Here's a disturbing trend.
Charter school advocates trivialize opposition to charters by attributing the root cause of the opposition to irrational emotion. They say it is due to fear, as in "Why do the teacher unions fear competition from charter schools?" They say it is due to baseless dislike: "They just don't like charter schools." Some attribute it to a weird kind of spite: "I get it. You just don't want poor children to have a decent opportunity for a good education."
It reminds me very strongly of the way that supporters of President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq would dismiss opposition by saying that they simply hate the president or by asking them "Why do you hate America?" It allowed them to slide past the rational reasons to oppose President Bush's policies and the rational reasons to oppose the war in Iraq. It put the opposition on the defensive and relegated them to a weak and silly position. The equivalent today would be like asking people "Why do you fear a Black President?" or "Why do you fear a Mormon President?" It dismisses real and rational differences in policy as a facade for some baseless, irrational emotion.
Our culture still reflects, at least in our epistemology, the Greek ideal of logos. In this culture we know what we know because it can be measured and counted and because it follows a logical path of reasoning. In this epistemology, emotions are false and a distraction. Never mind how people actually make decisions - almost purely as an emotional reaction. In the formal discussion of them, emotions are dismissed as irrelevant.
It appears to me that charter school advocates are resorting to this tactic because they are not confident about their ability to make a convincing argument on the facts or with logic.
Do not allow this. Call this out every time you see it.