(Note: this post was written in response to something that someone wrote to me in a private discussion about what it means to be "liberal." That person is a Trump supporter, who generally thinks that liberals are wrong-headed in political perspectives and also revealed as not "really" liberal in the educational sense by so-called "Cancel Culture" and the apparent unwillingness of so many contemporary students to listen to ideas that are different from what they have been taught. I'm keeping that person's identity confidential, simply because the "personal" aspect of my relationship with them could be hurt by a public airing of this disagreement. However, the disagreement has "public" relevance.)
Let's
talk about "cancel culture." You used this as an example of how
"formal education" does not necessarily open one's mind or make people liberal in their thinking.
"Formal
education" is a very broad set of activities and practices, not all of
which are actually educational. (As you know, I prefer to talk about
"schooling" separate from "education.") A lot of
"formal education" (i.e. schooling) isn't at all about opening of
one's mind. (I'm assuming you meant "liberal in your thinking" as
"not closed minded." I agree.) Indeed, the "liberal arts,"
which are the part of schooling that does aim to open one's mind to new ways of
thinking, has been under attack for decades. It's never been fully
embraced, because in the population as a whole, "dogma" (i.e.
"thinking rightly," according to a particular set of beliefs and
values) is widespread in almost every society (including in the US). Dogma is
especially powerful when a population believes it is under threat from external
or internal enemies.
Common
among conservatives (although I think it's found among liberals as well) is a
fear that society is going to fall apart because of "free thinkers,"
otherwise known as "the opposition," or "radicals," or
"hippies," or even "anarchists." This was the fear (as you
know) in the late 1960s, when drug use and sexual experimentation (and anti-war
fervor) scared many Americans, leading them to get behind Nixon and his
"law and order" message. (I'm not saying "getting behind Nixon"
was bad, although it certainly didn't pan out the way some hoped). The dogma
("orthodoxy") of "law and order" leads many to label others
in the society as "enemies of the people" or "commies" or
worse. You and I probably disagree about how much of a threat these
"radicals" really are, or even how radical they really are.
But
GOOD education should cause people to question "received wisdom," or
"conventional thinking" about "radicals" and the threat
that they pose. History includes lots of examples of so-called radicals pushing
for societal change that, in retrospect, looks good even to conservatives. The
American Revolution is a perfect example. To the Tories, American
revolutionaries were "radical" "agitators" who would
destroy society with their "liberal" beliefs.
One
needs to question contemporary efforts to label elements of our society as
"radicals" or "agitators." 200 years from now, will these
people seem as radical as they do today? Will we look back on 2020 as a year in
which society IMPROVED its treatment of Black people? (I certainly hope and believe
so.) A good education would at least open the minds of people to the possible
good that can come from the current "agitation." (I, for one, decry
the rioters and the violence, but totally support the BLM protests and will
defend their basic demands.)
"BLM"
is a perfect example of a divider in society, with some claiming in response
that "all lives matter" or "blue lives matter," as if
"black lives matter" is at all controversial. Many who attack BLM
are, to my mind, racists; that is, they believe that black lives DON'T matter
as much as white lives, or they believe that it's appropriate for the police to
treat black people differently than white people or they believe that there is
no difference between "black lives" and "all lives" and
that it's BLM itself that is racist.
I
know you like to believe that we live (or ought to pretend that we live) in a
"color-blind" society that offers equal opportunity to all,
regardless of skin color. This is certain central to the "Dream" of
MLK, Jr. But MLK didn't believe we had reached this "promised land,"
and "agitated" to get white people to pay attention to the plight of
black people. (The fact that the civil rights movement and the 1960s sex and
drug "revolutions" happened at the same time made it hard for many
white Americans (and black conservatives) to distinguish the
"radicals" from those calling for "civil rights.")
A
"liberal" education should, in my judgment, cause the student to
question whether the distinctions made "conventionally" or even by
the majority are distinctions that ought to be made, or whether it is better to
examine the similarities between "radicals" and "civil rights
advocates" and figure out whether society as a whole has some re-thinking
to do in terms of fairness, opportunity, etc.
Look
again at the American Revolution. Some "agitators" were true
radicals, in that they believed that the monarchy was an enemy of freedom and
opportunity and that a democracy (or "republic") would open up
society to innovation and improvement. (History has borne out this view:
practically no one in the US or even England believes that a monarchy is better
than a democracy. The "radicals" proved to be "right" in
their thinking.)
