You know, so many of the leaders of the left, and I hate to be so personal about this, but they’re people without kids trying to brainwash the minds of our children. And that really disorients me and it really disturbs me...
It's a bullshit argument, not the least because it assumes that adult human beings are incapable of caring about children unless they've birthed one. Too bad for you, every nun and priest ever. Not to mention that back in the day, pregnancy and motherhood quickly disqualified women from teaching.
But honestly, Vance is not the first person I've ever heard make some variation of this point, this notion that teachers without children aren't really qualified to be teachers.
When I hear this point, I have questions.
Should the teacher have children the very first year she starts working? As in, right after college graduation when she is probably 22 years old? Should these children have been conceived and delivered during her undergrad years? Should she have gotten married so that they are "legitimate"? If children should be a requirement for teaching, does that mean she should have the child before being accepted into the teaching program? How should high school guidance counselors work this into their conversations with students?
If your reaction to all of that is, "Of course not, silly," then what do we do about all those inadequate teachers at the start of their careers in their early and mid twenties? Do we let it slide as long as they make a commitment to settle down and make some babies by a particular date? Should we fire them if they don't make the baby deadline? What would a good deadline be? Do we just have them sit and do paperwork till they produce offspring, or should they work in some other field, their teaching degree gathering dust, until they are a parent?
What is the critical part? Raising the kid or actually giving birth to it? If it's just the raising part, does adoption count? If so, how young must the child be? Does this also apply for step-children? Being a step-parent has been discounted by folks like Vance-- is that because the child was too old, or because it didn't pass through the parent's birth canal? If it's the latter, does that disqualify all men from being teachers? What about dead-beat absent dads who neither gave birth nor child-rearing support? Are they disqualified?
Does a bad parent make a better teacher than a non-parent? Should we interview their children as part of the teacher accreditation? Is there a qualitative difference between a childless cat lady and a non-parent incel?
Are there other jobs that non-parents shouldn't have? Should we keep non-parents on an island somewhere? Should we just assume that anyone who isn't a traditional parent is some kind of grooming indoctrinatey threat to every child they encounter, or is it only in classrooms that they are suspect?
"Teachers ought to have kids of their own" is one of those things that seems pretty sensible right up until the point you start to think it through. There is no question that having children of your own can add to your teaching perspective. It is also true that having no children can also add to your perspective. It is most true that having a variety of perspectives in the teaching staff is super-valuable.
But the next time you hear someone propose that only parents can be good teachers, see if you can get answers for any of my questions.
When you're doing a job that literally asks more of you than is humanly possible for one mere human to accomplish, having no children of your own is probably an advantage. On a related note, it's astonishing to me that some people are so worried about other people not having children when there are already nearly 8 billion of us on this planet.
ReplyDeleteAnd then, due to the shortage of teachers when the baby boom hit school age, my first grade teacher had to teach right up to her due date, at which point she was basically immobile.
ReplyDelete