RT @TWERadio: JPMorgan Chase & Washington's anti-capitalist impulse, plus Obama campaign rips Romney for his work at Bain Capital ht ...
Click to Print
Include Comments
Education’s Berlin Wall
The following email exchange I had last week with a public school teacher (whose name and geographical location I’ll keep anonymous for obvious reasons) demonstrates how the intersection of epistemology and law affects the instructor’s professional life, higher education, student teachers, and students:
TEACHER: I am a social studies teacher at a public high school and I am very interested in attending your think tank’s upcoming conference “America: Still the Last Best Hope” as a professional development opportunity. I’ll need to submit information to my district, but I think it’s wise not to offer the conference agenda on your website as the term “Christian scholarship” appears at the top and could cause the administration to deny my request. Do you have anything else I could use?
WISHING: Please see if this link works for you.
TEACHER: Looks perfect!
WISHING: You were insightful in recognizing how the term “Christian scholarship” could hurt your chances of getting funded. I’m curious: What is your view on how the so-called “separation of church and state” affects the public education system?
TEACHER: While I sense most school districts would have a problem approving a conference advertising Christian scholarship, I am fortunate to teach in a rather conservative district where I am not quite as censored as I would be if I taught at my high school alma mater. I still believe, however, that phrase would have hindered my ability to attend as our superintendent is not quite as “old school” and would not want to appear the least bit bias.
As for the alleged “separation of church and state” in education, I see it starting in the universities and trickling down. Of all the student teachers I have met over my years here, whether in my classroom or another teacher’s, I have not met one conservative. They are all very liberal in their political and economic beliefs and I gather that their ideologies are straight out of the university classroom. My great concern is that high school students in this country will be given nothing but a very liberal, and dare I say socialist, education that will influence their further education, their workplace, and their families. I do everything within my power in my classroom to combat this growing problem.
This exchange shows just a few of the ways that America’s Berlin Wall—the legal system and bias banning Christian epistemology and thinking from public schools—affects teachers and their students.
This too is a wall that we must tear down.
back to top33 Comments to “Education’s Berlin Wall”
I had two very qualified, under-paid, dedicated history teachers in high school. One was a Christian (saw his family in our church directory) and the other was at least skeptical about atheism. [I deduced that from statemts he made in and out of class].
The bigger problem is most teachers irrespective of their subject matter graduate in the bottom 50% of their class. As for these “Schools of Education”? Dont get me started on the vacuity of lot of the M.Ed and Ed.D folks tack on behind their last name.
I suspect too that our instructors/professors lack much in the way of critical thinking to recognize how they’ve been endoctrinated to love Big Brother.
As for bias, I only had a few teachers point out the desirability of freedom in general and free markets in particular for reducing poverty.
Report comment to moderator
Does no one have a problem with an educator admitting “I do everything in my power” to counteract a perceived political bias in other people’s classrooms? Does this not necessarily mean he is politicizing his own subject in the belief that other people already have?
I suspect that such a statement from a liberal teacher or professor would be met with much hostility here. (btw, I have heard some make it: some saw undermining the conservative bias that students bring from home and from high school as the first step in a college education) Think for a minute about how different this post would be if it were about a liberal teacher confessing, “I do everything in my power to combat the growing problem of conservative bias.”
Is it really just all about politics (if conservative teachers push their politics, it’s ok; if liberal teachers push their politics, it’s indoctrination), or is there some broader principle that an educator’s job is to challenge students, to make them think and argue and defend, but not to politicize?
Report comment to moderator
#2 – JJF asked; “Does no one have a problem with an educator admitting ‘I do everything in my power’ to counteract a perceived political bias in other people’s classrooms?”
Not in the context of this edducator’s point in view of the generally pathetic state of public education today.
The fact remains that countless students all over this country are given nothing but a very liberal and socialist indoctrination every day. I generally support the honest and earnest attempt to counteract the bias with honest off-setting balance. Conservatives understand that if both sides are allowed, then the truth has a much better chance of seeing the light and landing on real hearts and minds. We do not fear vigorous debate.
