On March 14th, public school teachers and students nationwide will be participating in a walkout. Organized by the national political activist movement known as, “Women’s March/Youth Empower,” the primary goal of this protest is to incite youth political activism during school hours. In Orwellian fashion, sympathetic school administrators are calling this event a “memorial” rather than a protest to disguise the obvious: students and teachers will be participating in political activism during school hours.
In the last few generations we have shifted in our collective thinking to where a majority of voters believe using government to force citizens to pay for the public education of other people’s children is a social contract, where older generations are obligated to pay for the education of younger generations. However, like most contracts, public education places duties and responsibilities on other parties besides taxpayers. Under the prevailing social contract, public school employees are obligated to teach, and students are obligated to learn, and both are obligated to avoid disrupting other teachers from educating and other students from learning. By all measures, the planned March 14th walkout is a violation of the current social contract between older and younger generations.
If taxpayer subsidized teachers and students are going to willfully violate their social contract obligations, then it is becomes reasonable for taxpayers to question their future obligations to the social contract. As a form of counter-protest, it doesn’t seem unreasonable for older generations to withhold their future financing of public education if teachers protest in lieu of teaching, and students walk out instead of learning.
In essence, protesting during taxpayer financed school hours is a form of theft of services, where teachers and students are the perpetrators, and taxpayers are the victims. If teacher and student activists wish to obtain the moral high ground in political debates, they might consider protesting on their own dimes rather than during periods when they are expected to be fulfilling their duties and responsibilities as beneficiaries of a public charity. A more persuasive form of protest might be to boycott football or volleyball games, skip speech and debate meets, or refuse scholarship money from local businesses who support 2nd Amendment rights. It is the epitome of hubris for teachers and students to spend other people’s resources in pursuit of their own personal political objectives. Disrespectful and arrogant political overtures such as this planned walkout ought not surprise anyone when public school benefactors increasingly become less enthusiastic about paying taxes to support what they previously thought was public education.