Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« The Exact Phrase Was: "Rob McKenna… | The Romney Tapes: Secret Audio Reve… »

Monday, September 17, 2012

Education / Politics / Media "Liberal" NY Times Taps High Priced Attorney as Voice of Average Parent Struggling Under Chicago Teachers Strike

Posted by Goldy on Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Despite multiple polls that show a majority of Chicagoans support the ongoing teachers strike, including two-thirds of parents within the district, the one parent the New York Times bothered to interview apparently doesn't:

“We’re spending half of our life trying to figure out what to do with the kids this week,” Roger Wilen, a lawyer and parent of three, said on Sunday evening. “This is ridiculous.”

Last week Mr. Wilen and his wife had tested nearly every option for their children — finding a baby sitter, working from home, using an alternative school program, even taking the children to work — and were, by this weekend, feeling tested themselves. “We need them in school,” he said.

Well, there you have it: The voice of the average, middle class, Chicago parent struggling to find child care during this disruptive and "ridiculous" teachers strike. That is, if by average, middle class, Chicago parent you mean a partner at the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP with a practice specializing in private equity, venture capital, and mergers and acquisitions:

Since the beginning of 2004, Mr. Wilen has served as lead legal counsel in excess of thirty acquisitions, dividend recapitalizations and dispositions for these and other buyout groups. His representations include the acquisition of majority, controlling positions as well as significant minority investments with institutional protections. Most of Mr. Wilen’s transactions include complex acquisition structures financed with multiple tiers of debt (including seller financing) and equity. Often, these acquisitions involve tax-deferred rollovers, and tax-efficient equity incentive arrangements, for the management team.

I'm sure Mitt Romney would agree that Mr. Wilen and his family are the very picture of a struggling middle class household. And apparently, so does the New York Times.

(On a side note, Mr. Wilen's wife, Julie, works as the Director of Strategic Planning at the Center for Urban Education Leadership, where she helps train principals in the Chicago Public Schools. So it's not exactly like she's a neutral observer when it comes to education issues. Just sayin'.)

FacebookShare

Comments (19) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

What did they do with the kids over the summer?

Jeez, how many families can scrape by only with the free daycare from Sept - June?

Posted by internet_jen on September 17, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Everyone knows an average middle class family are Millionaires.

Just ask Comrade Mittens.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on September 17, 2012 at 12:57 PM

I like that "a majority of Chicagoans support the ongoing teachers strike" links to an article with the headline "47% of Chicago voters back teachers".

Posted by Sean P. on September 17, 2012 at 1:01 PM

The quote wasn't intended to illustrate financial hardship, but scheduling stresses. Seems like a professional parent fits the bill okay enough. Of the high-toned Seattle lawyers I know, exactly zero send their kids to Seattle Public Schools, so I say good for that high-toned Chicago couple standing by the public schools there.

Posted by gloomy gus on September 17, 2012 at 1:07 PM

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-homin…

Does the fact that one lawyer claims he's having trouble with his three kids during the strike in any way invalidate the fact that a) he could legitimately be having trouble and b) if he's supposed to be taken as representative of a class, say, parents finding places for their kids during the strike, that others out there are not also having the same trouble? Despite any inferred financial status from "lawyer"? 'Cause ask the thousands of unemployed new attorneys out there about how "Lawyer = wealthy".

Posted by Foghorn Leghorn on September 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM

So, none of the options this guy mentioned (i.e., babysitter, work from home, etc.) works?

I assume they're doing something? What is it? Why isn't whatever they ARE doing working?

Posted by Urgutha Forka on September 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM

Yeah, but this was an obscenely, male wealthy lawyer bitchin' and, hey, where was wifey through all this, ya kow, the one with the job that actually has something to do with education?

Odd that neither she, nor parents who didn't have millions to throw at the problem (and overwhelming support the teachers in their strike when millionaire hubby doesn't) weren't interviewed.

What an extremely odd coincidence.

Posted by judybrowni on September 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM

And of course I meant to write that he was obscenely wealthy, not obscenely male.

But, if the shoe fits....hey, where was wifey in this discussion?