_____________________
And if a liberal teacher on this thread ACTUALLY confessed that she or he did “…everything in my power to combat the growing problem of conservative bias,” then most of the conservatives on this blog would CELEBRATE such a rare statement of honesty from a leftist-liberal.
Report comment to moderator
“(btw, I have heard some make it: some saw undermining the conservative bias that students bring from home and from high school as the first step in a college education)”
I wonder if the same teacher would think that a student from a liberal home should have his bias undermined.
Report comment to moderator
JJF #2 – Good point. I think that a large percentage of the “extreme” statements and actions on many subjects result from a perception that the other side is so biased and extreme that they must be counteracted. That’s how America went from a determination to not have political parties to a highly partisan atmosphere in the first 10 years of our Nation.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner, do you have a citation for your statement? “The bigger problem is most teachers irrespective of their subject matter graduate in the bottom 50% of their class.”
I am curious because I am a conservative public school teacher who graduated Magna Cum Laude (and with my GPA I would have graduated Summa at other universities.) Anecdotally, many teachers are the “good students” who enjoyed school and came back because they liked it.
Report comment to moderator
#6 Sylvie, I read that long ago in a column by Thomas Sowell. There are many exceptions
Report comment to moderator
I noticed the same thing as JJF — he admits to actively seeking to counter a perceived bias in other classrooms. If he follows the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strike, he may be politicizing his classroom before his student are exposed to any liberal bias.
And Joel, I do not do everything in my power to counter the conservative bias my students bring with them from home. You might want me to as my conservative students are all Muslims. That is not to say I’m holding anything back, when they raise topics such as religion, feminism, and middle eastern politics I give them my opinion, however, the actual education content is strictly from the curriculum. As for the rest of my students, I teach in the most left wing city in Canada — consistently electing social democrats and conservative candidates are usually a distant third behing the second place liberals — if anything my personal opinions mirror their parents.
Report comment to moderator
Sylvie- The “most teachers” bit means there are those who graduate higher in their class, such as you. But it means that those who obviously are limited in their intelligence outside their teaching field are the majority of teachers. Sad but true. I teach, and find the majority of my fellow teachers are rather incompetent in fields outside their own.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. President, reinforce that wall.
Superstition, glorification of violence in the name of a “god”, nonsensical ancient stories and purest objectification of women as chattel have no place in our schools. Nor does any attempt to belittle any child’s pride in his or her membership in the human race.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think high schools are that biased.
(ducks projectiles) I mean yeah, you can’t beleive everything you hear, but isn’t that true everywhere?
And as for seperation of church and state, we are supposed to keep releigous and government matters apart. Not meaning that we can’t talk about God and the Bible, but that we are supposed to keep our religious veiws semi-private.
At least that’s the way I understand it.
Report comment to moderator
Wigwam, who says we’re supposed to? God doesn’t. “Polite society” might, but God doesn’t tell us to be careful not to talk about Him too much.
Report comment to moderator
Can’t speak for how others might respond, but I’d just write it off as another example of a liberal being completely out of touch with reality for thinking that the conservative bias is dominant.
Report comment to moderator
Not surprising that this is the way you understand it because this is certainly the way your teachers understand it and want you to understand it. The fact that this is how you understand it is just another example of the liberal bias in the classroom. But it certainly doesn’t even come close to the way America’s founding fathers conceived of it.
Report comment to moderator
#2 JJF
“…(if conservative teachers push their politics, it’s ok; if liberal teachers push their politics, it’s indoctrination)…”
I was one of those “conservative teachers” who tried to counteract other teachers. I told my students I voted. I voted for president, governor etc. I never told them which candidate. I may have told some that I didn’t think it was proper for a teacher to tell students who I voted for and that I didn’t think it was proper for any teacher to tell who he or she voted for. I told them I didn’t think it was right for an teacher to tell his or her class who to vote for or what to vote for.
Their intellect and reasoning powers weren’t up to arguing or discussing with a teacher. too bad other teachers didn’t think that way.
