THE UNITED States has an odd reputation overseas. We are seen as progressive, yet puritan; advocates of freedom, yet strangely constrictive in our own laws. One of our major societal concerns is "political correctness," but we vote on the basis of "family values."
Listen closely to the political rhetoric this November -- it's all about family values, not societal, civic or educational values, but family.
This angle keeps politicians out of trouble: Since the family is not a governmental agent, no one can complain about conflict with basic constitutional privileges like a separation of church and state and equal protection, as they could if the same values were distributed by an agency such as a school. A family can instill any values it so desires -- we consider familial autonomy almost inviolable. This protection can go too far.
The converse of that personal autonomy is the handicapping of our school system. Schools are forced to defer to parents' opinions and, in essence, dumb down the curriculum so as not to offend anyone. The recent decision of several mid-western schools to reduce or even eliminate the study of evolution is a perfect example, as is the higher education debate over the use of student activity fees by some groups. The hands of our schools are tied in the face of closed-mindedness.
In the Center for Governmental Studies' National Symposium on Character last Monday and Tuesday, panelists explored the concept of public vs. private in depth. Though many speakers mentioned the general fallibility of people, very few suggested methods for reducing the worst examples of that imperfection -- quite often explorations sounded more like excuses.
William Bennett, former Secretary of Education under President Reagan and "drug czar" under President Bush, was the exception. In perhaps the most memorable keynote of the conference, he was wise, funny, and eloquent, but perhaps most importantly, he was firm and outspoken in his convictions. Speaking of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, he said, "I just didn't think this was a hard case," then proceeded to explain why the nation's leader shouldn't engage in such behavior. In speaking about his war on drugs and his journeys around the nation's schools, he strongly advocated teaching our children how to be citizens.
Yes, he admitted, there are cultural and religious concerns -- not all families will agree on what values their children should be learning at school. But he told a story of a roundtable discussion he once had with parents and teachers where they discussed this issue. They ran into difficulties once they hit the topic of morals, and the discussion soon degenerated into a confusing mix of complex questions. He interjected, "show me a child that likes having his lunch money stolen, that likes to be ridiculed by his classmates and beaten up in school." His point was that no matter how culturally correct someone might want to be, there are still basic values to impart.
He also spoke of a town meeting in which the townspeople -- a somewhat diverse group -- came up with an agreement that vaguely resembled the Ten Commandments, but with some modifications. It told students not to lie, cheat or steal and to respect their classmates. As Bennett said before, these are neither hard nor especially controversial issues.
We as a country need to take responsibility for children's moral education. True, values begin in the family, but elementary schools can provide a laboratory of sorts for kids to put those values into use and continue to learn. This instruction should remain simple but expand in middle school, perhaps including the more mature ideas of equality and understanding -- skills every adult is expected to know and again not difficult issues.
The questions get more difficult as the kids get older -- high school students may want to discuss sexuality, societal roles, religion and more complex values. Standardized education can't always provide simple answers to these sorts of questions, but where institutional teaching ends, peer learning should begin. Why not use our high schools as a preliminary forum of student discussions, letting them learn from each other? They could put the equality lessons they learned in middle school to good use, perhaps letting a teacher mediate an open discussion about various beliefs and opinions. As long as that teacher doesn't use her position as a pulpit, no one's rights are hurt -- quite the opposite. Such a forum would teach First Amendment rights, not restrict them.
Children need an education on character as much as they need initial guidance on crossing the street. At some point, however, the hand-holding stops and looking both ways begins. This education cannot be rote memorization -- it needs to be practiced, experienced and learned by students and adults alike.
(Emily Harding's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 5 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead 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.
