A Questionable Legacy

There has been so much going on in the news lately and no shortage of topics to discuss.  However, having a baby in the house has had a rather predictable impact on my writing.  That said, I would like to address the retirement of Jon Stewart.  All sorts of luminaries and dignitaries have spoken of his talent and ability to make others laugh and that cannot be denied.  They have talked about the groundbreaking nature of his program – The Daily Show.  That also cannot be denied.  However, what does his success mean?  That is my concern.

Jon Stewart once explained to Fox News that he is not to be taken seriously – he is a comic on the Comedy Central telling jokes about news-worthy events.  I could not agree more.  My concern is that his audience does not take the same view.  Recent polls suggest that a large number of viewers, mostly younger folks, used his show as their only source of news and information.  This is the first major concern I have about Mr. Stewart’s legacy and those who seek to continue the same.  He made no attempt at being comprehensive or objective; he made no attempt at providing context, historical or otherwise.  Yet, there are many Americans who were armed only with the information that Mr. Stewart and his crack team performed.  One might say that being mal-informed is better than being uninformed.  I would hate to live off the difference.

Second, much of what Mr. Stewart did was satire at various politicians, pundits and personalities.  An old tradition and one that he did quite well, this is not an attack on such tactics.  It is at times necessary to take pot shots at the popolo grasso in our nation’s capital.  However, with no other news digested by the viewer, one gets a horribly skewed view of our politicians, the jobs they are elected to do and the institutions in which they serve.  What is the cumulative effect of such slanted exposure?  When one considers that the growing number of young people who do not vote (yes, I know many other age groups don’t vote either) and their lack of engagement, what are the consequences for our Republic?  It is nothing good and such a thought should frighten those who care.

More than anything else, I’ve seen a growing number of people who cannot take the serious without the frivolous.  I’ve seen it with my students the most.  I assign them a serious topic to research and present to class and I have to make the caveat that they are not allowed to make light of the subject or goof off.  My students complain saying that the “fun” will make it interesting without considering that the inherent interest of a subject is interesting enough.  I’ve written before about the phenomena of education that must be “fun” or news presented as “entertainment.”  The question that I pose is – what is the impact of this approach?

This cultural trait is not to be laid at the feet of Jon Stewart.  He is a comedian doing his job and he did it quite well.  What is troubling is the importance that people placed in him – an importance he rejected often.  These people range from his viewers who used him as their sole source of news to those who sing his praises as something greater than he thought he should be considered.  As Neil Postman once said, the idea of being well-informed is not changing but what it means to be well-informed is.  I sometimes wonder if this is what it looked like when the Roman Empire began to collapse.

The Disappearance of Curiosity and Questioning

Considering the state of things, one could devote a lot of time trying to find a reason and ultimately, a solution.  Is it our education system or parenting?  Is it our indulgent and self-congratulating culture that revels in the importance of the inane or worse, the repugnant?  Where does our mental acuity begin to erode?  All the aforementioned conditions can hasten the erosion and the fact that we champion it does not help.  However, the breaking down begins with something basic – something we are naturally inclined to do but are incessantly taught, explicitly and implicitly, not to do.  We may be living at a time when we are losing our curiosity and questioning spirit.

Like most things that get me thinking, my original observations begin with my students.  They are nice enough, many with a helpful spirit.  However, I’m also faced with the problem that some of the students are not interesting.  They get good grades and have a way of engaging adults.  However, over the last fifteen years, they’ve been instructed by parents to focus only on grades and they’ve learned from schools that nothing is important unless it will be on a test or can be used toward their future monetary success.  Ergo, I have a classroom full of well-manicured receptacles. 

So, what is the ramification of this phenomenon?  There is a general lack of curiosity to ask questions and a willingness to endure questions.  Here is how it manifest itself:

Teacher:  How did we get involve in the Spanish-Cuban conflict?
Student:  We sent the USS Maine to Cuba to protect American interests (almost verbatim from the textbook).
Teacher:  True but why were we there?
Student:  To protect American interests.
Teacher:  From whom?  Who was provoking the U.S.?
Student:  Spanish?
Teacher:  Why would the Spanish antagonize the Americans?  They don’t want us involved.
Student:  Cubans? 
Teacher:  Why would the Cubans provoke the Americans?
Student:  So that we would join them?
Teacher:  Why would we join those who just attacked us?
Student:  (Shrugged shoulders) I don’t know. 
 

