Kickin' Butt and Takin' Names! YEAAAHHH!

As pointed out by Eduwonk and posted over at EducationNews.org, the AFT chapter in New York City recently approved a resolution that stands out for its' militancy to the union cause. Well and good--teacher's unions are still important, and NYC is a unique territory with unique needs. That said, there's one clause in the resolution that really makes you wonder:

WHEREAS: As a result of this massively funded and sustained campaign to undermine among the public and especially our members, grasp of and support for our purposes and mission, certain damage or potential damage has been suffered;

WHEREAS: Such damage tends to demoralize and divide us against ourselves, drain us of our capacity to fulfill our noble agenda as unionists and arguably weaken our bargaining position, thus playing into the hands of our common enemy;

The first clause establishes the goal of putting the mission first; the second defined what that goal is, to advance the union. This is what a union should be doing, sure, but the frustration is when the "noble agenda as unionists" clashes with the equally noble goal of helping the greatest number of kids. It's an inarguable truth that those two agendas can be opposed to each other, but painting anyone who disagrees with the "anti-union" brush isn't going to help.

Here's another part:

The triumphant resolution is also an appeal to drive the great New York City teachers union, and ultimately others also, as a single organism, into the goal of unapologetic militancy in the wake and face of insults, threats, and actual deeds committed against them.

This is where the idea of perceived insults comes into play. Is higher pay for high-need positions a threat to the union? Is expanding KIPP a threat? To who? The idea of the resolution is that unions are under attack, but resolutions like this are just more ammunition for the other side.