Education requires a questioning interaction – with oneself and with others

 It is easy to give up on America these days.  In considering what we need to move forward I always seem to return to education and the fact that our current education systems do not teach the basic thinking skills that allow individuals to make informed decisions about the direction they would like their country to take.  Indeed, today our education system seems to be more aligned with the narrowness of propaganda than with the open-mindedness that true education requires.

Recently I heard someone on the radio arguing that college is a waste of money because you can learn as much by simply looking up the subjects you would study on Google and reading the information there.

Certainly, one can read up on a subject and in so doing gain information about that subject – that is, learn something about the subject.  But that is not all that education entails and it is not all that occurs in a healthy college environment.  Learning in the sense of acquiring information is but one part of education.  Education also includes reflection both on oneself and on the information being learned, it requires an open mind in coming to information and in listening to views of others about that information.   Most importantly, it requires constant questioning – of the information being presented, of the presenter, and of oneself

Simply acquiring knowledge is not true learning.  Learning and true education have at their core the question “why?”  The student must be taught to ask that question repeatedly, to move step by step into a deeper understanding of the subject being studied and of the understanding of others about that subject. 

In a true educational setting students will be pushed to use “why?” to push themselves to levels of understanding and achievement of which they did not even know they were capable.  They will be asked to address topics with open and curious minds, not minds that are preset or predisposed to merely accept views of others as their own without question. 

Reading or otherwise acquiring information in and of itself does not require thinking and is more likely to simply result in acceptance of the ideas of others.  In contrast, a true teacher will ask a student to question what is read, perhaps to hear other views of the readings presented during a class discussion with other students.  Reading alone does not require the students to articulate their own views about what was read or push the students to stretch their mind to the deeper thinking that discussion with others often does.  Rather, it allows the students to remain in their own world without examining and questioning the values and assumptions of that world.

Those who try to avoid questioning or who try to block the questioning and its resulting mental growth in others are actually quite insecure.  They need a certain and unchanging world in which everyone agrees with their assumptions and beliefs.  (I suspect such is the case of the radio voice I heard – afraid that college might force questioning of his own firmly established views.)

Such people exist on both sides of the political aisle and are always dangerous.  They are the false prophets, the purveyors of propaganda.  They are in many ways the evil opposite of true educators. 

These false prophets tell people what they want to hear; they feed existing fears and provide false solutions.  They demand their students accept what they are told without question, presenting their own view on topics as the one and only acceptable viewpoint.  Their “teaching” provides comfort; it is easy to accept in its certainty. 

True education is anything but comfortable.  It demands that students embrace the discovery and investigation of new ideas, even when that information is painful.  Its lessons can be disturbing as the students explore the depths and uncertainties of their own minds and their world.  It demands that students read beyond superficialities and plunge to depths of understanding that in the end allow a deeper sense of a common humanity that joins us all.

Reading, acquiring information, is only a beginning.  Questioning that reading and being questioned about one’s own ideas about the reading force one to learn and understand rather than simply acquire information.  And interaction with others and their thoughts and understandings about the same information pushes one even further to understand and articulate their own understanding and knowledge about the topic.  Ultimately, this interaction of ideas and ultimately of humanity itself is what a true education will entail.

With that education comes a confidence in who one truly is and about the world in which we all live.  That confidence overcomes the fear of real learning that the propogandists purvey and the cowards accept.

Today in America we have a lot of cowards.  On both sides.  They have dug into their positions and both sides can make arguments supportive of their views.  But what they cannot do is listen to, let alone understand the views of others.  (I note here that understanding does not necessarily require acceptance or a change in one’s own position, but it does result in tolerance.) Too many are afraid to question their own beliefs and who they are and where they are really going – they are imprisoned by their own fears and insecurity, afraid to evolve, denying the humanity that is common to us all. 

True education requires that one not fear human interaction, even with uncomfortable ideas of others.  True education is far more than merely acquiring information.  In true education the student takes the acquired information and is both externally pushed and internally motivated to transform that information into a deeper knowledge of the world, humanity, and one’s place in it; the true student, like all of humanity, is ever evolving and that evolution is reflected in the student’s interactions in the world and with others.

Yet, today, we have teachers who do not educate.  They do not teach their students to think critically – to ask “why?”.  Teachers should delight when a student questions, even and especially when a student questions their own teacher.  But too many of today’s “educators” simply provide information that reflects their own world view and expect students to accept and adopt what they are told without question.  Students are too often punished rather than praised for questioning what they are told.  Too many “educators” are teaching students to become receivers of propaganda, primed to accept the words of false prophets.

The discord and dystopia that we see around us is not going to go away unless and until we once again become real students of our world and our humanity, until we encourage, indeed demand, that education be led by questioning, not simply acquiring.  We must think, ask “why?”, interact with open minds until once again we are able to know ourselves and see our true and common humanity.  This we must teach our children, and this we must model for them as adults.

 

Dumbing Down in the Name of Equity

Education.  It used to be a place where students would not only gain instruction in both general and specific topics.  It was also most importantly where students learned to question and to reason – to do the critical thinking that is necessary not only to expand one’s own mind and reach one’s own potential but is also necessary to understand others in society and to work together with those others to move society and mankind forward.

That is not education today.  Today we only allow students to learn that which meets the approval of a woke culture under its false promise of “equity”.  Questioning what is taught is frowned upon if not overtly disallowed.  No room for new or independent thoughts.  No tolerance for diverse views.

Consider the following examples (just a few of many available): 

·        A Virginia school district has cancelled Dr. Seuss for “racial undertones.”

·        Boston Public Schools are suspending Advanced classes because too many students in them are White or Asian (no evidence that the student makeup is based on any sort of discrimination).

