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  As a result the 3 Rs have been replaced by 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.

Countdown to Independence Day: Saving our Liberty #1

Over the next several days leading up to Independence Day I will be posting the 10 steps that must be taken to preserve our great nation and the principles it was established on.  Each day will cover one of the steps as they appear in my book Liberty Inherited.  It is my hope that, in some small way, I can get Americans to start thinking of what they are on the verge of throwing away.  Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics.  

1. Do not take the way things are for granted

“It is,” as Daniel Hannan says, “human nature to take for granted institutions that you have known throughout your life.” Growing up in a world where constitutional democracy is the norm it is incomprehensible to imagine mankind returning to a state of servitude. But it must be remembered that the classical liberal principles that the United States was built on and which has now spread around the world is not the norm. Until the end of World War II the world was dominated by tyrannical, autocratic, and absolutist rulers. The result of this was that the life of the average man was one of poverty, servitude, and desperation. When we consider that men have been forming civilizations as long ago as 4500 BC it becomes clear that 60 years of liberty and freedom does not guarantee the world will continue to embrace those principles.

In Europe there is already a move away from constitutional democracy. As explained in previous chapters liberal democracy is fairly new to the countries of Europe. As we can see from the chart, they have relatively little experience with it at all.

 

With the majority of them having less than 60 years of experience it is uncertain if their democratic institutions can resist a serious crises or challenge. History and current trends indicate that the answer is no. The first attempt with widespread democracy in Europe occurred after World War I. Except for Russia, which turned to communism, all of the large countries and many of the smaller ones attempted to establish a democratic form of government. These newly formed democracies were tested by the depression of the 1930s and most of them failed miserably. By the start of World War II, totalitarianism had replaced democracy in almost all of Europe. Even today, with the European Union, the IMF, the World Bank, and United Nations, we are seeing democratically established governments subordinating themselves to transnational and international organizations governed by bureaucratic elites. This does not bode well for a country founded and developed on classical liberal principles. 

Since the publishing of Liberty Inherited, the Euro crisis has deepened and as a result, representative democracy has suffered.  In both Greece and Italy popularly elected leaders have been replaced by those who will serve the best interest of the European Union even if it is at the expense of their nation and its citizens.  As the crisis deepens, it will be interesting to watch how quickly continental Europe sacrifices democracy and liberty for order and security.

An Englishman’s Dire Prophesy: Why Democratic Republics Fail (Are we there yet?)

In 1793, William Young, then a Member of Parliament, wrote:

Ingenious and able men will then soon hit on the various paths to authority which the temper of society opens to them: they will feed the ambition of one with promises, the vanity of another with praise, the avarice of a third with gifts. But even in the simplest state of manners, it is not pure virtue that commands, for pure virtue is then no distinction; it is ability that commands. The stronger minds of the few must ever command the weaker minds of the generality. The stronger mind feels a right as it were to command the weaker; and what it feels a right to, it will assume it can, and by what means it can.

At the time, the French Revolution was just entering into its ‘Reign of Terror’ phase and there was much talk among Britons of eliminating the monarchy and establishing their own republic.  Young was one of several who wrote essays in defense of the British system and the rights it granted to Englishman.  One aspect of this defense is the warning of where a democratic republic could lead.

With the first line, Young is explaining the fact that ‘ingenious and able’ men will exploit whatever paths society offers them.  If the society is wealth focused, as in a free-market based society, then these men will rise to the top of industry.  If the society is power focused, as in a socialist/Marxist state, then the same type of men will rise to the top of government.  In both cases they will use the weakness of others (i.e. ambition, vanity and greed) to gain their wealth and power. 

In the following sentence Young warns against the tendency of democratic republics to discard traditional values.  In time, he cautions, virtue ceases to exist and only one’s ability matters.  No longer will society value the noble, the good, and the pure.  Achievement, either materially or in fame (i.e. celebrity status), will be the sole measure of those who the society admires. 

He goes on to explain that the admiration—or even idolization—that develops within the society results in those of weaker minds turning to strong minded for leadership.  In return, the strong minded feel it their right and duty to command the weaker and less able members of the society.  Thus, for the sake and benefit of the weak, the strong-minded will empower themselves to implement rules, policies, and laws that protect society from the weak-minded and the weak-minded from themselves.

The result is that as the power of the strong-minded grows, liberty, the promised by-product of a democratic republic, shrinks.  This, Young writes in other parts of the essay, leads to the most terrible of all tyrannical governments; an empowered aristocracy comprised of  ‘ingenious and able’ men unrestrained by virtue. 

It is amazing to think that at a time when the bloodiest days of the French Revolution was still to come and the ‘American experiment’ was still in its infancy, a man could have such an understanding of democratic republics.  Yet, it is not that incredible when we realize that he is not discussing government, but human nature.  As Young explains it, “We must take men as they are…and not as the poets and artists describe them.” 

As much as we like to believe otherwise, human nature is still basically the same now as it was back when Young penned his essay.  ‘Ingenious and able’ people still pursue wealth and power.   They still exploit the weakness of others to gain such wealth and power.  This is done in both business and government.  Therefore, to empower one in an attempt to restrain the threat, perceived or real, of the other only increases the possibility of tyranny.

I believe the Founding Fathers recognized this weakness in democracy and the saw that the way to minimize its danger was not to limit liberty, but to limit power.  This is why the founding documents focus more on the limiting of government power than individual rights.  Unfortunately, over the last 100 years we have removed many of the protections they built into the system and, as a result, we risk the danger that Young so eloquently warned us of.

About the same time Young wrote his essay, Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government the United States would have.  In response he replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Yes, Mr. Franklin, if we can keep it indeed.

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.