That would be an exchange from a more diligent student.  Most students would have folded like a cheap lawn chair not long after the second question.  As the student was reading at home, he or she read it without consideration for what they were reading.  They do not ask questions or otherwise, they would have come to those questions themselves.  Current high schoolers (it does go well beyond them, however) are not trying to obtain knowledge, they are trying to retain information until the test.  They are searching for grades (something that does not extend beyond the class or subject) and not enlightenment or understanding.

Where previous generations embraced questions as the pathway to knowledge, students today see it as badgering.  They haven’t considered the questions themselves and would not have the confidence in their thought processes if they had.  So, when confronted with a series of questions, they shut down and realize that what is being pushed for might not be that “important” long term (meaning, tests).   

Education is inundated with buzz words like “21^st century skills” to ready our students for jobs that “we are not even aware of yet” – certain they will help to reach our hidden destination?  Neil Postman suggested that our intellectual future lies in leaning on the best of our past.  If students can develop some intellectual stamina, treasure knowledge over information, if they know how to think, if they know how to problem solve (which requires a great deal of curiosity and questioning), it does not matter what appears in the future.  These are skills that can transcend all future obstacles.  Instead, we prep them for tests that indicate nothing of substance and suggest that everything not on the test is not important.  

Socrates once wrote about those who “will be of tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.”  We cannot accept the emphasis on information which does nothing to enhance knowledge and thinking.  We can’t abide with the emphasis on the need for “critical thinking skills” without a consideration for or appreciation of the process required to get there.  The more we dumb things down, the more precipitous the decline in curiosity or questioning.  It is a trend in desperate need for a reversal.      

 

War on Intellectualism?

As a country, we’ve always had difficulties with those who profess to know more than us.  It began with the British and to be frank, the British have been holding it over us for centuries.  What we did, collectively in the late 18^th and 19^th centuries, we took pride in the opposite.  We were a bit crude, we were loud and we thumbed our noses at the pretensions held by others.  Yet, there was still value on necessary knowledge – skills that could create or build.  It would seem we are hitting new lows and it will be difficult to re-emerge from our self-induced stupor.   

Probably the most obvious, lowest hanging fruit that I can bang away at is television and advertisement.  This time of year is always distressing for me.  It is not that I’m returning to work soon but I’m bombarded with commercials that tell kids that the most important part of returning to school is that they have the right clothes, the right technology and in general, appear the coolest.  On one hand, what else are they going to say but the emphasis is all consuming and teachers know that of which I speak – the first days of school and the first days after Christmas vacation are de facto fashion shows.  “Books?  Don’t sweat it, kid.  You’ll get further by looking better.” 

Of course, television programs consistently set new lows in depravity and stupidity.  It might be strange to hear but in other countries, as we once did, they have programs where people calmly discuss important political and social issues.  It is mature discussions on the events of the day or with the guest for the evening.  Today, the last refuge for such programming is PBS and even there, such discussion-oriented programming is rather thin on the ground.  The programs you would normally expect the most of but get the least from are news shows.  As I’ve mentioned before, I often watch the news wondering where the adults are.  Screaming and emotionalism are a far cry from what once watched even a decade ago.  As for reality programming, I don’t have enough space to address that issue.

 

Speaking of the aforementioned arena of education, we have the prominence of standardize testing.  Today, it is more important that you know an increasingly narrowed field of information – only what will be on the test.  From an early age, our students are taught that a large swath of information is not important because it will not be assessed.  From the earliest grades, we are teaching our students that the curiosity with which they entered school does not serve them well.  Only a passing test grade will land you into a good school and ergo a good career.  Yet, school officials on the national and state levels scratch their heads and profess dismay at increasingly worsening scores on international testing.  They’ve drunk the Kool-Aid and cannot think beyond their boxes.   

Lastly (only for the sake of this article), technology has emphasized that convenience is valued over substance.  Technology today, despite its proponents who champion educational apps and computer programs as its benefits, has done more to shorten our attention span and gnaw away at our intellectual stamina.  Additionally, for all the “enriching” aspects of technology, I don’t see people using it.  I see people pre-occupied with Twitter, Facebook and other social media outlets.  As a teacher, I’ve seen the degradation and it is disheartening and baffling.  Over the last couple of decades, we have treasured our students’ ability to emote and not think and we are paying for that misdirection. 

I hope the state of things is not as bad as I’m portraying.  I’ve come across students from time to time who buck the trend.  What makes it seem so dire is the prevalence of mass media and popular culture.  I find myself wondering if there is some network or programmer who would be willing to buck the trend and appeal to the country’s intellect.  Is there a celebrity who will do more for intellectual pursuits that posing for the “Read” posters found in libraries throughout the country?  It is fine to not put on airs or to lampoon pretentiousness but we must still value the mind and intellect.  If not, the great experiment might not last much longer. 

The Reign of the Heckler's Veto

Some years ago, historian Richard Pells wrote a book entitled Not Like Us: How Europeans Have Loved, Hated and Transformed American Culture Since World War II.  In it, Mr. Pells suggested that while many say, certainly in Europe, that the United States has had a disproportionate influence on the Old World, the facts suggest the opposite.  Over the last couple of decades, European jurists have protected the angry responders to provocative speech or action.  In American legal jargon, it is known as the Heckler’s Veto.  Instead of affirming the right to speech or thought, we side with those that are offended, sometimes to ridiculous lengths.  The examples from Europe have been headshaking but Americans have always felt they could smugly believe that it is not the way here.  According to the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals this past week, that has changed.   

A couple of years ago, in a California high school, a group of Mexican-American students decided to make a public display over Cinco de Mayo.  In doing so, they hoisted a flag onto a tree in front of the school and celebrated underneath.  In a childish tit for tat, a couple of non-Hispanic students decided this would be a good day to wear shirts with American flags on it – in response to the festivities in front of the school.  Then, the Cinco de Mayo celebrants had an issue with this and threats were levied against the non-Hispanic students – in this case it was physical violence threatened.  The administration, fearing that a disturbance could quickly ensue and escalate, told the non-Hispanic students they had to take the shirts off or turn them inside-out.  Otherwise, they would be forced to leave the school.  Thus was struck the first blow on behalf of the Heckler’s Veto – the restriction of one person’s speech because of the potential disturbances caused by others. 

The parents of the American-flag wearing students sued and the case went before the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Typically, the 9^th Court is known for a rather liberal take on the Constitution.  Being based in California and covering territory that includes the Pacific Northwest, its ideological foundations are certainly in line with a segment of that region.  However, it seems their most recent ruling is more illogical than most.  The 9^th Court ruled that, in accordance to precedent set by the Supreme Court and other lower courts, schools have the right to do what is necessary to preserve order and the learning environment.   

Typically, this type of latitude by school administrators have been directed towards mandatory drug tests as seen in Board of Education v. Earls (2002) as well as searching student property (lockers) as seen in New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985).  In 1988, the Court did decide in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier that newspaper stories about pregnant teens within the school (as well as sexual content) and students complaining about their parents were within the school’s purview to restrict.  However, one would have to surmise that the wearing of American flag emblazoned clothing hardly falls within the category of traditionally offensive or inappropriate material. 

Still, the jurists of the 9^th District have put a very strange twist on the traditional protection of speech, even in a traditionally restricted area like schools.  There is no Constitutional provision that says that speech can only be free if it does not offend.  Indeed, that is the most important speech to defend.  Presumably, this could go before the Supreme Court and hopefully, cooler and more measured judicial heads will prevail.  It clearly has not in California.  Europe has its own issues with this topic has they have, in some sectors, given up the fight and the importance of free speech and expression.  Should we give up ground on this issue, we will spend our last years on earth, in the words of Ronald Reagan, “telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Don't Know Much About History...

Perhaps the history of the errors of mankind, all things considered, is more valuable and interesting than that of their discoveries.  Truth is uniform and narrow; it constantly exists, and does not seem to require so much an active energy, as a passive aptitude of the soul in order to encounter it.

