ONE WONDERS if a $17 million increase in federal spending on "promoting character education efforts" would have prevented Texas Gov. George W. Bush from making the "mistakes" he has admitted to as a result of youthful indiscretion. Such a spending increase is part of a campaign the Republican presidential candidate outlined Tuesday in a speech to the Northern White Mountain Chamber of Commerce in Gorham, N.H. on increasing the teaching of morals in education. Though certain moral guidelines definitely have a place in the undercurrent of education, Bush's plan to authorize their overt inculcation could have dangerous side effects.
"We do not shape our own morality. It is morality that shapes our lives," Bush said. This simply begs and pleads the question: Who should shape our morality. Bush? Bill Clinton? A council of carefully selected Jerry Falwell fans? It's a sticky question, one that makes the prescription of moral education exceedingly difficult and perilous.
Granted, there are certain absolutes that should be included in education. It's probably not a good idea for a teacher to point out that murder is an option. Nonetheless, one must consider the dynamic nature of morality -- it is not a static quality that can be bottled, with its consumption assigned as homework.
Antebellum Southern white America subscribed to a morality most Americans would find offensive today. Are we glad this was perpetuated in education? In the heyday of corporal punishment, adults felt little moral obligation to children, and often used violence in disciplining them. Are we glad this was perpetuated in education? The answer is no. In spite of these facts, Bush and his bandwagoneers turn a blind eye to the malleable nature of moral codes.
The larger problem isn't so much the moral code Bush touts, but that he seeks to tout one at all. According to Bush, his program would promote "Respect. Responsibility. Self-restraint. Family commitment. Civic duty. Fairness. Compassion." It would be extremely hard to argue against the validity of these moral boundaries when they are exhibited in their purest form. The danger, however, lies in the potential implications.
Part of Bush's program involves training teachers to promote character education. This sends teachers the message that they should be teaching morality. Inevitably, their own morality will seep into Bush's sound conception and taint it. For a teacher who spends his weekends protesting homosexuality, a lesson on "family commitment" may turn into institutionalized, federally funded gay bashing. What about the teacher who feels "civic duty" refers to lobbying for the legalization of illicit drugs? How would Bush feel if her morality trickled into education? How would most Republicans feel about that?
For the sake of argument, let's say Bush's plan could train teachers to put aside their own morality and teach a pure form of his. It's unclear what this would accomplish. In his speech, Bush quoted astonishingly high crime figures as "the victory of moral chaos." He also noted that a large proportion of these crimes occur in urban areas.
Would such moral education serve to prevent crime in younger generations? Since 1991, the incidence of homicide has decreased from 9.8 per 100,000 U.S. citizens to 6.8 in 1997, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports. This wasn't during a period of increased moral education. Rather, it was during a period when, Bush says, children were catching a "virus of apathy and cynicism." More importantly, it was during a period marred by highly publicized and equally tragic violent outbursts by a very small portion of students -- outbursts that added a false legitimacy to the claim that schools are morally bereft and the source of social ills.
Schools are not the source of the majority of social ills. If one believes the contention that American society revolves around the family, shouldn't the family shoulder much of the blame? A four-year-old in Oklahoma City recently was suspended for a year for bringing a loaded gun to school. According to reports, the child took it from a table next to his parents' bed thinking it was a toy. Had he made it to recess before the gun was found, whether or not his teacher spent all morning teaching respect would have been a moot point.
As Bush, himself, says, "Family is the first school of manners and morals." The first time this school conflicts with the public schools Bush envisions, the dangers of moral education will become apparent.
(Chris DelGrosso's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | YesterdayInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | April 17, 2024In addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
