Apparently, our schools want to turn our children into namby-pambys so that they will grow up disoriented and spineless, i.e., lacking chests, as per C. S. Lewis.
In Men without chests,* the first chapter of Lewis’ The Abolition of Man, Lewis cites an alarming tendency among educators to disenchant naive schoolchildren with the right and proper sentiments they may hold: sentiments of honor toward their fellows and true respect for nature. Such sentiments are pure, developed within an innocent heart and guided by an upbringing which seeks to pass on eternal values rather than dispense with sentiment altogether, or replace the traditional with the newer and supposedly better.
Says Michelle Malkin in her column of June 29, Namby-pamby nation:
The left-wing Kumbaya crowd is quietly grooming a generation of pushovers in the public schools. At a time of war, when young Americans should be educated about this nation's resilience and steely resolve, educators are indoctrinating students with saccharine-sticky lessons on "non-violent conflict resolution" and "promoting constructive dialogues."Peaceniks are covering our kids from head to toe in emotional bubble wrap. They are creating a nation of namby-pambies.
Not that non-violent conflict resolution and constructive dialogue don’t have their place in society, but apparently there’s a strong pacifist agenda behind these “educational” materials:”
"Operation Respect" was founded by radical lefty Peter Yarrow of the folk group Peter, Paul & Mary -- last seen in April publicly apologizing to Vietnam. During last year's presidential campaign, you may recall that Yarrow traveled and performed with his old friend and anti-war mate John Kerry, who pretended to smoke a joint while Yarrow sang the ostensible children's ditty "Puff the Magic Dragon."No wonder they favor "Ridicule Free Zones."
My husband has had first-hand experience with this type of curricula as a public school teacher. He tells me that the materials he’s used have been much less – to use Malkin’s term – pathological, and he’s not altogether opposed to their use. His take is that a lot of kids need training in conflict resolution from a purely practical standpoint, since they don’t get it at home. The school district apparently shares this rationale. Understood.
I also think Malkin goes a little too far with the self-defense/militant theme -- it’s one thing to stand up for truth, but another to wail on someone who insults you. “Speak the truth in love.” Yet I agree that the “I’m OK, you’re OK” Kumbaya approach is misguided, and that sometimes defense of others, as well as defense of what is right, is necessary. I appreciate what Malkin relates here:
In their brilliant book One Nation Under Therapy, Christina Hoff Sommers and Sally Satel diagnosed the public school’s pacifist pathology dead on:“American children badly need moral clarity. But our education establishment is too uneasy about the idea of moral judgment to meet this elementary need. Feelings of helplessness and disorientation are thoroughly, even compulsively, canvassed, elicited, discussed, and promoted; by contrast, feelings of moral indignation and condemnation are deflected and downplayed. This leaves children defenseless, clueless and unprepared to meet real and grave threats to their own and the nation’s future.”
In other words, what’s a child to do when he/she has tried to make peace, diplomatically, and the opposing child will have none of it, i.e., is a bully?
I find it interesting that Sommers and Satel state that “moral indignation and condemnation are downplayed;” it seems to me that there’s no shortage of either indignation or condemnation in our culture, even among the so-called “peaceniks.” Hmmm...
Note: This isn’t meant to be a critique of pacifism. It’s meant to call attention to the misguided nature of an approach to conflict that seeks to eliminate it either through superficial acceptance or reduction of all thought and action to a morally neutral plane.
*(I have reviewed this chapter here.)
