Regarding the Sunday Viewpoints commentary, “Entitled to learn“: As I was reading Jim Strickland’s commentary on world education or the U.N. Bill of Rights for students or whatever it was, I kept asking myself, what does he mean? What in the world is he saying?
Well, for myself, when I was doing high school in the East Bay of San Francisco in the late ’60s, all I was interested in was girls, booze and drugs. So needless to say I didn’t graduate from high school. So I would suppose if the writer was there, he would have said it was the school’s fault for not shaping my education around the things I was interested in, because I had a right to something or whatever he was trying to say.
The one thing that seems clear to me is if his ideas were implemented, the only change we’d get would be more overpaid bureaucrats that never see the inside of a classroom, always calling for more money to save the children.
One more thing, he didn’t mention what the U.N. has accomplished since they started their education rights program however long ago it was. How’s that working out for female students in Muslim nations? Not too well, I hear.
There must be another side to the story. It would be nice to hear that as well.
John Beal
Everett
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
