Classroom Brainwashing

[Tigermike 3,048]

March 14, 2006

Classroom Brainwashing

By Thomas Sowell

Governor Bill Owens of Colorado has cut through the cant about "free speech" and come to the defense of a 16-year-old high school student who tape-recorded his geography teacher using class time to rant against President Bush and compare him to Hitler.

The teacher's lawyer talks about First Amendment rights to free speech but free speech has never meant speech free of consequences. Even aside from laws against libel or extortion, you can insult your boss or your spouse only at your own risk.

Unfortunately, there is much confusion about both free speech and academic freedom. At too many schools and colleges across the country, teachers feel free to use a captive audience to vent their politics when they are supposed to be teaching geography or math or other subjects.

While the public occasionally hears about weird rantings by some teacher or professor, what seldom gets any media attention is the far more pervasive classroom brainwashing by people whose views may not be so extreme, but are no less irrelevant to what they are being paid to teach. Some say teachers should give "both sides" -- but they should give neither side if it is off the subject.

Academic freedom is the freedom to do academic things -- teach chemistry or accounting the way you think chemistry or accounting should be taught. It is also freedom to engage in the political activities of other citizens -- on their own time, outside the classroom -- without being fired.

Nowhere else do people think that it is OK to engage in politics instead of doing the job for which they are being paid. When you hire a plumber to fix a leak, you don't want to find your home being flooded while he whiles away the hours talking about Congressional elections or foreign policy.

It doesn't matter whether his political opinions are good, bad, or indifferent if he is being paid to do a different job.

Only among "educators" is there such confusion that merely exposing what they are doing behind the backs of parents and taxpayers is regarded as a violation of their rights. Tenure is apparently supposed to confer carte blanche.

The Colorado geography teacher is not unique. A professor at UCLA wrote an indignant article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, denouncing organized efforts of students to record lectures of professors who impose their politics in class instead of teaching the subject they were hired to teach.

All across the country, from the elementary schools to the universities, students report being propagandized. That the propaganda is almost invariably from the political left is secondary. The fact that it is political propaganda instead of the subject matter of the class is what is crucial.

The lopsided imbalance among college professors in their political parties is a symptom of the problem, rather than the fundamental problem itself.

If physicists taught physics and economists taught economics, what they did on their own time politically would be no more relevant than whether they go swimming or sky diving on their days off.  But politics is intruded, not only into the classroom, but into hiring decisions as well.

Even top scholars who are conservatives are unlikely to be hired by many colleges and universities. Similarly with people training to become public school teachers. Some in schools of education have said that, to be qualified, you have to see teaching as a means of social change -- meaning change in a leftward direction.

Such attitudes lead to lopsided politics among professors. At Stanford University, for example, the faculty includes 275 registered Democrats and 36 registered Republicans.

Such ratios are not uncommon at other universities -- despite all the rhetoric about "diversity." Only physical diversity seems to matter.

Inbred ideological narrowness shows up, not only in hiring and teaching, but also in restrictive campus speech codes for students, created by the very academics who complain loudly when their own "free speech" is challenged.

So long as voters, taxpayers, university trustees, and parents tolerate all this, so long it will continue.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ainwashing.html

[otterinbham 0]

Well, let's first get some thoughts right.

It's not the national "educational system." It's the "National daycare system." The dominant purpose of schools today is to keep the kids occupied while the parents work. That explains things such as shorter summers, school activities, and endless reams of busywork.

Want an example? I know a number of homeschooling families. And, by the way, none of them are far-right religious crazies. They're just normal families who happen to take the education of their children seriously.

Here's what I've learned. All of them complete their curriculum by TEN A.M. Then they have time to do things such as learn a muscial instrument, enjoy hobbies, read, go play with other kids, go to museums, etc. etc. etc. And all these children are markedly above average in their intellectual progress.

That leads me to ask: What the hell happens during the rest of the school day? Let's see. PE. Assemblies. Lunch. Study hall. Etc. etc. etc. All because school is no longer about teaching the child but rather about socializing the child.

Now, educators will respond by saying that a great deal of this has to do with the fulfillment of Federal and State mandates that are handed down. However, I never see a school system turning down the Federal or state funding that accompanies those mandates. Ever.

Further, the education establishment has a vested interest in prolonging the education process for as many years as the students and parents can stand it. A century ago, an eighth grade education meant something. A high school diploma was an accomplishment. And both prepared you to go out and make a decent living. Today, the education establishment keeps putting up more and more hoops for kids to jump through. Suddenly, it's virtually required in the business world that you have an MBA. Or go to school five years to be considered for a CPA. The end result of all this credentialism is that people are not considered functional adults anymore until they're 25 or 26.

Think about the ramifications of that and how many ways that affects our society. Parents having to go into debt to finance college. The ability of businesses to find and keep skilled workers. The way all of this affects our taxation, and its subsequent drag on economic growth.

Or, hey, how about the "issue" of teen pregnancies? A century ago, it was quite normal for a seventeen year old to have a child. After all, she was a biological adult. But because adulthood has been delayed by education to the age of 25 or 26, a pregnancy at age 17 is now a financial and social catastrophe. Now I'm not wanting my daughter to have a baby at 17, but it illustrates nicely just one more social problem to which modern educational theory has contributed indirectly, yet in a very profound way.

So what should schools do? The entire aim of the educational system should be to move students through the system in the speediest manner possible, so that we see plenty of 14-year-olds graduating high school. What's more, education should quickly move students into disciplines that align with their own interests, not the agenda of a legislator or a preacher. If the student's interest is in math, then push him through a very intense math curriculum. If he wants to be an air conditioning repairman, then quit forcing him to learn Shakespeare. Trust me, they'll be far more attentive in school and they won't be misbehaving in class, thereby interrupting the kids who actually do want to learn Shakespeare.

