Response: Harvard Initiates the Fall of American Higher Education

Ahoy mates. I've finally received some feedback on something I have written, and as promised, I will defend (or amend) my arguments in light of this response. So here goes:

Story One:
The first source of criticism over my post was as follows:

"You describe multiculturalism as being tolerant, including and granting equality to distinct cultural groups, and then state that it is"obviously wrong." Are you implying that tolerance, inclusion, and equality are wrong?"

There's a lot to chew on in those statements, so I guess I will just clarify my argument in hopes that it will answer the question. What I meant to say explicitly about Multiculturalism is that it is, above all, relativist; Multiculturalism does not believe in truth - in a right and a wrong. But it does have its dogmas, the most prominent of which is tolerance.

Now I know it's difficult to go on the record anywhere and state that I am against tolerance, because that makes me out to be a bigot (and I would like to think that I am not one), but I will say that I am against tolerance in the way that Multiculturalists have perverted the word. Webster's Dictionary defines tolerance as having "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own." Multiculturalist tolerance goes beyond sympathy and demands acceptance. Multiculturalist thinkers would say that I would be intolerant if I was not fond of a community or culture that based itself upon prostitution, for example. They would require me to believe "Well, if prostitution works for them, then that's fine by me." But I would be demonstrating true, Websterarian tolerance by simply thinking that we should not immediately destroy the society. I am sympathetic towards the people, but I do not agree with their beliefs, just as the Christian is called to hate the sin but not the man.

Multiculturalists are quick to call Christians intolerant because they do not accept other views. But wouldn't Christianity fail as a distinct religion if its members did not all hold to the same virtues? To call Christians intolerant (by their definition of the word) is to call Christians Christian! Or to call Buddhists Buddhist! To be a person with a soul, do you not have to make decisions of right and wrong? For to me, if you are a person who believes in nothing at all, you are worse off than the man who believes in the wrong thing because you at least have made some "moral" decisions in your life.

And this is what the Multiculturalists have done by making the world a cultural smorgasbord: created people with no convictions at all. Sure, they will have opinions on education and politics and economic policy, but they are mere talking heads with no foundation greater than themselves.

As such, in response you another argument you made, we can consider the ideas of other cultures and study them as long as it is not done relativistically. There are things that are right and wrong (such as a society that bases itself on prostitution or exploitation of the poor, etc). It is also important, again, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and simply denounce those societies because of their sins. I would argue, though, that since we live in America we ought to primarily study American history rather than concern ourselves with history of places we will most likely never have to deal with. Parenthetically, I realize that this opens me up to the counter-argument that "the world is becoming more globalized and soon American history will become the world's history, etc.". I'll save globalization for another day (or days) as it, too, is something I am completely opposed to. If you want to read a book that probably has a lot more wisdom on globalization than I do, read Joseph Pierce's Small is Still Beautiful. Also for a much more detailed argument of Multiculturalism, please read The Disuniting of America by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. as he has a jolly good argument in that book.

The critic also wrote that "The history of America is in fact found in Africa and Latin America and the East, since American citizens come from all over the world." This statement almost refutes itself. The great men of American history did not come from Africa, Latin America or the East, they were from the West (namely, Europe). To my knowledge, none of the Founding Fathers were from these regions and no President has been from those regions. Even so, today's culture is not shaped on culture from those areas.

Admittedly, I do not have a strong response to the critique that Multiculturalism and Scientism are "fruits of Western thinking." I first wanted to say that these ideas are a result of the globalizing trend that is prevalent throughout the world, but by good bud Wendell Berry himself once said, "Global thinking is not possible," so I have to abandon that argument. What I do know is that Multiculturalism and Scientism have ultimately stemmed from Romantacism and the Enlightenment, both time periods which doubted the existence of God and so sought to fill the void with science and reasoning or with human emotion and intuition, both of which, then followed unilaterally, cannot produce a healthy philosophy (or at the very least, for my sake, one that fits with a Christian worldview). But, again, I still cannot escape the fact that these are largely fruits of the West, except by making a familiar argument. The West is what has made America great. I shouldn't have to defend that, but I'll just throw out simpliest example, that of religious freedom. But the West has also produced bad ideas, namely, Multiculturalism, Scientism, Post-Modernism, etc. I cannot, then, fully endorse the West. But I can endorse that which agrees with my convictions, and that I do.

