From jfsiege@ilstu.edu Sat Aug 31 08:03:53 2002 Received: from mailscan5.cac.washington.edu (mailscan5.cac.washington.edu [140.142.32.14]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.08) with SMTP id g7VF3q97073332 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:03:53 -0700 Received: FROM mxu2.u.washington.edu BY mailscan5.cac.washington.edu ; Sat Aug 31 08:03:52 2002 -0700 Received: from merlin.ilstu.edu (merlin.ilstu.edu [138.87.4.8]) by mxu2.u.washington.edu (8.12.1+UW01.12/8.12.1+UW02.06) with ESMTP id g7VF3pJX009295 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:03:52 -0700 Received: from jfsieg (line191031.ras.ilstu.edu [138.87.191.31]) by merlin.ilstu.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA12169 for ; Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:03:53 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <000e01c250ff$85ea42c0$1fbf578a@cas.ilstu.edu> From: "Janice Siegel" To: Subject: moral relativism versus absolutism Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:02:29 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Here is the whole article, "Lesson Plans for Sept. 11 Offer a Study in Discord" By KATE ZERNIKE: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/31/education/31TEAC.html I excerpt for you some of the meatier parts (everything above the *********** is a direct quote from the paper...my comments are in parentheses). Everything below the ****** is mine: The National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers' union, came under so much fire for a suggested lesson plan on tolerance that it has removed the material from its Web site. Yesterday, a Washington research group released curriculum written largely by conservatives, including William J. Bennett and Lynne Cheney, to counter what it called "the dangerous idea of moral equivalence" and "the usual pap about diversity" in other lesson plans. "If the enemies of open, democratic societies had used force to impose this historical and civic ignorance upon us and our children, we would consider it an act of war," reads one essay in the collection, by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. The foundation's materials advise talking to students about history and civics, as well as "President Bush's exemplary conduct" after Sept. 11, and having them read Ronald Reagan's statement to the nation after the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger as a tribute to American values. The criticism to the lessons on tolerance, Mr. Newberry said, is thinly veiled bigotry. "If you boil down the concerns of the opposition, what I would call the far right, ultimately it boils down to is: `I am not comfortable with my child being in school with someone who's different. I want to keep my child surrounded by people who are identical to me. The world is getting too diverse, and I'm scared.' " The anniversary looms over the opening days of school, and almost everyone agrees that teachers have to address it somehow - though the prominent conservative Phyllis Schlafly suggested in an article in The Washington Times this month that they should simply stick to subjects like math and English. (That was my favorite line). .... The N.E.A. Web site also included a link that urged teachers to avoid blaming Muslims for the attacks. Some conservatives mocked this as excessive political correctness; the union said they had taken quotes out of context. In the ensuing controversy, the competing union, the American Federation of Teachers, issued a statement saying that anything that seemed to blame America was "wrong." (The group added, however, that it did not think the N.E.A. was unpatriotic.) In all, critics say, the proposed discussion of the anniversary takes schools too far from their traditional business (which they define in an extremely scary way below) What history is included in the curriculum, the critics say, has too much emphasis on assessing the United States' faults. Some Web sites, for instance, encourage teachers to discuss with high school students the nation's role in establishing Israel, and how Muslims might view that. (WHAT A CONCEPT! DISUCSSION! CRITICAL THOUGHT! FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION!) "When you're talking about America throwing its weight around, supporting the Israelis, these are the things my teachers don't want to focus on," said John Pyne, the social studies supervisor for schools in West Milford, N.J. "They don't want to focus on the psychobabble thing. It's not like being a superpatriot, it's a question of what these people did was absolutely wrong." The Fordham Foundation collection accuses other lesson plans of unfairly raising doubts about the United States. "A careful, complete reading of our nation's history shows that, while we have surely had our failings, on the whole America's record is one of promoting peace and justice at home and abroad," Mr. Bennett, the former education secretary, wrote. "Teachers must be willing to say that there are moral absolutes." But those who wrote the plans say that ignores the reality of teaching young children. Rona Novick, the clinical director of the School Mental Health Alliance, who helped write the curriculum for the New York City schools, defended the lessons for their nuances. "How do you teach people that racism and killing people based on their outsides is evil and not face the history of evil in this country where African-Americans were routinely mistreated, belittled and hung?" Ms. Novick asked. "Where do you draw the line?" The unwillingness to choose sides reflects how much debate over what to teach has changed. Jeffrey Mirel, a professor of educational studies at the University of Michigan, noted that as the nation approached World War II, the N.E.A. produced a book starkly critical of those who would become the United States' enemies, calling them "ruthless men of force who care nothing for civil liberties and who mock all appeals to humanity." Now, Professor Mirel said, "there's a great deal of reticence among teachers to make a value judgment, to adopt a stance they feel would be perceived as arrogant or absolute." "The irony is," he said, "what the Islamic terrorists accuse us of is arrogance, yet here's a country that is so reticent to say our form of government is better than the kinds of autocratic, intolerant governments that they support." **************************************************************************** *************************************** my comments: so, the NEA appears reticent to make "value judgements", "to adopt a stance they feel would be perceived as arrogant or absolute." Can you just smell Socrates about to make an appearance in my comments????? Here are two ideas put forth by conservatives in this article: "It's a question of what these people did was absolutely wrong" says a teacher in NJ. But this comment by Bennett I find disturbing: "A careful, complete reading of our nation's history shows that, while we have surely had our failings, on the whole America's record is one of promoting peace and justice at home and abroad," Mr. Bennett, the former education secretary, wrote. "Teachers must be willing to say that there are moral absolutes." The part that bothers me is addressed by "Rona Novick, the clinical director of the School Mental Health Alliance, who helped write the curriculum for the New York City schools, defended the lessons for their nuances." She said: "How do you teach people that racism and killing people based on their outsides is evil and not face the history of evil in this country where African-Americans were routinely mistreated, belittled and hung?" Ms. Novick asked. "Where do you draw the line?" Yes, where was our absolute morality then? I was stunned to read this today becuase just yesterday I got into a discussion with colleagues and tried to explain the Socratic/Platonic idea of Forms...and tried to show them the uselessness of moral relativism by using an example of racial bigotry from our own (US) history. They tried to argue that "then" it was "OK" and that if you were raised to believe that, then it wasn't your fault because you thought you were right...to lynch people because of their skin color, to treat human beings as animals, to forbid opportunity based on skin color. !!!!!!!!!!!!!! I practically had a stroke. I brought to bear everything I knew about the Socratic ideals of questioning the status quo, of seeking truth without swallowing someone else's whole, of achieving union with the morally guided intelligence that directs our universe. When I first read this article, I was pleased to see "moral relativism" give way to "moral absolutism." Yes, evil exists. But I don't see that philosophy guiding Bennett's statement. I want to, but I don't. I see him saying that what we determine to be absolutely Right is absolutely Right and other people's Absolutely Right is Wrong. That's not the same thing. The good outweighs the bad, and if we are doing it, then it must be right. Absolutely. That's scary. Don't allow students to consider the ramifications of American politics? It's the thought police all over again. I wonder - has anyone else tried to address the September 11 issues from a Socratic point of view? Have you found any solace? Cheers, Janice Janice Siegel Assistant Professor of Classics Illinois State University Normal, Illinois jfsiege@ilstu.edu http://lilt.ilstu.edu/drjclassics http://lilt.ilstu.edu/drjclassics2 .