ShareThis Page
Former Kiski headmaster flunks own test |

Former Kiski headmaster flunks own test

| Tuesday, June 17, 2003 12:00 a.m

It was with disbelief I read the June 8 letter to the editor by John A. Pidgeon, headmaster emeritus of The Kiski School, which appeared under the headline “Giving socialism a good boot.”

Mr. Pidgeon wrote, “Each year in September I pose to my class a new question. I describe two men, one of whom supports the local Boy Scouts and Little League and is a model citizen, and the other a man who begins a business in his garage and gradually expands it until he is employing 2,000 or 3,000 people. I then ask them which person is contributing more to the general welfare, and I am always disappointed when they pick the first one.”

History would prove Pidgeon is wrong. Many great business leaders were aided by the talents and skills received from the Boy Scouts and Little League — probably many more than started small businesses in their garages.

To accept the headmaster’s erroneous theory, we must conclude that Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin and Jonas Salk, although model citizens, should not be considered contributing more to the general welfare than his suggested garage widget manufacturer.

No teacher, including the headmaster of the Kiski School, develops a business that employs thousands of workers. Teachers do, however, provide the educational foundation for the business leaders of all the great industries.

Teachers, doctors, the clergy, scientists and a host of others may support the Boy Scouts and Little League but fail to pass the test Pidgeon asked his students.

Sorry, Mr. Pidgeon, your test question doesn’t fly. Hopefully, your students disregarded your flawed concept and lived by the Boy Scout Law that model citizens should be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.

Now that’s the type of person who is contributing more to the general welfare.

Dan ReepingSewickley

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.