I think the issue really being debated here is that the author is saying that schools want to treat all opinions as being equivalent in their truth-value, but some opinions, such as moral judgement, can have more truth-value than others. Not in the binary sense that you seem to ascribe to him, in your North/South dichotomy, but in a shades of grey sense. What the author seems to be trying to say is that moral statements are comparable, and there are definitive statements one can make about the legitimacy of one moral statement versus the other.
I disagree. And I re-read the piece just to be sure; the author is making the point that morality is not being taught in school, and uses the fact/opinion divide and the philosopher's definition of "moral truth" in order to make it. He's clearly attempting to make a fact/opinion right/wrong comparison. I stand by my statement: The author is arguing that moral truths exist and that we are remiss in not teaching them to our children. Considering we live in a decade that started with the moral truth of gay marriage as a sin and will finish with the moral truth of gay marriage to be an inalienable right, the author needs to make a compelling case for moral truths.
Could you point me towards some sections of the text that make you draw that conclusion? Besides, past the piece itself, shouldn't a school--or someone kids listen to--teach children some sense of ethics? I think the post brought up one primary problem, and then suggested a cause. Now, we disagree on the cause he postulated but I'm fairly sure we can agree that he's saying the problem is college students are coming into college with the idea that there are no moral facts. Now, from a purely practical standpoint, this presents a problem in trying to teach ethics and justify ethical systems. I think, for the practicality of discussion, there ought to be moral statements that we use as axioms upon which we base further ethical reasoning.
Start with the opening paragraph: On the face of it, that's a statement decrying the lack of moral education. Take also the list of opinions from his online test - those are all cherry-picked discussions of right vs. wrong, as opposed to fact vs. opinion (in the author's point of view). Once again - he's arguing that morality ought to be taught in school. Here's the kicker: YES - someone should teach children ethics. However, if I were reliant on my teachers giving me ethics, I would have learned that black kids have no soul in 5th grade, that homosexuality is a sin in sixth grade, that America is the best country in the world because we are chosen by God in 9th grade, etc. I know teachers. I'm friends with teachers. And I do not want a "teacher" to institute my daughter's ethics. That's my job. Should there be "moral statements" used for "ethical reasoning?" Well, my daughter is learning right and wrong, same as I did, same as my parents did. My parents grew up under McCarthy in the town that got the Rosenbergs electrocuted - I'm damn lucky they didn't learn ethics at school.What would you say if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it’s wrong to kill people for fun or cheat on tests? Would you be surprised?
In summary, our public schools teach students that all claims are either facts or opinions and that all value and moral claims fall into the latter camp. The punchline: there are no moral facts. And if there are no moral facts, then there are no moral truths.