Friday, July 13, 2007

Pro-voucher propagandists and "Jeff Arguments"

As freshmen at BYU, Lisa and I together took arguably one of the best classes ever offered on campus. The Honors Colloquium class was taught by three professors - two from Humanities and one from the Physics department. These three fine professors couldn't be more different from each other politically, and because of their mutual respect they challenged us (and each other) to examine our philosophies and values.

It was refreshing!

For all its great moments, though, the class had an unfortunate annoyance in the form of a recently returned missionary named Jeff. Jeff was a very bright guy, but whenever Jeff wanted to make a point, he'd quote a scripture. Early on it seemed fine; after all, we did start off every class with a prayer. We were all good kids and who of us would want to challenge an RM glowing with the fire of his convictions?

But after about the third day of class, something changed. Jeff began to get on our nerves. Fascinating debates and discussions would be cut-off midstream as Jeff would interject with a favorite Book of Mormon quote. Soon enough, whenever Jeff raised his hand, you could see fidgeting and hear the occasional faint groan from somehwere in the class. Over time, fellow students in the class began to ignore Jeff.

But Jeff persisted.

I believe it was finally Jeff's girlfriend who told him that people couldn't stand him anymore.

So, whenever Lisa or I hear someone quoting scripture or the prophets to prevail in a discussion (political or otherwise), we can quickly see it for what it is - a "JEFF ARGUMENT".

Technically, a Jeff Argument is a variant of the "Argumentum ad Verecundiam" logical fallacy. The Utah twist on the Appeal to Authority argument is that, in most cases, the authority used is simply being exploited to match the private interpretation of the presenter.

It seems that pro-voucher propagandists (several I imagine are fellow Cougars) don't mind Jeff Arguments. They believe that Utah citizens like Jeff Arguments. In fact, they're so confident that enough Utah voters are swayed by Jeff Arguments that they're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars placing Jeff Arguments into the mainstream media. These aren't little ra-rah's as I mentioned in my Apostle Paul sarcasm piece. This is an all-out, strategic Jeff Argument extravaganza.

Perhaps you haven't heard the latest radio spot, in which a calm, pleasant voice not unlike the CD's we all have quotes this passage (without explicit reference for added effect):

"And the people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their riches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ignorant because of their poverty, and others did receive great learning because of their riches."

Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 6:12

The case being made, I assume, is that private school entitlements, as laid out in House Bill 148, will tear down the walls of social inequality and give all students, regardless of financial means, a chance to "great learning." Perhaps this concept and the scripture reference quoted is what Leah Barker, spokesperson for PCE, was referring to when she said:

"I think that it is in line with the value system that Utah families have — when families really understand what the voucher program is about, then they are going to vote 'yes' because it is right in line with their value and belief system."

Leah Barker, PCE Spokesperson (emphasis added) as cited in the Deseret News.


Fascinating stuff. I learned a lot at BYU but here's a lesson I guess I didn't learn: When you're in Utah and you're 21 points down in the polls there's nothing that can lift your spirits (and your numbers) faster than a JEFF ARGUMENT.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

Craig,

I'll freely admit that I am pro-voucher, but when I read that quote from the pro-voucher radio spot (I have not actually heard it on the radio) it sounded to me like an anti-voucher argument.

I guess I can see how it could be taken as an argument in support of vouchers, but if that's the best reason they offer people to support vouchers then vouchers deserve to fail.

rmwarnick said...

Whenever the term "Utah values" comes up in political discourse, some of us non-BYU alumni see a big red flag.

Unknown said...

David,

Thanks for visiting and for your comments. Great web site you've got! I'll spend some time this weekend reading more of your narrative. The very same colloquium class I mentioned was my first introduction to the Tao Te Ching. Glorious stuff!

Craig.

steve u. said...

Ugg. I hadn't heard about that ad. Not effective. Not smart.

Vouchers will either pass or fail on their merits. Not because God is for or against vouchers.

I predict you'll see that margin close as voucher proponents get out their side of the story. For 0.0025% of the budget, some great things can happen.

