is reflected in this shallow and deceptivernarticle.rn—Mary PridernFenton, MOrnDr. Kopff Replies:rnMary Pride writes under the misapprehensionrnthat my remarks about “BiblebelievingrnChristians” were aimed atrnhomeschoolers, many of whom, I agree,rnare attempting heroically to salvage theirrnheritage and America’s future. Theyrnrepresent a goodly number in absoluternterms, but only a small percentage ofrnAmerica’s Christians. My generalizationsrnwere based on some four decadesrnof attending church services and Biblernclasses in different parts of America andrnon a more recent survey of local schools.rnMrs. Pride represents la creme de larncrime of America’s middle class and yetrnshe can write “Help! M’aidez! Salvel”rnThe French she intended is “aidez-moi,”rnthough she might have tried “au secours.”rn”M’aidez” are syllables that mightrnappear in a French sentence, e.g., “Vousrnm’aidez a comprendre la profondeur dernI’ignorance du peuple Americain.” Forrn”salve,” which means “ciao,” Mrs. Pridernmeant to write “salva,” which, however,rnis not classical Latin and usuallyrnmeans “save” in the Christian sense, notrn”help.” There are several ways to sayrn”help” in Latin, e.g., “fer mihi auxilium.”rnI use the plural for the French and singularrnfor the Latin because Mrs. Priderndoes. Is there a meaning to this variatio?rnIt takes a paragraph to explicate thernamount of error and confusion packedrninto three little words. I can see onlyrnone future for an urbanized, industrialrnsociety whose educational standardsrnhave sunk this low. You can see it, too,rnon the evening news, when they showrnpictures of Somalia.rnMrs. Evangelista Replies:rnI have great respect for Mary Pride andrnher efforts on behalf of homeschooling.rnTherefore, 1 can only assume she has defendedrnhomeschooling from governmentrnbureaucrats for so long that she has misinterpretedrnmy article’s intent and purpose.rnAt no point did I suggest thatrnhomeschoolers were “dullards,” that allrnhomeschoolers used enforced routines.rnor that I favor Marxist tactics. In fact, Irnhomeschool my own two children, agesrn12 and 10.rnThough Mary Pride insists none exist,rnI have met homeschoolers regionally andrnin Southern California who fit my descriptionsrnwith frightening accuracy.rnThe article’s intent was to point outrnthese homeschoolers’ error of followingrnpublic school processes while eschewingrnpublic schools. As to the accuracy ofrnmy figures: since there are no headcountsrnof homeschoolers, it’s ridiculousrnto argue over numbers that cannot bernproven. I seriously doubt that a magazine’srndata base (of subscribers? peoplernwho have written to ask a question? familiesrnthat homeschooled for a semesterrnand gave up? anybody who showed up atrn3 homeschool convention?) is a legitimaterncount of anything other than itsrndata base.rnHomeschooling, for many state andrnlocal governments, is a questionable activityrnthat the state allows parents to undertakernwith the state’s children, but onlyrnwhen parents agree to meet the state’srnrequirements. It’s not “legal” in the samernway that growing a garden is “legal”; thatrnis, a personal decision outside of staterncontrol. It is naive to assume homeschoolingrnhas been accepted at any levelrnof government as an inherent “right” ofrnparents. In fact, Mary Pride herselfrnclearly describes Missouri’s restrictionrnand regulation of homeschoolers, as Irnstated in different terms in my articlern(“State mandates require that parentsrnrecord the time that their studentsrnspend on various topics and keep testrnpapers and representative samples of thernchild’s accomplishments”). Should staternscrutiny of a child’s records indicate thernchild falls below minimum state educationalrnlevels, a charge of “educationalrnneglect” could follow. (I know onernhomeschooling family of seven that wasrnharassed by social workers for two yearsrnfor this reason.) In Mary Pride’s estimation,rnhomeschooling is “legal”—evenrnif parents have to meet outlandish requirements,rnsuch as declaring theirrnhome a “private school” and registeringrnit with the state. This is not “legalization”;rnit is a grant of permission. Permissionrncan be withdrawn.rnThe use of John Taylor Gatto’s excellentrnessay as inspiration for my articlerndoes not require his permission; quotationrnof his writing is covered by “FairrnUse” provisions of copyright laws. As anrnauthor, Mary Pride should know this.rnHer criticism of Mr. Gatto, an innocentrnbystander, is unwarranted.rnFinally, if the use of “bells, desks,” orrnother techniques are “vigorously debated”rnin the homeschooling press, it’s anrnindicator of critiques and doubts aboutrnthe validity of various homeschoolingrnpractices. Since that’s what I did in myrnarticle, I only request that Mary Priderngrant me the same access to free speechrnand a fair hearing that she gives otherrnhomeschoolers.rnLIBERAL ARTSrnPRO-LIFERS ABORTEDrnAn anti-abortion billboard reading “Welcome to Austin, the Abortion Capital ofrnTexas” was recently removed from Interstate 35 only three hours after it was erected,rnbecause employees of the advertising company that owns the billboard space receivedrndeath threats.rnChristopher Danze, founder of Austin Citizens Against City Funded Baby Killing,rnthe group that sponsored the billboard, was disappointed—yet not surprised—thatrnsuch a move was necessary. While the organization’s sign was meant to inform citizensrnthat Austin is the only city in Texas that funds abortions with tax dollars,rnDanze “had expected there to be an attempt [to remove the billboard] by somerngroup.”rnBill Horn, general manager of the firm that leased the advertising space to Danze’srnorganization, said his company received over 100 calls in response to the billboard,rnsome of which were threatening. He felt it was the wording in the advertisement thatrncaused the controversy. “[It] depends on the content of the copy, not the issue,” hernstated.rnDECEMBER 1992/5rnrnrn