<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">All:<BR>
<BR>
Nick Gier wrote:<BR>
<BR>
"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." <BR>
<BR>
The answer is easy? <BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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."<BR>
<BR>
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?<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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."<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
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. <BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
<BR>
P. S.<BR>
<BR>
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."<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett</FONT></HTML>