·        English teachers across the country have cancelled Shakespeare as well as Greek classics because of “racism, homophobia, classism.”

·        Tom Sawyer has been cancelled due to racism.

·        Schools regularly condemn, punish, expel students for expressing un-approved views such as anti-abortion beliefs, Christian beliefs, conservative beliefs.  Students are sent home for wearing patriotic clothing displaying such things as the American flag.  A student who called conservative Black spokesperson Candace Owens a “Black trailblazer” was subjected to a schoolwide email condemning the student as racist.

·        The names “Abraham Lincoln” and “George Washington” have been removed from schools in California.

·        Schools are replacing traditional American history with the 1619 Project curriculum.  Written not by history scholars but by biased journalists, the 1619 curriculum “aims to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of the United States' national narrative.”  It teaches that our entire country is based on a hatred of Whites toward Blacks.  It denounces the actual proven and factual history of our country as false and racist.  The premises of the 1619 Project have been shown to be erroneous.

·        More generally history instruction has taken a turn whereby America is seen to be an evil creation of White supremacists.  Students learn they should have no pride in their country.  White students are told they should be ashamed of their whiteness and feel guilt simply because they are White.

·        Critical Race Theory training, something that is notably both racist and inaccurate, is also a central part of public-school curriculums.  It focuses on instilling the belief that Whites are racist and that White supremacy is a continuing and systemic problem that cause a power imbalance and a subjugation of Blacks.  Basically, it teaches people of color to hate whites and teaches Whites to feel guilty and ashamed of who they are.

·        Teachers and professors who speak about differing perspectives or encourage students to discuss varying views on a topic are often censured or fired.

·        The hard sciences are not excused from the wokeness of the cancel culture.  Math has recently been accused of promoting White supremacy; demanding showing of work (thinking) or demanding correct answers is by some educators considered to be racist. 

·        Similarly, there are proper viewpoints that students are instructed to take about a variety of scientific theories.  Consider global warming:  while there are many theories about causes, effects, solutions, etc., many students are taught only the perspective of the Left-Green New Deal advocates while being told that questioning it or considering other perspectives is just plain wrong.  Science does not progress when it cannot be questioned just as the human mind does not grow when it cannot question.

·        Beyond the academics, the cancel culture reaches into extracurricular and other activities associated with education.  Students are taught that biological sex is subservient to gender identity.  Students are taught sexual concepts that are not scientifically accurate as young as kindergarten and are encouraged to choose and change their gender at will and without parental consent or even parental knowledge.

·        Women’s and girls sports currently are being eviscerated by the mandate that biological males are allowed to compete as women.  This essentially destroys the fair playing field and places women in a very real no-win situation – a situation that is both demeaning and destructive to their motivation.

These are just a few of the things that are going on in our educational institutions today.  This is happening at the behest of the Left and the woke and with the full blessing and assistance of the Biden Administration. 

This is a travesty, a tragedy, and simply unfair to the minds and souls of our young.  By not teaching students to think and reason, and by denying to those who can the opportunity to excel, we are dumbing down our educational system, our students, and in the end our entire country.

Education is supposed to be “the act or process of imparting or acquiring general or particular knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life.”  This definition includes what I believe is the most important thing that any educational system or process can teach: the powers of reasoning and judgment, better known as critical thinking.  It is in that area that I believe the majority of educational systems in this country are utter failures. 

Today’s educational model does not teach critical thinking; moreover, it does not allow it.   Too often students are discouraged from questioning.  They are fed subject matter material, told to accept it, learn it, prove they heard what they were told by regurgitating in on tests.  Any aspect of critical thinking has been replaced by instilling a specific Leftist agenda and value system into the minds of our young. 

Students need to be exposed to more than one viewpoint, to alternate ideas, diverse authors, differing theories.  They need to be taught to solve problems, not just accept answers lectured to them.  They need to be taught how to analyze and assimilate facts and theories and viewpoints in order to discover and support their own conclusions. 

By not teaching or allowing students to question the information they are given, schools today deny the students the raw materials from which they could discover the joy of critical thinking and use it to realize their own full potential.  Not only does this not raise their thinking beyond a very basic level, it also creates the perfect environment for instilling minds with propaganda rather than knowledge.

The ability to question is necessary to preserve the freedoms of democracy.  Without questioning, when questions and diverse ideas are denied, democracy itself is being denied.

Don’t Trust the Snippets

History is important because it can guide and instruct us, not because it has all the answers.  Just like with the Bible, people can take snippets out of context and use them to support almost any premise.  Yet, when read in full context and with full understanding, that snippet may mean and support something quite different. 

I am not a Biblical scholar but I have read and studied a fair amount of history and I think that these days there is much misunderstanding and misuse of snippets from history.  There especially seems to be short-sighted and biased uses of the terms Nationalism, and Socialism/Communism. 

 Let’s consider the core themes underlying these terms.  First, Nationalism.  Its basic ideology is that one puts one’s country first.  How that plays out can exist on a spectrum.  On one end is Nazism or things like what we currently see in China as, for example, Muslims being placed in “reeducation camps.”

If you step off the other end of the spectrum there is no nation at all to be nationalist about.  Close to that end is the point that is reached when a country’s borders are so open and porous that there is actually no border at all.   Most forms of Nationalism are far closer to the middle of the spectrum than either of these extremes.

The underlying ideology of Socialism is to make better humans and in so doing make a better society.  (Note that it does not define "better" but leaves that to whomever is in power.)  Whatever form Socialism takes, it advocates that the means of production, distribution and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.  Classic Marxism sees Socialism as a transitional state on the way to the realization of Communism which envisions the creation of totally communal humans and with that a totally communal (Communist) society. 

