Why can't they fracking talk?

Radio Disney is getting political. In a 26-stop tour of Ohio elementary schools, the radio branch of one of the most well-known brands in the world is giving students presentations on hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking.

Radio Disney has gotten a lot of negative attention in the press for its program, which is funded entirely by an interest group funded in turn by the oil and gas
industry.

This started as one of those columns. As an individual personally opposed to fracking, I had written almost 300 words about how awful it is to so blatantly attempt to indoctrinate children before I realized something.

Groups advocating for programs like recycling or renewable energy go into schools all the time. It is considered fine for them to do so but a moral crisis as soon as someone from the other side of the argument tries to do the same.

This might be because of the express goals of these movements. Some would say an oil or gas company’s overall goal is maximizing profit, while the goal of a recycling or renewable energy campaign is more lofty — to reduce garbage, pollution or reliance on finite energy resources.

But that argument seems misleading to me. The reality is there’s a positive national discourse surrounding things like recycling and renewable energy. I, like most people, tend to see them as worthwhile efforts.

Anything that conflicts with that national discourse, like, for instance, teaching young children about processes for accessing oil and natural gas, gets treated with a different set of standards.

Opponents of fracking point out the technique has been linked in many instances to environmental damage and increased earthquakes. Campaigns by big oil and gas coincidentally also gloss over these minor details.

But if you think the recycling and renewable energy groups don’t also try to give the best possible picture of their issue, you’re not paying attention.

I recycle, and I am a huge fan of renewable energy systems. I don’t take the bus or drive — I cycle almost everywhere. I’d be the very first person in line to teach kids about these ideas and how great I think they are.

The people who disagree with me should not necessarily be barred from doing the same.

I’m not entirely convinced there are two legitimate sides to every issue or every side of an argument automatically deserves to be treated equally.

The racist and oppressive policies of the NYPD’s Ray Kelly did not deserve the exposure and legitimation they would have received as a result of his speech at Brown University. When students at that school protested and blocked his ability to speak, they did their community a service.

But we have a responsibility to show legitimate reasons to act in that way. If we’re going to block someone’s ability to express themselves in a forum to which we hold the keys, there must be a more compelling reason than a national discourse and the words “I disagree.”

Legitimate reasons may exist in the discussion of fracking, but I haven’t seen anyone articulate them yet.

­— drlreed@indiana.edu
Follow columnist
Drake Reed on Twitter
@D_L_Reed.