Voucher debate grows more heated

Pignanelli: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us" was the headline of the now infamous Sept. 10 ad in the New York Times — sponsored by the leftist organization Moveon.org. To suggest a member of the armed forces is committing treason for just obeying his orders and issuing an opinion is disgusting and reprehensible. Many Americans, including those of us who oppose the occupation of Iraq but admire our fellow citizens in uniform undertaking this difficult task, condemn such slanderous character assassination by Moveon.org.

Unfortunately, we are witnessing similar political tactics in the Referendum 1 debate. Extreme elements of the pro-voucher movement are sponsoring television advertisements claiming Moveon.org, Ted Kennedy and other liberal special interests are working against Utah parents to oppose voucher legislation in Utah. Their claim is that left-wing elements are "aligned" with the National Education Association and the Utah Education Association — teacher organizations openly opposing vouchers. The implication, therefore, is that Utahns who question vouchers are suspect in their values.

The logic behind these commercials is outrageous. Former congressmen Randall "Duke" Cunningham (convicted of receiving bribes) and Mark Foley (disgraced for sending obscene messages to teenage congressional pages) were outspoken advocates and supporters of vouchers for private schools. Yet, no rational person would claim the voucher movement is "aligned" with criminals and sexual predators. Granted, voucher opponents are not offering substantive reasons sustaining the status quo, other than statements the voucher legislation is "flawed." But at least the education community has avoided tactics similar to the voucherites (i.e. there are no declarations that Osama bin Laden is "aligned" with vouchers).

It is shameful the referendum discussion has devolved into this mess. As the father of three children in public school, I am joined by thousands of Utah parents who maintain concerns with the education system. Voucher supporters raise legitimate questions — shared by voucher opponents — that must be addressed. Indeed, I have a number of friends within the voucher movement who are quite persuasive, especially because they do not rely on such desperate devices in their arguments.

There are imperative issues surrounding public education: teacher accountability, administrative efficiency, relevant curriculum, enhanced salaries, fair taxes and better financing, etc. The opportunity to discuss how vouchers (and other alternative programs) may or may not resolve these problems is lost amid this political noise.