To the Editor:
Soroptimist International of Fillmore would like to extend a big “toy filled” thank you to all of those that attended and helped with the annual fashion show. It was held on December 9th, and was a wonderful distraction to the challenges that surrounded Fillmore that week. The theme was “Toyland”, and the members and guests had the option of decorating their tables and bringing toys to donate towards the City of Fillmore Fire Department toy give away. The toys were abundant, as well as the friendships! The fashions were provided by Chico’s at the Collection, and the models were gorgeous!! Another “bear hug” of a thank you to the Fillmore Citizen’s Patrol and the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department Explorer Post #2958 out of Fillmore for their excellent help in the kitchen, and serving all that attended the fashion show.
Jane David,
Soroptimist International of Fillmore

***

Response to Dec. 6th Editorial
To the editor:

Dear Martin Farrell,

I grew up in Fillmore and still consider it home. The Fillmore Gazette has been a way for me to check in on what’s happening in Fillmore while I am out of town and for that I am grateful.

I am writing in response to your Dec. 6th editorial. The structure of some of your arguments don’t seem valid and I find it difficult to accept the truth of some of your premises. I’ve written this rather quickly, and so despite the critical nature of my response, I hope this comes across as respectful.

Your first paragraph cites an anonymous polling organization as evidence that millennials are more attracted to socialism than democracy. It is then asserted that this data is “proof” of the wholesale failure of our educational system. To make this assertion you need to have the following assumptions, (1) every form of socialism is a bad political or economic system, (2) anyone who thinks otherwise must have received a bad education, and (3) an educational system that produces people who disagree with my opinions is a failed educational system. This is an interested line of argument, but it has flaws. First, there is no reasoning given in your op-ed for why we should believe (1). And so (2) is a non-starter. (3) is odd because it assumes that everyone with opinions opposed to your own are irrational or at least their arguments are irrational or unintelligible.

The second paragraph then narrows in on how you think educational systems are flawed: American history has been hijacked by “radical Left fake history.” I think your point here is that because American millennials are ignorant of American heritage, they are more likely to think socialism is better than democracy. It isn’t clear what makes you say that millennials are ignorant of American heritage. Do you mean that (1) millennials must be ignorant of American heritage based on their attraction to socialism, or (2) millennials are ignorant based on personal experience you’ve had with them, or (3) millennials are ignorant of American history because of external data/polling? You also don’t make clear how knowing American history causes a person to think socialism is a bad thing. First, socialism isn’t defined in your op-ed, so it isn’t clear what you consider socialism to be. Part of the confusion here is that you contrast socialism with democracy even though socialism as a form of government isn’t mutually excluded from democracy. This is why “social democracy” and “democratic socialism” are forms of government. So, I wonder if socialism vs. democracy is in some ways a false dichotomy. If I had to guess, I’d say that millennials are more critical of capitalism than of democracy.

Your argument for why American history is important is that America is “exceptional”: it has thrived for 240 years as a democratic republic. The assumption you make is that students who know American history better will be more critical of socialism in all its forms. I don’t see why this is the case, unless learning American history is a form of brainwashing in which all political systems besides American democracy and capitalism are portrayed as irrational. Studying American history should let students see the ways in which democracy (and capitalism) have been both successful and not perfect, i.e., both systems have flaws.

Part of your op-ed criticizes elite colleges and universities for devaluing studies of Western Civilization, which was mostly, as far as I know, universities dropping the requirement for students to take Western Civilization courses. You claim that the chant was “Hey-hey, ho-ho, American Civ has got to go,” but my Google search of this phrase only brought up, “Hey-hey, ho-ho, Western Civ has got to go,” (at least for what happened at Stanford; if I am wrong here, point me to the relevant news articles). Western Civilization would include all European, American, and colonial history, which is much more than just American history. (Interestingly, Plato is a part of Western Civilization, and he hated democracy.) The required courses that were dropped were in Western Civilization, but charitability causes me to think the university still required courses in history, philosophy, art, etc. of world civilizations (and this might include western civilization).

So, your most pointed claim here strikes me as odd. You say: “Some (most ?) of our colleges and universities, those touted as the greatest, have for decades now produced a crowd of history ignoramuses.” First, it seems likely to me that students who get accepted into elite colleges probably have a better understanding of history (world, western, and American) than those who are not accepted into elite colleges; They probably did well in their high school history courses. Hence, calling people with elite college degrees “a crowd of history ignoramuses” seems mistaken. I think this point holds even if you only mean that they are American-history ignoramuses. Second, requiring college students to take American history doesn’t necessarily make them less of an American history ignoramus. Students can do the minimum to pass classes and so remain “ignoramuses.”

I think part of your conclusion on this subject is viable: “…it’s not too much of a stretch to conclude that most American citizens are dangerously ignorant of their own American history…” But it doesn’t necessarily follow that knowledge of American history will make you “acknowledge its greatness” and think America an “exceptional” place. Yes, America is good in certain ways, but history also shows the ways in which America has slaughtered and enslaved people. Why would people of color, after coming to know American History, ipso facto think that America is an “exceptional” place?

Lastly, you make this excessive claim: “No intellectually honest person can fail to acknowledge Divine intervention in its [America’s] birth and growth.” My understanding of Divine intervention is that it is a matter of faith (for the most part) and not knowledge. So, it is odd for you to claim that every intellectually honest person must hold certain faith beliefs. This conflates faith and reason and it also claims that everyone who doesn’t hold your beliefs is intellectually dishonest – this seems unreasonable to me. This letter has already become very long, so I won’t go deeper into this part.

With respect,
Jacob Zellmer
PhD Student in the Department of Philosophy
University of California, San Diego