S/O The Epic Fail - When Someone You Looked Up To is Now an Embarrassment

[Ginevra]

I hope there are not others simultaneously crafting this S/O. SWB asked:

Any interest in a spin-off thread? I think most of us who've been homeschooling for more than a few years found initial help and inspiration from people that we'd now prefer to distance ourselves from--but I also think that's a common human experience, whether you're homeschooling or not. Makes me think of a few other questions. Is there anything we can still learn from our former mentors? Under what conditions is it necessary to entirely sever ourselves from any advice offered by them? (I might, for example, quibble with Bill's equating of A Beka grammar books with the entire Doug Wilson complex, but I don't want to derail this thread too much more than I already have.) How embarrassed should we be, fifteen years after the fact? And so forth.

It's an interesting question. Clearly, anyone who has been alive for a little while has probably experienced this. The candidate you once voted for is caught in an awful scandal. The celebrity you defended and admired has a giant skeleton fall out of the closet. The curriculum author you pitched to your friends and recommended on your blog falls in a humiliating disgrace. What do you do at that point? Do you publicly denounce the offender? Do you just shake your head and hope people forget?

 

Our homeschool co-op has given out copies of The Old Schoolhouse magazine as a free gift in the past. Now they have been uncovered in a scandal. Do we burn the old copies? Or do we just no longer promote them?

 

Even when I open up my Kindle app and see digital bookcovers with the Duggars, I feel icked out. I don't want to see the book on my digital bookshelf anymore. Do I just delete it? Hide it? Archive it? Or is it still useful; after all, there are 18 siblings who are not at fault for the actions of one (and some of whom are victims). It is so unjust that the little Duggars will suffer negative fall-out because that was their brother. They have a taint by their names.

 

I have on my bookshelf at home the Gothard-published Character Sketches; my mother gave it to me a few years ago. It was one of my favorite books to look at as a child. I love animals and art and the illustrations in that book are beautiful. So I still have the book. I have thought about chucking it...but, should I destroy the pleasure of the whole book based on wanting nothing to do with the organization and the man who authored it?

[Meriwether]

Before the Bill Cosby stuff came out, I was going to buy CD's of the records I listened to growing up. I wanted my kids to hear them. Now I won't. I probably wouldn't introduce them to the Cosby Show or Kids Say the Darndest Things either.

 

I liked Bill Cosby. :(

[FaithManor]

It is a very tough question. Humans are humans, they fall, their lives get muddy. If some degree of perfection is required, I would not have a book that pertained to homeschooling or any other big, life decisions. So I look at the bigger issues and try to be careful where I put my money. Neoconfederacy and the advocacy of oppression of any peopl group, women, children, minorities, etc. are deal breakers. I did not know who Doug Wilson really was when I first began homeschooling. So I do not feel embarassed about having purchased that first book on Dorothy Sayers, but I also will never pass it on to someone else.

 

Bill Gothard's materials I do keep around as a reference for helping people understand the crazy when they want to know the nitty gritty. But I consider him to be very dangerous and warn people not to spend any money to get his materials and definitely not to read them if they are going through personal struggles, looking for help or answers, or feeling vulnerable, depressed, etc. I am very concerned about people being easily duped at certain times in their lives.

 

I refuse to give the BJU folks a dime of my money.

 

I do not think anyone should be ashamed or embarassed for not knowing about an author, public speaker, self help guru, or clergy person's seedier side in advance of buying their product. But once known, then we need to make the very individual choice of what to do in the future. For me, I personally cannot financially support Neo confederate thinking or the treatment of women and children that seems to hark back to the Dark Ages. This means that not only do I not spend money on products that filters back to Doug Wilson's pockets, but I also do not recommend him to others and will share what I know about him and links to that information whenever appropriate.

 

One thing that has been a blessing to our family is the ever growing secular options and especially at the middle - high school levels. So few of these books have single authorship, and the ones that do tend to be rather nuts and bolts. Having a huge array of choices like Singapore Math in the younger years followed by Basic College Mathematics, Miller and Levine Biology, Conceptual Physics, The Great Courses, AP textbook selections, etc. has allowed us to use high end materialz without the commentary on how we should live, act as a family, believe as Christians, and so forth.

 

I think the key is not, "Hang my head in shame because I once bought this man's book or used Veritas History", but "Now that I know, what is my responsibility, what is the appropriate response?"

[Runningmom80]

I have unfortunately experienced this IRL, going to bat for someone who turns out to have been incredibly dishonest or just morally corrupt.  It's embarrassing, but it happens when you try to see the good in everyone. 

 

 

I've only been homeschooling for 4 years, and secularly at that, so these "falls from grace" haven't affected me.  It's interesting to watch unfold, but not surprising.  It seems these pillars of morality are often wolves in sheep's clothing, or just covering their guilt with judgement.

[Runningmom80]

Before the Bill Cosby stuff came out, I was going to buy CD's of the records I listened to growing up. I wanted my kids to hear them. Now I won't. I probably wouldn't introduce them to the Cosby Show or Kids Say the Darndest Things either.

 

I liked Bill Cosby. :(

 

me too.  :(

[sunflowerlady]

Quill, I am with you about Mary Pride's Big Books of Home Learning. I loved those so much.  I was considering homeschooling when my dd was preschool age and I found them in my library. That really got the ball rolling. I did not have a computer then, so I used the info she had in the books to contact various publishers to request info and catalogs. 

 

The catalogs started rolling in and I knew that THIS was what I was going to do.  :hurray:

 

I didn't learn until later about her other controversial beliefs and actions. It does not change the way I feel about those books. 

 

As for the question here, I don't really do anything if a scandal comes out.  I just stop buying someone's products or stop recommending them  if I had done so. 

 

 

[kiana]

Before the Bill Cosby stuff came out, I was going to buy CD's of the records I listened to growing up. I wanted my kids to hear them. Now I won't. I probably wouldn't introduce them to the Cosby Show or Kids Say the Darndest Things either.

 

I liked Bill Cosby. :(

 

Yes, this makes me so sad. He had so many funny things to share, and he ruined it and now I can't even hear a quote from his show without an icky feeling :(

[mommaduck]

There are some things I kept for reference for awhile and finally just decided they weren't worth even that (we move a lot). Ezzos went in the trash, Pearls in the trash (I had been given the Helpmeet book at one point). And ATI stuff, trash, with the exception of the Red book...that I keep for reference alongside the Behind the Curtain book. 

 

There are books that I refuse to buy and publishers that I'll buy certain things from. BJU? Not a dime. Abeka? I still will buy workbooks for math, phonics, writing, spelling, and language arts. They are good and I have found that they work the best with my kids (and yes, we've tried other things some years and we always tend to come back to Abeka). Abeka reading, history, and science? No. Not with a ten foot pole. 