            Benjamin Franklin

In the mid-2000s, I was in Japan with a group of high school students as part of a cultural exchange.  As a part of the exchange, I as the teacher met the education director for the Niigata Prefecture.  At the time, a controversy had erupted over the presentation of Japanese history in school textbooks.  Typically, the Japanese are reluctant to address controversial issues publicly but the education director asked me, as a history teacher, of my thoughts on the textbook debate. 

Risking a possible international incident, I suggested that history is not history unless it is embraced fully, warts and all.  Otherwise, it’s propaganda.  The director smiled and I smiled for I realized he was a reformer and I did not create an international row.  Today, however, the issue has re-emerged in Japan over the atrocities committed by the empire during World War II.  Nationalist Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, in the aftermath of his recent visit to the controversial war dead shrine (Yasukuni), is attempting to shore up his conservative base and the issue of school textbooks is as impactful as it gets.   

Japanese schools are a model of, if nothing else, efficiency in providing a national narrative.  The Japanese have gone to great lengths to push and emphasize the importance of school lessons and the message that such lessons disseminate.  What is presented in Japanese schools is digested and learned to the letter and forms students their concepts of the various subjects – everything from math to history.  The idea of the proposed changes in the history textbooks could go a long way to change and shape how young Japanese students view their country and its past actions.   

Typically, Japanese history textbooks have an almost bullet-point style presentation – heavy on the core facts and figures and shallow on depth and context.  Some of the proposed changes (some examples recently published by the New York Times) are more a question of comprehensiveness than ideology.  A comprehensive discussion on the peace treaty that ended the war might include the typical Japanese view of the treaty, American objectives and the Japanese government’s response to those goals.  On a more nefarious and ideological level, the changes seek to whitewash the role the Japanese military played in the abuse and murder of civilians in Korea, China and a host of other subjugated countries at the mercy of the Japanese during World War II.     

In the United States, we have various groups who are seeking to re-write history.  In some cases, these groups simply seek to further explain or more greatly enumerate the details in which things happened.  However, other groups seek to re-cast history and its events to suit their own world view, regardless of facts.  Like these groups, the Japanese are playing a dangerous game.  What they sow here in 2014 in the form of whitewashed history textbooks could reap a risky flirtation with past mistakes.  George Santayana’s oft-quoted quip of history repeating itself might be trite but no less applicable.  Until the Japanese come to grips, as a culture, with their actions, the country as a political entity could become a wild card in the regional political power structure.   

In some ways, the effort of the Japanese is admirable as many places around the world are filled with those who bemoan the loss of who they are.  However, that same culture prevents the Japanese from fully embracing and accepting what it did as a country.  The salvation of any culture is a better understanding of its history – with all the blemishes and imperfections (and horrible abuses) that understanding brings.  The textbook crisis will be a turning point for the country and will drive it towards something new and better or toward something old and destructive.  History is not the romper room seen in elementary and middle schools (and high schools for that matter).  It is the most important subject one can pursue in order to have a better comprehension not only of ourselves but our culture. 

The Way They Should Go

This past week, an editorial in the Paris-based newspaper Le Monde discussed one of the most debated components of the teaching profession – to be nice or not be nice.  Of course, when I began my career, I was told not to smile until Christmas.  The thought was it was much easier to grow nicer than to grow stricter.  However, what the article misses altogether and what I was missing at the beginning of my career was that notions of “mean” or “nice” are beyond the scope of the question and not relevant.  Instead, the question should be about being a teacher.

In the past, I’ve alluded to the words of German thinker Martin Buber and his concept that a teacher’s job is to instruct the adult they will become – not the teenager they are now.  Therefore, my approach is not to be polite or mean but to be professional and keep the long term in mind.  In general, I have deadlines and restrictions on re-takes and make-ups.  Most teachers do but in the application of such policies, I respond to situations as a professional.  I will extend latitude when common decency dictates that I should.  If a kid’s parent has been in the hospital all weekend, it is as a professional that I extend the deadline where other students are not afforded such consideration.  For the student, I’m not being nice (though I’m surely sympathetic) but practical.  It is unreasonable to expect a student to complete an assignment if their parent was in the hospital all weekend.  To enforce the policy is not a case of being strict, it is being a jerk.   

