbledygook, it is perfectly valid to point out failures of grammar, among other things.

>Also for someone who seems like they should appreciate nuance the responsibility VTDigger has to their pieces labeled OPINION elude you. Put simply they converted their “Letters to the Editor” feature/tradition to rotating/chosen Opinion pieces some years ago. While the legislative connection is front and center and his employer is unstated, it is certainly public knowledge. Unless he is a paid spokesperson it’s not really relevant tho. Or rather I’m comfortable leaving the relevance as an exercise to the reader. There’s not really any “AHA!” moment here. But I’m pretty sure VTDigger employees would be happy to spell it out more, as the times I have reached them for editing errors they have responded to me quickly.

Sure, I'll remove that critique of VTDigger. I'm sure they're underresourced and overworked and doing their best. I didn't mean it was an AHA moment as in I got VTDigger, but it was an AHA moment for me in that suddenly the piece makes sense -- he feels very strongly about it because it's a threat to his livelihood. He didn't fail to make a coherent argument because he failed to communicate it; he probably just doesn't have one. He is using his position to defend his job, not to make some greater point about policy.

3

Intelligent-Hunt7557 t1_jbbwa1l wrote

I agree that your critique concerned more than a typo (which might have been VTDigger’s anyway) but Hartman’s Law does not dictate typos must be the only crit, no. The descent into (mere?) pedantry can be pleasant given the right circumstances, but in this case the main proviso of ‘don’t point out typos in others’ words unless yours are proofed’ holds.

While it is true that people are generally motivated to protect their employers, it doesn’t actually mean they will or won’t make cogent arguments, so that’s why I’m saying it’s not that relevant. Is motivated self-interest inherently unethical? Realistically, you’d be hard-pressed to find an adult in St. J who is not affected by SJA. And that’s anecdotal I suppose, I don’t have enough data to sway any naysayers.

In general without knowing any situation deeply can’t you always just say “well that’s what you would say, given…”? causation =/= correlation.

1

headgasketidiot t1_jbccme3 wrote

My comment isn't just about "more than a typo." It's about an elected representative who cannot write an essay. That isn't a descent into pedantry. It's a serious criticism of someone who is supposed to write laws for a living. The only pedantry here is invoking a silly adage to point out that I typed "sledge hammer" instead of "sledgehammer," as if somehow a random comment on reddit should be judged on the same standards as the communications of an elected official, or as if that somehow makes my point unclear or deficient. The dude wrote like 800 words of borderline nonsense; that should concern his constituents. No one but you will ever care that I put a space in the word sledgehammer in a reddit comment.

And yeah, obviously I don't know for sure. This isn't a paper I'm submitting to peer review on the psychology of Rep. Scott Beck. It's a reddit comment about Beck's incoherent opinion piece. I know that an elected official made an incoherent argument against something that might negatively affect his own employment. From there, I infer that he doesn't actually have a good argument. That's a perfectly reasonable jump.

2

Intelligent-Hunt7557 t1_jbd5ikh wrote

We’re talking past each other a bit- I’m saying the pleasant pedantry is ours over whether Hartman’s Law applies here. There’s no point in being pedantic (except humorously) about it or Poe’s Law, Godwin’s Law, or any of the other “Laws” which are really observations at best. It’s indeed a bad opinion piece if we’re arguing about the possible qualified intros and not the content. And it was always clear that your complaint was not limited to a typo, but like you I couldn’t resist the zinger.

Getting back to the author’s credentials/ possible motivations Beck is listed on the SJA website as a Social Studies teacher and local business owner so as an alum I’d prefer to think that his incoherency owes to

  1. not being an alum, unlike a great percent of the faculty
  2. not being in the English Department
  3. possibly since he got his M. Ed. from The Citadel?! TIL

All I meant was we could leave the Academy out of this. That he has no discernable point is clear but the Academy is not responsible for that.

0