Keep arguing your side. That's what the process is all about.

JM Bell said...

You know ... my kind of Jeff Argument is a lot different than that, and has a lot more swear words.

That was a great post, Craig. Nice and calm. How do you do that?

Adam said...

The ad just reeks of desparation. I think most Utahns will see through the schtick. Nice post.

Marshall said...

How about just good ol' fashion logic? The economics behind this program are horrible. The bottom line is no child in this state will be able to go to a private school on vouchers alone. Those that already have the means to send their child to a private school will get a nice taxpayer funded subsidy. Everyone else can root in hell since evidently God not only is a Republican but also supports vouchers, who knew?

Jesse Harris said...

I heard that ad on the radio yesterday and I'm hoping that PCE will have the decency to take it off the air. It's in very poor taste and hurt them more than helps them methinks.

Anonymous said...

at the end of the day those who don't support vouchers are a bunch of godless socialists who beleive that educrats, union thugs and teachers control are education policy = support vouchers = support an equitable redistribution of wealth..kick teachers and education unions in the teeth and make them blled

Anonymous said...

tsktFor the record, I called PCE and they are not the group running this ad.

I have a call into KSL but have not heard back.

Anonymous said...

TUA and other Utah Democrats, you really don't think for a second that PCE had anything to do with this? I realize that the Utah Democratic Party is nothing but a shill organization for the teachers union and those administrators who think that only they should provide education to Utah's children. As a former teacher, you have three kinds of kids in your class. You have the A+ students who excel no matter what you challenge them with. Then you have the easy going B and C student that completes most assignments, but really does not put their heart into it. Then you have the D and F students. These are the kids you spend precious class time trying to just motivate them to bring their books, or a pencil and paper, or not just fall asleep in class.

Parents would contact me a week before the end of the term to beg for some extra credit project to keep their child from failing my class.

So what is a teacher to do when they have six periods per day, with an average of 30-35 kids each period? The problem is not money per pupil. Throwing more money at the problem does nothing to solve the problems of today’s public education. Schools need to be year round, and more demanding of its students, but the system and the courts will not allow this. So nobody win's with the current system. The A student will always be the A student, because usually they have parents who care about education and track their kids progress. The B/C student will cruise along, learning just enough to graduate, but cannot compete in today’s global talent pool from India, China, or nearly 30 countries whose kids are better prepared for future education, trades, or business. Then we have the D/F students, that no matter how much resources and time you spend with them, the reality is normal teaching methods just do not work for these kids.

So why not allow vouchers a try for the kids who need it the most. The A+ kids who should be taking college courses in high school or the kids that need personal one on one help that is just impossible in a normal public school classroom.

Remove these kids from the public classroom and you remove 10-15 kids. Now a public school teacher can concentrate on the B/C students with only 20 kids in the room. With little discipline problems, and more resources to help the average kids to exceed.

Mark E. Towner said...

Rob and you other anti voucher folks, I agree with Tony. I was told by Jack Powers who as one of the most experienced political operatives here in Utah that it’s not unusual for a campaign to hire folks to bad mouth their own campaign, and then condemn the opposition. Could this really be the Teachers Union using scripture quotes’ in an ad to try the make PCE look bad? I smell a rat here, don’t you?

Unknown said...

As a Draperite I know who Jack Powers is. And it doesn't surprise me he would say something like that.

Thanks...Craig.

Craig said...

Marshall's point that vouchers will not allow anyone to afford private school is patently false. Many private schools in the state have tuition rates at or near the $3,000 limit. And many parents would be willing to spend some money out of pocket for a quality education.

Anonymous said...

Let me be the first to welcome "other craig" to the Utah Amicus.

There are only a small handful of schools whose tuition is close to the $3000 max voucher. And this doesn't include transportation, school lunch, books, uniforms, and other fees.

Anonymous said...

Craig:
Great post!
It is interesting to read the pro-voucher comments here. The Jeff Arguement certainly applies to those comments.
I believe that the Jeff Arguement also applies in Sunday School and Priesthood classes. There always seems to be that one "Jeff" in every ward who wants to inject politics into a gospel doctrine discussion.
Thanks Craig.