Now, whether the Lakers were better than the Bulls, that was another story.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, the whole point of seperation of chuch and state in America, means that releigous beliefs and government don’t belong together, or more accurately, that our religious beliefs should not influence our government. I’m not saying you shouldn’t talk about God, I’m just pointing out that seperation of church and state does stand, and it’s a good thing, If you ask me, there shouldn’t be anyone’s religon in schools, and we shouldn’t learn about hindiusm, buddhsim, islam, or christianity in school at all. We should learn about actual subjects. I don’t disgaree with prayer in school, or the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, I think those are good things, but mostly I think that the two issue ought to be seperate for a few reasons, one becuase there is no way to be completely unbiased and fair to everyone when we bring religon into schools and two becuase I don’t think it’s the schools place to tell us about faith and religon. Also, I think religon should be a private matter, not a public one.
What I do disagree with is the abuse of this idea in public schools, as often the “seperation of church and state” usurps teachers and students rights to free speech.
However, that’s the rule. No church in government, no government in church.
Report comment to moderator
Okay Ree, how did the founding father’s conceive it?
Report comment to moderator
Bob
I once taught a civics type unit in the middle of a federal election. We had local candidates come to talk to students, students formed political parties, elected a leader, researched the party platform and gave speeches, created posters, etc. In the end, the students all voted in a mock election. After the unit was finished, the student and real elections finished, the students asked me who I voted for. In a test to see if they perceived any bias in my teaching I asked them who they thought I voted for. They thought I voted Conservative. Rather surprising since the vast majority of students, their parents, and the community at large vote social democrat here. Students don’t always perceive bias and they often mistake biased instruction, and thus its best to just teach the curriculum.
Then again, if they ask about World Cup support or the Leafs ….
Report comment to moderator
#2 & #8 Not a problem HRW and JJF,
By the time these students reach high school they have been well indoctrinated in cultural Marxism; that is the predominate worldview written in the text books and indoctrinated into the latest generations of educators.
NCATE vehemently denies that it is imposing groupthink, but the [teacher’s colleges], essentially a liberal monoculture, use dispositions theory to require support for diversity and a culturally left agenda, including opposition to what the schools sometimes call “institutional racism, classism, and heterosexism.”
Leo, J. (2005, October 24). Class(room) Warriors. U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved 11/13/06 from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/051024/24john.htm
the Chronicle reports that the University of Alabama’s College of Education proclaims itself “committed to preparing individuals to”—what? “Read, write and reason”? No, “to promote social justice, to be change agents, and to recognize individual and institutionalized racism, sexism, homophobia, and classism…”
Will, G.F. (2006, January 16). Ed Schools vs. Education: Prospective teaches are expected to have the correct ‘ disposition,’ proof of which is espousing ‘progressive’ political beliefs. Newsweek. Retrieved 11/13/06 from
http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/will1-16-06.html
Fish are the last to realize the water is salty
Report comment to moderator
Wigwam,
It is *impossible* to make religion a “private matter.” Religion is fundamentally one’s world view. EVERYONE has a world view…even atheists.
So, you are asking religious people to give up the right to have THE thing that most fundamentally influences their opinions and feelings and how they see the world excluded, but yet everyone else can continue to bring their worldview in?
It isn’t even logical. I could no more leave my world view private and “out of the government” then I could leave my nose off my face.
Just your view that such things are “private” is a worldview itself, and one that can cause a lot of hard feelings, because it says that YOU can have and express your views, and I (as a religious person) cannot.
Report comment to moderator
I do have to say that — as someone who graduated in the top 10 percent of her class and who tests “gifted” — it does get annoying to be told that teachers are stupid. (I’m a certified teacher.)
But, having been in the classroom many years (in the past — I homeschool now), I have to admit that some teachers are not very bright, and I often wondered just how they ever made it into the profession.
I remember the teacher in one district who wrote this for a writing prompt for his students:
“If was the mayor of ________, I would….”
Two problems:
1) It should read, “If I were the mayor….
2) The place we lived did not have a mayor and was part of a larger city. But, the teacher was completely unaware of this fact.