Stories Two and Three:

The critic writes:

As a counter-argument, I guess the ACLU doesn't like the bibles and the courses in the schools because it violates the separation of church and state. And even though the students can choose not to participate, because the state can't play favorites, it would have to allow every religion (even the crazy ones) to give out their writings and potentially have elective courses.

Church and state is a funny issue. Here is all the Constitution says concerning religion and the government:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

I'm sure books have been written about this very statement, but I'll try to keep it to less than a book. The law is simply that the government will not make a law establishing a religion as the official religion of the state. I realize that Court decisions have redefined this by ensuring religious topics are no longer taught in public (federal) schools and trying to extract "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Regardless, one of my professors at school gave me a copy of the Students' Bill of Rights. The Students' Bill of Rights outlines the religious rights guaranteed under constitutional and federal law that students and teachers have while in public schools. The list may surprise you:

1. The Right to meet with other religious students.
   The Equal Access Act allows students the freedom to meet on campus for the purpose of discussing religious issues.
2. The Right to identify your religious beliefs through signs and symbols.
   Students are free to express their beliefs through signs and symbols. (Including Christian t-shirts, etc.)
3. The Right to talk about your religious beliefs on campus.
   Freedom of speech is a fundamental right mandated in the Constitution and does not exclude the school yard.
4. The Right to distribute religious literature on campus.
   Distributing literature on campus may not be restricted simply because it is religious.
5. The Right to pray on campus.
   Students may pray alone or with others so long as it does not disrupt school activities or is not forced on others.
6. The Right to carry or study your Bible on campus.
   The Supreme Court has said that only state directed Bible reading is unconstitutional.
7. The Right to do research papers, speeches, and creative projects with religious themes.
   The First Amendment does not forbid all mention of religion in public schools.
8. The Right to be exempt.
   Students may be exempt from activities and class content that contradict their religious beliefs.
9. The Right to celebrate or study religious holidays on campus.
   Music, art, literature, and drama that have religious themes are permitted as part of the curriculum for school activities if presented in an objective manner as a traditional part of the cultural and religious heritage of the particular holiday.
10. The Right to meet with school officials.
    The First Amendment to the Constitution forbids Congress to make any law that would restrict the right of the people to petition the Government (school officials).

Some places have attempted to legislate laws that would permit teachers and students to further express their religious convictions under the banner that their statements are not the official views of the school district. Here's one example of a town in Fort Bend, Texas.

In short, the church and state debate isn't much of a debate. As long as the governing body (in this case, the school board) does not explicitly affiliate itself with a particular religion, any of the above things are permissible in schools. Both school districts, though they have histories with law suits, still stand today because they have obeyed the law. With the specific example of poor Jane Doe being forced to accept a Bible on school grounds, it is completely legal for this to happen (the only thing that could have been illegal is if she was forced to take it, but that would be awfully difficult to prove).

So when the critic writes: "[the state] would have to allow every religion (even the crazy ones) to give out their writings and potentially have elective courses," he is absolutely correct. But it will never happen because decisions of curriculum (especially curriculum of electives) is created and approved by local school boards and it would be hard to find a community school board that would allow for "crazy religions" to be taught in their schools. As such, Catholic public schools still stand and school districts with Christian-sympathies (though not officially affiliated) continue to teach our students the truths they desperately need to hear.

Thank you for the comment and allowing me to firm up my arguments.

Harvard Initiates the Fall of American Higher Education

It has been a while since I've looked at a news website, so I've decided tonight to take a gander at my personal interest: education.

Story One:

Harvard approves biggest curriculum change in 30 years

Western civilization took another hit last week when Ivy League member Harvard University, one of the leading institutions of higher learning in America, overhauled its curriculum to place a higher emphasis on discussing "societies of the world" and the sciences (and the moral implications of advances in science). This is merely a continuation of the progressive philosophy of American education that is already so prevalent in our failing public schools. Call it what you will, but the moves by Harvard University are moves toward Multiculturalism and Scientism in higher education.