Anonymous said...

Even Rep. Urquhart will admit $3k won't cover the tuition cost of most schools. (Also, Trib.). Suggesting the full voucher will cover tuition at "many private schools in the state" is an argument I won't buy. (Don't count Pre/K tuition when making an average.)

This is especially true for secondary schools (even in public schools we allocate more money for high school students).

Consider the following high school tuitions. Feel free to add to the list:

Juan Diego: ($6,959 Catholic; $8,522 non-Catholic) + $635.00 Required fees = $7,594; $9,157. Includes books.

Judge Memorial [pdf]: (also)
($7250 Catholic, $8,630 non-Catholic) + req'd fees (est. 355.5) = $7,605.50; $8,985.50 + books

Waterford
(Site broken at the moment.)

Meridian
$6250 + fees

American Heritage (American Fork, 9th Grade only)
$4,400

American Heritage of South Jordan [doc]
$3,740
No mention of fee amounts or whether tuition cost includes books. (Incidentally, this was the only school I checked with the same tuition across elementary and high school.)

Rowland Hall [pdf]:
($14,710 9th-11th Grades, $15,040 12th Grade) + req'd laptop ($1,575) + books/uniforms (est $730) = $17,015; $17,345

Also of interest from the Rowland Hall site:
"The tuition for full day programs of comparable schools within the Pacific Northwest Association of Independent Schools (PNAIS), our accrediting body in the western United States, ranges from $10,900 to $16,500. (2005-2006 Statistics)

"The tuition for full day programs of comparable schools within the National Association of Independent Schools (NAIS) ranges from $13,395 to $16,639. (2005-2006 Statistics)"

Unknown said...

Thanks, Tom, for the data. It's great having a fellow software developer serving our kids on the State School Board. Geeks rule :-) Keep up the good work.

Alienated Wannabe said...

Dear Craig,

What a great article! Thanks for writing it.

Personally, I am not bothered by "Jeff Arguments." On the contrary, I want people to truly speak their minds: You can't change someone's opinion until you know what it is they are thinking -- and what their positions are actually based upon.

I believe that religious speech should be a natural part of everyday life. There should be no shame associated with speaking openly about faith, nor should anyone ever be offended by such speech. Because, if such a climate of fear is created, then people are forced to have hidden lives, and hidden agendas, to concoct phony secular explanations for positions that actually flow from hidden religious motivations.

And, that scenario is what should really frighten a non-believer.

If someone like "Jeff" misapplies a scripture, then you have the opportunity to gently help them to understand an opposing interpretation. But, if a "Jeff" keeps his interpretation to himself, hermetically sealed within his heart, you will never have an opportunity to ever change his mind.

Plus, I am convinced that religious bigotry -- historically, one of the most deadly -- is rooted in ignorance. Thus, the best way to fight such a dangerous force is for us all to better understand one another's religious views and practices. And, we can't do that unless we talk openly about what it is we believe -- truly believe.

Please forgive me, then, if I ever appear to wear my religion upon my sleeve, or to supply "Jeff Arguments" for my positions. I don't ever mean to offend, but I have increasingly felt impressed that I must follow such a course of greater openness, coupled with a sincere effort to achieve balance, wisdom, and respect for others. It is not easy to find that right balance -- I certainly do not claim to have done so -- but I feel that each of us must try.

I am not motivated by reason alone. I am also motivated by faith. To tell only half the story is to be dishonest and to provide a disservice to those around me.

Sincerely,
A.W.

P.S. By the way, I also support the limited experiment with vouchers that Rep. Urquhart and his colleague have provided. (After this trial run, future legislation can crafted to tweak the program as needed.) I think that it is healthy to give people options, to allow for competition, and to prompt innovation. None of that frightens me. Plus, as a product of public education, myself, I remember being fed a steady diet of secularism -- some of it was offensive. I think parents should have a choice as to what doctrines they want their children to be taught. That parental right seems basic to me. In my view, vouchers provide a mechanism for exercising such a right.