Socialism falls less as a spectrum and more as a movement.  It starts with an existing society and through various methods of control works to re-make the humans therein so that they become, or at least behave like, the ideal that the leaders are seeking.  (As an aside, let’s not forget that part of Hitler’s nationalism was a desire to create a master race; nationalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive).   At the end of the socialist movement the individual and any individual freedom is completely lost to the preconceived socialist society.

Let’s take a particular snippet: “America First.”  There is no question that this phrase was associated with Nazi Germany in the 1930s and has a negative connotation as used there.  But we are not living in 1930 and when that phrase was used by Donald Trump it had a very different meaning as well as connotation.  While Hitler sought his master race via elimination of Jews and others, Trump sought to protect the borders of America by empowering its people while strengthening its immigration laws (not eliminating legal immigration nor diversity).  To say that simply because the same phrase was used in connection with two men that those two men were and their agenda was the same is a disingenuous use of a snippet to support an anti-Trump agenda.

There have been many promises throughout history of the beauty and glory of a socialist society.  These snippets are often shared without the context of what happened to the people who believed those dreams.   On the other hand, some aspects of socialism can have a beneficial effect if carefully implemented and controlled. 

Those who advocate socialism often ignore human nature in their socialist propaganda.  Even with his power from things like the Great Terror and the absolute fear of dissent instilled in the people, Stalin had to pull back and re-grant some aspects of individual freedom and even capitalism to his people:  he realized he could not simply remake mankind into a totally communal animal.

From the dawn of mankind, people have been territorial and selfish.  They also can be humanitarian and idealistic.  They can be all of these things and many more to a greater or lesser degree, and all with individual differences.  It is unrealistic to think that any political philosophy can remake all of mankind.

Nations, which are just the family or tribal unit on a grander scale are made of these same humans.  All nations are nationalist to some degree just as they are all socialist/communist to some degree.  To perceive either of these terms as entirely good or entirely evil is inaccurate.  And to take one snippet or phrase and use it to characterize a person or action in an entirely different context is not helpful to anyone.

A nation requires boundaries.  It usually has certain values and customs that define it.  It also usually welcomes diversity to some extent.   To be a nation, the people within it must want to protect and sustain it and that is nationalism and usually involves some aspect of “Nation First.”  That nationalism can become totalitarianist or evil does not make it in and of itself evil.  It can and more often does just as easily become a positive environment for the nation’s inhabitants.

All groups of people to a certain extent have an aspect of communalism (i.e. socialism).  Programs such as Social Security in which the community as a whole (in our case our elected representatives) has decided not only that a benefit will be available but what the amount and parameters of that benefit will be.  In other, non-representative forms of government other power structures will make the decisions, but in any socialist program the individual loses some individual freedom.

In a democracy the individuals make the choice of when and how much freedom they are willing to relinquish and for what purpose.  But socialism can, and usually does, easily become totalitarian in which the people no longer have the choice but are forced to give up their individualism to the collective.

Absolutes are rare in the daily world.  Realizing that would allow people to discuss just how strong we want our nationalism to be and just how much of our individual freedoms are we willing to give up for communal certainties designed by someone else.  But that requires education about these concepts and their histories; that is something which pulling snippets out of context does not provide.  Snippets are used to support hate and division.  Understanding requires more.

The problem here is that already we have those who advocate for Socialism taking full control of our educational tools.  As such, education becomes little more than state-sponsored propaganda.  So, if we are actually going to have a real conversation about these things, if we are going to choose for ourselves where we are headed, we need to do it now or it will be too late.  

Freedom Requires Questioning

While I do think there was fraud in the 2020 Presidential election, I also believe it cannot or will not be proven.  Rand Paul amongst others has pointed out that statistical fraud was found in four states where President Donald Trump lost in the presidential election during supposed “data dumps” in the middle of the night and early morning.  But this, amongst other anomalies and miscounts, and counts of illegal votes, is something that most people, and especially Big Tech, the Mainstream Media, and the Washington Deep State prefer to ignore.  So, that being the will of the people and this being America, that is what I and the rest of the country will do.

This is not the first time my candidate will not be the one inaugurated in January.  But this time it troubles me far more than others.  This election was not just about my candidate winning or losing; it was not really about the candidates at all; rather, it was about the future of America.  I think that too many voters did not understand that.

So, as I move forward, my concern is how do we educate the electorate so that they understand better what was at stake in this election as well as what might be at stake in the future.

I, like many others, have tried and tried to educate people about our system of government, about the truths of socialism or even a significant move toward socialism and its “trickle up poverty” ^* and hopelessness.  I and many others have tried to explain that a narrative, an opinion, an interpretation, that none of those are facts and that to make good decisions about our future we must arm ourselves with facts, not feelings or opinions.  Yet, for the most part that has been to no avail.

I have a friend to tells me that people are not interested in thinking about these things, but that they will sit up and take notice only when they are personally and fiscally affected.  Well, I suspect that those who pay taxes will not have long to wait:  Biden announced that he will nominate Janet Yellen, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, to be his Secretary of the Treasury.  Analysts tell us that will mean personal income taxes will increase, 401ks will drop in value as the new administration and Yellen increase the corporate tax on the corporate stocks in those 401ks, and the cost of gasoline and energy will increase.  That will hit taxpayers and other Americans where it hurts, in the pocketbook.

But is that really enough?  I don’t think so.  In my state we are willing to accept food lines and arbitrary closures of food sources as well as other unsupported mandates issued under the cover of COVID-19.  When people are not willing to question or to think for themselves, then they are likely to accept most anything they are told to do.  So, if they are told that the financial hits they are about to take are for some noble cause, they are likely to accept it without question.