Report comment to moderator
I also remember going into the reading teacher’s classroom and reading her bulletin boards. There were no less than 5 errors in spelling and grammar on her boards. I don’t remember them all now, but I do remember being appalled that this woman had just been hired out of the classroom (in fact, I was replacing her!) as a “specialist” in reading!
And, she couldn’t spell or use grammar for the life of her!! SIGH
Report comment to moderator
Wigwam,
First of all, it was Jefferson, and him alone, who spoke of a “wall of separation,” and this was in a private letter, not in any founding documents.
Second, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was intended to keep the federal government from establishing a national church like the Church of England. And good idea or not, it wasn’t even intended to rule out individual States being established under specific denominations. In fact, I believe that other than Rhode Island, all of the original colonies were established under a specific Christian denomination. And it most certainly wasn’t intended to keep the most fundamental Christian assumptions about the nature of reality out of public policy. If it were, then the Founders themselves would have been blatantly guilty of violating it in nearly everything they wrote, and the very foundations of our government would have been negated by it.
Report comment to moderator
Well then RWH I must be a total failure … when they leave my elementary school I’ve taught them reading, writing, and arithmetic skills but progressive political beliefs??? What is that??
However, I am guilty of fighting racism and homophobia. Sorry but I can’t let anti-Semitic statements go by without a correction and somehow the constant harassment of some young males who aren’t “macho” enough isn’t allowed in my room. If providing a safe environment for all my students is progressive education than I’m guilty.
However, I don’t advocate one political party over an other, an economic system over an other, or any other ideological/cultural position.
Report comment to moderator
3.6, 3.5. 3.5 and 3.8. Sawgunner, do you know what these are? the GPA’s of the last 4 teachers I hired. They attended small Christian Liberal Arts colleges which are all cited as top 20
Christian Liberal Arts institutions in the US. Not to mention that they work their tails off.
I see nearly 100 teacher applications a year……these are bright kids usually in the top 50% of their graduating class. You have got to be kidding me with your post on #1. It was an ill-informed post at best. You can and have done better.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
That is commendable if you do as you believe you do. There is a very distinct worldview taught in the US, however. And with the friends I have in Canada I know there is a very distinct worldview taught up there as well.
Do you teach out of text books? If so then you are teaching a worldview. If your text books are like the ones in the US then you are teaching a humanist worldview, primarily cultural Marxism, better known as Political Correctness.
Evolution, plurality, multicultural diversity, environmentalism, non-traditional family structures, anti-Christian biases, historic revisionism, anti-capitalism biases, gay rights, feminism, pro-abortion, tolerance, social jutice, common good, dialectical thought processes Vs true critical thinking…all elements of PC and the religion of cultural marxism.
Our schools are religious indoctrination centers of cultural marxism as demonstrated by the groupthink, liberal monoculture of the teachers colleges, reading the text books, hearing about what teachers teach and worldview testing of the students.
Report comment to moderator
SFC. Good luck. These are people who truly believe that virtually all government employees, teachers included, are lazy, incompetent and overpaid, and that uberpowerful unions are shaking down the taxpayers.
The wall is between them and the real world.
Report comment to moderator
Ok Ree. I disagree with you on several counts. First of all that phrase “A wall of separation between church and state” was originally used by Roger Williams, who established Rhode Island colony the first with freedom of religion. When the founding fathers established the constitution, they agreed with Williams about religion and gave us the first amendment right, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This also comes with the clause that, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” I took this to mean that the government doesn’t care about your religion, and that they wanted religion to be a private affair. By this I mean that there is no state mandate to go to church, or believe something. Religion is between a man and God, as it should be.
Also, the founding fathers weren’t as overtly Christian as some people like to believe. Only Washington and Henry are quoted as saying very strongly that they were Christian. Jefferson was deist, Paine was agnostic, and no one knows what the Adams cousins were. So actually, they didn’t have much about religion in anything that they wrote about government. Paine makes some mentions to the bible in “Common Sense” Jefferson uses the phrase ‘ endowed by their creator” and Henry says, “Forbid it Almighty God” other than that, they pretty much kept their religion to themselves, probably because they believed it was private.
Also, this is something I made up my own mind about, not something the public school told me. I went and looked it up.