Mark E. Towner said...

Alienated Wannabe,

Well said. I like you feel the status quo to be unacceptble. Tony's example of the frustrations todays Public School teachers are encountering, why not try the experiment. Doing nothing changes nothing. Also, I predict a huge political backlash in the legislature if vouchers fail. The leadership in both houses want this experiment to go forward. If the UEA/NEA is successful in defeating this voucher experiment, there will be Hell to pay in the next legislature. The conversations going on now in the Jordan School District will only be the beginning. Look for small cities to attempt to break away from the large districts.

This is a political reality, and with elected officials like Curt Bramble and Howard Stephenson who have no problem punishing those groups who oppose them, watch out.

MT

Bradley Ross said...

Craig, do all references to history count as "jeff arguments" in your book? I can see your (slightly flawed) point about appeals to authority, but I don't see an appeal to authority in the scripture you cited. It was a simple historical statement. Surely you agree we should consider history when we make policy decisions.

(Leave aside for the time being the debate about whether the Book of Mormon is historical. I'm also ignoring the question of whether the radio ad was a good idea.)

Unknown said...

Bradley, thanks for visiting the Utah Amicus.

>>Craig, do all references to history count as "jeff arguments" in your book?

No.

Alienated Wannabe said...

Thanks Mark,

Do you think that vouchers are going down?

The polling data has not looked good. What is your sense of things?

Is there reason to hope?

A.W.

Unknown said...

A.W.,

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I suggest there is a difference between people like yourself willing to share their heartfelt faith in an environment of respect and those who would exploit sacred writings to achieve dominance or stature.

Mark E. Towner said...

lA.W.,
It all depends on how the public is educated and who defines the issue best. The Heartland report http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21640 provides some insite on the true issues. NEA/UEA/PTA are spinning that this will hurt public education, but they don't say how it will hurt. There is a hold harmless clause that says the public schools who lose kids to vouchers, will be made whole. So in reality if the money stays the same, and the class size drops, is this not an increase in spending on Public Education? The pro voucher folks must deliver the message loud and clear that it's the Unions who want to maintain a monopoly on education. Thats really what this is all about. Current polling has this issue decided by turnout. Who ever gets the majority of their supporters to the polls, of the 18-20% registered voters that actually show up at the polls wins. Any polls done by phone are meaningless right now, because most voters will decide at the polls.

Mark

Alienated Wannabe said...

Dear Craig,

I agree that mixing religion and politics can be tricky, and that it creates the possibility for abuse.

And, I realize that much of the historical suffering caused by religious bigotry is actually the result of mixing religion with politics.

So, I certainly do see that it can go either way. (Your point is not lost on me, bud.) I guess that is where wisdom, respect, and balance come into play.

We are darned if we do TOO MUCH, and we are darned if we do TOO LITTLE.

Thanks, again, for the great article.

A.W.

Alienated Wannabe said...

Dear Mark,

I think you have it exactly right. Like so many other things, it looks like it may come down to which side has the deeper pockets to buy the air time to get their side of the story out. (I suspect that the pro-voucher side has the steeper hill to climb, however.)

Thanks,
A.W.

Frank Staheli said...

I agree with AW. Let people have their Jeff Arguments. I'd like to add that if the argument is not valid, it should be fairly easy to debunk rather than get all creepy crawly because someone likes to quote scripture.

I agree with Richard that we should be avoid implying that our "Utah values" are the only true Utah values.

I'm not sure what merit the argument has that $3,000 won't cover the cost of a private school. So what? If this is the main argument, then it almost seems to the best interest of the anti-voucher crowd to let the thing pass, and then point out that nobody's using the program.

I think the most important issue in this debate, as I wrote on Simple Utah Mormon Politics, is that we should do the best we can on both sides not to snipe and not to overstate our case, but rather to be able to understand and respect the point that the opponent is making.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the scripture in question is ludicrous as a justification for vouchers. But I've a question. Does my blog, in which I promote liberalism from an LDS perspective and through LDS theology, make me a Jeff?