What we need is EDUCATION.  But not just education for our children (which there is no question needs to be improved), but also for the adult population who take their information from media or tech sources that are no longer interested in providing factual and objective information but rather in creating a story or furthering the propaganda of one or another political cause.

For example, over the last 4 years, given the many accomplishments of President Trump, the media could have used their biased rhetoric to laud him and paint him as one of the greatest presidents ever.  Instead, they chose to paint him as the most despicable.  This was done by the ever more biased word and fact choices in the stories they presented as well as in the complete failure to report many of his accomplishments.  For example, how many people know about his criminal justice reform, his raising the economic status of minorities to the all time best, his help for Black colleges, or even his work to negotiate not one, not two, but three peace accords in the Middle East?  And those are just a few of many of which a vast number of Americans are completely unaware.

So, when a particular and totally negative picture of President Trump was created, the people simply accepted it.  And now, the reverse painting occurs as the portrait of Biden is nothing but positive.  And the people simply accept.

It is amazing how many news stories start with an unproven assumption upon which the rest of the story is based.  For example, “Trump’s unfounded statements that  . . . .”  Too many accept stories which begin this way as if the statements were in fact not founded whereas at the time of the statement is made it is nothing more than an opinion/a wish/a narrative.  It is not a fact, and everyone should be asking “On what are you basing the conclusion that the statements to which you refer are unfounded?”

When one bases an argument upon a false or arguable assumption, the whole argument is in danger of falling apart. We used to learn the classic deductive syllogism in our schools, and it became an essential part of our thought structure:

All men are mortal

Socrates is a man

Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

We also learned that if the first and second statements were true, the conclusion must be true; therefore, the way to attack a deductive conclusion was to question the two premises:

All swans are white

Jack is a swan

Therefore, Jack is white

Because all swans are not white, Jack is not necessarily white. But coming to this understanding requires questioning the first premise that all swans are white.

All Brand X car batteries die at 20,000 miles

My car battery is Brand X

Therefore, my battery will die at 20,000 miles.

But, perhaps we might want to check to make sure my battery is indeed brand X because if we question and check and find it to be brand Y, then given the information we have we don’t know when it will die.

QUESTIONING.  It is the beginning of being truly informed.  Some of us have forgotten to do that.  Others were never taught.  But unless we start doing it again, start asking questions, we will never be truly informed.  And once we become uninformed and willing to simply accept what we are told, then we lose control over our lives and our very selves.

And to be clear, numerous repetitions of the same assumption or opinion do not make that assumption or opinion a fact or even true.  If you tell me a million times that my black swan Jack is white, that does not make it so.  If you tell me over and over I have a car battery Z so I don’t have to worry that it will die at 20,000 miles, that does not make it so.  I need to question – is it really a Z or is it an X?  And if it is a Z, what facts do we have about when it might die?  Just because I’d like my swan to be white or my battery to last forever, does not mean it can or will be so.  I need to look at facts, not assumptions or desires.

When we let our emotions and feelings rule us, when we become lazy enough to simply accept what we are told because we like what is said, then that is how we lose our country.

Many did not question the negative facts about Trump because they chose to hate him from the moment he was elected.  Others were simply lulled into accepting the total negative picture because it was all they saw and heard on their social media and MSM.  Trump was not perfect, nor was he pure evil.  Like any human and any president, he is complex.  Facts give us a much clearer picture than any narrative.  We need to remember that.

When we get the rosy pictures of Biden and his administration, we need to remember again that no one is all good or all bad.  We need to question what we see and hear.  Just because the preferred media narrative is that everything Biden is good does not mean that we should not question the assumptions we are given.  We always need to demand facts, even when those facts are inconvenient and do not fit our preferred narrative.

We tend to question less when we are in fear and uncertainty.  We look to someone else to provide the certainty and answers to our pain in the same way that children look to parents.  But certainty and safety can become a prison.  Questioning is the only true way to alleviate uncertainty and fear.  It is the only way to retain the true ability to control one’s own destiny.   

If we stop questioning it means that we are leaving the course of our future to those who control the narrative.  We are not children and I, for one, do not want to become like children to an all-powerful government/Big Tech/Media that makes my decisions and creates my narrative for me.  Therefore, I will continue to question. 

Question narrative.  Question facts.  Question support.  Question interpretations of facts.  Question opinions.  Simply Question.

*******************************************************************

*I don’t know if the term “trickle-up poverty” has been previously used to characterize socialism, but it is definitely appropriate.  I discovered it in this well thought out and well explained piece by the CEO of Whole Foods. LINK 

 

Does Anyone Still Care About Objective Truth?

In today’s world it seems like the driving force in any conversation, discussion, not to mention argument is to WIN, not to search for and perhaps even find the TRUTH. 

Facts are out the window.  It is all about NARRATIVE.  That is, what is the story one wants to tell that will serve the teller’s purposes – that purpose most often being to win.  The end seems to always justify the means.  Lies are not prohibited; challenging lies is an impermissible attack. The teller’s story must be believed so the teller can win; questions are not for discussion but rather seen as attacks.

Mature discussions used to also include some element of humility which resulted in actually listening to the assertions of the other side and accepting questions about one’s own beliefs and assertions with a humble dignity and acknowledgement that they might be wrong or open to revision.  Both sides were not only willing to listen to verified facts but were also unwilling to assert as true or factual opinions or allegations that were not verified or that came only from “unidentified sources.”

