.jpg "Tony Petersen")
The debate on whether or not teachers should be objective in their teaching
As my colleague Mike Boylan has pointed out, the Texas board of education, according to The New York Times, “approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.”
Seems damning at first glance. For the majority of us more than likely are of the same sentiments as Mr. Boylan when he says that schools need “thoroughly objective textbooks, ones that provide historical facts and diverse theories that encourage the development of a young person’s critical mind.”
But is objectiveness possible?
Humans are naturally subjective””we see events that happen or hear about these events and interpret them one way or another. It is impossible for a person to be completely fair to a point of view that they are diametrically opposed to.
And besides that, objectivity is boring. If I wanted a laundry list of facts with no analysis, I would go to Wikipedia, where the entry for Jesus Christ says, in part, that he is “the central figure of Christianity, which views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament, with most Christian denominations believing him to be the Son of God who was raised from the dead.” Transcendent poetry worthy of the man himself!
Back to the matter at hand. The decision by the Texas board is undoubtedly politically incorrect and obviously dumb in certain respects”—presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light?” Really? In today’s hyper-partisan society, what is needed is not a lecture on which party is the best. What is needed is a lecture on the truth.
And, believe it or not, some of the Texas school board’s actions are centered on truth, specifically the points on American capitalism and secular government.
Why shouldn’t students learn about the superiority of America capitalism? Would we rather learn about the superiority of Marxist theory of economics? Like it or not, the United States has had some form of what we call capitalism for the duration of our country. For the most part, this has been a good thing, as we have been the most prosperous nation in the world for the last 200 years.
And it is time we question the Founding Fathers’ commitment to secular government, mainly because they weren’t for it. The famous maxim of “separation of church and state” is simply folly””it is nowhere to be found in the U.S. Constitution, only in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. All that it says about religion is that the federal government cannot establish a national religion, that the federal government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion and that no religious test shall be required for any wanting to serve in public office.
It is also false to say that our founders were secular. It is true that some, such as Ben Franklin and Jefferson, were deists (people who believe God made the universe and then backed off from his creation), but the vast majority of our founders were Christians. Indeed, John Adams is purported to have said that it would be far better to turn back to the gods of Greece rather than endure a government run by atheists.
The crux of this argument, however, is to state simply this: absolute truth exists. And that is what we should teach our children, not some politically correct ideology that offends none to the detriment of us all.
Anonymous • Mar 22, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Ugh, first he starts off with ‘is objectivity really possible.’ It’s obvious that our personal biases will creep in where ever a human is involved, but the question is whether or not we should strive for objectivity. This whole notion of having to be perfectly objective is just a nonsensical red herring.
Then he gives a the childish answer that objectivity is boring and proceeds to take a needless jab at wikipedia. For being part of the scum that is the liberal agenda as stated by the far right wing, I’m surprised wikipedia didn’t say jesus was just a fictional character only existing in the fantasies of religious minds, oh wait, that’s because it’s striving for objectivity instead of just blatantly allowing biases.
He also implied that one can’t strive for objectivity during an analysis. I just find this to be an absurd assertion that wasn’t completely thought out on his part. I don’t know what else to say.
He then actually starts to discuss the topic of Texas School Board and says there work was ‘centered on truth’ (obviously debatable). Learning about Capitalism and our countries history is hardly what is of concern here. The point of concern comes from an ideological brainwashing that anything socialized is inherently worse and should be avoided. Economics is hardly so black and white. Most of the thriving countries have mixed economies of some sort and socializing certain areas clearly works well.
Well, of course there were a ton of people involved in founding of the country of all stripes, many christians and some deists, and of course they had differing opinions on just how much involvement the church should have with the state, but to say they weren’t for a secular government is a bit much. Just looks through some quotes by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and James Madison and you will definitely see disdain for what religion was doing. People don’t often learn that this time period was full of sectarian bickering and even violence. Even though we escaped tyranny of a king, different sects would still fight with one another and the smaller sects needed protection. Obviously I wouldn’t want students to be taught that the phrasing ‘separation of church and state’ was in the constitution because it’s not, and the exact wording is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” which takes interpretation to get that it only means ‘the federal government cannot establish a national religion,’ there are obviously other ways that it can ‘respect an establishment of religion’ besides simply declaring a state religion.
And if he feels like quoting John Adams here’s one for him “As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?”
-John Adams in letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
Anyway, to sum up, what the Texas School Board is doing is blatantly disregarding objectivity to suit their political ideology in many ways. I think it’s important to strive for objectivity in the classroom and leave blatant biases for political talk shows or other media outlets where it belongs.
joshua4234 • Mar 22, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Ugh, first he starts off with 'is objectivity really possible.' It's obvious that our personal biases will creep in where ever a human is involved, but the question is whether or not we should strive for objectivity. This whole notion of having to be perfectly objective is just a nonsensical red herring.
Then he gives a the childish answer that objectivity is boring and proceeds to take a needless jab at wikipedia. For being part of the scum that is the liberal agenda as stated by the far right wing, I'm surprised wikipedia didn't say jesus was just a fictional character only existing in the fantasies of religious minds, oh wait, that's because it's striving for objectivity instead of just blatantly allowing biases.
He also implied that one can't strive for objectivity during an analysis. I just find this to be an absurd assertion that wasn't completely thought out on his part. I don't know what else to say.
He then actually starts to discuss the topic of Texas School Board and says there work was 'centered on truth' (obviously debatable). Learning about Capitalism and our countries history is hardly what is of concern here. The point of concern comes from an ideological brainwashing that anything socialized is inherently worse and should be avoided. Economics is hardly so black and white. Most of the thriving countries have mixed economies of some sort and socializing certain areas clearly works well.
Well, of course there were a ton of people involved in founding of the country of all stripes, many christians and some deists, and of course they had differing opinions on just how much involvement the church should have with the state, but to say they weren't for a secular government is a bit much. Just looks through some quotes by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and James Madison and you will definitely see disdain for what religion was doing. People don't often learn that this time period was full of sectarian bickering and even violence. Even though we escaped tyranny of a king, different sects would still fight with one another and the smaller sects needed protection. Obviously I wouldn't want students to be taught that the phrasing 'separation of church and state' was in the constitution because it's not, and the exact wording is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” which takes interpretation to get that it only means 'the federal government cannot establish a national religion,' there are obviously other ways that it can 'respect an establishment of religion' besides simply declaring a state religion.
And if he feels like quoting John Adams here's one for him “As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?”
-John Adams in letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816
Anyway, to sum up, what the Texas School Board is doing is blatantly disregarding objectivity to suit their political ideology in many ways. I think it's important to strive for objectivity in the classroom and leave blatant biases for political talk shows or other media outlets where it belongs.