Reading the ‘A Bill of Rights and Principles for Learning in the Digital Age‘ shotgunned out today, my first thought fell prey to what someone has called the inverse of Godwin’s Law: invoking MLK to make a principled point. I’ll blame the recent holiday and the associations it conjures.

Shrugging past my apologies, then, my first thought was of Robert Graetz and other white activists in the civil rights movement. They were earnest and admirable people, deeply committed to the cause and possessed of good ideas for its advancement, and yet at some point it was appropriate to say to them, “Having you here isn’t helping.” At some point, too, it seems like a problem that educators put themselves in the position of speaking for learners.

Oh, I know, we’re all learners, right? Even those of us who are professionally in the role of pedagogues. “As soon as you say ‘educators’ we can see that you don’t really get it.”

But I think that would be a dodge.

I also know what a wonderful thing it is for teachers (and developers of learning systems) to articulate a keen empathy with learners, their ambitions, perplexities and needs. Never something one wants to discourage.

So I’m torn, and probably just griping in the margins, but I’m starting to see all kinds of situations where learner-centeredness is just one more kind of teaching paternalism. We shouldn’t not try to write statements of principle, but we might be a little more honest about what they are and their limitations. Instead of talking about learner’s rights and framing the discussion that way, I think we’ll be better off talking about a statement of principles from a pivotal set of pedagogues. Instead of a ‘Bill of Rights,’ it might be better described as ‘Here’s what we’d like to do for you.’ That would at least be more intellectually honest.

I think it would also be a better way to get at the stated goal of having a thoughtful and open discussion, and having MOOCmania better attend to the needs of learners.