Not so today.  Humility gets in the way of winning.  It is inconsistent with the assertion that one is absolutely right, no matter what.  No matter what the facts might be or what a full evidentiary examination might prove.  Egos seem unable to take any sort of challenge.  It is all about winning and in order to “win” too many people think that they must be right no matter what and any contrary fact or point of logic must be repelled and denied.

This is at least in part why people believe that they are justified in denying the First Amendment rights of others.  This is at least in part why people assert that information published by news outlets that do not concur with their Left or Right leanings are simply not worth reading, even if they provide verifiable facts on a topic.  This is why when one narrative is repeated by other outlets that have the same leanings that those who accept that narrative believe that it has been verified and not just repeated. 

This is how false allegations take wing.  Opinions become fact.  An unverified statement by an unidentified source becomes truth.  In reality, neither is so, and yet we let such narratives ruin the lives of so many people:  think about the Kavanaugh hearings for example; think about a justified – and there are some – police shooting where the officer is crucified rather than appreciated for doing his or her job; think about FISA warrants to spy on American citizens and on a Presidential candidate that were granted on what have now been proven to be false statements.  These are just a few of the more egregious false narratives that far too many are willing to accept simply because they support the triumph of their own narrative. 

It is all about winning.  But once upon a time it was more about finding an objective truth.

There was an interesting commentary in the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 30 by Tony Woodlief titled “Free Speech Absolutism Killed Free Speech.”  In it he argues that too much free speech has led to the cancel culture.  Essentially his position is that when we have open speech and the full exchange of ideas (which were originally believed by Mill and others to be the way to ferret out the objective TRUTH), that no idea is refutable, and ultimately leads to the belief that no truth exists. 

“When no dogma can finally be put to rest, it becomes easier—almost obligatory—to do whatever we like. Ideas are evaluated, not based on their reasonableness or coherence, but by how much they tickle the ears of the in-crowd. Harder truths become offensive. The only intolerable citizen, in such a regime, is the one whose belief in truth compels him to attack beliefs he believes to be false even if his attacks disturb the equanimity of the establishment. His criticism becomes too hurtful—even a form of “violence.” For the safety of the community, he must be cast out.”

This well describes a reason for such things as free speech being driven from campuses, threats and attacks directed towards those who do not support the favored position, acceptance of unverified facts or opinions and “news,” etc. 

But this reasoning is flawed.  It is not free speech itself that leads to this place of dogma over truth.  Rather it is the current inability or unwillingness of people to use their critical thinking skills – to use reason as well as emotion in assessing the speech that they hear.  As Mr. Woodlief writes, “Mill believed heretics should be heard, not put in charge of classrooms and permitted to create despotic speech codes. Everybody should be allowed to express his views, but that doesn’t require us to empower and elevate people who would afford themselves the right to speak and take it from everybody else.”

When did we decide that we are no longer allowed to question speech put forth if it might be in the least bit upsetting to the mob of public opinion?  I think there are two areas that are in large part responsible for this:  A loss of shared values and a loss of an educational system that teaches us to think.

Both require not just listening, but listening and then holding the ideas and ideologies presented accountable.

As Mr. Woodlief states, “the classroom is not a fiefdom and students are not a teacher’s ideological playthings.”  It is the responsibility of educators to not present one viewpoint alone, but to present several and then help the students to conduct their own inquiry and evaluation into those viewpoints – questioning the adequacy of sources, the completeness and objectivity with which facts are presented, etc.  It is the job of educators to teach students how to assess a variety of informations and then make up their own minds.

Yet too often educators try to instill their beliefs into their students by presenting only their ideology.  Academics and those who hold themselves out to be scholars have an ethical responsibility to promote free and open inquiry as well as practice intellectual honesty themselves.

Combined with the loss of critical thinking in the classroom has come a change in what Americans value.  We have become a “feel good” society.  Everyone must get a trophy; no one should be made to feel uncomfortable -ever; if it makes you feel good, do it; etc.  Questioning someone’s point is seen as an attack, not on the point being argued, but on the person.  We have lost the ability to distinguish that.  We have silenced our reason for our emotions. 

When everyone is right, when everyone expects the trophy, we essentially silence both our humility and our critical thinking ability.  It is not free speech that is the problem, but our inability to listen to that free speech without feeling threatened and without the ability to assess the many ideas we find in the marketplace and hold them accountable.

We have lost the belief in an objective truth; it has been replaced with a belief in individual narrative truth.  When that is the prevailing belief, there will be no assessments of ideologies as part of the search for that objective truth.  Instead, truth will become the fickle assertion of the mob majority and opposing ideas will be silenced, not because the ideas in vogue are not refutable, but because we are afraid to refute them.

Only when, and not until, we relearn the humility of putting a shared search for objective truth above a personal desire to win, only then will we find the civility and tolerance that once existed in this country and be able to use it to overcome the hate and blindness to reason that is destroying us.

Question Two

This is the second in a series of important questions that I hope everyone will consider before they cast their vote for President of the United States of America this fall.

How many institutions that are a regular part of your life are you willing to relinquish to a political agenda that may or may not be your own?

Here is a partial list of traditional institutions, both public and private, that are now, at least in part, serving a Leftist political agenda:

• Public K-12 Schools
• Institutions of Higher Learning
• Entertainment Industry
• Professional Sports
• Religious Doctrine
• Corporate Product Naming, Placement, Advertising
• Media
• The Arts
• Public Art
• Funding of Law Enforcement

Education has been leaning Left for several years now.  Indeed, the Marx-Lenin playbook points to education as the key to socialist indoctrination.  Abraham Lincoln was aware of the power (and potential danger) of education when he stated, “The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.” 

In the past 2 or 3 generations, public schools as well as both public and private universities have become places where students focus less on purely academic subjects and more on social issues with a view towards indoctrinating students into someone else’s values and judgments about what is and what is not “social justice.”  It often does not stop there: often students are aggressively instructed about the causes they should take up. 

In Philadelphia, an English teacher at the Science Leadership Academy stated his concerns that “Conservative” parents might “listen in” or just overhear Zoom lessons and conversations this fall.  His “chief concern” is when teachers are engaging “in the messy work of destabilizing a kid’s racism or homophobia or transphobia.”  I am not sure why an English teacher should be “destabilizing” a child’s feelings, or automatically defining them as racist, homophobic or transphobic.  But that is one of many ways in which education now serves a Left agenda.

Similarly, the NEA in collaboration with the NY Times has developed a 1619 Project curriculum for schools, and some school districts have actually voted to adopt it.  The 1619 Project argues that this country was created not on the Fourth of July 1776, but on Aug. 20, 1619, the date when a ship carrying African slaves arrived in Virginia.  It requires placing Blacks at the very center of every aspect of this nation’s history, celebrating Black accomplishments while demeaning contributions of all others as nothing more than actions only made possible by Blacks.  It denounces the history of this country based on the Revolution, the Framers, and the Constitution as nothing more than racist and white supremacist.  Despite the fact that many historians have questioned the accuracy of the 1619 Project, it will be taught as history in many public schools this fall.   Consider this just another way of using education to promote a Leftist agenda.

Higher education is not exempt.  A Stockton University student is facing suspension for using a Zoom background with a picture of the President of the United States.  It allegedly caused other students “to feel offended, disrespected, and taunted” during class.  If found guilty the student will also be required to take a “social justice workshop” (reeducation camp), simply for displaying a photo of the President.  This certainly puts a chilling effect on any expression that is not Leftist approved. 

There are also any number of incidents of teachers and college professors being fired or in some other way disciplined and silenced when they speak out against a Leftist belief.  Offenses even include such things as forgetting to use a student’s preferred pronoun.  The Left agenda is alive and well and generally pulling the strings in higher education.

Looking at some of the other institutions on the list, the entertainment industry uses its productions to support Leftist causes.  TV and Movie productions often require placement of particular identity individuals:  interracial couples, homosexual characters or couples, leftist values, ridicule of conservative lifestyles, etc.  

Professional sports has now joined in as it supports the BLM movement (which, to be clear, is a political organization with Leftist ties and clear Leftist demands).  Players, now suddenly “woke”, wear “social justice” statements on their shirts and kneel for the National Anthem, as if either action would actually do anything, anything, that is, other than shove a specific political agenda in every sports fan's face. 

We all know that most of the mainstream media is the handmaiden of the Left.  It is a well-oiled propaganda machine.  Gone are the days when one could look to the media to give one the facts.  Now it is opinion stated as fact and then used as propaganda.  In order to discover the actual facts about a situation one must spend hours reading and cross-reviewing a great number of sources, something that most people do not have time, understanding, or resources to do.  

Corporations are also on board.  Social media censors items that are offensive to the Left agenda.  Corporations rename or remove products at the beck and call of the Left.  Those who refuse to do so are subject to boycotts or firings. 

Even some religious doctrine is modified to appease Left demands.  Sermons, youth activities, etc. may promote a specific political party’s agenda rather than that religion’s agenda which may or may not coincide with that of the political party.  Just as schools are places for academic instruction, not family value instruction in the form of a particular political agenda, places of worship should be for religious value instruction and worship, not promotion of a political agenda couched in the form of religious instruction.

The Arts also push certain agendas.  Grants to visual and performing artists often require some “social justice” aspect to the work.  The people’s art – public statues – are destroyed to advance the Left’s agenda.

And, finally, a word about law enforcement.  Local police forces are now falling under the control of the Leftist agenda as their funds are either removed or repurposed to social worker rather than law enforcement type personnel. 

There are other familiar institutions which have long been a part of our lives but that now belong not to us in the way that they once did but are rather already under or moving under the control of the Left.  The agenda is theirs; it is not ours, even if on some points we are inclined to agree. 

As the Left gains control over more and more of these many facets of our lives, as we relinquish these institutions to the Left to control, we lose more and more of who we are and instead become more and more of what the Left wants us to be.   These institutions that used to serve us for the purposes stated in their titles (education, entertainment, worship, etc.) are now being controlled more and more by the Left which pulls their strings sometimes with and sometimes without our conscious knowledge.  The frightening fact is that this Leftist control is becoming more and more prevalent and reaching into more and more aspects of our daily lives.

Is this acceptable to you?  If it is, then you are the voter and the tool that the Democrats seek.  If it is not, then you must stand up against this hijacking of what once were open and relatively unbiased institutions.  You must stand against relinquishing control of every aspect of your life to the Left.  One way to do that is to vote Republican this fall. 

                                 Be sure to consider who is pulling the strings.

Finally, as noted in “Question One” yesterday, I am not registered with any party, but as an independent thinker and voter I truly believe that this may be one of the most important elections of our lifetime.  I hope that everyone gives it the serious consideration that it deserves.

 

 

Think, Listen, Understand

There can be no center if people do not think for themselves.

Recently I was told the story of a middle school student who, interested in politics, commented that “both sides sound just the same.”  While one’s immediate reaction might be to disagree because certainly the details of what each side says are different, when one looks at the bigger picture one realizes that this middle schooler was absolutely correct.

We have a definite political divide in this country, and each side is hateful toward and intolerant of the other.  Each side’s preference seems to be to deny everything held dear by the other side.  Both sides seem to lack any in-depth knowledge of our country’s history, or our constitution along with its history and subsequent interpretations, or our system of government and what is meant by federalism.  Yet both sides will use all those things to support their positions along with their hatred and denial of the other side.

That’s the big picture, and some might say:  well, if we are so much alike, why can’t we just get along.  But, as others might say, the Devil is in the details.  While we could look at the very specific details of today’s or yesterday’s hateful statements or actions, I think the more important details are just a bit broader and are the details of the values and beliefs of each side that underlie and motivate the hate that each displays.

One side seems to have chosen to dislike this country, its history, and all that it stands for.  They point out every imperfection to their new recruits and tend to see nothing but these imperfections, despising the country for them.  It is as if they are looking at a person covered with warts and are unable to see anything but those warts.

This side believes that the problems with the country stem from its very formation and form.  They believe that the way to fix problems, inequities, disappointments is not to work to make what we have better, but to replace the entire system.  Concurrent with this rejection of our democratic republic often comes a rejection of its underlying values which are primarily Judeo-Christian in origin.

The other side often tends to completely ignore the warts.  They believe in this country and all that it stands for, but often go beyond that to argue that it is perfect, has no negative history (or that such history is in the end justifiable) and needs no improvement.  They certainly do not think that the current system of government should be replaced rather than improved.  And, concurrent with this viewpoint often comes a traditional faith and value system grounded in Judeo-Christian principles.

These two positions are polar opposites and cannot co-exist.  Within a country you can have only one form of government.  You must have a generally agreed upon value system that governs the behavior of society within the country and its approach toward the rest of the world.  Each side’s viewpoint is, in its essence, a mortal threat to the other.

We have two sides that every day dig deeper into their positions, unwilling to listen to, let alone tolerate, the differing viewpoints displayed by the other side.  This country has survived, thrived, and grown only with an ability to hear disagreeing voices, understand them, and find some middle ground.  That cannot happen without tolerance for those who hold beliefs and values that differ from one’s own, a tolerance that seems non-existent today.

Where does this intolerance come from?  I think a big part of it comes from a fear of having one’s own views challenged.  And that fear is fueled by the fact that many do not have the understanding of their views that is necessary to deal with a challenge to them.

We live in a world of sound bites and superficial knowledge.  Everyone can do a Google search on anything, read an article or two, and think that they are an expert, whose opinion is as qualified as one who has studied or practiced that subject for years.  No depth of understanding required.

When superficiality rules, there is no need to think deeply about a subject.  When that comes to political positions or core values it is easy to simply accept the narrative that sounds good without further thought about it or about its consequences.  People find it easier to simply accept the position of another rather than to think for themselves.  And, because the position really belongs to someone else, because it is not one’s own  in the sense that one has not thought about it and does not own it, then the one who has simply adopted it is unable to defend it when challenged. 

This means that, when that position is challenged, rather than carry on a thoughtful discussion about the position, rather than reexamine one’s own beliefs while trying to explain them to another as well as understand differing opinions and what they might have in common with one’s own, the person challenged simply rejects the challenger, refusing to even hear their alternate viewpoint.  They cannot tolerate the alternate viewpoint because it is a threat which they cannot defend against since they do not have the understanding of their own beliefs necessary to do so.  And, this “attack” leads not only to fear, but also to hatred against the attacker because of their threat.

If we were all thinking for ourselves, we would not have these two distinct, irreconcilable, and hateful groups.  Instead we would have a wealth of individuals representing their own person along a broad and diverse spectrum.  But we cannot have that without people using their seemingly long forgotten ability to think for themselves.

With thinking about something comes not only a better understanding of that thing, but also a better understanding of differing views about that thing.  Thinking and understanding deeply allows one to understand the why of their own viewpoints and with that why they can have the courage to have those viewpoints challenged and the courage to tolerate those who hold different views.

This country, our form of government, allows us to hold that individuality even while some would have us give that up.  This country allows us, indeed encourages us, to have not only extreme opposing positions but to listen and learn and come together in some middle ground.  But to have that middle requires that we listen and learn and understand.   And we cannot do that if each opposing side simply dismisses and hates the other.

It is education and thought that give one the courage to lose the fear and its companion intolerance that plague us today.  Without them we will never bridge the gap that grows ever wider and more hateful between opposing political sides; sides that are made up in large part by people who are simply accepting one view and rejecting another without any thought or examination.

This country is not perfect.  It has warts.  But it is not only warts.  It has a beauty and goodness that has always shined through despite those warts and that has led us to ever become better members of the human race.  We cannot let this superficial time in which we live blind us to that. 

The middle school student is on the right track and we must encourage her and her peers to rise up and think, to become the individuals that they are meant to be with views that are their own in depth and understanding, and not simply superficial creations and mimics of others.  They can lead this country back to the centered, tolerant, and diverse society that stands together both despite and because of its individuals and their differences. 

It is that ability to think for oneself with understanding that is at the very core of our society.  Indeed, it is a requirement to have the rights and privileges and freedoms that this democratic republic provides.  Thinking, listening, understanding:  these are our civic duties.  We owe it to that middle schooler to exercise them.

On Education – Attitudes and Effects

This week, if not before, children are returning to school, so it seems an appropriate time to talk about education.  Not just superficially or about such things as curriculum, testing, etc., but about the role and the effect that education has on society and its success or failure in that regard.  This, I suggest, all begins with the attitude that we display towards education, for that attitude has an effect on the respect and value that we accord to education.

Coincidentally, while we were celebrating Labor Day on Sept. 2 this year, all the children all across Russia were returning to school on what is there called “The Day of Knowledge.”  The children all show up in what we once would have referred to as their “Sunday best.”  Elementary children are wearing “party dresses” and little suits.  The girls have their hair in pigtails or similar, tied with ribbons and decorated with flowers.  And every child has a bouquet of flowers for the teacher

 

After the opening ceremonies the children sit at their desks, focused on the teacher and ready to learn.

