When education becomes indoctrination

Once upon a time the prime objective of education was to teach individuals to be self-thinking adults.  This was achieved by focusing on what were commonly referred to as the 3 Rs; reading, writing, and arithmetic.  These three subjects were regarded as crucial to one’s development since the goal of educators of the time was much nobler then preparing the student for a job.  They recognized that democracy could not exist without a solid citizenry made up of independent thinking individuals.  It was their goal to create such a citizenry by teaching:  

• Reading: If a person can read he can independently learn without being told what to learn.  He can develop his own way of thinking without being told what to think.  In other words, it leads to education while avoiding indoctrination.
•  Writing: By developing the ability to communicate in verbal and written language the individual can effectively communicate his ideas, thoughts, and opinions with others.
• Arithmetic: It has long been accepted that math develops analytical skills.  Increasing math ability also increases a person’s ability to think analytically.  

Once mastered and applied, these three skills gave the individual the foundation to learn any subject he wanted, communicate what he has learned, and, most importantly, to think critically for himself.  This resulted in unleashing the creativity, originality, vision, and ingenuity of the individual person, which benefited not only the individual but also the society as a whole.

Unfortunately, over the last several decades the 3 Rs have lost favor with the elites that direct what our schools are teaching our children.  

In his book the Lonely Crowd, David Riesman (considered the father of American sociology) points out that the education system has consistently moved away from developing educated self-thinking individuals to creating citizens who can relate to others.  As a result the 3 Rs have been replaced by 

• Conformity
• Sensitivity
• Thinking “correctly” 

Although his book was written in the 1950s, the process of getting students to think “correctly” started nearly a half a century before.  As the Commissioner of Education under President Taft, William Harris, wrote:

Ninety-nine [students] out of a hundred are automata, careful to walk in prescribed paths, careful to follow the prescribed custom. This is not an accident, but the result of substantial education, which, scientifically defined, is the subsumption of the individual. - The Philosophy of Education (1906)

Four generations later, John Gatto, the recipient of New York City’s 1990 Teacher of the Year award, would remark on how thorough the collectivist transformation of the education system has been.  In a speech, he observed that “schools are intended to produce through the application of formulae, formulaic human beings whose behavior can be predicted and controlled.”

As recently as 2008, a California appellate court re-affirmed this collectivist approach to education when it ruled that the “primary purpose of the educational system is to train schoolchildren in good citizenship, patriotism, and loyalty to the state and nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.”  [If this does not scare you, nothing will!]

Note that in each of these examples, there is no mention of creating self-thinking individuals.  In fact, the quotes seem to imply that the modern method of education sees individualism as something that needs to be discouraged or even eliminated.  Neither is the revered Gifted (or Gate) program a safe haven for the individualistic and self-thinking youngster.  In his biography of Winston Churchill, renowned historian William Manchester notes that the standards teachers use to select bright students “would have excluded Churchill, Edison, Picasso, and Mark Twain.”  

When does education become indoctrination? 

I believe that the line between the two is crossed when we start teaching what to think instead of how to think. The sad truth is that we are no longer teaching our children how to think.  Instead, we are telling them what to think.  Our schools have passed through education and onto indoctrination.  Until that is changed, our education system can never be fixed; regardless of how much money we throw at it.

No 1776 without 1688

There is no question that 1776 was an important year.  For nearly 18 months, Englishmen on both side of the Atlantic had been fighting and killing each other.  Only after it became clear that their “rights as Englishmen” were not to be respected by London’s ruling class did the men who would become the Founding Fathers of this nation decide that independence was the only option.  

That year, a rebellion became a revolution and it would end with the establishment of a new kind of government.  One based on the untried premise that man was capable of governing himself.   No longer was a monarch or elites needed to tell the common man what to do—how to live.  This became known as the American Revolution, but in reality it was a revolution for all of humanity and forever changed the world.

Most Americans are familiar with the significance of 1776, but very few know about the year that made the American Revolution possible, 1688.  Almost 100 years before the American Revolution, back in old England, another revolution took place. This was called the Glorious Revolution and it is a revolution that all Americans should remember.  For without the events of 1688—without the Glorious Revolution— there would be no American Revolution, no Constitution of the United States, no Bill of Rights, no Declaration of Independence. 

We clearly see this in the early writings and speeches of the Founding Fathers, especially those prior to the Declaration of Independence. The one common justification for their rebellion was that they were fighting for their rights as “freeborn Englishmen.”  For example, in response to the Stamp Act the colonists drew up the Declaration of Rights of 1765.  Section 2d states:

2d That His Majesty's liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the inherent rights and privileges of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain. 