I think it's a better and far more cost effective way. And with the ubiquitous nature of knowledge today, easily achievable. After all, this is the 21st Century. So why do we continue modeling our schools after 18th Century textile mills?

[AURaptor 1,126]

We don't need no education

We dont need no thought control

No dark sarcasm in the classroom

Teachers leave them kids alone

Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!

All in all it's just another brick in the wall.

All in all you're just another brick in the wall.

[quietfan 233]

Well, let's first get some thoughts right.

It's not the national "educational system." It's the "National daycare system." The dominant purpose of schools today is to keep the kids occupied while the parents work. That explains things such as shorter summers, school activities, and endless reams of busywork.

Want an example? I know a number of homeschooling families. And, by the way, none of them are far-right religious crazies. They're just normal families who happen to take the education of their children seriously.

Here's what I've learned. All of them complete their curriculum by TEN A.M. Then they have time to do things such as learn a muscial instrument, enjoy hobbies, read, go play with other kids, go to museums, etc. etc. etc. And all these children are markedly above average in their intellectual progress.

That leads me to ask: What the hell happens during the rest of the school day? Let's see. PE. Assemblies. Lunch. Study hall. Etc. etc. etc. All because school is no longer about teaching the child but rather about socializing the child.

Now, educators will respond by saying that a great deal of this has to do with the fulfillment of Federal and State mandates that are handed down. However, I never see a school system turning down the Federal or state funding that accompanies those mandates. Ever.

Further, the education establishment has a vested interest in prolonging the education process for as many years as the students and parents can stand it. A century ago, an eighth grade education meant something. A high school diploma was an accomplishment. And both prepared you to go out and make a decent living. Today, the education establishment keeps putting up more and more hoops for kids to jump through. Suddenly, it's virtually required in the business world that you have an MBA. Or go to school five years to be considered for a CPA. The end result of all this credentialism is that people are not considered functional adults anymore until they're 25 or 26.

Think about the ramifications of that and how many ways that affects our society. Parents having to go into debt to finance college. The ability of businesses to find and keep skilled workers. The way all of this affects our taxation, and its subsequent drag on economic growth.

Or, hey, how about the "issue" of teen pregnancies? A century ago, it was quite normal for a seventeen year old to have a child. After all, she was a biological adult. But because adulthood has been delayed by education to the age of 25 or 26, a pregnancy at age 17 is now a financial and social catastrophe. Now I'm not wanting my daughter to have a baby at 17, but it illustrates nicely just one more social problem to which modern educational theory has contributed indirectly, yet in a very profound way.

So what should schools do? The entire aim of the educational system should be to move students through the system in the speediest manner possible, so that we see plenty of 14-year-olds graduating high school. What's more, education should quickly move students into disciplines that align with their own interests, not the agenda of a legislator or a preacher. If the student's interest is in math, then push him through a very intense math curriculum. If he wants to be an air conditioning repairman, then quit forcing him to learn Shakespeare. Trust me, they'll be far more attentive in school and they won't be misbehaving in class, thereby interrupting the kids who actually do want to learn Shakespeare.

I think it's a better and far more cost effective way. And with the ubiquitous nature of knowledge today, easily achievable. After all, this is the 21st Century. So why do we continue modeling our schools after 18th Century textile mills?

225221[/snapback]

I agree with all most everything you're saying and I'm a professional educator (college professor). My only minor concerns are: 1) I've always had some concern about the socialization of home-schooled children. I do consider socialization to be a major part of public education--not that teachers are responsible for teachng it as a subject, but it is important for young people to learn to interact with their peers and others away from the supervision of their parents. 2) Secondly, I think some degree of traditional "liberal arts" education is important to the strength of society. Everyone should know something of Shakespeare, algebra, political thought, science, health education, etc. regardless of their particular vocational choices.

But again, I agree with most of your comments. We have a society in which children reach physical maturity at younger and younger ages thanks to modern nuitrition, yet we seem to be letting them wait longer and longer before expecting them to take responsibility as adults for their actions and decisions. I am old enough to remember the battles we fought in the '60's and early 70's to get universities out of the role of "in loco parentis" (spelling?)--acting as parents by enforcing curfews and monitoring off-campus behavior. [How many of you older AUN guys remember having to get your dates back to the dorm before curfew?] Today, we read of people from my generation suing universities because the school didn't protect their sons & daughters from alcohol, crime, and repercussions of their own behavior. It is not at all unusual for me to get calls from parents concerning their childrens' performance in my college classroom. When I was at Auburn, neither I nor my parents would have dreamed of having my parents to intercede with my professors. I was an adult and responsible for my own performance and behavior. We claim 18-year-olds are old enough to vote as intelligent adults, but we don't expect them to behave like adults until they're 20, 22, or even older.

[otterinbham 0]

Thank you for your thoughts, QT. A couple of responses...

1) I really don't endorse home schooling. I've seen plenty of well-rounded homeschooled children, but I also see the potential for stunted emotional development. My only intent in including homeschooling is to demonstrate how much of the average day at school is taken up by busy work and nonsensical stuff.

2) As a liberal arts major myself, I agree that there needs to be some of that incorporated into everybody's education. With that in mind, however, I don't believe that everybody should march in lockstep on the same curriculum, regardless of where their interests may lie. I think that's a surefire formula for boredom, resentfulness and a host of other problems.

More to the point, I feel that if a kid knows that most of what he's learning is at least tangentially related to his life after school, then you'll have a kid who is apt to be more involved throughout the school day.

Thanks for letting me clarify those points.