[Vision2020] "Virtues" Program In Public Schools

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

All:

Nick Gier wrote:

"Melynda raises the question of methodology and how the Moscow Virtues 
Project will choose its virtues.  The answer is easy: it will be done through a 
process of consensus building from a broad representation of our community."  

The answer is easy?  

Let's consider the implications of this statement regarding a specific 
ethical debate that is very divisive and emotional in our community that involves 
real world results of what "virtues" or values would be promoted by a "virtues" 
program in the public schools.  I have put the word "virtue(s)" in quotes over 
and over below because of the difficulty of coming to a definite conclusion 
that all can agree upon as to what exactly this word means in the context of 
differing religious views, etc.  

I surmise that if we truly had a broad representation of all the beliefs 
regarding "virtues," with all the real world implications of these "virtues," for 
all adults in the Moscow School District, we would find that the majority do 
not want their children to be taught, to pick a very divisive and emotional 
issue, that homosexual behavior is as normal and acceptable as heterosexual 
behavior.  I have not surveyed all in MSD on this issue, so perhaps I surmise 
incorrectly, but I guarantee there would be radical and polarized disagreement on 
this issue.

It is a well known principle of our democracy that minority values are 
protected from the impositions of majority rule in many cases.  We do not insist in 
all cases what "virtues" or values we will enforce using the institutions of 
the state (e. g. state funded public schools) when there are minority values 
that contradict the majority, especially when applying the legal principle of 
separation of church and state.  Consider the furor in France recently over the 
banning of the veil for females in France's public schools for a good example 
of a radical disagreement over what "virtues" or values are to be promoted or 
discouraged in the public schools dealing with religious issues as they relate 
to real world behaviors.

But, in my example I mentioned above, allowing "virtues" to be determined by 
"consensus by a broad representation of our community" could result in the 
imposition of a majority "virtue" or value onto a minority, in the actual real 
world results of teaching these "virtues" or values in the public schools, as 
they relate to the academic subject of, and actual behavior relating to, 
homosexuality. Indeed, in the real world of many public schools, a punitive view of 
homosexuality, rather than an approach that would attempt to avoid either 
promotion of or discouragement of homosexuality, in regard to subjects taught and 
behavior accepted or censored, has been, sadly, the norm, though not usually 
through an actual organized officially recognized program of promotion of 
"virtues."

Perhaps homosexuality, as it might be impacted by any beliefs as to the 
nature of "virtue" in the public schools, should be approached neutrally, allowing 
academic study of the subject, but taking no overt stance on the moral 
implications of the issue as it impacts students behavior.  Is this even possible?

But as I mentioned, minority "virtues" or values in some cases do have legal 
protection from the imposition by the state of majority "virtues" or values 
upon the minority.  This is one of the results of the firm separation of church 
and state: though some following a given religion engage in behaviors that 
most in the dominant culture find discriminatory or unethical, they still receive 
legal protection to continue their "questionable" behavior, in some cases.  
Christian Scientists may be forced to provide medical care for their children, 
regardless of their religious "virtues" or values, but Christ Church, or their 
associates, can discriminate legally against women on the Logos School board.

It is impossible to not impose upon children in the public schools some of 
the values and "virtues" of the dominant culture, and those of the teachers, 
administrators and parents involved, nor should we seek to do so.  I agree with 
those who insist that there is no such animal as a "value free" education that 
approaches students only from an academic objective stance where the schools 
merely impart knowledge and/or skills, promote the well being and physical 
health of students, and totally avoid religion, morality and "virtue."
Honesty in test taking, promoting physical health, and protecting students 
from violence, all contradict, in the requirements of the real world, the "value 
free" theory of education.

However, perhaps the public schools should not be so blatantly in the 
business of teaching a specific "virtues" based program.  This opens the doors for 
any group who does not agree with the exact "virtues" or values, and there 
implications in real world behavior or subjects being taught to their children (the 
devil is in the details, as they say), claiming the public schools are 
teaching "virtues" or values that are a stealth form of "religious" education in the 
public schools, that refutes their religious "virtues" or values, and in fact 
undermines the separation of church and state.  And also might lead to the 
result, to return to my earlier specific example, that in a school district 
dominated by those who believe fervently that homosexuality is a grave violation 
of their "virtues," that homosexuality might be punished as a behavior and 
banned as an academic subject. 

