Some years ago, then-Gov. John Ashcroft visited my daughter's elementary school, which was then, and is now, located in a neighborhood largely populated by latte-sipping, hybrid-driving, yoga-stretching liberals. For as long as I have lived in the neighborhood, which is getting to be a very long time, we have been represented by Democrats. That's true in regard to both houses of the state Legislature and the U.S. Congress.

Yet, I cannot recall a peep of protest about Ashcroft's visit. I cannot remember any concern that Ashcroft, a conservative Republican, might brainwash the children.

I thought of those simpler times during the furor earlier this week about President Barack Obama's back-to-school pep talk to kids.

Work hard. That was his essential message.

But all things are seen in fierce partisan terms these days. The Tea Party crowd, egged on by their radio and television choirmasters, set forth a howl. "You cannot let this president speak to the children!" A surprising number of school administrators caved in to the pressure.

I misspeak. What's surprising about it? Who wants to stand up to a mob?

Maybe I misspeak again. Maybe the administrators are more high-minded than I think. For evidence of that, I submit an e-mail that Jim Simpson, the superintendent of the Lindbergh School District, sent to his staff.

"Dear Staff,

It is clear many people have strong opinions on the President's speech. I want to share with you why the decision not to show the speech was made so that you have the actual facts. The decision to not have partisan politics in our classrooms is based solely on protecting students. Partisan politics would divide our children into two groups: those from families who don't the support the President leaving the classroom, and those supporting the President remaining.

In effect the speech has become a referendum on how a student's family feels about President Obama, and students would have to cast their vote by either staying or leaving the classroom. We would essentially be segregating students based on political ideology. In normal times we would be appalled to segregate students based on politics. In the midst of this political furor I have heard nothing from anyone who speaks for the children's welfare, so it falls to the superintendent to do so. However unpopular, the decision to stay above this political tumult is based not on pleasing adults, but protecting children."

Protecting children from what?

Democracy, I guess. Democracy is all about debate and disagreement. That is why I think students ought to be exposed to those things. In some districts, they are. I have even heard of debate clubs and mock elections. I applaud that.

Perhaps if kids were exposed to this stuff in school, teachers could even encourage a certain level of civility in their disagreements. That would be an improvement, wouldn't it? Just imagine if some kid sneaked a look at the president's address to Congress on Wednesday night. That's a fine example of civility that Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina set.

But back to the school speech and the decision to protect children by not showing it. If it were just this one speech, it would be troubling. But if folks take from this that they can push school officials around — and that is exactly what some folks will take from this — then this is just the beginning. Democrats have long memories. You think they'll sit quietly the next time a Republican agrees to visit a school? You think any president will ever again be allowed to talk to students?

I also wonder about the so-called achievement gap. African-American students don't do as well as their white and Asian counterparts. For the first time, we have an African-American president, a man who was a high achiever in school. In all likelihood, he has a special connection to African-American students. And we're going to protect those kids by not letting them hear his exhortation to work hard?

I don't get it. I really don't. I tried all day Thursday to reach Simpson to see if he wanted to clarify any of his points. I had no luck. So I'll just take him at his word. His decision had nothing to do with adults. It was all about protecting children.

I only wish that Simpson, and all the other superintendents who decided not to show the speech, spent less time worrying about protecting children and more time thinking about ways to educate them. Especially about democracy. Today's students are tomorrow's voters.

As for my daughter, she liked Ashcroft, but she wasn't brainwashed. Last time she came home, I bought her a latte.