 

I remember being so excited over Mary Pride's book and nearly bought Doug Wilson's book on Classical Education (someone beat me to it). I can no longer find that kind of joy in them. I have absolutely NO love for Doug Wilson. I still own Omnibus I and am trying to decide whether to use it again or not. I can't remember how much of his views and theology are in it. These are classics and philosophers broke down. I still own ToG and I have no care for the author and her husband either. I'm sure if I look at many books I own and got to know the authors, I would only like some. This is a weigh out of who has good books, but is a bad person vs who is pushing bad ideas through their writing.

 

And I'm a confessed bibliophile. My collection of books is substantial (I find a lot of deals and freebies). 

 

FTR, I loved Cosby's bit on Parenting. I remember watching it with my stepdad. He ruined it for me now.

[Catherine]

People are complicated.  Isn't that the lesson of many great works of literature?  That no one, Achilles, Aeneas, or James Potter, is all good or all bad-we are all capable of evil and greatness.  I hope that means that we humble mortals are allowed to pick and choose the lessons we want to pass on, and those we want to use as examples of what to avoid. I have tried hard with my own brood to help them understand, as they grew up and became more capable of understanding the subtleties of a situation, that we all have to choose who we are going to be.  We have to decide many times a day, every day, how to spend our time, our effort, our material resources, in this imperfect world.  I see absolutely no reason not to listen to Bill Cosby's valuable, and funny, observations about life.  Nothing has changed, IMO, in their value now that we have discovered that he was in fact capable of awful things.  The same goes for anyone.  I admit to knowing, and learning, next to nothing about Doug Wilson.  Socially and religiously, my family is somewhere else. However, I don't believe for one minute that this means that we will be spared some embarrassing, or even horrifying revelation about our chosen models one day.  Because, people are complicated.   

 

That said, I think that people in public life are in an unfortunate position of being vulnerable to accusations by the press of espousing everything about a group or person just because they agree with ONE aspect of that person or group.  And all I can do in that case is to again lament the low level of what often passes for discourse.  

[Mrs. Y]

There are certain authors/speakers/books I will have nothing to do with.  But having said that, one could make their world pretty small by completely ditching every author/speaker/book that ever had a whisper of controversy.

[El...]

I think when somebody swan-dives off their pedestal, there is a layer of "I should have known".  I believe that is because I want protect myself next time.  Being duped is a huge blow because it says I can be so easily duped.  If I can identify the piece of information I missed that revealed their slime, I won't be taken in again by that particular slime, right?

 

I say this as one who was a teen in ATI.  I'm angry.  Yep.  On the other hand, that is a lot to ask of one's younger, less-experienced self.  How could I have known, being who and where I was then?  I have to give my younger self a little grace.

 

I wonder if there was something in their writings that we should have seen, a thought path that revealed them?  Any fans of Crime and Punishment?  Remember how the detective understood the criminal's thought from his essay, and realized that those ideas led inevitably to the crime? 

 

But I wouldn't see that line of thought unless I was reading very, very carefully, and looking for trouble.  I mean, the Pearls are rather easy to discern.  Gothard is easy, looking at that stuff as an adult.  In a book about the stages of classical education, disdain and control of women would be a lot more subtle, if it were there at all.  (I have not read ol' Dougie's stuff and now I probably never will.​) 

 

 

[Valley Girl]

OK, my two cents...

 

SWB posed the question "How embarrassed should we be, fifteen years after the fact?"

 

Since none of us has a crystal ball (although considering this is the Hive, I realize I could be wrong), no one can see fifteen years into the future. If you (general you) promote or mention something in good faith with the intent on being helpful AND if the person being promoted is not known at that time to be a problem AND the actual material being promoted in and of itself is not damaging, I don't think anyone needs to be embarrassed. All a person can do is refrain from promoting it in the future. Anyone who acts as though you still should have had the gift of foresight is just fueling their own need to feel superior.

[marbel]

I don't feel embarrassed or regretful for having read some of Douglas Wilson's materials, for buying my daughter a doll from Vision Forum, etc.  I'm pretty sure I've passed on some books by authors who are now beyond the pale.   <shrug> Nothing to do about it now.

 

Lack of humility is a red flag for me.  Pretty much whenever anyone says, basically, "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" I start to look at things more critically.   Over time, the lack of humility becomes more and more pronounced, and then you know something is up.   I'd stopped looking at the Vision Forum catalog before Doug Phillip's fall from grace because he seemed to be getting louder and more shrill.  I think what might have pushed me over with Wilson were some of the commentaries in Omnibus I. I'm not sure; I just remember I had an uneasy feeling about him for a while. 

 

But, I can't fault anyone for recommending their materials. There were some good materials!  I wouldn't discard anything useful to me just because, for example, it was published by Canon Press. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Meriwether]

Catherine, at this point in my life, I can't hear or see BC without thinking about the recent stuff.

[kiana]

I am actually not criticizing anyone who continues listening to Cosby's stuff. It was funny.

 

I just can't. I can't get it out of my head.

[liber]

I think I have a a DW book. I don't plan on getting rid of it even though I really dislike what is happening. I have no problem divorcing his actions and beliefs from whatever I happen to find of value in his books. So should I throw out Mein Kamp or any other writings of Karl Marx because so many people died directly or indirectly because of their ideas. How far does one really want to take this?

[The Governess]

Lack of humility is a red flag for me. Pretty much whenever anyone says, basically, "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" I start to look at things more critically. Over time, the lack of humility becomes more and more pronounced, and then you know something is up.

 

 

This, exactly. I have found this to be true just about every time. Arrogance and rigidity make me immediately suspicious. Interestingly, I think that spending time in these forums has strengthened my reaction to people like this; being exposed to such a wide variety of people and viewpoints here has helped me be open to the fact that humanity is complex and there is rarely (maybe never) one "right" way to do things.

 

I think that, a lot of the time, people who put themselves out there as self-proclaimed "experts" do so as an attempt to get outside approval to make up for their own lack of self-worth. Behind the arrogance is usually a very insecure person that desperately needs validation. So when they fall, my feelings tend to be sympathetic.

[bolt.]

I think embarrassment (to some degree) comes from the feeling of being the sucker in these situations. There is the idea that some people saw red flags before there was disclosure.., and it wasn't me.

 

Personally, this has made me more likely to tune into voices of dissent, and to try to see the possibility that they are pointing to an actual risk. When I began thinking of homeschooling, I kinda knew there was "a ditch" of over-conservative shelter and control. As a (then) fairly textbook conservative Christian, I wanted to know, "If that started to happen to me, how would I know?" So, in addition to online pro-hs Christian stuff, I began to frequent fault-finding snark sites that saw everything wholesome about Chridtian hs-ing from an entirely different perspective.

 

So, one of my "checks" is WWFJSAT? What would free jinger say about that? So, to me, I feel like I've taken precautions. So I don't feel that "sucker" feeling, because I feel more like "nobody could have seen that!" Or "I knew that risk and evaluated carefully, even though I was wrong" (I use this strategy in health, environment, theology and politics too.)

