Herbert Douglass On Education vs. Indoctrination In the Schools

[John317]

May 11, 2012

“Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” 2 Peter 3:3-7.

One of the cries we hear today, and it seems from all sides of the spectrum, that parents devote lots of their time, money, and effort to help their children through their school years only to discover their children no longer believe what parents consider important—that family and church beliefs are simply “scoffed” at. What could Peter be talking about?

Of course, many factors are in play here. Perhaps the parents were limited in their understanding of important issues and the child's teachers helped to broaden their horizons. Perhaps the children fell into the trap of being hoodwinked by taking short-cuts that other students had found “successful”--but they led into predictable dead ends—party life, cheating, casting away of moral restraints, etc.

Or, perhaps the children bought new ways of looking at traditional “conservative” values and they didn't “like” what they had been taught at home: that moral restraints inhibit personal growth and freedom, that biblical “facts” were disputed by “reputable” historians, that “settled science” contradicts creationist stories, that nothing is really absolute and everything is subject to interpretation, that no one should dispute peer-reviewed research, etc.

What is going on here? Are children being educated or indoctrinated? Really, this is not a trivial question. It is not a question of where children should be four years from now—but where they should be 5000 years from now!

Wikipedia suggests that “indoctrination” is the process “of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.” A few sentences further, it notes that “In practice, however, a certain level of non-rational indoctrination, usually seen as miseducative, is invariably present.” In other words, not many people alive can “educate” or “indoctrinate” their students without personal bias, without certain levels of subjectivity.

In other words, everyone begins with some kind of world view, some basic frame of reference by which all data is categorized. Yes, everything begins with some kind of “belief.”

Yes, education involves the seeking of facts, and learning about what is the truth, and what is not. But it also is a matter of discovering the “frame of reference” that one's teacher is using in presenting his/her “facts.”

Why am I bringing this up today? I have been reading a fascinating study that examined the ideological composition of American university faculty and then tested whether ideological likeness had become self-reinforcing. A randomly based national survey of 1643 faculty members from 183 four-year colleges and universities found that liberals and Democrats outnumber conservatives and Republicans by large margins, and the differences are not limited to elite universities or to the social sciences and humanities. And that complaints of ideologically-based discrimination in academic advancement, e.g., that political conservatives are hindered especially, deserves serious consideration and further study.

www.cwu.edu/~manwellerm/academic%20bias.pdf

Of course, we all know that the politics of professors is the issue. On one side of the debate, those who argue that college faculty have a predominantly liberal or left-wing cast often link this with charges of a lack of intellectual diversity or the enforcement of “politically correct” ideas and behavior on college campuses. Conversely, those who reject this position sometimes characterize it as an attempt by conservative groups or institutions to intimidate liberal faculty.

To test these hypotheses the 1999 North American Academic Study Survey, the most systematic and comprehensive data set on the characteristics of American college faculty since the Carnegie surveys that were conducted between 1969 and 1984. The results show that the political orientation of the professoriate is tilted toward liberal attitudes and the Democratic Party. Further, the predominance of liberal and Democratic perspectives is not limited to particular types of institutions or to those occupying particular fields of study. A comparison of the 1999 survey with previous surveys of American faculty indicates a substantial shift to the left in party identification and ideology since the mid-1980s, at a time when ideological and party identification among the general public has been relatively stable.

In fact these studies revealed that American professors were more liberal in their ideological orientations than the general population and professors in the humanities and the social sciences were more liberal than those in the natural sciences, engineering, and business to tilt the balance of opinion in academia sharply to the left. This was linked to the charge that left-wing professors were promoting intellectual orthodoxies that made academia unwelcome to those who did not share their ideology. www.cwu.edu/~manwellerm/academic%20bias.pdf

The results indicate that a sharp shift to the left has taken place among college faculty in recent years. The 1984 Carnegie study found that only 39% of faculty members identified themselves as liberal while the 1999 study found 72% of faculty to the left of center. Only 15% described themselves as right of center. Thus, over the course of 15 years, self-described liberals grew from a slight plurality to a 5 to 1 majority on college faculties. By comparison, among the general population in 1999, 18% viewed themselves as liberal and 37% conservative. Thus, according to these self-descriptions, college faculty are about four times as liberal as the general public.

IS ALL THIS IMPORTANT AS TO HOW YOUNG PEOPLE ARE “EDUCATED” THESE DAYS?__________________________________________________________________________________

R&H, Aug. 5, 1902: "Those who place themselves under God's control, to be led and guided by Him, will CATCH THE STEADY TREND OF EVENTS ordained by Him to take place.”