Multiculturalism centers around the idea that Western Civilization has failed as a model for society and so modern societies should seek values and ideas from other cultures to fill this void left by the West. As Wikipedia puts it, "Multiculturalism is the idea that modern societies should embrace and include distinct cultural groups with equal social status." The only true difference in these definitions is my part about the failure of the West, which is an assumption of Multiculturalist thought.

The idea of considering ideas from other cultures doesn't sound too bad on the surface, but its implications on American education are huge. The trend of American education today says that we should teach our students to be, above all things, tolerant. It teaches students about other cultures under the presupposition that all cultures are equal. So the West is as good as the East, African culture is as valuable to us as Irish cultures, and the Jewish faith has accomplished exactly as much as Buddhism. The world is nothing more than a smorgasbord of equal cultures and all the modern student must do is have his fair share of each to be "educated."

This is obviously wrong. All cultures are not alike, nor are all cultures equal. The religion of China and the religion of the West are not the same nor comparable. The Irish have not accomplished as much in their history as the English or the Greeks. We live in a world of unique, individual cultures just as we live in a world of unique, individual people. If teachers are to teach children to be American citizens, they must become, above all things, experts in American history, and the history of America is not found in Africa or Latin America or the East, but in the West.

The effects of Multiculturalism already are apparent today as American students today leave schools with less knowledge of their country than ever before. However, what's most dangerous is that they leave school skeptical of their own heritage. Sure, every history has its dark moments, just as all people have fallen short of the glory of God, but that does not mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater; despite our efforts to eliminate our heritage, America is a product of the West.

I will leave Scientism for another day, but briefly, I will lay out the following argument. When we begin to emphasize the sciences in school, it tends to endorse the philosophy of materialism - that all we are is that which we can observe. While scientific observation is a way to better understand God's created order, it has its limits, especially in the realm of faith, ethics and morality. Science does not leave room for morality or religion. There is no quantitative measure for God or morality. If educators teach education outside its Christian context, science becomes an excuse to endorse a purely materialistic way of life. And I don't want to carry out this argument now, but this endorsement of materialism makes education's purpose purely utilitarian; that is, a materialist view of education makes students believe that the only purpose of education is to help them in getting more material wealth in the future instead of education being the means by which students become well-rounded people capable of being active citizens in their respective communities.

Stories Two and Three:

Louisiana school district sued over Bibles in school

Advocacy groups sue to halt Bible classes in Texas schools

There's nothing more refreshing than reading yet another story about the ACLU defending American "Freedom" from the poisons of Christianity. The American Civil Liberties Union has sued an eastern Louisiana school district for distributing Bibles on school property. As the story goes, students were instructed to pick up copies of the New Testament near the school's office. The fifth-grade student (whose parents filed the suit at the bidding of the ACLU) soon found herself in line with her class waiting to receive their Bibles from two men. Said the ACLU representative Joe Cook, "With her classmates and teachers looking on, Jane accepted the Bible out of a feeling of coercion and fear that she would be criticized, ridiculed and ostracized." This is the fifth time in thirteen years that the school district has been sued over religious issues.

In regards to this story, it's about time we get those nice gentlemen handing out Bibles out of our schools so we can concentrate our attention more fully on the secular humanist philosophies we cling to so dearly. I love this story. It's an example of a public school district (a parish school district at that) sticking it to the man by ignoring laws in order to teach the truth as they see it. And this isn't even the first time they've done it!

The only reason the ACLU cares is because the school took time that would normally be spent proclaiming its agnostic views in favor of Christianity. This is not an issue of freedom or about adherence to the constitution, it's an issue of a school not fitting into the standardized mold the government has put in place.

Did you read the quote from Mr. Cook?! Poor Jane was "coerced" into accepting a Bible from two men with her teachers and peers looking at her every move. You could make up a similar story about a Christian child in public schools being forced not only to accept but to read a Biology textbook proclaiming evolution as truth! But you will never hear of the ACLU fighting against the Scientism and Secular Humanism so prevalent in schools because its exactly what they want.