However, more likely is the case that a student comes to me and ask for an extension on an assignment and I say no.  Again, not extending the deadline is not a question of being mean – as Le Monde editorial seems to suggest.  The question I have to ask myself is what is being learned from my action.  If the student learns in the future, be it in my class or another class (or a job), that it is not good to turn things in late, then a life-long lesson has been internalized.  Like parents, it does not serve me (and certainly not the students) to allow a kid to arbitrarily miss deadlines.  To do so could lead to the student suffering after they’ve left school where the consequences are more severe and less forgiving.    

 

What is the extent of my “niceness?”  I often say that I’m friendly but refuse to be friends.  Many teachers seek to be friends with students.  Like parents, that serves no one.  I’m not there to be a friend but to be a teacher.  My ability to do what is best for the student can be easily compromised with personal feelings or attachments.  Still, I seek to be friendly.  It would be equally ridiculous to take an adversarial approach to students I have to deal with for 182 days.  Like a professional, the best you can make these relationships, the better the students will perform.   

Now, those who argue against this approach say such teachers do not care for their students and do not care about what is best for them.  Typically, when a person’s response to a point is an ad hominem attack, it is never a good sign.  I’ve been told that I don’t care and I don’t understand what they are going through.  I should try to “meet them where they are.”  Such thinking is naïve.  When a teacher acquiesces to a student’s excuses (extraordinary circumstances notwithstanding) or a student’s plea to avoid consequences, the teacher is cutting the student’s legs out from underneath them – crippling them as they head into a world that cares very little for them.   

So what is a teacher to do?  It is not to be nice for niceness sake.  It is not to be mean because a student should be able to expect a certain level of decency.  The teacher should be the dispassionate advocate for the adult the student will become.  If a teacher does their job correctly, that student will enter the world with maturity and confidence and will have the benefit of having a mentor who sought what was best for the long-run rather than doing what was easier in the short-term.        

The Aristotelian Model

Were it possible to gather together all of the prominent educational leaders of the United States and pose the question – what is the purpose of education? – it would quickly deteriorate into a blizzard of buzz words such as “standards” or “technology.”  Such terms are bandied about in education circles, meant to certify the seriousness and legitimacy of the speaker.  It is part of the dogma of modern education.  It means very little for few people are considering the true design of education – for the pupil and for the state.  To do so, we must stop looking into the cloudy crystal ball and set our gaze on the past. 

First, it is necessary to define our terms so that when I say education, I do not refer to the universities for which the United States are uniquely known and admired.  I am referring to the primary education given to our students, primarily at the high school level.  With that understanding, education’s purpose has never been as modern theorists have professed.  It has nothing to do with an “investment in our future” and it certainly has nothing to do with the pursuit of success – monetary or otherwise.  These are only aspects of life that are the product of the values we impose on students.  But if the goal of our students is success, as defined by going to a good college and getting a good paying job, that does not serve the end that education is designed to establish.  In order to understand, we must visit the teacher at the Lyceum in Athens.  We must visit Aristotle.   

For Aristotle, education is the first step towards a virtuous life, the foundation of ethics that shape the person, which in turn shapes the society.  Furthermore, to say that education is the beginning would ignore a grave responsibility.  If it is true that education is a part of the process towards an ethical life, then education cannot end.  Teachers who speak of high school and college as things to get through in order to enjoy life are robbing their students of a basic tenet.  The ethics that define a good person (and in turn a good society) are nourished with the knowledge gleaned from further education.  Indeed, for a good society to continue to flourish, all members of said society must continue on the path of learning more and broadening their perspectives.   

As one continues on the path of education, the world opens up and provides the student a glimpse of what is possible through learning.  As we pursue what is possible, we learn that “possible” is not just a matter of what can be imagined but what can be done.  Today, the paradigm used in high schools, particularly with history, is to focus on what has happened that is horrible, corrupt and jaded – failures of man and the systems in which they worked.  The mark of “critical thinking” is often measured in the cynicism that we instill in students and then we bemoan the ambivalence they show towards the world, our country, its history and our potential.  Yet, Aristotle would suggest that continued education should emphasize the possible as we consider it intellectually and physically.   