Posted by judybrowni on September 17, 2012 at 1:27 PM

WORKERS RIGHTS!!!?????? Goldy are you some kind of communist? Do you think 7OCT should be a holiday? How about 1MAY?

Next thing you'll be wanting commie union thug teachers telling America's youth that Jesus wasn't a good Christian Republican American with a life membership in the NRA

Posted by Merchant Seaman on September 17, 2012 at 1:39 PM

No one worth giving a shit about has ever uttered the sentence “this is ridiculous.”

In my customer service days, those were always the magic words that marked the tipping point from working to resolve a customer's complaint into now-we're-going-to-fuck-with-you-until-you-leave.

Posted by Dougsf on September 17, 2012 at 1:56 PM

The reason the fact that he's an obviously well-paid lawyer (and the mother is also probably well-paid) IS relevant: they have disposable money to attempt to find someone to care for their kids, no matter the cost. A single parent with a minimum-wage job doesn't, and that parent certainly doesn't have the option of working from home. Not only do we not know what the high-income family's doing, the low-income families aren't even mentioned.

Posted by sarah70 on September 17, 2012 at 2:59 PM

@11, to me that plain subtext highlighted rather than minimized the extent to which poorer families would have to scramble even more. The writer didn't go into detail about how exactly the one family was scrambling to cover with their kids, but it didn't exactly strain the imagination to believe it.

Posted by gloomy gus on September 17, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Why oh why must we use our imagination to figure out what the poor folk are up to, when the NY Times has the ability -- and staff -- to simply
ask one?

That's another point, bub.

Posted by judybrowni on September 17, 2012 at 5:26 PM

What strikes me in this (and most of the other parental commentary regarding this strike) is the attitude that school is a place to stick the kids during the day. I have yet to hear any parent or administrator make a statement to the effect that the children are missing out on educational opportunities by not being in the classroom. I hear the teachers voicing that concern, but not the parents.

Posted by catballou on September 17, 2012 at 6:08 PM

@13, I think you might be reading faster than you should.

Posted by gloomy gus on September 17, 2012 at 6:15 PM

@14, you must not have ever been in this situation. most summer day programs for kids (for instance, the Y programs here in Seattle) have ended, because (supposedly) school started. Daycare is usually monthly, not drop-in for an indeterminate period of time. Older kids (9-13) usually aren't in daycare but shouldn't be left completely alone during the day. A situation like this takes quite a bit of money to hire someone for a short period of time, which money many parents don't have.

Posted by sarah70 on September 17, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Rahm Emanuel, for his part, was going to assert that kids were a) less safe on the street than in the classroom, and b) more likely to be hungry due to so many relying on Free and Reduced Lunch programs for nourishment. I haven't heard whether or not he made that case for an injunction.

To Goldy's point I'm still waiting for some NYT coverage other than the City Blog of the arrests of over 150 apparently non-violent OWS protestors. But why would a newspaper care about covering likely 1st Amendment abrogrations.

Posted by capicola on September 17, 2012 at 11:27 PM

The point is that the majority of parents with schools in the system support the strike and there is no doubt that the vast vast majority of them do not possess 1/4 the resources of this lawyer and his administration-connected wife. Yet those parents figure out a way to endure the hardship because they believe it is important for their kids and community. Why not interview some of them to find out why they believe in accepting hardship now because they believe in the long term benefit or underlying value?

That is the point of Goldy's comment.

Posted by cracked on September 18, 2012 at 12:39 AM

I certainly think wealthy parents have as much right to talk about their feelings as poor or middle class. I didn't read the article but I hope those aren't the only people they interviewed.

That said, the most important point brought up by Goldy here is that the squeeze on teachers is driven by budget shortfalls. Budget shortfalls are driven by decades of tax cuts and additions of loopholes to the tax code. This asshole makes his living making sure rich people and companies get off the hook on their taxes. It's assholes like him that caused the budget shortfalls in the first place. If he wants teachers to go back to work he should stop depriving them of their income.

Posted by Root on September 19, 2012 at 7:42 AM