JOHN HEDGES Right Stuff
DARE's troubles can be linked to leftwing slant

This is the second
part of a series on the efficiency of the Drug Abuse Resistance
Education program known as DARE.
"Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another;
but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by
example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when
built." Abraham Lincoln
Drug Abuse Resistance Education, DARE, takes place during
school hours and displaces basic academic subjects such as
geography or foreign language instruction. A uniformed police
officer conducts a course over 16 weeks.
In 1971, then Orange Unified School District teacher and now
Newport Beach resident Kent Moore analyzed the Orange drug
resistance program. His conclusions caused much consternation and
handwringing.
Moore's study of an "experimental group which had undergone
drug abuse programs and a control group which had not" concluded
that "there was little significant difference in attitudes" toward drug
use.
He held out hope, though, that "better teaching methods or
different teachers could make the program more successful" while
warning that "the drug abuse problem among teenagers is
symptomatic of much deeper problems that should be dealt with
and resolved in the home and community." So what's happened in
26 years? By any measure the use of illegal drugs has not abated.
The New Republic reports the prestigious Research Triangle
Institute in a 1994 scientific study found that DARE "had no effect
on drug use." Prior studies reached similar conclusions.
Apparently mindful that the success of its core mission was
suspect, the developers of DARE expanded it to include resisting
violence, learning to "increase our selfesteem," "managing stress,"
as well as "combating media influences." The dangers of drug use
now form only one element of an entire social protocol.
DARE's definition of violence is "verbal and nonverbal actions
including gestures and gazes." A victim is "any person who suffers
some loss or harm." This expansion of terms perfectly reflects the
leftward slant of ostensibly wellintended social programs,
especially those which shape the minds of impressionable youth. In
the liberal Alice in Wonderland orbit, words spin and churn in and
out of control, coming to rest only when their meanings suit the
goals of the social engineers.
In the DARE model, anyone can cause violence, regardless of
intent, and anyone can be a victim, however minor the perceived
slight.
That DARE impinges on parental responsibility and authority is
denied or unrecognized even by its most languid supporters. Society
embraces an attitude that schools and governments can or should fill
parental roles.
Justification that "not all parents are responsible" is seen as
sufficient reason for the retention and even expansion of programs
like DARE while muting legitimate questions of efficacy or
propriety. All the way, even more parents abdicate their
responsibility for character education if only because they think the
schools are teaching it.
That questions concerning DARE produce strong reaction is
instructive both of DARE's popularity and the fears of its defenders.
A rather simple question at a recent Newport Beach City Council
meeting asking for a quantitative measurement of DARE's success
mutated to a full defense.
The chief of police, a DARE teacher, the DARE coordinator, a
DARE police officer and a college student joined in an unaskedfor
rationalization of the expenditure of public resources and student
time. The City Council goggled as the unplanned presentation ran
nearly an hour after which the politicians babbled about DARE's
laudable intent.
Only after much pressing was the answer given: "We don't know
how effective DARE is." The consequences of addictive drug use
by children are so horrendous that parents grasp at anything to
prevent it, while doubting their own abilities to do so. Many
denigrate the church and the home as inadequate or inappropriate
for the instruction in the moral behavior which instills respect for self
and others and reins in destructive impulses.
Society is increasingly willing to turn individual responsibility over
to an everaccomodating government. Teaching values succumbs to
public institutions bereft of philosophy and powerless to make
distinctions.
The results matter not. It matters only that effort is made.
So we shirk, and if our kids turn out bad, well, it's really not our
fault, is it?
Criticism of DARE takes two forms: One is of its effectiveness
and conformity to its mission of reducing drug use among children;
the other is that it cannot succeed because of its symptomatic
nature.
It's the latter which renders the former irrelevant. DARE is the
response of the government to pleadings by nice people for
something, anything, to protect their children from drug use.
Schools and government will fail in teaching character and values
because they cannot replace the influences found at home and in
church. The activist judiciary ensures that no moral instruction can
take place in a public institution.
The elements of right and wrong embodied in JudeoChristian
teachings are replaced by a uniformed and armed agent of the state
in the form of a friendly police officer trying to reach students adrift.
Social programs like DARE make parents and teachers feel
good. And when we ask the kids, well, what's not to like? They're
pulled from humdrum academics to talk about exotic drugs,
relationships, and "real life." And we deny what we ought to be
doing for our children while hiring others to do it for us. Then, we
can blame them when they fail.
Kent Moore's warning is as right today as it was in 1971.
* JOHN HEDGES is a Newport Beach councilman. His column
appears on Saturday. He can be reached via email at
jhedges@city.newportbeach.ca.us .