Jane may have accepted the Bible because the rest of her peers did, but no one made her read it. Not an ounce of Biblical teaching was disseminated during school hours and Jane still has her religious freedom. What this Louisiana school district does realize though, and unfortunately more school districts do not, is that it's what inside those Bibles that offer freedoms reaching above and beyond any freedoms man himself could ever legislate.

And now the third story. This one, another ACLU gem, is about two advocacy groups who have sued a Texas school district for offering a Bible course as an elective. The ACLU and the American Way Foundation (what euphemistic names!) have hailed the Bible course as "basically a Sunday School class within the walls of a public school."

This is a sticky subject. It is first necessary to recognize that the Bible class is an elective. Students attending the school are not required to take the class and can opt to have nothing to do with it. For that reason alone, this law suit will fail.

The real issue to me is if the Bible ought to be something taught in public schools or in private schools without Christian affiliations. I find it hard to make a judgment for all schools; that is, I would probably leave it in the hands of the parents, teachers, and school board members of each individual district and school to determine the best course of action.

Obviously, I would love Christian morality and Biblical teaching encouraged in a school setting. The Founding Fathers of our nation even thought that this was the best course of action in our schools. But the teaching would have to have a rherotical approach, meaning that the teacher would have to be laying out the thesis that Christianity or the Bible is indeed true. Many secular universities today offer courses on Christianity and the Bible, but the professors are adamate atheists or agnostics. They teach religion and Bible courses using a dialectic approach, laying out every religion as equal, every Biblical teaching as something Christians believe. Their approach is "here are the facts, but that's all you need to know so that you can interact with those people if the moment arises." Does this remind you of Multiculturalism? If schools are to teach the Bible, they must start with the presupposition that the Bible is true. If teachers desire to instill Christian morals in their students, they themselves must believe Christian morality is true and necessary.

Thanks for muscling through this series of essays. Please comment and raise counterarguments and I will answer on this forum.

Express mannequins are blind

If you don't know by now, I'm back in State College working at the lovely Pretzel Gourmet again this summer. For all you skeptics out there, there are good reasons for doing so, which are as follows:

1. More hours
2. More money
3. A feeling that my work-to-compensation ratio is better than at Hoss's
4. Assistant Manager (granted, only a title change...)
5. Less stressful

Now I know people who know me well will look at that list and not think that I would go back to such a place for those reasons, especially for more money, but let me rationalize a bit. It's only for times I'm off of school and there really aren't ways of acquiring teaching internships (especially since all teachers are required to be interns of a sort in order to graduate). Thus, the best thing I can do is earn as much money as I can. Now don't take this to mean that I should start acquiring money illegally, but in a way, unless your summer job is going to help you get a better job in the future (whatever a "better job" is), summer jobs are for money and keeping you from being bored. Unfortunately for me, the Pretzel Gourmet only accomplishes the former.
Bringing me to my thoughts of the day while sitting in the Pretzel Gourmet:

I love seeing the elderly. If you've been here before, you've no doubt read my mini-essay on the elderly. Well, here's another reason I love the elderly: elderly couples are adorable! I realize that it's not the most manly or culturally acceptable thing to say, but they are! Look at them next time you get the chance. I've worked at the Pretzel Gourmet for about three years and only this week have I ever really seen elderly couples as cute. But seriously, they are incredibly encouraging to me in that it shows that marriages do work; that no matter how hard society attempts to redefine the marriage and change the roles of husband and wife and destroy the family and community, love still prevails. But, of course, we knew that all along (cf. 1 Corinthians 3).