Aristotle’s Politics suggests that one of the objectives of long term education is the merging of moral and intellectual virtues to make up a code of ethics that shape and direct our lives.  This is learned by repetition – both in deed and in word.  Therefore, moral virtues can be instilled and used to nurture intellectual virtues which are taught.  We don’t teach intellectual virtues any longer.  We teach short cuts, expediency and relevance – as if, in the pursuit of knowledge, there is such a concept as relevance.  The very notion amputates the mind, the intellect and therefore, our ability to understand the world around us and ourselves.   

Aristotle spoke of education at greater length, suggesting what such programs would look like.  However, it matters little what that is composed of if no thought is to be given to the foundations of education.  There are times when it seems like a hopeless battle.  Perhaps, as a school teacher, it is impossible to create something more – something better.  It was said that American civil rights activist and writer James Baldwin had to leave the pulpit to preach the gospel.  I hope that is not true for me and my convictions on education.  Aristotle, as a teacher, set a standard.  Perhaps I and others like me can re-establish that standard. 

The Case Against Howard Zinn

Over the last eighteen years, I have taught U.S. history with the last fourteen years spent teaching its Advanced Placement variety.  During those fourteen years, I’ve used American Pageant, one of the more popular textbooks used in AP classes throughout the country.  However, it is not the one about which people talk.  That distinction falls to the late Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States.  It is a favorite among liberals and some university professors.  Mr. Zinn, who died of a heart attack in 2010, wrote this account, ostensibly, to give voice to the historically mute.  Instead, he created a book that is neither history nor particular deserving of its reputation.   

At the center of the debate is the role of the historian.  Famed American historian Arthur Schlesinger once said that Howard Zinn was not a historian but rather a polemicist.  Through various professions, we see people moving away from objectivity and towards personal opinion.  Journalists have forgone any and all pretense of objectivity and use their paradigm to present and comment on the news.  Mr. Zinn made a career of doing the same through the prism of U.S. history.  History professor Eric Foner of Columbia University called A People’s History of the United States as “deeply pessimistic” and this partly explains Mr. Zinn’s impact on the study of the United States history.  We complain about young people having little knowledge and even less appreciation of our country’s history.  Why should they?  When the mark of a “good professor” or history writer is based on how much one tears down the country and its efforts, is it little wonder that teens find nothing appealing. 

Mr. Zinn and his supporters would likely say that the United States, as a people and as a government, have done horrible things and it would be irresponsible to not present such events.  Fair enough but the “crimes” of the U.S. are presented as something unique and not common place when imperfect people seek to create a perfect union.  Every country has done horrible things but the mark of a great country is the tireless effort to get it right.  The U.S. has displayed their crimes for all to see and have openly attempted to deal with its past mistakes.  For every mistake the country has committed, it has been followed by a sincere attempt to right the wrong.  This does not invalidate a nation and its objectives – it is a mark of a great country.  Mr. Zinn’s pessimism is misguided and ultimately harmful to the country in the long run.   

The second major criticism of Howard Zinn’s work, in particular that of his famed textbook, is that it fails in its usage of historiography.  German historian Leopold von Ranke pioneered the usage of primary and secondary resources as a means of better understanding the past and to do so more accurately.  However, Mr. Zinn never approached his study in that manner.  It was so bad, that other history professors have railed against it for years.  Christopher Phelps, an American historian, once said that many historians have looked at Mr. Zinn’s work with equal portions of exasperation or condescension.  So bad was his use of primary resources, historian Oscar Handlin of Harvard University said it was unfair to critically judge A People’s History because, unlike a true historical tome, the survey book was “patched together from secondary sources…torn out of context.”  Herein lies the more heinous component of Howard Zinn’s textbook – it depends on people not understanding history to be effective.   

I’ve often said that just because Oliver Stone’s JFK was pure propaganda and not history did not mean it was not a good film.  The same could be said of A People’s History.  Still, within the walls of academia, standards should be higher.  Recently, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels declared his opposition to Howard Zinn’s book from being used because of its bias makes it inappropriate.  If we are to rebuild the reputation of history instruction in the United States, we must begin with how we present the subject.  Mr. Zinn’s seminal work stands as the worst of historical scholarship and certainly, the American education system can do better.

