Mon, 19 Jul 1999 18:09:22 -0400
At 02:07 PM 7/16/99 -0700, you wrote:
>(being devil's advocate here...)
>OK. So, let's say I'm running for a major public office. I can run as a
>Republican, Democrat, Independent, or something else. Let's say that,
>despite my fundamental irreconcilable differences with both major parties, I
>decide to run as a Republican because it gives me an aura of respectability
>and - especially - it allows me to raise funds with much greater success.
>But I state to anyone who asks the right questions that I really don't agree
>with the major premises of the Republicans, but, since I am a serious
>candidate, I needed to go with the label in order not to turn off funding
>Note that key among people to whom I don't volunteer my true political
>stands are 1) Republicans, especially party officials, and 2) potential
>donors. I won't exactly lie, I'll just spare them the parts they don't want
>to hear anyway.
>Hmmm. This seems, I don't know, kinda shady to me.
>Why is accreditation any different?
There's one glaring problem with your analogy - the school is *not* a single
entity making decisions for itself only. Its' actions affect every student.
And a number of those students are going to say - at least when they get
near to leaving for the "real" world - that having attended an accredited
school and gotten a diploma is going to put them in a position where they
don't have to justify themselves every step of the way.
Not everyone wants to fight the education battle - or at least not every
day. And I think that's fine. Accreditation gives them the option of still
having the benefits of an SVS experience.
So they can run as Republicans if they want to use the system, or fight it
out as Independents if they'd rather. Depends one which is the ultimate
goal - get into office so you can do X, or try and reform the political
party system. Both are equally legitimate.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Dec 23 1999 - 09:01:56 EST