But
also among the revolutionaries were many (especially in the South) who were
more afraid that the monarchy would destroy their way of life, because in
England in the 1760s and 1770s was becoming an anti-slave society, and southern
colonists were worried that the monarchy would take away the "right"
to have slaves. So they supported the "radical" views of the northern
revolutionaries not because they actually accepted the "radical"
aspects of those views, but because it was clearly in their self-interest
(economically at least) to separate from England. The debates that followed the
revolution centered on "states rights," because many in the south
feared that the northerners would come after their slaves. (The north did
eventually do this, as we know.) But even the Civil War didn't resolve the
questions involved; we are STILL to this day debating whether states have the
"right" to have laws or practices that discriminate. Indeed, now we
have a lot of white people complaining about "reverse
discrimination," which is, without a doubt, a "reaction" to
policies like affirmative action that are designed to increase equity. There is
ALWAYS a REACTION to social change. Always.
Which
leads to the inevitable need for citizens to differentiate in their minds
between the moral authority of the desired change and the moral authority of
those reacting to it. This differentiation, as described above, often appears
different from the standpoint of people living in the future than it does to
people living in the present. Some (in the present) will, like the southern
slave owners, put their self-interest above the interests of everyone, but
won't even necessarily be aware that they are doing this. Apologists for
slavery, for example, argued (some still believe) that slavery was
"good" for African-Americans, because they lacked the
"civilization" that freedom requires.
Similarly,
I'd argue, many who, at the present time, believe that Black Lives Matter is
"hate speech" (I'm thinking of a particular US president that YOU
support) are most likely not applying moral principles at all, but are merely
expressing their personal self-interest, although often in language that
appears to be principled, but is actually just selfishness.
How
do we differentiate in our own minds between selfishness and principled
behavior? THIS, I'd argue is the very essence of good education in the liberal
arts.
Being
well educated in the liberal arts does NOT mean that the person accepts all
points of view, regardless of the motivations underlying that point of view. A
"liberally-educated" person takes stands against points of view that
are biased, racist, classist, etc. Taking such a stand may lead, in some cases,
to civil disobedience, thus offering more conservative people the opportunity
to call them out as "radicals" or "agitators," or even
"Marxists." (How that word finds its way into the discussion is
itself worthy of deeper study, i.e. good liberal education; but that's a topic
for another conversation.)
Back
to "cancel culture." As I understand this phrase, it's typically used
by conservative people to complain about those who would "cancel"
beliefs, people, actions, symbols, etc. that are anti-liberal. I'm quite sure
that your use of it in your post was intended in that sense. You believe
that "cancel culture" is a bad thing, and a sign of a lack of
"open-mindedness" among liberals.
I
think the dispute over the Confederate flag is a great example of how
"cancel culture" is used. Conservatives complain about NASCAR banning
the flag at its events. They claim the "right" to display the flag
and go on and on about how it really isn't a racist symbol, but a symbol of
southern "heritage." They say that NASCAR has fallen
"victim" to "cancel culture" because they chose to ally
themselves with more liberal elements of society calling for the flag to be
"cancelled."
I
don't know how you feel about the NASCAR thing, but there are other examples.
Liberals call for people like Tucker Carlson to be removed from his position as
a Fox host. For liberals (including me), Tucker is a white supremacist racist
with vile opinions that should be banned from public discourse, whether by
fiat or by public consensus. (I personally have no doubt that Tucker WILL be
fired; it's only a matter of when.) If the public shifts in its values, over
time, such that Tucker is no longer tolerated, even by conservatives, will
those who continue to support him scream about being "cancelled" by
the "liberal elite."? Probably. But who is morally right?
I
don't think this is an easy question to answer. Indeed, it's a perfect scenario
upon which to base a lesson in the liberal arts. However, if a professor at an
"elite" university chooses to focus a lesson on Tucker today, that
professor will be condemned by conservatives as yet another example of
"cancel culture," EVEN if the professor believes that what's most
important is to have students think about the issue from various points of
view, and even if the professor has no personal opinion about Tucker. (I can't
imagine a professor of the liberal arts who DOESN'T have an opinion!)
Because
of the inevitable controversies that would erupt if Tucker were made the
subject of a liberal arts lesson today, a wise professor would probably choose
a less controversial example. I'm thinking the somewhat less controversial
example of the issue of eugenics. Most people (even conservatives) have
accepted that eugenics is not a good idea because it can lead to vile choices
and it augments evil beliefs about one person, or group, being superior
"genetically." (I just want to mention that Trump thinks a reason for
his success is his "superior genes." I find that scary, but again, a
topic for another day.)
Eugenics
is an example of an idea that was WIDELY popular 150 years ago, but which, for
a variety of historical and intellectual reasons, is now considered archaic and
superseded by less racist ideas. Because it is now generally considered
out-of-date, it offers a great opportunity to build a liberal arts lesson
relevant to "cancel culture."