 День знаний [Day of Knowledge], Russia

Now, I don’t want to get into a discussion of what these children might or might not be learning at their Russian schools.  What I do want to suggest is that this making the first day of school a national event and a celebration reflects a respect, appreciation, and a valuing of education. 

Is this all superficial?  Yes, perhaps, but superficialities often reflect what is also below the surface.  

In his column on parenting today, John Rosemond states that “the most important thing parents should teach [during children’s preschool years] is proper manners" which he notes are “the sorts of fundamental courtesies that form the backbone of civilized social behavior.” (CITE)

Why is this important?  Because if our children don’t understand how to respect their teachers and their fellow students, if they don’t know how to listen without interrupting, if they don’t value the fact that their teacher and their school experience is providing them with valuable lessons in both academics and life, then they are not going to learn.

Here is a picture of American students arriving for the first day of school in Minneapolis last year (photo credit: Elisabeth Flores – Minneapolis Star Tribune).   It is typical of first days of school across America.  These students also look eager, but one wonders how actually prepared they are to learn.  Greeted by the superintendent, beyond that indication that this is a very special and exciting day, a day that begins an exciting journey of learning, what other signals do these children get that learning is important and worthy of respect?

Rosemond, in his column, also notes that since the 1960s, parenting has become all about having a good relationship with one’s children.  That is, in essence, parents and parent figures want to be the kid’s friend.  Rosemond notes that “as a result, parental leadership…has gone by the wayside.”  I would add that respect, too, has gone.  Children come to school with no sense of respecting authority figures, of taking and carrying out reasonable orders from those figures, even if they are not something that the child wants to do or finds entertaining or fun. 

How does that happen?  After all, don’t we repeatedly tell children “school is important”?  Perhaps.  But it is much more likely that children see how important it really is based upon our actions.  And many of those actions are reflected in the superficial as well as in the more general approach that we may have to the structures of society.

Because many parents are more concerned with being their child’s friend and in agreeing with the child that he or she is never wrong,  they do not support their children’s teachers but instead will argue whenever the teacher tells the student he or she is wrong or demands work which the child is not inclined to do.  Moreover, some parents have a way of demonstrating that school is something that gets in the way of their lives; their trip to the beach or to Disney Land may be more important so that they pull their children from school for the vacation.  Such action must certainly signal that school is not really that important.

Dress is indeed superficial, but it is also a statement.  When teachers show up dressed in T-shirts or similar ultra-casual dress, it does not reflect a respect for learning.  Perhaps they feel that allows them to "relate" with their students, but a truly good teacher will teach the students and be respected by them whether or not he or she “relates” or is their good friend.  And, while I don’t expect students to come to school in their “Sunday best” I do think that they can dress in a professionally casual way that reflects some respect for school and learning, a way that reflects that they recognize school and the learning therein as something special.

When I was in (public school) ninth grade my Latin teacher repeatedly reminded us that we, as human beings, had a “thirst for knowledge” that was unquenchable. .  It is that thirst for knowledge in and of itself that gives us a true joy in learning.  I believe that to be true, but I also believe that young students must be shown that thirst and encouraged to experience it and its resultant joy in pure learning; as students grow that thirst must not be extinguished or replaced with some sort of quest for prestige or power or financial gain.

While those goals can also be a part of someone’s life, if the quest for knowledge is extinguished, one will lose the joy of learning simply for the sake of learning.  And, if that interest in simply learning is extinguished, then how will students ever be able to openly, objectively, and fully listen to not only their teachers but their peers.  And if we cannot listen to one another then how can we ever solve the many problems that every society, culture, and generation faces.

The simple passion for learning used to be found by many in the liberal arts.  Reading, discussing, and simply enjoying ideas for their own sake.  But, now, political correctness has told us that many of the reading material that used to be among the foundations of a liberal education are no longer appropriate for one reason or another.   And, rather than ideas being exciting in and of themselves, many students are led one way or another to see education as simply some pathway to some sort of material gain. 

We tell students they should go to college, not because they can enter an academy of learning that will satisfy that thirst for knowledge for its own sake, but because it will get them a job.  A job with which they will be able to purchase a vast array of material goods.  And so, “The liberal arts university is becoming the corporate university, its center of gravity shifting to technical fields where scholarly expertise can be parlayed into lucrative business opportunities.”( William Deresiewicz CITE )

Education is a crucial part of our lives.  It teaches us about our society, its history and its rules and how we are expected to behave within it.  It teaches us about the arts, their history and how we can create our own art.   It teaches us to understand ourselves and others, especially those who are not like us.   It teaches us about the many STEM subjects with which we can create new innovations and it teaches us philosophy and critical thinking so that we can evaluate those innovations and their potential effects upon us and our society and the world.  It teaches us to write so that we can effectively communicate our thoughts and, most importantly, it teaches us to think.  Simply to think, deeply and creatively, and with joy.

Education and educators should never forget this.  But, for students to accept this teaching, they must come to that education with an open mind and with respect for learning and for knowledge itself.  And if those around them do not care, show little respect for education, then why would we expect the children to sense that education is something to be respected or to value?

I watch school districts throw money at their schools because “the children are not learning or not succeeding.”  But money will not change a basic attitude, the attitude of respect for and valuing of education, that is a key ingredient necessary for schools to successfully perform their necessary functions.  Attitude begins at home and with the little things that we do that demonstrate how we feel about education and schools and teachers and learning itself.  Perhaps we could begin by simply celebrating knowledge.