Tammy, I’m not saying that you can’t express your religion. There’s nothing wrong with religion. I’m a Christian too. What I am saying is that according to the first amendment, when it comes to the government, their policies, actions or institutions, religion has nothing to do with it. This is a good thing. This is a very good thing. Having a state religion is how the Spanish Inquisition or lots of people getting burned at the stake happens. Religion and government don’t belong together. Therefore, is a school is run by the government, then we could probably assume that in most instances, religion doesn’t belong in the school either. I don’t want a school telling me about religion.
A lot of people have got the idea that I don’t think religous people should be able to express themselves. This is untrue. I simply think that that religon (of any kind.) ought to be left out of school.
Report comment to moderator
Wigwam_Mawgim
The foundation for your argument has a major flaw. The flaw is that it is impossible for a school to not teach worldview and by definition worldview is religious. There is no such thing as a neutral valued school. Our govt schools moved out of a Christian worldview through secular humanism and now into cultural marxism. The students are now being indoctrinated into cultural marxism religion.
Your view of schools, history and civics is founded on the marxist/humanist worldviews, not a Christian worldview. Your Christian walk is heavily syncretized with Marxism which allows you to maintain two incompatible worldviews; but the Marxism seems to be the predominate religion of the two. No different than Obama’s syncretizing.
Per Marvin Olasky’s observation: [Obama has] a tendency toward religious syncretism, uniting beliefs that are logically and theologically separate. Obama is a Marxist-Christian syncretist, blending elements of the incompatible: That can work in an election campaign when a lapdog press doesn’t dig deep, but the little sister in the combination usually ends up frustrated, as many evangelicals who backed Obama in 2008 now are.”
You say: “A lot of people have got the idea that I don’t think religous people should be able to express themselves. This is untrue. I simply think that that religon (of any kind.) ought to be left out of school.”
This would truly mean we would have no schools since you agree that the religion of cultural Marxism be left out as well.
Perhaps a more realistic take may be allow the parents to choose the school teaching the right worldview for their child and eliminate the government monolith we now have.
Report comment to moderator
Wigwam,
You may have done the research yourself but it’s clearly flawed because the wall of separation was indisputibly first spoken of by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. Roger Williams got it from there.
And although you’re correct that the founders were not on one mind on the tenets of their faith, they all held to the basic view of a Creator from whom is derived morality and the principles of good government.
There is simply no such thing as neutrality, Wigwam. One thing or another will always be regarded as ultimate.
I recommend a book by Nancy Pearcey called Total Truth for a good treatment of the development of ideas in the West that have led to the way you’ve learned to think about truth.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, it’s government that doesn’t belong in education.
Report comment to moderator
Ree – I agree with your points to Wigwam, but must mention that Roger Williams came before Thomas Jefferson.
The first paragraph from the Wikipedia article on him…
Roger Williams (circa 1603 – between January and March 1683) was an English Protestant theologian who was an early proponent of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. In 1636, he began the colony of Providence Plantation, which provided a refuge for religious minorities. Williams started the first Baptist church in America, the First Baptist Church of Providence, before leaving to become a Seeker. He was a student of Native American languages and an advocate for fair dealings with Native Americans.”
Perhaps Jefferson was quoting Williams in his letter.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Karen, and of course, you’re right about Roger Williams preceding Jefferson.
And sorry, Wigwam, about that. But in any case, both Williams and Jefferson were referring to the same thing–not having the State infringe on the church. It most definitely wasn’t about keeping Christian convictions out of government. Williams said,
Then in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson wrote,
But again, the Establishment clause did not even prohibit the individual states establishing churches, much less did it prohibit people bringing holding Christian premises and being guided by those premises in the governing of our country. Rather, our country was rooted in them. Now, obviously Roger Williams didn’t think the idea of states having official churches was a good idea. That was the whole point of his establishment of Rhode Island. But the fact that one state was premised on this is in obvious contrast to the fact that other states that did not hold this premise.
Anyway, I’m not arguing that we should have state churches. Only that the atheistic interpretation of the Establishment clause is obviously wrong.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!