The Business of Deception

As a history teacher, if there is one group of people that annoy me the most…well, annoy might be a strong word…it is conspiracy theorists.  I take my profession seriously and as a historian, I feel a certain obligation to be as accurate and objective as it is possible for me to be.  For most subjects, there is plenty to read and to turn to in order to obtain a better understanding of history.  For a handful of other subjects, the dearth of primary sources is an obstacle to painting a complete picture.  While trained and respectable historians see a scarcity of evidence as a responsibility to speculate with measure, others see it as a chance to build themselves up and muddy the waters.  Entering from stage left are the conspiracy theorists. 

That is not to say that conspiracy theorists cannot be entertaining – a convoluted megillah filled with menacing foreign spies, dull-witted and easily duped/manipulated American agents, unsuspecting and innocent civilian casualties, people who hang in shadows and others who work in plain sight.  What makes conspiracy theories so enticing is that they are so titillating and ultimately, a great deal more interesting than the truth.  In a society that is increasingly addicted to entertainment, we see the truth as mundane and look to the salacious or unsustainable as more “interesting.”  While, as Occam’s Razor suggests, the simplest answer is usually correct, people have made a great deal out of peddling the historical “smut.”   

Some of the most common characteristics of conspiracy theorists begin with disconnected lines of thought, put together has if they are connected.  One of the most famous examples of this is the highly entertaining and masterfully done JFK, Oliver Stone’s jumble of theories as to the cause of John F. Kennedy’s assassination.  The blending of real and fabricated black and white scenes was designed to fuse reality and fiction for the viewer.  The result?  I had a bunch of high school students who swore they now knew who was responsible for President Kennedy’s death.   

There is also a use of “facts” – a plethora of “facts” – that are designed to show an incontrovertible mastery of the situation.  People will usually believe those who are confident in their message, regardless of its validity.  Conspiracy theorists are also known for the citing of a myriad of sources, yet few of them are legitimate journalists or historians.  Most of them are fringe personalities that are just as radical and misguided as those who quote them.  Again, with each of these characteristics, they are hoping that the show of knowledge and expertise will convince when a close inspection of their information would not hold.  There is also a certain amount of narcissism – only they have the real truth.  It is part of the neurosis that pushes them to try and sell the lie.   

Likely the biggest, most recent examples of the conspiracy tendency are the Kennedy assassination and the attacks of September 11.  With most conspiracy theorists, there is a conflicting foundation for most of their arguments – one, the government is hypervigilant and capable of maintaining secrets and organizing deception at multifarious and duplicitous levels to keep their actions hidden but two, there is a plethora of evidence to suggest the dark deeds and collusion of the government.  The two seldom go hand in hand but these two assumptions are at the heart of conspiracy theorists. 

As a historian, I understand that sometimes, the truth will never be known and I must be ok with that idea.  However, as long as people struggle with the unknown, conspiracy theorists will thrive and prosper.  Instead, I try to teach my students the value of research and the assessment of a legitimate and not so legitimate sources.  There is a process, a time-honored one, that historians and students of history have followed to discover the past.  The absence of information is not a license to make up evidence.  Our job is to find the truth, not to ensure we will like the truth.  Historical truth is defined by what can be proven.  I also tell my students to beware of false prophets – the conspiracy theorists.  Some of these folks do not know better and others have agendas but all represent a threat to our national story and legacy. 

Looking for Answers Amidst the Din

There has been a great deal of talk in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.  I’ve been reluctant to chime in sooner because I think people have been too quick to do so and in the process, some pretty illogical utterances have been broadcast over the airwaves.  Worse are those who are taking the tragedy to advance a political cause which is as specious as it is manipulative and opportunistic.  I am speaking of guns and the laws which seek to limit the same.  As a teacher, my friends have asked me my thoughts on how to stop further school shootings.  I’m quick to admit that my current profession provides no insights.  While I have some thoughts on the issue, I’m at a loss to explain the unexplainable or to propose a strategy of defense against the indefensible.     