 

After the fact, I do try to weigh whether the "badness" is actually in the particular content of the resource I'm evaluating, or whether the information seems valid/valuable in spite of the "badness" -- with a fine tooth comb, once s particular "badness" becomes evident. I can 'spit out the seeds' myself, but I tend not to recommend anything that I can not endorse wholeheartedly to uncritical readers who may follow an author beyond what I'm saying. Sometimes I keep resources I have rejected as academic examples of what I don't agree with.

 

A real issue for me though is that my ideas *themselves* have changed significantly, so resources stop being something I approve of through no fault of their author, but just because I have changed camps. I don't like that feeling either.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I've always known that people have feet of clay.  I like and promote certain books because of ideas, not because of the personality behind it.  I appreciate talent for what it is, and know that the actors or singers or artists have lives that encompass a lot of things outside of their talent.  

 

My dad, who died last year at 92, would rant about Charlie Chaplin (just to show that entertainers having scandals in their life is not a new thing).  I still appreciate his comedic genius.  

 

We've watched Cosby shows in the past and at some time I'm sure we will again.  Right now his wrongdoings are still being exposed and are fresh.  Once they no longer sting as much it won't mean that we forgot or passed over what he did but that we've separated the man from his talent and I think that is just fine.

 

I bet, as a classical board we could make a long list of authors, philosophers, artists etc. who have had scandal in their life.  

[Jean in Newcastle]

Re. authors who provide self help "cookbooks" - I've never been a fan of that approach.  That genre does rely on the reputation of the "expert" for success and sets up the author as some sort of a guru that we follow.

 

But for other books that are not dependent on the author as a guru, I go with the ideas themselves.   If SWB were suddenly to be exposed in a scandal (sorry, SWB for even suggesting it!) then I would still evaluate the pros and cons of a 4 year cycle of history and would appreciate all the work she's put into her books.  

[Runningmom80]

Re. authors who provide self help "cookbooks" - I've never been a fan of that approach.  That genre does rely on the reputation of the "expert" for success and sets up the author as some sort of a guru that we follow.

 

 

 

You've reminded me of my embarrassment for my previous overwhelming adoration for Dr. Oz. :lol:

 

 

(I don't think he's fallen from grace, but I did waste $7 on face cream because Dr Oz recommended it on Pinterest.)

[Mimm]

I mentioned this in another post, that I read and liked Doug Wilson's Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning. It spoke to me at the time when my children were very little and I was first starting out on this "How will we some day educate them" journey.

 

I was very sad about Cosby, having watched his show some and his comedy as a child. I was shocked about Tiger Woods, who I always thought was a good guy. But I wasn't really into golf so it didn't really affect me as much.

 

I'm actually kind of cynical about people and assume, not that they're awful people, but that they aren't perfect and they might actually kinda suck.

[Spy Car]

I see two seperate issues here.

One is how one reacts when a public figure who has a benign if not beloved public image is found out to have a been a monster in his or her private life. The Bill Cosby case is a perfect example. He was America's TV dad. He had the image of a funny and warm person for decades. Then the truth of his being a serial rapist who drugged his victims began to trickle out and then trickle became a flood of women coming forward. Made me feel quite awful.

As opposed to the cases of the type above—where the shock and revulsion is in finding a person one would never expect was so evil—there are cases where one knows damn well you are dealing with evil, and one does so in naked defiance of what is obvious. So yes, dealing with BJU and giving them money? Same with A Beka. Do that and one knowingly supports institutions that have a long history of supporting racism and bigotry.

Douglas Wilson's craziness is not a new development. The extremist patriarchy alone ought to have been the first clue. His pro slavery writings are hardly new. The man is twisted and takes delight in playing the bad boy. His motto is "theology that bites back," for Pete's sake. If alarm bells were not going off on Douglas Wilson I think there must has been some cognitive dissonance going on, or some other form of rationalization, because this guy is clearly not right.

Wilson had already shelter the serial paedophile. After he struck again and was sent to prison, it as Wilson who used his influence to free the man. Then he arranged and officiated a marriage that lead to a baby being sexually mostested by his paedophile father. What did people think night happen?

We can conflate cases where there are no warning signs with those where the claxons are screaming "Danger Will Robinson," but I think it is unwise.

Guys like Douglas Wilson, Doug Phelps, Bill Gothard, Josh Duggar and the like are not coming "out of nowhere" with their actions. They spread hate prior to their public "falls."

The lesson is not to ignore the risk of following minds that hate. Don't do it. Don't turn the other way, or say you are "going to glean the good parts" when the Pearls of the Ezzos show up as gurus who advocate physical abuse as a child rearing technique.

Bad enough we are tricked by a guy like Cosby without tricking ourselves about these other folks who don't hide their true faces (if one takes a hard look).

Bill

[Miss Mousie]

People are complicated.  Isn't that the lesson of many great works of literature?  That no one, Achilles, Aeneas, or James Potter, is all good or all bad-we are all capable of evil and greatness.  I hope that means that we humble mortals are allowed to pick and choose the lessons we want to pass on, and those we want to use as examples of what to avoid. I have tried hard with my own brood to help them understand, as they grew up and became more capable of understanding the subtleties of a situation, that we all have to choose who we are going to be.  We have to decide many times a day, every day, how to spend our time, our effort, our material resources, in this imperfect world.  I see absolutely no reason not to listen to Bill Cosby's valuable, and funny, observations about life.  Nothing has changed, IMO, in their value now that we have discovered that he was in fact capable of awful things.  The same goes for anyone.  I admit to knowing, and learning, next to nothing about Doug Wilson.  Socially and religiously, my family is somewhere else. However, I don't believe for one minute that this means that we will be spared some embarrassing, or even horrifying revelation about our chosen models one day.  Because, people are complicated.   

 

That said, I think that people in public life are in an unfortunate position of being vulnerable to accusations by the press of espousing everything about a group or person just because they agree with ONE aspect of that person or group.  And all I can do in that case is to again lament the low level of what often passes for discourse.  

 

I haven't yet read past this post, but Catherine touches on my own thoughts here, so it's as good a time as any to inflict them on the rest of you.  ;)

 

Ever since I was in high school and learned about Hemingway's personal life, I decided to consciously separate the art from the artist.  I could still love, admire and enjoy his work without connoting any sort of support for his lifestyle/values/whatever.  Same issue came up later with Woody Allen, and later still with Bill Cosby.  I still very much enjoy the work of all three of them (well, the early-middle stuff, anyway; not so familiar with later works by any of them).

 

Maybe I can sum it up this way:  enjoyment does not equal endorsement.

 

As far as homeschooling is concerned, I have only one year under my belt and have been completely secular, with the (IMO mild) exceptions of excusing infusions of Christianity in otherwise secular materials (subtlely in SOTW, explicitly in Life of Fred).  The overall value of the materials outweighed the bits I didn't care for (much like Mommaduck's evaluations, IIRC from a post upthread).

 

 

[Susan Wise Bauer]

I think I agree with the posters who are pointing out that personal failings unconnected to the area of expertise are in a different category.