In other words, they were reaffirming their “rights as freeborn Englishmen” and one would be hard-pressed to find a member of the 2^nd Continental Congress who did not utter the phrase at least once in a speech or debate.  

We need to remember that in most of the world at the time servitude and serfdom was the norm, not liberty and freedom.  So why did these august men believe they had rights?   The answer is the Glorious Revolution.  

  

Just like the American Revolution of 1776 produced such extraordinary documents as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 resulted in an equally impressive document known as the “Declaration of Rights.”  This document, signed by William and Mary, King and Queen of England, numerated several principles and rights that would be reaffirmed in the founding documents of United States.  These include:

• The right to bear arms
• The right to trial by jury of their peers
• Innocent until proven guilt
• Protection from cruel and unusual punishment
• Right to bail
• Right to petition government

And, of course, the big one:

• No taxation without representation

As I explain in my bestselling book, Liberty Inherited, “This comparison of the documents from 1689 and those from 1776 reveals that there is a connection between the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution. It supports the argument that the American Revolution was fought for English values based on classical liberal principles.”

In other words, there would not have been a 1776 without a 1688.

Back to School History Lesson

Last month my daughter returned to school.  As a high-school junior, she is required to take American History.  When I asked her about the class, she told me that they were starting from the beginning.  “Christopher Columbus and all that” is how she put it.  She then handed me the class outline.  The sections leading up to the American Revolution was the same story that most Americans learn.  It essentially starts with the discovery of America by Columbus and then progresses through the settlement of Jamestown, the French and Indian War, and terminates with the events immediately preceding the Revolutionary War, such as the various tax acts, the Boston Massacre, and the Boston Tea Party.  It confers on the student the impression that nothing of importance was transpiring in Mother England during that time.  That England was asleep until one day George III wakes up and exclaims, “My God, I have colonies.  Let’s tax them!”

The reality is that there were many events that transpired in the mother country that profoundly influenced the development of the American colonies.  In 1707, for example, the union of England and Scotland meant that although the colonies started off as English they fought Britain for their independence.  The most notable and significant of those events was the Glorious Revolution of 1688.  Although the Glorious Revolution took place almost 100 years before America’s struggle for independence, it did more to bring about the American Revolution than any other event in America’s pre-independence history.  It could be argued that if the Glorious Revolution of 1688 did not occur or had the outcome been different the American Revolution probably would not have happened at all.  Additionally, the success of the thirteen colonies forming into one constitutional republic would not have been possible without the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

The events surrounding the Glorious Revolution are so vital to the creation and development of the United States that in “Liberty Inherited: The untold story of America’s exceptionalism” I dedicate over a quarter of the book to the subject.  In summary, the road to revolution started when James II wanted to return England to the absolutism that the monarchies on the continent enjoyed.  In this system, the king has absolute power over everything in his realm including its people.  In England, this form of servitude was restricted by a series of covenants or contracts, including the Magna Carta (1215).  Upon seeing this threat to their liberty, the English rose up and through a series of events replaced James II with the Dutch ruler the Prince of Orange and his wife Mary.  But before the Prince of Orange could become William III, King of England, he had to accept what became known as the Declaration of Rights.

This declaration ensured that England would continue on its path to developing the tradition of limited government, of parliamentary supremacy, of personal freedom and of the common law.  The limitations placed on the monarchy by this document meant that the king could not act without the consent of the people as represented by parliament.  Additionally, it ensured the rights and liberties of individual Englishmen.   It guaranteed his right to bear arms, to a speedy trial, to due process, to be safe and secure in his life and property.  Like all good Englishmen, the Founding Fathers believed these to be their God-given rights and made sure that, in one form or another, they were included in the Bill of Rights.  The fact is that the framers of the constitution used the declaration, the system of limited government it established, and the rights it protected as the template for establishing the United States of America.

Additionally, I believe that if James II had not been removed from the throne of England the United States would not exist today, at least in its democratic form.  Once he assumed the throne James set out to reform the colonies along the same authoritarian format used by France and Spain.  His plan was to form the thirteen colonies into four captaincies.  This would be followed by the elimination of the colonial assemblies and an appointment of a Royal Governor with absolute authority and answerable only to the king.  At that time, many of the colonies were just beginning to enjoy representative democracy.  To eliminate it at this point would result in the colonies losing almost 100 years of the democratic experience they would need to establish the new nation.  Under those conditions, it is highly unlikely that the American Revolution would have been fought, much less won.  The events immediately following a victory by the Patriots would certainly have been different.  The probability of establishing the liberty based country we have today would certainly have been almost zero.  Instead, the liberty focused revolution would probably have resulted, not in a Washington, but in an American version of Napoleon, Santa Anna, Lenin, Stalin, or Chavez. 