[doug yowell]

I believe the latest polls show the ratio at 8 or 10-1 now. Liberalism has now become exactly what it purported to be against, a self-perpetuating system that has no room for dissent.This is what happens when an ideology cannot be defended on it's record.I think Ben Stein documented this several years ago. I wonder where HD has been?

[Bravus]

Two things:

1. Parents can indoctrinate just as much as teachers (if not more), and it seems as though many of the complaints above are that teachers are hindering parents' attempts to indoctrinate successfully. Both parents and teachers ought to be educating - helping students to develop the knowledge and skills to assess the evidence and make their own judgements about what is true.

2. The thought doesn't seem to occur to the author, even once, that high intelligence is also a characteristic of professors - and that the correlation might be between high intelligence and progressive values. It's at least worth thinking about as an alternative or complement to the 'huge liberal conspiracy' explanation.

[CoAspen]

[Woody]

As a general rule - I find it optimal to just blame the liberals. Usually works out good for me. :)

[olger]

[Guest]

[doug yowell]

Two things:

1. Parents can indoctrinate just as much as teachers (if not more), and it seems as though many of the complaints above are that teachers are hindering parents' attempts to indoctrinate successfully.

[Bravus]

Kinda missed what I was saying. Not 'progressives are smarter', but 'smarter people come to see and understand the worthwhileness of progressive values'.

[Bravus]

The fact that some conservatives are actively anti-higher-education is also relevant when considering the number of conservatives in higher education...

[olger]

My father was not a very "educated" man, but he was a very "learned" man.

I like that sort of thing.

[CoAspen]

Kinda missed what I was saying. Not 'progressives are smarter', but 'smarter people come to see and understand the worthwhileness of progressive values'.

Ya, use the brain you were given, not always popular considering the distrust between intellect and religion in the past. I reckon some religious systems see 'progressive' as okay for the 'outside world', but for the 'inside world', best to stay within the box. We could go on forever in discussions about why 'religion' has this deep seated distrust of intellectualism.

[doug yowell]

Kinda missed what I was saying. Not 'progressives are smarter', but 'smarter people come to see and understand the worthwhileness of progressive values'.

I didn't miss anything.It's just a different way of saying the same thing. How do we know that they are smarter if progressives are not tested for their intellectual superiority before they become progressives.And why would an institute of higher learning continue to hire only those who are already progressive without first testing all equally for their intellectual grade level.What about the multitude of highly intelligent conservatives who reject the progressive value system? Or is your argument "Can anything good (smart) come out of conservatism"? In fact, judging by most progressive values and policies one begins to wonder if the alleged higher intellectual level of progressives is actually a detriment to their capacity to grasp common sense and self-evident issues including workable values for humanity. President Obama is a progressive and he can't even determine with any specificity when a human being has the right to continue living. How intelligent is that??? His latest intellectual "evolution" has led him to conclude that same sex marriage has a valuable and equal place in human society. Such arrogance (mirroring the typical progressive self-perceptions)simply concludes that this thinking dwarfs the totality of all human reason since the inception of history. As if intellectual pygmies like Aristotle, Confucius,Plato,Solomon,Conte,Epicurus,ect...(not to mention Jesus!!),i.e. the totality of combined human thinkers, were not smart enough to recognize the necessity, and morality of same sex marriage. Progressives are intellectuals, just not as smart as they think they are!!

[doug yowell]

The fact that some conservatives are actively anti-higher-education is also relevant when considering the number of conservatives in higher education...

Nonsense. What conservatives are against higher education because it is higher education? Are you dismissing Ben Stein's documentary?Most conservatives recognize what progressives fail to grant, that is that conservatives are the intellectual equal of progressives but are excluded from higher education by progressives because they simply are conservatives,and by your own implication, not as intelligent.Was Chuck Colson not as bright as Princeton's Peter Singer? Is Barak Obama intellectually superior to Hugh Hewitt? Does Joe Biden make Charles Krauthammer look like a third grader? How bout the intellectual gap between Donald Verrilli, and Paul Clement? If the progressive mind is more intellectually astute then why not prove it by employing a significant number of lesser qualified minds to compare them with? At least the Harlem Globetrotters give the Generals a chance to play!!

[Bravus]

{shrugs, sighs}

[Tom Wetmore]

... and i might add the reaction -

[Overaged]

intellectual pygmies like