Many in our community already view the public schools as engaging in the 
promotion of a "stealth" state supported religious agenda that they fervently 
oppose.  To openly and aggressively promote a "virtues" agenda in the public 
schools might reinforce this perception.

It is valuable and instructive to have a discussion from a technical 
philosophical approach to defining what "virtue" exactly is, but I think such a 
discussion will not come to a definite enough conclusion that can be defended based 
on facts and logic to allow this conclusion to result in a program of 
aggressively promoting a specific "virtues" based program in the state funded public 
schools, as the program impacts all the real world implications of these 
"virtues" or values regarding state promotion of religion, what subjects are or are 
not taught and/or what exact behaviors among children will be censored or 
encouraged.

However, I think a multicultural academic program that addresses the approach 
to "virtue" that many religions and cultures now and throughout history have 
adopted would be of great value in the public schools, at least at the high 
school level, maybe earlier.
I think we should require extensive mandatory education in the public schools 
regarding all the major world religions, and the "virtues" they have 
promoted, and include any religion of any student who wishes to have the beliefs and 
"virtues" and values of their religion included in the academic curriculum of 
the school they attend.  Of course such an approach might not be appropriate 
for the early grades.  This is not state supported endorsement of any religion, 
but important academic education about critical fundamental realities of the 
world we live in, allowing all viewpoints expression.

This inclusion of the teaching of "virtues" as they relate to the wide 
variety of religions as an academic subject in the public schools could be 
beneficial for very practical reasons, and would open the subject to debate about the 
disagreements regarding what "virtue" exactly is, rather than "spoon feeding" 
definite conclusions on this subject to students.  I am naive enough about the 
value of open debate and disagreement about religion and "virtues" that I 
think such a debate among high school students or perhaps even in the earlier 
grades could encourage more tolerance among those of differing viewpoints, both 
among those thought of as "secular," and among the faithful of different 
religious faiths for each other.

Religion is a powerful force in determining the behavior or human beings on 
many levels, political, economic, sexual, etc. And there is no doubt that the 
ignorance among many in our society regarding the astonishing diversity of 
religions, and differing approaches to "virtue" in our world, contributes 
negatively to many decisions being made by the public.

One of the fundamental goals of public education in a democracy is to seek to 
achieve as much as possible an informed and well educated electorate able to 
think independently and critically about all issues of fundamental importance 
to society and the world to enable the electorate to make wise decisions in 
voting.  A public not well informed about critical issues in the world, or a 
public that is easily manipulated or misled due to a lack of independent critical 
thinking skills, undermines the goals of a healthy democracy. 

It is clear that the public schools in the USA do not achieve the aims of 
education mentioned above very consistently.  The ignorance and prejudice of many 
in the USA regarding Islam is a good example of how the public schools have 
failed to achieve a well rounded education on all critical issues, such as 
religion, that has had serious and troubling real world implications in the way 
the electorate has voted based on their fears and beliefs about Islam in how 
this impacts the manner the current War on Terror has been pursued by our 
government.

Ted Moffett

P. S.

Now that I have argued against a specific program of aggressive promotion of 
specific virtues in the public schools, I have succeeded in contradicting 
myself rather severely, insofar as I just argued vehemently for the value of the 
promotion of an extensive religious diversity education in the public schools 
as a "virtue," though I am not sure what the exact "virtue" or "virtues" are 
that I was attempting to promote from a technical standpoint in the study of 
ethics.  I can hear the howls of protest from those who think this diverse study 
of world religions in the public schools is the promotion of a "stealth" 
religion, namely "relativistic agnostic secularism."

But at least I shed some light upon my statement that what "virtue" exactly 
is as defined my many different segments in society, and what "virtues" should 
be promoted in the public schools based on these differing views, is a very 
difficult subject to parse and gain agreement upon when considering all the 
behaviors and subjects that this concept impacts.

Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050702/55031fcd/attachment-0001.htm