Until a few years ago I, like most Americans, was ignorant of the Glorious Revolution.  This ignorance was not out of a lack of interest but a result of the way American history is taught.  This is not a partisan issue since both sides have benefited from keeping Americans uneducated.  Conservatives do so because it supports the myth that the establishment of this nation was miraculous.  Liberals do it because if the American people understood the origins of their liberties they would realize what a threat an ever-increasing and powerful government is to those liberties.  Therefore, much to the chagrin of our British cousins, Americans are not informed of the struggles that made this country possible.  This limited education has had dire consequences for our country.  Without this part of our history, we do not have a context to put the American experience into.  We lose the sense of what it means to be an American and clarity as what type of nation the United States was established to be.  We fail to recognize the implication of being an English colony had for the development of the United States.  More tragically we fail to recognize the dangers that threaten to eliminate our liberties forever.

As I explain in “Liberty Inherited: The untold story of America’s exceptionalism,” the founders of this extraordinary nation did not accidently stumble onto the system of government they established in 1789.  It was developed over several centuries and, while I still think that America is based on a miracle, I now realize that that miracle took place several hundred years earlier in a place called England.  In fact, the more I study the origins and history of our liberty the more I marvel at its existence.  The more I learn the more I appreciate the improbability of its survival.  This becomes strikingly clear especially when compared to what was going on in the rest of the world at the time, which, for the common man, was slavery and servitude.  This leads me to ponder a couple of questions:

If schools did not omit the tremendous struggles for liberty that were occurring in England at a time when the United States was nothing more than scattering of fledgling colonies, would we, as Americans, feel or think differently about our country?

Would we still be having the political debate that is currently dividing this nation?  

What do you think?  Leave your comments and thoughts below.

Is preserving life worth the loss of individual freedoms?

The debate on health care has once again raised one of the greatest criticisms against those with conservative principles; that they do not care about the welfare of others. That they will let people die so that they can go on living the privileged life they hold so dear. To a degree, I guess, this is correct. I mean the crusade to eliminate death at all cost has always bothered me. I have always felt that if people want to engage in an activity that threatens or shorten their lives then they should have the freedom to do so. But with this freedom comes the responsibility of recognizing the consequences of their actions and if that activity should lead to an early demise then so be it.


This may sound cruel and heartless but only if we limit ourselves to being worried about the people who are inhabiting the planet at this very moment. My concern is greater than that and it expands all of human existence. It comes from the understanding that for most of its history mankind’s story is one of slavery, bondage, and servitude. That those with power controlled the powerless to such a degree that they could, just by their word, sentence people to death. It also comes from the stark realization that it is when individual freedom is sacrificed that the value of life comes to have so little meaning.

Yes, there was Greece, or more accurately Athens, where democratic ideas first took root and then the constitutionally controlled Roman Republic. But it must be recognized that these were anomalies in the history of mankind. The majority of the world’s civilizations, such as those found in the bible, are more known for their records of oppression then they are for freedom (or in today’s terms: Human-rights). Even outside of the bible we see that human life had very little value. Slavery was common throughout the world up until the mid-1800s when the British Empire declared war on the “uncivilized” practice. The sacrifice of individuals for the greater good was seen in its extremity in ancient America where people where ritually killed in order to please an unhappy deity. On one such occasion in 1487 the Aztecs sacrificed 80,400 prisoners in a bloodbath that lasted non-stop for four days.

Of course the argument is that that was ancient history. We have evolved into a more enlightened and sophisticated people. In fact, the 20th century, during which those of us over ten were born, could be called the bloodiest in history. Totalitarian regimes killed hundreds of millions of people and enslaved whole societies. There are people still alive who witnessed the Nazi program that lead to the extermination of 12 million people and the tens of millions more who were to perish in Stalin’s “workers paradise.” The fact is that this will always be the result whenever the principles of individual freedom are sacrificed.

This is why I put “conservative” or, more accurately, American principles over life and welfare. I recognize that what was started in 1776 was an experiment unlike any other in history. True, it did get its roots from the great thinkers of the 18th century Scottish enlightenment (when most of the people of the world were still suffering under some form of bondage) but it took great Americans to put theory into practice. I also recognize that for those living today 234 years seem like an eternity but in reality it is a small sliver of man’s history. A small sliver that brightly shines in all the darkness that preceded it.