 

So if, for example, you all found out that my academic degrees are fake (THEY'RE NOT) and that I wasn't actually home schooled (I WAS), I'd think you would be justified in tossing out most of my home schooling advice. But I'm not a Family Togetherness spokesperson, so if my husband and I split up (WE'RE NOT), I personally think you should keep my materials. 

 

Which goes towards the Doug Wilson question. The little book on classical education I cite is a good and helpful one and has nothing to do with his theological weirdnesses.

 

But this is a personal issue for me, because I am a Christian and Doug Wilson is a Christian, and I am particularly sensitive towards anything implying that he and I are on the same wavelength in our interpretation of our faith. To be perfectly honest, if he were of another, or no, faith, I'm not sure I'd have the same "I need to distance myself" recommendation. (But I do, and I'm distancing myself. Just trying to sort out my strong emotional need to do so.)

 

I actually reject Bill's assertion (I think it was in the other thread) that quoting someone in TWTM is an endorsement. Good heavens, if that were the case I'd be endorsing scores of people of whom I know very little and certainly wouldn't stand side-by-side with. And although I don't think I have the energy to battle Bill on the A Beka issue, I'd like to point out that recommending a book from any publisher most certainly does not imply support of that publisher's goals and other materials.

 

Although I'm not consistent in that, I think. When I wrote TWEM, I remember hunting all over the place to find an edition of Mein Kampf (recommended for its historical value) that wasn't published by a white supremacy organization, since I didn't want folks to be channeling their money into neo-Nazi coffers.

 

I'm in the throes of picking whom to recommend at the moment, so this issue's very much on my mind.

 

SWB

 

[Anne in CA]

Since we live in a broken world it is pretty hard to distance yourself from people who fall from grace completely. All of the people mentioned up thread, Cosby, Woody Allen, Doug Wilson contributed to the culture they were in significantly. I remember a man telling me, "Hitler was responsible for building the Autobon and you don't see people refusing to drive on it for that reason.", when the man was explaining how he felt about Woody Allen.

 

There are plenty of people IRL that I looked up to and it turned out that they had real issues that made them poor role models in other areas, but the help they gave me at the time was real, and I am not going to forget it. I had a boss who r*aped his 14yo dd and fled bail. He taught me a lot about customer service that I use every day. Discounting the things he taught me would be crazy, when I worked for an international hotel chain I received a lot of praise for doing things I learned from this man, and even now I use his ideas in my own business, but I can't put him on any kind of pedestal, even though he was nothing but kind to me, he was a monster in reality. I also don't give him public credit for my accomplishments using his training. Maybe that isn't fair, but he really was not a good person.

 

 

[Guest]

I saw most of the current scandals coming.

 

I remember taking years and years of back issues of Mary Pride magazines to the recycling center when the enormity of Seelhoff vs Welch was sinking in and can still visualize my kids and myself emptying boxes into the dumpster one by one.

 

I love books. When I deconverted from Christianity, there were some titles that I owned that I did not feel comfortable handing down but that I didn't want any more. We also were downwardly mobile and didn't have any heat except a wood stove, and never had enough kindling.

 

It felt immature at the time, but also therapeutic. I wouldn't have confessed to "book burning" then, but 10 years later I found myself putting perfectly good twaddle that I didn't hate into the recycling bin because I didn't have transportation to donate it and was developing a mildew problem that threatened my family heirlooms and rare first editions.

 

I felt really good about handing down my Apologia and some other Christian homeschooling texts to a particular family, but I wouldn't have felt right about taking money for them or giving them to strangers.

 

That said, I have had ten years to deal with my anger, embarrassment, and feelings of betrayal. It's been a long road and a journey that many of you here have just begun. I now have no problem spending online time with Conservative Christians and no desire whatsoever to snark or shame any Hive member or join sites like Free Jinger or Trolls With Wooden Spoons. I feel nothing but compassion for people who are now going through what I went through then.

 

I introduced little ds to Fat Albert briefly before we knew about Bill Cosby, but wasn't even consciously aware of redirecting him to Bewitched, Brady Bunch, The Electric Company, etc. until I read this thread.

 

Cheryl Seelhoff is no longer a hero or a mentor to me, just a beloved internet friend who is every bit as fallible and human as anyone else. I'm sure I'd feel the same way about SWB if we ever had the time to get to know each other.

[Spy Car]

I actually reject Bill's assertion (I think it was in the other thread) that quoting someone in TWTM is an endorsement. Good heavens, if that were the case I'd be endorsing scores of people of whom I know very little and certainly wouldn't stand side-by-side with. And although I don't think I have the energy to battle Bill on the A Beka issue, I'd like to point out that recommending a book from any publisher most certainly does not imply support of that publisher's goals and other materials.

 

Susan, I never asserted that quoting someone was an endorsement of that person or group. I clarified my first post on the subject to show that my intention of pointing out Dougals Wilson was cited multiple times in TWTM was evidence he is pretty a well know figure in homeschooling circles. I'm sorry i did not make that crystal clear in the original post.

 

It is true that due to your well-earned position of respect in the home education field and due to the prestigious position of your publishing house, that resources included in the TWTM gain a luster of respectability that may be deserved, or may not deserved.

 

When and if fonts of hatred and bigorty like A Beka (Pensacola Christian College) or BJU (Bob Jones University) have materials that appear in TWTM it gives those groups cover. You have tremendious sway when you make recommendations. You might think the recommendations for math book (or whatever) are compartmentalized in your mind, but that is not the public effect.

 

The recommendations can put money into the tills of groups with hateful agendas, and it confers undeserved legitimacy on them via inclusion as recommended sources in your book.

 

I hope you ponder that truth prior to the next edition.

 

It is because you are held in respect that it matters. If people just consider you another wing-nut it wouldn't matter.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Oops

[FO4UR]

We should not feel embarrassed that someone else failed.  We have no control over other people's actions.  That said, there is a line that can and should draw to avoid enabling (if we cannot prevent) severe and habitual wrongs.  If we live in this world, work in this world, work with other people, we are going to find ourselves in the position of supporting someone only to find out later that they were not who we thought they were.  

 

 

 

What can we learn from a former mentor?  I think we can learn not to base our own sense of balance, and sense of self on someone else's ideas.  Learn from other's ideas, but don't "plant your flag" in anyone else's "camp."  

 

As homeschoolers, I think we can all safely come to the conclusion that there is NO paradigm, curriculum, or strategy that will produce "Godly Character" with a money-back guarantee. Classical Education is supposed to impart virtue...hmmm...well, how did that work for DW?  Homeschooling is a magic button for _______fillintheblank_______???  Another lie.  

 

When we are in the role of mentor, we need to be very careful to discuss options, goals, and possible outcomes, and then have the humility to leave decision making to the person.  

 

 

 

Under what circumstances do I distance myself?  When the curric provider or author seeks to spread harmful ideals, then it's time to find another source.  "Eat the meat and spit out the bones." does not work well when the whole thing is a rotten, infested carcass.  While I would agree that Abeka and DW are on vastly different parts of the spectrum...I have to recognize that they are, indeed, on the same spectrum.  There is a difference in a curric created by a Christian and a curric designed to indoctrinate towards a specific theology.  Abeka/Pensacola theology is not mainstream.

 

 

 

[Guest]

I am actually not criticizing anyone who continues listening to Cosby's stuff. It was funny.

 

I just can't. I can't get it out of my head.

We still make the joke regularly at home, "Dad is great! He gives us chocolate cake!" It is our go-to quote whenever dad does something mom would not permit. I guess it doesn't make me think of Bill Cosby, though it came from his work.

[mamiof5]

Same with Bill Cosby, we really liked his show. Also a wonderful priest/speaker, he was very faithful and seemed to know so much about our faith, but one day he totally turned around. Unfortunately we don't always know what someone does or really stands for until the truth comes out. It is dissapointing, but I guess part of life :(

[Guest]

 

We still make the joke regularly at home, "Dad is great! He gives us chocolate cake!" It is our go-to quote whenever dad does something mom would not permit. I guess it doesn't make me think of Bill Cosby, though it came from his work.

 

 

I feel the same way about:

 

"God is love.

Love is blind.

Ray Charles is blind.

Therefore, Ray Charles is God."

 

which I have already said to the new baby (7 1/2 yo) to make him laugh and will undoubtedly say again even though it came from Douglas Wilson's Introductory Logic, which I used with my 26 and 23yos.

 

I'm sure there are better resources for the little guy when the time comes; GSWL is certainly easier to teach than Martha Wilson's Latin Primer, but I certainly intend to enjoy my memories because I'm old and that's what old people do.

[Guest]

People are people. They're not perfect and they're not who we should aspire to emulate, because that's setting oneself up for disappointment. Shrug and move on from scandal if you can, take the good, spit out the bones of the material. Do what works for your conscience. That will look different for each person.

[Cindy in FL.]

This is why I shy away from putting anyone on a pedastel and remind my dh and kids to not do it either. No one is exempt from making a major mistake in their lives.

[Tsuga]

I have a very hard time looking up to people and public figures for this very reason.

 

On the one hand, there is the question of what kind of audacious, self-serving personality it takes to cultivate and endure fame.

 

I don't mean relative success, such as that of many writers, including Susan Wise-Bauer, or Pam Anderson (cookbooks, one of which is sitting on my table), or Geoff Colvin, whose book is also sitting here. These are people who are successful and leaders, but most of us wouldn't recognize them if we saw them, and very few of us know anything beyond a very broad religious affiliation, perhaps marital status, and that's it. And yet, at least Anderson and Colvin have been on NPR repeatedly, maybe SWB as well (I don't know).

 

Fame does need to be cultivated. It's not easy. It's very easy to fall out of the limelight and hard to get back in. So I'm automatically suspicious, at 38, of people who are very famous, particularly those who are famous for being virtuous. I probably became skeptical at an early age, being a child of the 1980s during the televangelism scandals, Reagan's scandals (astrology, remember?), followed by Clinton, the first gulf war, ugh, ugh, ugh. And that's not to mention regular, run of the mill celebrities, most of whom seemed to have skeletons in their closet.

 

People who promote a lifestyle, rather than a method, in my opinion are always suspicious. For example, I'm not tempted by the KonMari method. I share many of her thoughts on decluttering, but the whole "method named after me" I find creepy as hell. Like if SWB had named WTM "The Bauer Method". Creepy. I almost certainly never would have bought it.

 

And then there's the logical issue. Anyone who claims you can trust their thinking because of their exemplary life is obviously deluding themselves--none of us would withstand extensive scrutiny, none of us, so from the get-go you know they have issues. But on top of that, I could live the perfect life and it doesn't mean that my ideas about God are correct. The facts of the matter and the truths of the universe are not true because I make a hot breakfast every day on a wood stove for my 10 children. If god exists that truth does not derive in any way shape or form from one woman's choice not to use birth control and have 23 children and homeschool them all.

 

This type of argument, "Believe what I say because I'm so awesome" or "Believe what she says because she's so awesome" is known as the appeal to authority.

 

Some of the world's greatest minds were wrong about something--Einstein, about parts of quantum physics, Napoleon, about land wars in Asia--and it seems clear, anyway, that facts about the world and universal truths if there are any, do not exist because reputable people believe them.

 

I think with Christianity, it is more difficult, because "you will know a tree by its fruits" kind of builds in some appeal to authority into the belief system. Why should I become a Christian? They will know we are Christians by our love. And to say that anyone who doesn't love, is not a "real" Christian, is too easy an answer--few adults believe that. They might not be "real" Christians, but it doesn't solve the problem of why we should believe the Christian metaphysic, other than the fact that those people seem to have a special answer for good living. Now I think a lot of Christians would say, "No, we're sinners, there's no special answer, you just take it on faith" but as a witnessing tactic, that's a pretty weak spiel.

 

I don't know the solution to this question for the Christian.

 

I do know that my only comment on WTM was on the Christian content. I don't oppose Christian content, but I think it should be marked as such, and clearly--that lends more credibility to the book overall.

 

The fact that some of these organizations are, in my opinion, despicable for their defense of leadership and also in the causes they support (not every cause--they may also do good things), would make me not want to recommend that anyone give them their money. I don't buy food from certain companies that use their profits for causes I disagree with, and the same goes for books. I'm not going to buy a Cosby video not because I don't want to ever see him again, since I can kind of distance myself from that. It's because I don't want him to get my money. You vote with your dollars, they say, and I think that's true.

 

For that reason, I believe that Susan should remove recommendations for books which are published by people with morally offensive practices. But I believed this before the latest round of scandals.

[LucyStoner]

I will admit I still own all of Michael Jackson's CDs.

 

But I stopped watching the Cosby Show on Hulu when I learned about him.

 

I can offer little explaination for why the first is ok and the second is not (for me personally).

 

In the homeschooling front:

 

For me, extreme patriarchy is reason enough for me to steer clear. I am a feminist married to a feminist. Scandal or no, patriarchy and me are not on good terms. I make no bones about that. I'll read books about patriarchy and by old dead sexist people, I do not buy books from people who would tell me that all women now should do xy or z. My dollars will not support such nonsense.

 

That said, I don't expect others to have my same set of values. If A beka is what they want, it's not my call. I don't think that the only valid way to pick materials is to stick to straight up secular suppliers. I will admit that I will always laugh at their description of teaching math "unburdened by set theory". And I will continue to teach my sons math burdened by set theory.

 

I have at times felt the need to add some Catholic history to Story of the World as we go through because I think it's important for my children to understand their roots even though I am not religious. I know some won't use SOTW because they think it's too religious but for me, I think religion is an undeniable factor in world history and must be taught with it so I have liked SOTW for the most part. Well enough that we will be using it again for little brother.

 

I was at a homeschool consignment store very recently and looking at some of the materials, besides some bizarre and at times dangerous inaccuracies, I was struck by how dull so much of it seemed. WTM on the whole seems to be recommending some of the most interesting things available and I appreciate that more seeing SOTW side by side with some of the stuff put out by religious publishers.

[Cindy in FL.]

I will admit I still own all of Michael Jackson's CDs.

 

But I stopped watching the Cosby Show on Hulu when I learned about him.

 

I can offer little explaination for why the first is ok and the second is not (for me personally).

 

 

I used to think Alton Brown totally rocked until he said that he got divorced because he wasn't happy in his marriage. It really rubbed me the wrong way and I can't bring myself to watch his shows any more. Funny how these things affect us sometimes!

[TerriMI]

I wrote this post at the original thread before I saw that there was a spin-off: 

 

I understand the need for removing citations.  However, years ago his booklet on Classical Education inspired me in that it made clear to me what it would take to actually school in a very classical way.   I would still, myself, recommend his book to anyone interested in schooling that way. To me, this is a "meat" book.  I also recommend the Omnibus with caveats.  His other books or ideas may be considered "bones" that I don't need.  All things are my teacher. ( I Corinthians 3: 21 [context inclusive])

 

Perhaps there is a book just as good as his booklet on Classical Education.  Does anyone know of one?  I would love to read it and perhaps recommend it.

 

What I wanted years ago was a book that was clear and helpful in setting the parameters of education before Dewey and would also relay what it takes for someone to approach this way of educating.  Yep, that book accomplished just that.  In fact I have just recommended it to someone today.  Not only is it clear, but it also contains Dorothy Sayer's complete influential essay.  

 

What I WASN'T looking for was to be associated with someone that had a good reputation with everyone, like that association would make or break our schooling.  Not that I mind that kind of association per se.  I wasn't looking for the opposite either.  Neither I nor my now-finished homeschool nor my present-day tutoring has anything else to do with Douglas Wilson.  His other ideas are no reflection on us or Classical Education.  

 

 

[MrsBasil]

Since we live in a broken world it is pretty hard to distance yourself from people who fall from grace completely. All of the people mentioned up thread, Cosby, Woody Allen, Doug Wilson contributed to the culture they were in significantly. I remember a man telling me, "Hitler was responsible for building the Autobon and you don't see people refusing to drive on it for that reason.", when the man was explaining how he felt about Woody Allen.

 

There are plenty of people IRL that I looked up to and it turned out that they had real issues that made them poor role models in other areas, but the help they gave me at the time was real, and I am not going to forget it. I had a boss who r*aped his 14yo dd and fled bail. He taught me a lot about customer service that I use every day. Discounting the things he taught me would be crazy, when I worked for an international hotel chain I received a lot of praise for doing things I learned from this man, and even now I use his ideas in my own business, but I can't put him on any kind of pedestal, even though he was nothing but kind to me, he was a monster in reality. I also don't give him public credit for my accomplishments using his training. Maybe that isn't fair, but he really was not a good person.

I get this and don't fully disagree, but I struggle when the person in question profits of it. Hitler does not make money or earn professional recognition when people drive on the Audobon. If people buy Douglas Wilson's books then that contributes to his reputation as an expert in his field and as someone whose POV is worth considering. If I recommend Wilson's books am I also recommending HIM? It's a big difference to me when someone who is...well, horrible is alive and benefits financially and professionally from recommendations, quotes, and write ups.

[Liz CA]

I hope there are not others simultaneously crafting this S/O. SWB asked:

It's an interesting question. Clearly, anyone who has been alive for a little while has probably experienced this. The candidate you once voted for is caught in an awful scandal. The celebrity you defended and admired has a giant skeleton fall out of the closet. The curriculum author you pitched to your friends and recommended on your blog falls in a humiliating disgrace. What do you do at that point? Do you publicly denounce the offender? Do you just shake your head and hope people forget?

 

Our homeschool co-op has given out copies of The Old Schoolhouse magazine as a free gift in the past. Now they have been uncovered in a scandal. Do we burn the old copies? Or do we just no longer promote them?

 

Even when I open up my Kindle app and see digital bookcovers with the Duggars, I feel icked out. I don't want to see the book on my digital bookshelf anymore. Do I just delete it? Hide it? Archive it? Or is it still useful; after all, there are 18 siblings who are not at fault for the actions of one (and some of whom are victims). It is so unjust that the little Duggars will suffer negative fall-out because that was their brother. They have a taint by their names.

 

I have on my bookshelf at home the Gothard-published Character Sketches; my mother gave it to me a few years ago. It was one of my favorite books to look at as a child. I love animals and art and the illustrations in that book are beautiful. So I still have the book. I have thought about chucking it...but, should I destroy the pleasure of the whole book based on wanting nothing to do with the organization and the man who authored it?

 

No, IMHO you need not throw the baby out with the bath water. Separating the chaff from the wheat is something we need to practice constantly and should probably teach our kids. Very few things ( and virtually no humans) are all good or all bad. Discernment is a valuable skill.

And back to the original question: I don't believe we need to regret subscribing to a principle or recommending an author even if we find out later the person has made statements with which we don't agree. We agreed with part of their analysis but perhaps not all. It is disappointing when a respected leader gets exposed in some tawdry scandal but I see it just as a reminder that truly NOBODY is without sin.

[creekland]

People are complicated.  Isn't that the lesson of many great works of literature?  That no one, Achilles, Aeneas, or James Potter, is all good or all bad-we are all capable of evil and greatness.  I hope that means that we humble mortals are allowed to pick and choose the lessons we want to pass on, and those we want to use as examples of what to avoid. I have tried hard with my own brood to help them understand, as they grew up and became more capable of understanding the subtleties of a situation, that we all have to choose who we are going to be.  We have to decide many times a day, every day, how to spend our time, our effort, our material resources, in this imperfect world.  I see absolutely no reason not to listen to Bill Cosby's valuable, and funny, observations about life.  Nothing has changed, IMO, in their value now that we have discovered that he was in fact capable of awful things.  The same goes for anyone.  I admit to knowing, and learning, next to nothing about Doug Wilson.  Socially and religiously, my family is somewhere else. However, I don't believe for one minute that this means that we will be spared some embarrassing, or even horrifying revelation about our chosen models one day.  Because, people are complicated.   

 

That said, I think that people in public life are in an unfortunate position of being vulnerable to accusations by the press of espousing everything about a group or person just because they agree with ONE aspect of that person or group.  And all I can do in that case is to again lament the low level of what often passes for discourse.  

 

I believe you and I agree to a T on this one.

 

My guys and I still enjoy Cosby's comedy routines (esp his getting drunk bit), BUT we also know who he was.

 

It reminds us to never put anyone on a pedestal.  

 

It also reminds us that anyone is capable of anything, so beware, both of the other guy, and what you might be slipping into yourself if you're not careful.

 

If we gave up everything from everyone who had ever slipped up in life... major or minor... life would be rather boring with many good works of the past gone.

[maryanne]

This is an interesting question to ponder...

 

More generically the question is at what point does doing business with or recommending a specific product or service constitute endorsement of unrelated goals/beliefs/actions of the individual/company. 

 

I have more questions than answers...

 

Does recommending a specific A Beka reading or grammar program constitute endorsement of all of A Beka doctrines/beliefs/goals or even any other A Beka curriculum item?

 

Does a book recommendation constitute an endorsement of everything the author believes or does?  or even everything in the book itself?

 

Does an ethical vegan hiring a handyman who shows up to work wearing a leather tool belt and eating a McDonald's hamburger constitute the vegan endorsing the use animal products or McDonald's business practices.

 

Does a pro-life homeowner hiring a pro-choice painter to paint his house constitute endorsing the painter's pro-choice beliefs?

 

Does listening to, laughing at, or purchasing Bill Cosby's comedy routines constitute endorsement of all that he believes or does?

 

Does issuing a government approved same sex marriage license constitute personal endorsement of same sex marriage?

 

Does a government issued automobile license tag with a confederate battle flag issued to members of Sons of Confederate Veterans because they met the generic standard for a special interest tags constitute government endorsement of all that SCV stands for?

 

Why or why not?

 

 

[elegantlion]

I have gotten rid of things that belonged to people I no longer admire. The ones that were emotional were the people I knew. My former church felll apart when the pastor fell off his pedestal in a huge way. We had moved from the area, so we were no longer attending. While some of his teaching still would be considered sound, I could no longer keep anything with his name on it. I filed the bible I used and have not read it much since. I recycled all my notes. 

 

I did get rid of one self-help book by ripping it to shreds because after going through it with a book group (it was a workbook type book), I wanted no reminder of the teaching. I kept going to see if I'd change my mind about the book, never did. 

 

As for people like Bill Cosby, I don't know. I can't look at chocolate cake without remembering that line, but I'm not going to be reciting it anymore. 

 

I remember when Harrison Ford got divorced from his previous wife. It upset me in a weird way and kind of dimmed his brightness for me a little. Now I don't really care. Generally, we are not privy to the real information in a lot of divorces anyway. 

 

For homeschooling materials, I wouldn't buy BJU for instance. I did discount some material because of their associations with controversial figures (can't remember who or what now). 

[Farrar]

On the one hand I agree with Bill and others saying that there are a couple of issues at hand. Certainly when someone's expertise is tarnished by their own actions and life being revealed as fraudulent or counter to their own advice then it feels like a much easier thing to distance oneself from them or generally toss out their works. Ditto if someone's work is revealed to be fraudulent and flawed in general (like the example of Dr. Oz given above).

 

I do think someone like Cosby is different... but then it's difficult when it's an artist or entertainer. Can we separate the artist from the art or entertainment? Do we feel okay about enjoying old Cosby Show reruns? What about watching a Roman Polanski film? Does time make it easier? Is it easier to enjoy a Wagner opera or a Hemingway novel because they weren't that bad in their bigotry or personal lives or because enough time has past that it matters less? Or is it more about finances - that there's not much of an issue that any "bad people" who make something will be getting the proceeds from our consumption a century later give or take.

 

I feel like I see it most with politicians. You initially admire something they did or stood for... but inevitably they do something later that you think, ugh, despicable.

[FO4UR]

This is an interesting question to ponder...

 

More generically the question is at what point does doing business with or recommending a specific product or service constitute endorsement of unrelated goals/beliefs/actions of the individual/company. 

 

I have more questions than answers...

 

Does recommending a specific A Beka reading or grammar program constitute endorsement of all of A Beka doctrines/beliefs/goals or even any other A Beka curriculum item?

 

No, but my fear is that an unsuspecting and overly-trusting mom will like the Abeka grammar so much that they try the history...and get sucked down a rabbit hole they didn't know existed.  It's better to recommend something not tied with any of that.

 

 

 

Does a book recommendation constitute an endorsement of everything the author believes or does?  or even everything in the book itself?

 

No. A book is different that a curriculum.  Abeka, for example, claims to be a curriculum that will raise up Godly Christian people.  

 

A book, by a single author, is just that.  It's an author's ideas put out there to examine and question.  There are a few books that I wouldn't buy b/c I don't want to give the author financial support.  A boardie recently gave me a box full of books that I need to read, but refuse to buy.  I need to examine the ideas so that I can reasonably refute the underlying ideas that are packaged so prettily...still, I do not want a dime of my $$$ going to the authors b/c I know I don't support their mission.

 

I have my kids read things we don't agree 100% with to teach them discernment.  It's one thing to read a textbook that says "THIS is the TRUTH."  and another to read a book that says "This is my point of view."  

 

If I only read books if I could endorse every idea, I would read nothing.  

 

 

 

Does an ethical vegan hiring a handyman who shows up to work wearing a leather tool belt and eating a McDonald's hamburger constitute the vegan endorsing the use animal products or McDonald's business practices.

 

No.

 

 

Does a pro-life homeowner hiring a pro-choice painter to paint his house constitute endorsing the painter's pro-choice beliefs?

 

No.  That said, painting has nothing to do with pro-life or pro-choice.  Doug Wilson claims to provide an education that will raise virtuous people.  His own lack of virtue is very relevant to what he's selling.  A better analogy would be that time my (BLIND) dh worked at Sherwin-Williams and helped people match paint colors. :lol:   (His lack of sight impacted his ability to sell a product, or should have.)

 

 

 

Does listening to, laughing at, or purchasing Bill Cosby's comedy routines constitute endorsement of all that he believes or does?

 

No.  I laughed before I knew.  That said, I cannot laugh now.  I know.

 

 

 

Does issuing a government approved same sex marriage license constitute personal endorsement of same sex marriage?

 

No, but refusing to issue makes a statement that gets heard.  

 

 

Does a government issued automobile license tag with a confederate battle flag issued to members of Sons of Confederate Veterans because they met the generic standard for a special interest tags constitute government endorsement of all that SCV stands for?

 

It means that the government does not object b/c they had to produce the tag.

 

Why or why not?

 

 

Good questions.

[Tsuga]

 

 

Does recommending a specific A Beka reading or grammar program constitute endorsement of all of A Beka doctrines/beliefs/goals or even any other A Beka curriculum item?

 

Does a book recommendation constitute an endorsement of everything the author believes or does?  or even everything in the book itself?

 

Why or why not?

 

In this case, I believe it suggests that either the recommending person did not realize the extent of or nature of the activities of the parent company, or they don't mind that the profits generated from their recommendation will go toward furthering all those activities.

 

That's not an endorsement but it's complicity or ignorance, in my opinion.

 

That said, in some cases, you may not be able to find what you need elsewhere. From what I can see based on recommendations here, CLE provides an "open and go" curriculum that few others can. For a mom not confident in her abilities, but with kids who need to be homeschooled, that may literally be the only choice she can afford. That's important. I would consider recommending it with extensive caveats.

 

 

Does an ethical vegan hiring a handyman who shows up to work wearing a leather tool belt and eating a McDonald's hamburger constitute the vegan endorsing the use animal products or McDonald's business practices.

 

No, because those things are not necessary for the handyperson to do their job.

