[Vision2020] Virtues Project Public Schools: What Happened?

[Ted Moffett]

All-

As Vision2020 rehashes the same arguments over and over about abortion, an
effort that, though redundant and boring, appears necessary, I thought in
the spirit of "rehashing," I'd make an attempt to get a response to an
argument I made against the adoption of the proposed "Virtues Project" that
was suggested for the Moscow Public Schools.  At that time I was rather
amazed at how naively many Moscow "progressives" were supporting this
effort, and I recall how opposition to this "project" was one issue where
Phil Nisbit and I agreed!  He thought it smacked of state supported religion
in the public schools, and, as I argue below, I thought such a program could
be manipulated in this manner.

Nick Gier responded to the Vision2020 post forwarded below that I would
receive an "off list" response.  I never received it.  I also include Saunda
Lund and Wayne Fox, just in case these UI Philosophy illuminati might chime
in...

Anyway, given that I doubt I will get much of a response in detail, perhaps
someone can answer the question of what happened to this proposed "Virtues
"Project" in the local public schools?

http://www.virtuesproject.com/index.php
----------
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2005-July/018594.html

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 their
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/20070130/3f0b2de4/attachment-0001.html