Psychologists and other “child experts” are advising public schools to develop policies which discourage, or even forbid, students from having a “best friend.” It’s thought that having a best friend is a form of unfair discrimination which fosters alienation and an undermining of the group spirit among students. I can tell you that it’s not “group spirit” that these so-called professionals are trying to foster. It’s the notion of objectivity — and genuine fairness — which they are trying to undermine. Selecting a best friend implies a value judgment — an assessment (based on whatever standards) that “you are special, and I judge you so.” According to the political and social ideology of these experts, all forms of discrimination are wrong. That’s why I’ve been writing, for years, that we must distinguish between rational and irrational discrimination. The first implies a set of objective standards and a principle of justice, in which you give better treatment (in your life) towards those whom you deem special, worthwhile or even extraordinary. (I’m talking here about personal and social discrimination, not equality under the law).
Outlawing best friends — as psychologists who work for the government-run public school system are quite literally trying to do — is a way of outlawing the standards implied by objectivity. Think about the wider implications. These same sort of government-employed loons want to run every sector of society. Health care is next, and more control of business is underway as government systematically takes over once private corporations. On its current course, Americans will allow government to someday regulate the last area of life untouched by government: Personal relationships. Maybe some day, the U.S. government will pick our friends and our spouses for us … or even decide whether we may have one. It seems that when government officials make judgments and determinations, it’s always OK. When it’s the individual doing so, it’s always wrong.