Recently in Education Category

It didn't hit me until just now that yesterday was Columbus day. Allow me to belatedly take advantage of this yearly opportunity to remind you that the stories you were probably taught in school were wrong: the people of Christopher Columbus' time did not believe the world was flat.

See, when I was in school I was taught, as I imagine you probably were, that Columbus' journey was looked down upon by ignorant flat-earthers who were much less visionary than our intrepid explorer.

It's a nice story, except for one thing: there were no flat-earthers in Columbus' time. At least, none that were prominent enough to matter. Columbus did not have difficulty securing money for his voyage because he believed the earth was round, but rather because his calculations were off and everyone knew it.

The lesson? Even the most mistaken public figures can make up for it in time with a good PR campaign... and don't believe everything you were taught in middle school.

In my post last week I made the point that one consequence of the state sanctioning same-sex marriage would be that the same-sex lobby would be able to use our schools to normalize homosexuality. "No on 8" proponents counter my argument by assuring us that this is not the intention at all behind the legalizing of same-sex marriage in California. Somebody from the "No on 8" campaign should have told that to eighteen first graders who attended the wedding of their lesbian school teacher just recently.

Providentially, I received this notice from a good friend just today:

NEWS RELEASE Contact: Chip White, 916-215-4392 and For Immediate Release Sonja Eddings Brown, 818-993-4508

First Graders Taken To San Francisco City Hall For Gay Wedding

SAN FRANCISCO, October 11 - In the same week that the No on 8 campaign launched an ad that labeled as "lies" claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding. Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The school sponsored the trip for the students, ages 5 and 6, taking them away from their studies for the same-sex wedding. According to the Yes on 8 campaign, the public school field trip demonstrates that the California Supreme Court's decision to legal same-sex marriage has real consequences.

Although the war over sex education programs has largely receded from the national debate, small skirmishes between the "comprehensive sex-ed" and "abstinence-only" camp continue with depressing regularity in the individual states. Just this week the governor of Ohio chose to reject federal funding for abstinence-only education programs in his state while the ACLU sent a letter to North Carolina school districts claiming that such programs violate the state constitution.

If forced to choose I would be firmly on the abstinence only side. But I believe the debate is rooted in a misguided focus on a false dilemma. Both approaches are primarily concerned with indoctrination toward a particular viewpoint and inoculation against the effects of certain behavior. Neither is concerned with providing an "education", in the truest sense of the term. The abstinence advocates, for example, want teens to "just say no" while the comprehensive crowd want students to "just wear a condom." Both are more concerned about "effectiveness" than with teaching teens how to think for themselves about human sexuality.

For a program to be about education rather than just effectiveness, though, requires that it incorporate critical moral reasoning. This element is curiously missing from both approaches to sex education. While not exhaustive, the implementation of this feature would require focusing on the following areas:

[Note: There comes a time when writing a post that a blogger realizes he won’t be able to finish in one sitting. That time comes for me at 2:30 AM. While writing a defense of moralism I came to this realization and so will not have it ready for posting until Thursday. Since we are entering graduation season, I thought I would take this opportunity to recycle my favorite commencement address.]

While it could be argued that youth is wasted on the young, it is indisputable that commencement addresses are wasted on young graduates. Sitting in a stuffy auditorium waiting to receive a parchment that marks the beginning of one's student loan repayments is not the most conducive atmosphere for soaking up wisdom. Insight, which can otherwise seep through the thickest of skulls, cannot pierce mortarboard.

Most colleges and universities recognize this fact and schedule the graduation speeches accordingly. Schools regularly choose speakers who are unlikely to motivate, inspire, or provide advice that will be remembered after the post-graduation hangover. That is why graduates are subjected to such deep thinkers as film director Spike Lee (University of Miami), actor Warren Beatty (U.C. –Berkeley), and novelist Erica Jong (The College of Staten Island). Calvin College made the mistake of inviting philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff to the latest ceremony before recognizing their error and bumping him for a less intellectually rigorous orator.

Although he had been forced to sit through dozen of such speeches, the late communications theorist Neil Postman was never invited to provide a commencement address. He did prepare some remarks, though, that he planned to use if ever given the opportunity. In typical Postman fashion he even provides it as a true “open source” document: “If you think my graduation speech is good, I hereby grant you permission to use it, without further approval from or credit to me, should you be in an appropriate situation.”

Postman’s graduation speech is good. Too good, in fact, to be wasted on the young.

While it could be argued that youth is wasted on the young, it is indisputable that commencement addresses are wasted on young graduates. Sitting in a stuffy auditorium waiting to receive a parchment that marks the beginning of one's student loan repayments is not the most conducive atmosphere for soaking up wisdom. Insight, which can otherwise seep through the thickest of skulls, cannot pierce mortarboard.

Most colleges and universities recognize this fact and schedule the graduation speeches accordingly. Schools regularly choose speakers who are unlikely to motivate, inspire, or provide advice that will be remembered after the post-graduation hangover. That is why graduates are subjected to such deep thinkers as film director Spike Lee (University of Miami), actor Warren Beatty (U.C. –Berkeley), and novelist Erica Jong (The College of Staten Island). Calvin College made the mistake of inviting philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff to the latest ceremony before recognizing their error and bumping him for a less intellectually rigorous orator.

Although he had been forced to sit through dozen of such speeches, the late communications theorist Neil Postman was never invited to provide a commencement address. He did prepare some remarks, though, that he planned to use if ever given the opportunity. In typical Postman fashion he even provides it as a true “open source” document: “If you think my graduation speech is good, I hereby grant you permission to use it, without further approval from or credit to me, should you be in an appropriate situation.”

Postman’s graduation speech is good. Too good, in fact, to be wasted on the young: