School Gardens=Good, Political Rants=Bad

A little bird asked me to weigh in on the brouhaha stemming from the anti-Alice Waters school garden article that ran in a recent copy of The Atlantic.

A quick read of posts generated thus far reveals that I’m not the only one who thinks writer Caitlin Flanagan’s rant was aimed not so much at California school veg beds as at their primary champion:

“The entire argument seems to be more of a personal attack against Alice Waters (who can, admittedly, be a bit much) than anything resembling advocacy for low income students.” (From a comment made by Megan on Theresa Loe’s post)

Frankly, this has been a concern of mine for some time–that school gardening would become so tied to “a personality,” that it would be made vulnerable to vendettas/agendas. I’ve also expressed concern that the current revival may be too identified with either coast so as to render it suspect by some of us living in the middle of the country (and the political spectrum). In short, this article is the very sort of thing that I’ve seen coming re: school gardens.

Hoping in vain to prove myself wrong, a quick Google search this afternoon supported my belief that The Atlantic‘s Ms. Flanagan has something of a right-wing agenda (odd for someone who writes for The Atlantic and The New Yorker, but, hey… editors like a little spark now and then to drive traffic/sell magazines) and, to my mind, would therefore understandably assail an openly left-wing cultural icon like Waters (especially to make a buck and promote her own new book).

I mean, this bit of Flanagan’s is just a long-winded way of calling Waters a left-wing, left-coast elitist, right?:

Waters, described by her biographer, Thomas McNamee, as “arguably the most famous restaurateur in the United States,” is, of course, the founder of Chez Panisse, in Berkeley, an eatery where the right-on, “yes we can,” ACORN-loving, public-option-supporting man or woman of the people can tuck into a nice table d’hôte menu of scallops, guinea hen, and tarte tatin for a modest 95 clams—wine, tax, and oppressively sanctimonious and relentlessly conversation-busting service not included. [More]

To get to the point, I think the original article is pretty much petty political mudslinging masquerading as commentary on school gardens. (And not the first of its ilk, I might add.)

That’s why my knickers remain unknotted over this article. For those of us truly passionate about teaching our children to garden, I believe our interests are best served in articulating the importance of school gardens in rational terms for sensible people rather than fueling Flanagan’s fame flame. 

Let’s get the fury out of our system over this piece and work in the future to save the political rants for the political blogs, shall we?