So you see, I do care about people’s lives. The difference is that I accept the fact that death is part of living and it cannot be outlawed. That people will make choices that put their lives at risk and they must be allowed to do so. By trying save everyone we run the risk of losing the principles that not only has preserved life but has also made the pursuit of life an alienable right! A right that says that we, as individuals, determine what we want to do with our lives. Finally, by putting the principle of individual freedom above life itself, I do not limit it to those who are fortunate enough to happen to be on the planet at this time. I am preserving it for my children and generations that are to follow. And that, my friends, is greater than life itself!

The Modern American Dream: May it Rest in Peace!

One of the greatest shortcomings of being human is our sense of perspective. In life this means that we often falsely believe that the way we experience life is the way life has always been experienced. A prime example of this is the current version of what is called the American dream. As a recent U.S. News & World Report article explains, this version is "a series of unofficial tenets: A good education guarantees a good job, hard work will bring prosperity, and 40 years of 40-hours-a-week work earns a comfortable retirement." For those of us born post-World War II this has been the dream that we have come to expect. That by getting a decent education, usually in the form of a degree, and being a dedicated faithful worker for the next 40 years our employer and in the government would provide for us in our later years. In other words, as the article puts it, workers began to "believe that somebody owes them a comfortable life just because they try hard."

Unfortunately, for those who believe in this version of the American dream, its death bell is ringing and has been ringing for over 30 years. As I highlight in my book Believers & Doubters it started with the ERISA Act of 1974, which established our current 401(k) plans. This effectively wiped out the then common pension plans that provided employees with fixed retirement income until death. Since then the bell has steadily been tolling as globalization and economic realities marked the slow death of this modern version of the American dream. Hospice care in the form of the government providing what business is no longer able or willing to provide has kept this dream on life support. But now in the current financial and economic crises this dream is effectively dead.

I know that pronouncing the death of the American dream is disturbing to anyone who cares not only about their own future but also the future of their children and the country. But I do not believe that we should be saddened or lament in the passing of this version of the American dream. First of all, it was never financially viable and from the beginning was doomed to collapse under its own weight. Secondly, it never was the real version of the American dream since it traded freedom for security, independence for safety. This was never the objective of the American dream, which emphasizes freedom and independence. The idea of being shackled to an employer by the chains of a salary and benefits is completely contrary to the principles of the American dream.

To truly understand this it is necessary to step out on our own experiences and to examine those of pre-World War II generations. We all know that the United States has been the destination of immigrants since before it became a nation. But what brought those desperate people to our shores? Was it because they desired to exchange an aristocratic master for a capitalist one? Clearly job security was not the objective for these people. Just imagine what it took these immigrants to leave home at a time when it was not uncommon for the average person to pass his life without ever setting foot outside of his village or township. They had to travel to a port and then spend up to two months on a perilous ocean voyage. Even arrival at the embarkation ports did not provide safety and security. Once off the ships most did not know where their next meal was coming from much less what the next day would bring. More often then not they arrived with little on their backs and less in their pockets. What they did have was a vision of the American dream that thousands of immigrants still have to this day but that we, as Americans, have long forgotten.

Of course immigrants from distant shores weren't the only people searching to live the American dream. Even as the Industrial Revolution was transforming the great Eastern cities into the manufacturing centers they were to become thousands upon thousands of Americans decided to risk life and limb to go west. They hitched up their horses and covered their wagons to head into the unknown frontier territories. On the journey they had to overcome imposing natural barriers such as the Appalachian Mountains, the Mississippi river, and the Great Plains of the Midwest, which was nothing but a “sea of desert.” This migration of "restless spirit" continued through World War II as thousands displaced by the Great Depression sought opportunity in California's growing defense industry. (This last migration marks the start of the twisting of the American dream as the experiences of the Great Depression led more and more people to look to others for safety and security.)

This demonstrates that the American dream was never about security or safety. The goal of these people, whether they be immigrants from around the world or pioneers that won the West, was the desire not to be cared for by a new master but to be the master of themselves. They rejected the idea of seeking safety and security if it cost them their independence and their freedom. I believe they would look upon what we now call the American dream as little more than servitude. They would be ashamed of the timid fearful people we have become; people content to surrender all their hopes, dreams, and ambitions for perceived security.

At this time in history we have two choices. The first is to continue to seek safety and security at the expense of our freedom and independence. The second is to go back and look at what our forefathers did. To learn the principles that guided them and made them and our country the greatest in the world! It is our choice to make. Will we be the generation that revives the real American dream or the generation that sacrifices it in hopes of keeping alive a version that falsely promises security?

If you personally decide that the American dream is worth preserving and keeping then I recommend my book Believers & Doubters. The principles and philosophies in the book are the same ones that have guided independent-minded Americans for generations.