As
I consider this, I am thinking of a book that came out 30 years ago or so
called The Bell Curve. You probably remember it. A Harvard professor and an MIT
professor wrote it. It argues that the "bell curve" (otherwise known
as a "normal distribution") provides evidence that some people are
genetically superior to other people, and offers the suggestion that
intelligence tests can and should be used to decide who gets access to
resources in higher education and who is, instead, guided to choose a career
that doesn't require a four-year degree. When you think about The Bell Curve as
offering a way to decide who gets access to higher education resources, it
doesn't seem all that controversial. (Indeed, the SAT is used like this.) In
fact, you can easily make an argument that not only is it in society's interest
to make good decisions about the allocation of educational resources, it's also
in each individual's interest. Letting a kid who will not do well into an elite
educational institution hurts the institution AND ALSO hurts the kid, because
coming out of college with a C- average is not especially good for job
prospects, but coming out of a vocational school with a certification as, say,
an electrician, offers a solid opportunity for economic advancement and
security.
But
see how a very controversial idea--eugenics--has, under the scrutiny of two
very smart people (the authors of The Bell Curve), been transformed from a vile
idea into a practical one? Who's to argue with the practical suggestions in The
Bell Curve? Why was the book so controversial?
As
an erstwhile professor of education, I thinking reading The Bell Curve, along
with some historical readings about human genetics and eugenics as well as some
other contemporary approaches to how to handle admissions to an elite school,
would make a great lesson in the liberal arts. But I'm immediately forced to
ask myself, okay, but for which students? Would such a lesson be appropriate
for middle school students? high school students? so-called "average"
or "remedial students"? How do you decide questions like this?
Personally,
given the state of American schooling today, I would be VERY hesitant to use
this lesson with younger students, or even most students at the college level.
I MIGHT use it for "honors" students at the undergrad level, and I
certainly WOULD use it for graduate students. But aren't I doing EXACTLY what
"The Bell Curve" argues for? Aren't I making decisions about
"access" to resources based on claims I'm making about the
intellectual abilities of different groups of students? Aren't I, myself, being
"elitist" in a way that belies my claim to being a
"liberal"?
You
wrote about the "unwillingness for students to listen to ideas that
are opposed to what they're taught." I agree with you: this is a problem.
I wouldn't want to use the lesson I just described with a group of students who
had been taught that the intellectual differences among students should ALWAYS
be used to make educational decisions. And that, unfortunately, applies to the
vast majority of American students, who have gone to high schools where
students are routinely separated into different "ability groups"
based upon prior grades and, often, test scores. For the typical American
student, those who are selected for "honors" classes DESERVE to be in
those classes because they have "earned" it through being extra
intelligent or extra good in academics, and students who are placed into
"remedial classes" DESERVE to be in those classes because they haven't
shown intellectual ability or academic discipline. And, what's more, many will
argue, the remedial classes are BETTER for those students, because they can be
taught in a manner that is better for them, along with other students who won't
make fun of them for their lack of knowledge or ability. Putting a bad student
in an honors class is a terrible thing to do to that students' self-esteem,
etc. etc.
Who's
right? I'm not entirely sure. There are strong arguments on both sides. These
arguments range from moral considerations (what's the right thing to do) to
practical considerations (what works "best") to even what I'd call
"conventional" considerations (what have schools been doing
historically).
The
reason I said that I would only probably use this lesson with honors
undergraduates or graduate students is because I'm fairly sure that those
students either HAVE experienced opportunities to consider such complicated
questions or have the MOTIVATION to struggle with them. (I'm thinking here
about graduate education students, who wanted to pass my philosophy of education
class so they can get a teaching certificate; they are motivated. However, in
my long experience, such a lesson will be very difficult to pull off EVEN among
the graduate education students because, frankly, most of them haven't gotten
very good educations themselves.)
Indeed, I found, in my years of teaching education students (i.e. those who wanted to go into teaching), that it is very difficult to know what will "go over" with students and what, instead, will lead them to rebel (or, more likely complain, whether immediately or on course evaluations). Education students are deeply conflicted, as a group and often individually, about what topics should be discussed in their teacher education classes, and subsequently what topics should be taught once they have their own preK-12 classes. Most teachers learn, after a while, to stay away from truly controversial topics and to stick to more conventional topics/content. (An example is above, when I said I probably wouldn't conduct a lesson these days about Tucker Carlson.) In the United States, especially, with so-called "local control" of schooling, it's quite dangerous for a beginning teacher to attract controversy before they are tenured, and the system works hard to "conventionalize" teachers during their probationary period. It's a rare teacher who GETS tenure in an American public school who will implement controversial lessons. Whether a teacher can get away with attracting controversial depends on many things, especially the overall qualities of the parent population, because school administrators aim, for the most part, to avoid parental complaints. (Parents of students in "honors" classes might be less likely to complain about difficult or controversial topics. Some parents might really want teachers to focus on "basic skills" rather than "liberal arts," or might believe that teachers have no "right" to offer opportunities for students to have political ideas different from the parents' own. Like I have said, this is very complex.)
Okay, enough for now. Next topic: whether "spreading money around" can solve social problems.