I hate Express. First of all, the place is as intimidating as Victoria's Secret, Hot Topic, the makeup counter at Bon-Ton and the DEB; I just can't do it. I get near the place and feel like I'm getting dizzy. It's too white, and big, and bright, and it has the most ridiculous music. That said, I want to discuss their mannequins. I'm not talking about what they're wearing (that's for another day). What I want to discuss is the design of their heads. Sure, who looks at the heads. Well, when you're stuck at a failing pretzel business 40-hours a week, you start to become very accustomed to your surroundings. Regardless, they're half-heads; that is, they end at the bridge of the nose and leave off the eyes and brain. I thought about why they would do that, but then I laughed at how truly simple their reasoning is. Express wants you to buy their clothes whether you like them or not, right? So they rely on advertizing to help "convince" you that their product is best. Not the best argument, but hang with me. So if the store wants you to buy their stuff and doesn't care what reasoning you go through as long as you buy stuff from them, their best tactic will be to get you to make an irrational decision. Disagree? Look at the mannequins at any store. They're all "perfect" people. And then look at how they present them under stylish lighting and hung in fancy ways next to other things that would look good with it. It's all very charming and clearly an attempt to convince you to buy something. Also, listen to the music at any big fashion place: it's loud, uptempo, and repetitive. Don't think that gets your heartrate going? Ever feel like you're always in a rush in a clothing store? At last you see where I'm going. Express doesn't want you to have eyes or a brain (figuratively, of course). They want you to make blind, irrational judgments to turn a fat profit. It's that simple. I really can't explain it any better.

That's all for now. I need to make these shorter if I want to update more regularly. Feel free to comment.

Forced Education Damages School and Students

Preventing students from dropping out of school may not be such a worthwhile goal. While the goal of keeping students in school is certainly a worthwhile aim, the method by which experts and legislators have attempted to fix the dropout situation is a flawed proposition. To combat the nation’s “Silent Epidemic,”[1] experts are trying to convince state legislators to pass laws that will raise the minimum age for mandatory schooling, forcing students to remain in school until they are 18 years old. It is a dangerous proposal, one that could undermine school and student alike.

To understand why forced schooling will not work, one must fully understand why students are leaving. According to a recent study by research firm Civic Enterprises, as many students drop out for not being challenged enough as those who quit because of lack of academic dedication.[2] In addition, researchers found that dropouts felt “too much freedom” in their school experience, a key factor according to 38% of dropouts surveyed.[3] High school students on the brink of dropping out are not always the teen moms, drug dealers, or neglected children society makes them out to be. They are sometimes the average or above-average students who have learned that school is purely about future monetary success.

Something students do believe is that more education will help them earn more money in the future. The statistics are clear: dropouts earn less than graduates.[4] Experts such as those at Civic Enterprises boast that one solution to the multi-faceted problem is to raise the minimum age for mandatory school attendance from 16 in most states to 17 or 18. Two additional years of mandatory schooling, according to experts, would allow more time for teachers to reach out to struggling students, but moreover, would help the students obtain the all-important diploma that will suit them better financially in the future.

This is a faulty conclusion. Forcing students to remain in school against their will en route to securing a diploma merely for the sake of the title cheapens school. If state legislators passed minimum age laws to ensure that every child is required to graduate, the value of a high school diploma will suffer. If schools force-feed students diplomas, they becomes valueless. School becomes a mere factory where students clock-in upon entrance, do their work, and then clock-out upon dismissal for thirteen years until they receive a piece of paper qualifying them as an “educated” person, when in reality, they have learned nothing more than to hate learning.

The way to prevent students from dropping out of school is not legislative, but philosophical. Teachers must teach students early, often, and throughout their school careers the importance of education in regards to the development of the person, which includes aspects of life that are more than economic such as character. What the student needs is a purpose for education, not laws or authorities telling him that he must become educated because that is what everybody else does. If done under the philosophy of education centered on the development of the person, it will make him a greater, more valuable member of society able to adapt and interact effectively with all aspects of life. The purpose of education is not to graduate, but to educate. Substituting false achievement in the form of spoon-fed diplomas does not develop the student in the least.

A majority of teachers in schools today teach students that education is a means of gaining material things out of life. However, if the student realizes that he can gain something greater without the assistance of school, it will become useless to him. Students must see a purpose in school.

There is yet hope for those who think of dropping out, or already have; a sense of purpose installed in the correct area in their life will infuse the student to learn. Schools and communities must reach out and help those students in need of attention. Teachers must challenge the gifted – and all others even more – so that they might see the value of education as a betterment of the person, not merely the improvement of their résumé.

Man cannot legislate achievement. Forcing kids to attend school will fix the dropout problem, but it will not ensure that students are getting a purposeful education.

---

[1] Civic Enterprises, “The Silent Epidemic”, http://www.civicenterprises.net, 26 March 2006

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.