Chris & Daryl both pointed us to this one, a post from a teacher pondering the moral implications of compulsory public education, and how those pesky parents keep getting in the way. Ron couldn’t resist responding.
Ron:
I’m on the edge of my seat waiting for an articulation of how coercion/compulsion through the majority of one’s formative years will result in one becoming capable of resisting coercion.
Ah…? Not sure I follow you. When you say (indoctrination is) exposure to one viewpoint to the exclusion of all others, do you mean a viewpoint like (hmmm, let’s just pull one out of the hat shall we) the liberal philosophy? Or does indoctrination (from your vision of good and evil) just refer to viewpoints other than the liberal philosophy? Is that because from your vision of goodness, the liberal philosophy is right, while all the other ones are wrong?
My, my, my. It’s amazing how K-12 and 4 or more years of university and a few good books will set you free from the dilemma of morals. Or does it? By ‘parents lose the moral right’, did you mean, from a moral perspective, parents should not have the right to make all (educational) choices for their children? Just a wild guess, but is a choice you feel parents should not be permitted to make is to refrain from teaching their children the liberal philosophy?
Based on your description, I’ve concluded that, because goodness is solely subjective, the liberal philosophy could be taken to mean ‘there is no ultimate good and evil’. Yet you argue that teaching the liberal philosophy is ‘good’ and that not enabling a children to learn that is ‘evil’? So are they ultimate good and evil, or just your vision of good and evil? If it’s your vision, how is it ‘good’ that all children be taught to look at it your way? If they are ultimate good and evil, the liberal philosophy is wrong.
Excluding the familial relationship and the capacity of the parents to believe in a different ‘good’ than you, would you clarify for me, at a fundamental level, how homeschooling parents teaching their children their philosophy is different from you teaching children yours?
Great reply, Ron.
By ‘liberal theory’ I meant no more and no less than the definition I provided in the post: that is, a theory that places value in free choice. I provided that as a baseline assumption for the discussion. If you disagree with the basic premise of the value of liberty, then there is no common ground for a discussion. If this is the case, then we should just ‘agree to disagree’ with no hard feelings. There is certainly no cause for wild speculation about what I think that has little basis in what I actually wrote.
For the record, my use of the wording ‘the good’ should not be confused with ‘goodness’ (in terms of good and evil). Rather, it is intended to mean a particular vision of what is worth pursuing in life, or, more simply, ‘happiness.’ This does not imply a subjective view of good and evil. We can have absolute agreement about what is right and wrong but find different ways of making ourselves happy (while still living lives we would both consider ‘moral’ or ‘good’).
In any case, I hope you will have a chance to read my latest post on the matter, and hopefully give your opinion in an engaging yet civil manner.
Jonathan, in reading your comment the first thing that came to mind was that, it is not that we necessarily differ on the value of liberty. But, that we differ on the method of achieving it.
For example, I believe that compulsion is the denial of the freedom to choose. And I do not find in the declaration of independence a suggestion that current liberties should be suspended based on the speculation of theories over future liberties.
Ultimately, though, I have found that neither in your post in your blog nor in your comment here did you respond to what I said, beyond calling it wild speculation about what you meant. (And I’m not saying this to be uncivil) Of all people, I would have expected a PST to write with the expectation that the reader would find meaning in what was written.
As I do not want to further speculate, I’ll defer to the more familiar question and answer scenario:
1- Can you articulate how coercion/compulsion through the majority of one’s formative years will result in one becoming capable of resisting coercion?
2- In saying, “the latter meaning…”, was it the meaning that you have placed on that part of the declaration of independence, or the liberal philosophy’s?
3- Do you believe there are one or more absolute (or ultimate) good(s) or evil(s) in terms of morality?
4- In your answer to Question 3
a) if you answered yes, how can all viewpoints be equally valid in pursuing good (by your definition)?
b) if you answered no, to compel students to consider all viewpoints as possibilities of pursuing good (again by your definition), is it not necessary to exclude from those viewpoints any viewpoint which defines an ultimate good?
5) Would you agree that teaching from the perspective of the ‘latter meaning’ (referred to in question #2) and haven chosen 4 b) fits your definition of indoctrination by virtue of excluding all viewpoints which contradict it?
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to answer these questions.
I will first say that we must avoid speaking in absolutes. There is no such thing as completely free choice, and compulsion can vary in nature and degree.
1)Of course it is impossible to teach resistance to coersion through coersion. In child-rearing, the ideal is to have to use as little compulsion as possible, which must be eliminated as quickly as possible once the child is able to choose for himself. Any parent who uses the justifications ‘because I say so’ is compelling the child, hopefully under the assumption that the child will quickly understand the reasons for himself. I know that I try to avoid using that justification in the classroom; when do I say we can discuss it later but that I can’t be made to justify every decision I make on demand, for the sake of a well-run classroom (it still makes me uncomfortable). When I said that individuals should be compelled to attain autonomy, I noted the irony! It was a light push out of the nest that I had in mind, not an endless barrage of threats.
You are implying that in public schools children are subjected to a constant barrage of threats and not just a light push. I tend to agree. Under such conditions, I think homeschooling is preferable. However, this does not mean that homeschooling does not have its own deficiencies, based on the danger that parents will prevent their children from access to viewpoints that contradict their own. Even when they allow access, I imagine it is hard for parents to facilitate conversation with such viewpoints; whereas in a good public school education (where such a thing exists) students have the opportunity to debate their viewpoints with their classmates.
2)Either/or. This country was founded on the principles of liberal social theory. The right to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ is at the core of the theory and our founding documents, which is not coincidental. If this offends you, keep in mind that the term ‘liberal’ is associated here with ‘liberty’, and that it is entirely distinct from the way we use the word now (as in ‘bleeding heart liberal’). Also, note that I am using the term ‘social theory’ instead of ‘philosophy.’ If philosophy implies a holistic way of thought (to the exclusion, maybe, of all others), a social theory is limited to thinkinig about how to make society work (I suppose this requires some assumptions about what a working society is; I hope I can leave that up in the air and say that common ground can probably be found here).
3)Yes, I do believe in absolute good. Not that it really matters for this discussion; I must reiterate that, as a social theory and not a philosophy, the use of ‘the good’ is in a different context than in a discussion of morality. In the Declaration of Independance the term ‘happiness’ is used, instead, although that is not totally fitting, either, since it has some connotations of a hedonistic pursuit of pleasure instead of satisfaction or well-being.
4)Valuing free choice does not imply that all viewpoints are equally valid. On the contrary, implicit, I think, to liberal theory is the belief in absolute moral good and the human tendency (under the encouragement of society and religious institutions) to gravitate towards it when freely allowed to do so. The philosophical belief in a liberal society contradicts the premises of, but allows the belief in, fundamentalism (which believes that all will stray unless forced to strictly adhere to the One True Doctrine). One may choose fundamentalism, so long as one does not impose it on others; their way may deny them Salvation (a matter you may freely discuss with them), but universal salvation is not a requirement for a functioning society. Part and parcel to the belief in a liberal society is the belief that it is self-perpetuating; that is, that given the freedom to choose people will continue to want this freedom… Conversely, if we felt that liberal society could only exist if people were forced to accept it then liberal society would, by definition, cease to exist!
4b)Teaching multiple viewpoints does NOT require saying that there is not one correct viewpoint; one can even present one’s own choice in viewpoints but one should not coerce anyone into accepting it. For example, a teacher should be allowed to discuss his politics if he can do so in a way that does not abuse his power as the dominant voice in the classroom.
5) I would agree, and hope I have made my positions on #2 and #4b appropriately clear.