Vincent J. Curtis
3 Mar 2013
[An unpublished letter to the editor of my hometown newspaper.]
Tension between the Smart and the Stupid was the theme of
two articles in this morning’s Hamilton Spectator.
In ‘The right direction to go’ article there are two
examples of the tension between Smarts and Stupids. The alleged ‘right
way to go’ involved setting as a policy goal the mixing of populations of
relatively smart with relatively stupid students. The smart people who
posited this as a policy goal never said why it should be a policy goal, or
what good they expected to come out of it.
I’m quite sure that there is
no proof that what the smart people expect to come out of it actually will come
out of it, but never mind. And since they never said why it should be a
policy goal, the reason why must be intuitively obvious to smart people like
them and beyond the understanding of other people like me.
These smart people were, apparently, shocked to find that
the sons and daughters of smart, well educated and affluent people tended to do
better in school than children of poor means. This cannot be
tolerated.
Consequently, instead of segregating smart and stupid by
schools and school districts the tell-tale statistics will be confused by
segregating within schools and school districts. That way, the gross
average in performance will be the same average everywhere. And the smart
people who set the policy will be happy. Equality will prevail, at least
statistically.
D.P., a great and very smart Hamiltonian, casts away the last
tattered shreds of humility in which he cloaked himself in his article, “Say
hello to Hamiltonism.” There is a certain arrogance to the expression
“smart growth” which he uses not in a pejorative sense. Presumably, he
means to contrast his preferred method and style of urban growth to other
styles of urban growth which must be characterized as “stupid growth.”
While Mr. P. enthusiastically describes what he means by “smart growth”, for
the life of me I cannot understand what makes it “smart” instead of
“arrogant.” What makes his vision better or more desirable is one of
those things found in the eye of the beholder. He seems to think that
urban planning is a driver of economic activity and cultural development, and
not the other way around.
For all of Mr. P. enthusiasm for the
magnet of talent and innovation of Vancouverism, I’ll take the Latin Quarter of
Paris any day to Vancouver.
Mr. P. is one of those smart people who believe in
“sustainability.” What the trendy people mean by “sustainable” boils down
to “steady state,” i.e. going slow so that we don’t outrun resources. The
thesis of Malthus, in other words.
Those smart people who believe in sustainability seem to
have never contemplated the life cycle of an insect: egg, larva, pupa, and
adult. Not one of these stages of life is sustainable, and yet insects
have managed to survive for hundreds of millions of years. The life cycle
of an insect is a standing rebuke to the Malthusian notion of “sustainability,”
which Mr. P. seems to share.
I’m not so sure the smart people in Hamilton are as smart as
they believe they are, or perhaps it is wisdom that is lacking.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment