Homeschoolers: Guilt by Association?
Filed Under: Homeschooling
I’m still following the posts and comments regarding the boycott of the Pearls books, The Old Schoolhouse magazine and their blog service, homeschoolblogger.com (HSB). Susie posts here implying that the boycott is wrong because of the fallacy of guilt by association.
Susie makes a point about how these abuse cases are played out in the media, causing bad press for homeschoolers. Yes, this happens for all groups of people. When a tragic story comes to light, there is often some association of the criminal to a stereotype. The woman who killed her son was not only marked as a homeschooler, but also as an adoptive mother – another group that sometimes gets unfairly black-marked by the press. If Susie is implying that homeschoolers should stand together and support one another’s ideas for the sake of making the homeschooling community “look good,” well, that is just wrong.
If I’m reading her correctly, Susie is also saying that a boycott of HSB condemns “by association” those bloggers who may not “support” the ideas advertised by HSB. I’m not sure this line of thinking is clear. In my view, “association” would be reading HSB blogs and commenting – interacting and staying informed. But actually hosting a blog at HSB - updating it and promoting it - is “supporting” the ideas that are advertised there. I’m still turning this over in my mind. What do you think? Is “associating” with an organization different than “supporting” that organization?
Suggested reading: Onorach posted about her experiment with the plumbing supply line. Her conclusion says it all: “Violence begets violence plain and simple. If you beat your child you very well just might be “training” them to snap on their own family one day.”
PHAT = Parenting, Homeschooling And Technology. That about sums up my life at the moment. 
Subscribe To This Blog
Carlotta | Apr 5, 2006 | Reply
“Is “associating” with an organization different than “supporting” that organization.”
Well I suppose so, in that one may associate with an organisation with which one disagrees at least in some detail or other. In fact, this almost inevitably will happen, if the organisation takes a line on a wide range of subjects - one will almost inevitably disagree with some policy or other.
So an important consideration on the part of those who associate with organisations with which they disagree is that because they may be perceived as supporting the thing with which they disagree, or may actively actually accidentally promote the thing with which they disagree, they need to think about whether the thing they disagree about is of sufficient importance to warrant leaving the organisation.
Baby beating strikes me as more than sufficient reason to leave an organisation, particularly as there are other good options to go to.
ChrisF | Apr 5, 2006 | Reply
Well, TBh, I was rather confused by suzie post as to what she was on about - I’ve not elft a comment there as wihout an RSS feed I’ll forget to go back and check.
I tend to agree with you on the point of us ’standing togther’ - even on things we may not agree with, just because we are home educators. Doing that just gets you into deep do-do eventually.
Yes, I also agre with Carlotta’s take on associating v supporting, Though I do think there is a case to argue that ‘associating’ with HSB via reading/commenting etc. is also to an extent supporting them - there is probably a benefit to HSB of traffic across the site say for example. And I think there is asense that by reading/commenting on HSB blogs people are ‘encouraging’ those bloggers who might move to stay there.
I dubious about the effectiveness of boycotts, I doubt, that HSB wil be closed down, or that Alvarez(?) will recant, stop advertising from the Pearls etc. But I do think it has rasied the profile of the whole issue, I think it has got attention with quite a few uk bloggers for example, who otherwise might not have noticed. Maybe that si the point of the whole thing
BTW, came across your blog a couple of weeks back via the Carnival of Hoemscholing’, been enjoying reading it.
Unique | Apr 5, 2006 | Reply
The media *said* this was a homeschooling mom, but was she really?
The media *said* she based her punishments on the Pearl’s book, but did she really?
Her lawyer *said* … nuff said.
Are we boycotting WalMart for exploiting their workers here & abroad?
Can you find one major company anywhere that doesn’t have “rats” in the cellar?
I’ve stayed out of this boycott conflict for a lot of reasons. The best one came to me just now. I pick my own battles, thanks. People are free to do as they choose and I will do the same.
Monika | Apr 6, 2006 | Reply
I think it’s a matter of degree, not easily defined.
I am not much of a follower of the Pearl’s childrearing advice. However, I don’t think it’s fair to associate them with the murder of this child. They never advocated rolling a child up in a blanket, ever. Even their discipline advice is couched with, careful not to do damage, careful not to go too far. So I really don’t think it’s fair to them.
Angela, Mother Crone | Apr 6, 2006 | Reply
I have thought about this one, and look at it simply. It is very easy and free to have a blog outside this organization, than choosing to stay is supporting them by default. As homeschoolers, we sometimes do have limited options with whom we associate vs. support.
Always choose the alternative that best reflects your personal beliefs.
For instance, I chose a homeschool learning center that is inclusive of others, although it is organized and run mainly by born-again Christians. Some of the activities are religious, and a few people are a bit extreme in their convictions, yet I am welcome and respected as one who brings a more liberal/secular side to the group. I have been asked to teach and serve on many committees for that perspective. Therefore, I can easily associate and support this group because they respect others as policy, even if a few individual members do not.
The other group in my area forces all to make a statement of “faith”, and excludes those who are not Christians. Even though I could have done so, I find exclusivity personally reprehensible. I could not even be associated with a group like that, as they offend all secular or non-Christian homeschoolers, no matter how excellent their class offerings or teachers.
This boycott does not effect me, as I do not have anything to do with any of those sites. But, if you do stay when disagreeing, it is plain weakness of character to not take the step to move your blog. Plain and simple.
COD | Apr 6, 2006 | Reply
If you choose to blog at Redstate.com it’s because you want to be part of the “Republican club.” If you choose to blog at DailyKos it’s because you want to be part of the “I hate Republicans club.” If you blog at Slashdot it’s to be associated with the geek crowd. And when you blog at HSB you willingly associate with the “It’s OK to hit your child with plumbing supplies club.”
When you blog there you are part of that club, whether you like it or not. It’s the whole point of a niche blog community. The HSB club leader is on record as enthusiastically supporting The Pearls and TTUAC. You can’t just wish that association away.
Dani | Apr 6, 2006 | Reply
Shannon | Apr 6, 2006 | Reply
COD - I agree. But what about reading/commenting? That was the point of my post - blogging there is SUPPORT, but is reading/commenting also SUPPORT? One could agrue that even opening up a HSB page in your browser allows them to sell more banner impressions to their advertisers…
COD | Apr 6, 2006 | Reply
I’ve been keeping up with them via their RSS feeds in Bloglines - so I’m not contributing to their hit count
Technically, you are benefiting HSB every time you load one of their web pages in your browser. I would say if you are commenting frequently and are an active member of the site then you are just as supportive as somebody who keeps their blog there. Occasionally clicking over to follow a link does not rise to the level of support, IMHO.
Jade | Apr 6, 2006 | Reply
In no way, shape, or form, am I in a position to comment on the particulars of this post. I know nothing about any of the circumstances involved. I can, however, comment on the media in general, if you don’t mind. Wouldn’t an intelligent person realize that the media looks for sensationalism, most often negative sensationalism when airing a story? I would think people, at least anyone who matters, would be aware of that fact. They would not create a link with the actions of one person with the association of others who make the same or similar life choices. Isn’t feeding off this sort of thing creating more unnecessary attention where it might be better off left alone? I suspect those who associate the two will continue to do so, boycot or not. At the same time, those who wouldn’t associate the two will continue to see it as unrelated.
Unique | Apr 7, 2006 | Reply
“If you choose to blog at Redstate.com it’s because you want to be part of the “Republican club.” If you choose to blog at DailyKos it’s because you want to be part of the “I hate Republicans club.” If you blog at Slashdot it’s to be associated with the geek crowd. And when you blog at HSB you willingly associate with the “It’s OK to hit your child with plumbing supplies club.”
When you blog there you are part of that club, whether you like it or not. It’s the whole point of a niche blog community.”
COD - that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. I don’t feel the same way - not even a little bit. A blog is a place to talk - period. I’m not much of a joiner so saying I “belong” with them because I believe as they do is ludicrous. I have a blog with TOS because it’s a HOMESCHOOLING blog and that’s the only common denominator I’ll claim. If any others apply, it’s beside the point.
Please don’t ascribe motives to others when you *don’t know* the others. It isn’t becoming.
Sarcasmom | Apr 7, 2006 | Reply
I am not sure that I would consider “staying informed” as being supportive. I try to stay informed on as much as possible going on around me, but I do not necessarily support every idea and organization. It is true that the media tends to paint all members of any group with one brush, and that is not fair. All teh more reasin for staying informed. Michele sent me.
kedae | Apr 7, 2006 | Reply
wow! a lot to read up on!! no time now as i have 2 kids on my lap insisting on face paints and breaking my books…. aaagtrhrjh
i personally don’t agree with hitting restraining etc. i was hit and this led to a breakdown of respect so that in the end i was subjected to a lot worse as a kid. if we don’t respect our childrens bodies then we stop respecting them completely.
when my children are very naughty i either ask them to leave the room or i leave it until they can behave better- time outs work as do rewards for good behaviour. why would you ever need to go anty further. especially when hitting etc only gives the reverse message0 that violence is ok!
i don’t know the ins and outs of this boycott etc but continueing debate and trying to educate idiots who endorse violence and abuse would seem to me to be the way forward…
thanks for you comments at mine, i’ll be back….
COD | Apr 7, 2006 | Reply
Sorry Unique, I can’t have an conversation with somebody that thinks Guinness tastes horrible. It’s like we are speaking different languages.
Tabz | Apr 7, 2006 | Reply
Like I said at the beginning. I believe boycotts are stupid.
They only serve to make people angry. I’m at homechoolblogger because it’s a community of like-minded people. I have blogs elsewhere (xanga, livejournal, wordpress) and they all have their unique flavors of people - so I perfer to stay at hsblogger until I get my own spot like phtamommy here!
princessgrace | Apr 8, 2006 | Reply
This whole guilt by association is ridiculous! Making judgments based on lack of knowledge of each individual that blogs on HSB is what makes the church as hypocritical as it can be today. No wonder so few want to come to Church and prefer to have home church of trusted friends. I blog on HSB. I’ve never even SEEN the ads for the Pearls’s book, and even if I had, SO WHAT??? I read one years ago and yes, they recommend spanking and accountability, but to turn what they say into advocating beating a child to death makes me want to barf and scream and yell ’til I’m purple in the face. The mother obviously had severe psychological control and anger issues and her lawyer has found that perhaps an out is to blame the Pearls. It’s like playing the race card to make her out to be a victim.
Jo/Onorach | Apr 21, 2006 | Reply
Dani, it does not surprise me in the least that YOU would post an excerpt expressing that children should be spanked in order to avoid violence in the family. *shaking head*
Funny thing, studies and professionals (as well as formerly abused children/adults) have shown that the ones who were spanked (not just talking a quick swat either) and beaten are the ones who are at greatest risk of abusing their own children and spouses. In fact, it is one of the biggest fears of the formerly abused- “Will I beat my own kids the way I was beaten?”.
I think I’ll stick with those who know rather than the ole detective there and most definately rather than YOU of all people. Interviewed hundreds my butt!
Great post Shannon!