Heavy Rain


Spat is anti-Obama at its core

Michael A. Smith

By A Contributor

Leo Strauss coined the phrase reductio ad Hitlarum to describe the logical fallacy of tying one’s opponent to Adolph Hitler by ridiculous means: a special kind of reductio ad absurdum. For example: Hitler was evil. Hitler had a mustache. Therefore, mustaches are evil! Hitler was one of history’s truly vicious agents, but similar fallacies can be used to tie an idea to anyone one dislikes, such as President Barack Obama.

A new term, reductio ad Obamnium, might best de-scribe the backlash against Common Core education standards. Recently, an amendment to defund Common Core failed by only four votes in the Kansas Legislature. Advocates vow a renewed effort next year.

Common Core should be a conservative triumph. Initiated by a bipartisan group of governors, it aims to replace the convoluted, overlapping regime of state “No Child Left Behind” standards. Instead, it proposes a relatively straightforward set of principles, voluntarily and jointly adopted by multiple states. Supportive Republicans include current and former governors and education secre-taries include Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Bill Bennett, John Engler, Chris Christie, Sonny Perdue, Bobby Jindal, Rod Paige and Mitch Daniels. As for Demo-crats, the Obama Administration supported grants for states to develop and implement the standards. While no consensus exists to repeal the decade-old NCLB law outright, the Obama Administration found a work-around: granting the states waivers upon approval of their own substitutes to the law. Conservatives have long champ-ioned such waivers, which portend less federal micro-management.

I have helped many students wade through the baffling array of professional jargon and detailed control making up many pre-Common Core standards, no two states alike. Viewable at, Common Core is a breath of fresh air. For example, the English literature and social studies standards for high school juniors and seniors can be understood by a reason-able person with no education-school background. Summari-zing, English standards focus on students’ understanding of the texts they have read, including the author’s use of language. For social studies, students evaluate an argument, separate fact from opinion and review evidence for a claim.

Common Core opponents see the standards “paving the way to a federal takeover” and “taking control away from parents and communities.” There is little evidence for this in the actual standards. For example, re-garding reading materials, the standards suggest a few books that are already classroom staples, but final decisions stay with teachers, communities, school boards or states.

However, opponents rare-ly cite the standards them-selves. Nor do they discuss Common Core’s beginnings as a voluntary, bipartisan state effort,  or Republican supporters, or the waivers that soften No Child Left Behind’s controlling man-dates.

To its critics, only one thing matters: President Obama put his imprimatur on Common Core by including funding for it in the 2009 stimulus bill. Therefore, it must be stopped. Opposed by the conservative Americans for Prosperity, Common Core is also meeting resistance in Georgia, Utah, California and elsewhere. At this rate, the standards may need revisions in order to teach future students the identifica-tion and avoidance of reductio ad Obamnium.

Michael A. Smith is an associate professor of political science at Emporia State University

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | The Manhattan Mercury, 318 North 5th Street, Manhattan, Kansas, 66502 | Copyright 2017