 

 

 

Does a pro-life homeowner hiring a pro-choice painter to paint his house constitute endorsing the painter's pro-choice beliefs?

 

No, because you don't need any money to be pro-choice. HOWEVER, I do think that if a company lists pro-choice charities on its giving web page, purchasing their services acknowledges that you expect some of the profit to be going to pro-choice causes. I would hire any number of people to do work in my home and your religion and political beliefs are your business. Beware, however: if you are a member of an organization that promotes causes I disagree with, and make it clear that you are using profits to fund that organization, I may choose to hire someone else.

 

 

Does listening to, laughing at, or purchasing Bill Cosby's comedy routines constitute endorsement of all that he believes or does?

 

The first two, no. Purchasing is not an endorsement but it suggests you don't mind that he profits from success in a field in which he abused his power.

 

 

Does issuing a government approved same sex marriage license constitute personal endorsement of same sex marriage?

 

No, because it's the responsibility of the state worker to obey the law and do that work. However, I would respect a clerk for resigning their position or openly and clearly stating their position of civil disobedience realizing it will get them fired. I think they are wrong, wrong, wrong, about marriage, but I must agree that everyone has the right to protest and resign their jobs in protest. I think it would be disgusting to pretend to do the work of a clerk and secretly "misplace" licenses. That would be wrong in and of itself.

 

 

Does a government issued automobile license tag with a confederate battle flag issued to members of Sons of Confederate Veterans because they met the generic standard for a special interest tags constitute government endorsement of all that SCV stands for?

 

I think it does and I think that is wrong. I do not think that political affiliations or veterans of foreign armies should have their own special interest tags. The confederate army was a foreign army. And BTW, I am descended from people who were also conquered by the United States, so don't think for a minute I don't get what it's like to be conquered. My people were Mexican before the US won, and before that, many of them were members of tribes. (Even after that, some continued to fight.) We lost. Those who got treaties, got land, but the rest of them are not asking for license plates.

[imagine.more]

I'm loving following this discussion overall and I love SWB's comments in particular, very interesting things to ponder.

 

 

 

More generically the question is at what point does doing business with or recommending a specific product or service constitute endorsement of unrelated goals/beliefs/actions of the individual/company. 

 

 

 

I'm struggling with this myself not just because of the big scandals at the moment (I have two duggar books I've boxed away until I can make an unemotional decision about them) but also about other things. For example we moved to a new church and many wear mantillas or some head covering. I'm happy because I have a couple simple head coverings and enjoy wearing them as an extra spiritual practice at mass. I'd love to buy a couple more and especially for my daughters who have asked for their own (yes the two year old is begging....she also loves shoes and hats, any clothing really, lol). I got mine from Garlands of Grace....before it came out that they are anti-Catholic. I've yet to find any head coverings near their quality! Mine are beautiful, soft, fit very well, and durable. So do I say that their non-theological product is unrelated to their theological beliefs and buy it anyway? Or do I say that supporting them by buying from them is in a way endorsing or at least condoning their anti-Catholic sentiments? I currently tell people candidly if they ask that GOG makes beautiful products but is openly anti-Catholic so they should be aware before purchasing and decide for themselves. 

 

Maybe that's a potential answer to the comments on whether TWTM ought to recommend math products from companies with links to cultish groups or whatever....a simple "this is a great math program, but if you would like to buy from a secular company/non-fundamentalist company/whatever company then I would recommend _________ math curriculum as a strong second choice." And I felt like TWTM sort of does that already by offering 2-3 options in every subject. I personally opted for Singapore Math because I knew Abeka wasn't a company I particularly wanted to support if there were equally good alternatives. I opted for Voyages in English for grammar because I liked that it was from a Catholic company. Likewise I'd expect a secular homeschooler would generally opt for the secular materials unless there was a serious difference in quality, or that a fundamentalist protestant Christian would opt for those materials that matched their beliefs. Having options listed is nice and allows parents to make their own decisions. I always assume it's up to me to research any recommendations in several places....if we say SWB is responsible for everything she recommends we've put her on the same pedestal as Doug Wilson or the Duggars or whatever as an unequivocal expert we can follow as an alternative to thinking for ourselves. 

 

I think it's an easier question when deciding whether to buy a book or product that directly advocates an individual's bad theology or the quality is affected by their actions.

 

As Susan mentioned, if we found out she did not have any academic credentials she has claimed or had no homeschooling experience as claimed then we would be right to toss out a TWTM as likely invalid or at least suspect in content. 

 

If we find out a clothing company is using child labor and scamming their cotton farmers out of money we can absolutely be justified in boycotting their clothing that was made with unethical methods. 

 

But then there are many gray areas and times when a persons' actions might indirectly affect the product we buy or suggest. 

 

[Murphy101]

It is true that due to your well-earned position of respect in the home education field and due to the prestigious position of your publishing house, that resources included in the TWTM gain a luster of respectability that may be deserved, or may not deserved.

 

When and if fonts of hatred and bigorty like A Beka (Pensacola Christian College) or BJU (Bob Jones University) have materials that appear in TWTM it gives those groups cover. You have tremendious sway when you make recommendations. You might think the recommendations for math book (or whatever) are compartmentalized in your mind, but that is not the public effect.

 

The recommendations can put money into the tills of groups with hateful agendas, and it confers undeserved legitimacy on them via inclusion as recommended sources in your book.

 

I disagree. I'm not a fan of abeka and even less so of BJU, but I don't agree at all. If I read something in TWTM, I think SWB thinks this or that item seems to do a decent job of providing this or that educational goal in the subject. For example, abeka math mentioned means nothing more and possibly less than that Abeka math seems to present math in a satisfactory manner or quality.

 

I do not even slightly expect nor require SWB or any other writer to research and vette the background of everyone they mention or of the products they recommend.

 

That's incredibly difficult to navigate and extremely time consuming, but mostly, it also has nothing to do with the question at hand either. If I'm reading TWTM, I'm looking for a means to teach a subject well. They could be bat guano nuts rabid and still have an excellent math program and whether it's an excellent math program is the info I want. I will seek ethical formation elsewhere and I can judge that for myself.

 

What you are calling for is just a form of blackballing people and you seem upset that SWB hasn't done what you think she should to assist that. That doesn't seem to be her goal in these materials she publishes. If it was, I probably wouldn't buy her stuff. If I care about something, it is MY duty to research that and make an educated decision about whether I want to do business.

 

People have more ability than ever to educate themselves and make their own decisions about what causes they want to support or not and to do business with those who they agree with on those things. And if they don't, they have no one to blame but themselves.

 

I, for one, would lose some respect for TWTM if it refused to reference a material that is widely considered of solid quality in a subject bc of political disagreement with the publisher/writer.

 

I don't like Abeka from a political and religious POV, but they do have a history of having a solid math program below high school. (I don't think the high school levels are as well done.)

[Tsuga]

Can I ask, since I posted here, how are we using "reference" vs. "recommendation"? There is a moral obligation to reference something that was, in fact, used in this case. But there are also lists of appropriate curricula, which I view as a recommendation.