One of the first and most often attacked targets is, of course, guns.  In the interest of full disclosure, I am a gun owner and therefore, what I say on the subject should be understood in that light.  New gun laws and gun restrictions would not have prevented the events in Sandy Hook Elementary (the shooter stole the weapons he used) and so should not be considered as some special elixir for gun violence in schools.  The only thing such measures do is prevent law-abiding citizens from getting guns and making it a one-sided fight.  Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the country and the cities with equally strong anti-gun measures are some of the most violent.   

However, there is one proposed suggestion about which I’m not sure – arming teachers.  I would feel comfortable carrying or using a gun should I be unfortunate enough to need to do so.  Yet, I’ve been teaching for eighteen years and there are a great many former colleagues that I would not want anywhere near a gun.  Moreover, one or two teachers or a principal with a gun cannot possibly cover the size and scale of many public schools today.  One would have to arm a certain percentage of the staff relevant to where their classes are to make it effective.  Additionally, it is not practical or economically viable for school districts to initiate such a program and the pre-requisite training and screening that would almost certainly go along with such a policy.   

Others have pointed to a culture of violence and that is certainly something that should be examined; however, it is beyond the scope of government – or should be.  Comedian George Carlin once said that he would rather his kids watch two people make love than kill each other but the way our culture has developed is to put greater restrictions on sexual content in programs and video games than that of violence.  Rabid anti-gun advocates are quick to move away from this conversation because it has the potential of derailing their attempts to take advantage of this situation.  However, the cultural elements must be considered.  To that end, consider this.  In a country with a long and uninterrupted history of gun ownership, such incidents are new – in the last 15 years.  Therefore, guns cannot be a major cause of this but something that has changed over the same time period.  To answer this concern, one must turn towards our culture and the traits that have altered and changed over this period. 

I do not profess to have all the answers though I am aware enough to know, based on past experiences and experiments, what will not work.  The anti-gun crowd is hoping that a wave of emotionalism will do where logic and evidence failed in the past.  Meanwhile, a handful of people are looking at what types of entertainment we are viewing and enjoying.  In the end, twenty-six people are dead and nothing we do will change that.  How we respond could prevent the next occasion but that is not guaranteed.  The level of anguish stems partly from our inability to answer questions.  Our answers lie within a disturbed young man who decided to end it all after his rampage.  Perhaps, our future lies in psychology and a better treatment and understanding of those in need.  It is a good place to start.

To Pose or Not to Pose...A Protest

Yoga teaches us to cure what need not be endured and endure what cannot be cured. 

               B.K.S. Iyengar

It might not be too surprising that a school district in California is one of the first ones to implement yoga as a form of exercise and physical education as a part of its curriculum.  There are other school districts around the country that hold yoga classes as part of their extracurricular activities.  However, it is the school district in Encinitas, California that is coming under fire for its program.  While the school district maintains that the yoga classes are part of a general wellness program, critics (including some parents) see it as an interjection of religion into schools. 

In the interest of disclosure, I am a fan of yoga and on occasion, have participated in Bikram Yoga – the variety done in a very hot room.  I’m familiar, if not competent, with the moves and poses done in a typical yoga class and, insofar as my experiences are normal, know the extent to which such a class would be or could be construed as religious.  Yoga originated as part of a spiritual exercise designed to highlight the importance of aligning the mind, body and spirit towards a unified purpose and transcend what the person, alone, can achieve.  It stems from Hinduism and emerged a couple of hundred years prior to the life of Jesus.  While the practice arose out of a spiritual context, the modern “wellness” movement does not play that angle up too much as its participants vary in their religious affiliation.  However, one could say that the particular religion is not important because yoga can be used to highlight any religious training that seeks to unite the earthly with the divine.  In short, in my limited experience, there does not seem to be a concerted effort to push one faith over another in the course of a typical yoga class. 

With that said, our attention returns to California.  The Encinitas United School District Superintendent Timothy Baird answered charges of the appropriateness of yoga, saying, “It’s physical.  It’s strength-building.  It increases flexibility but also deals with stress reduction and focusing.”  In short, the school district is seeing the practice more from a point of physical and mental amelioration.  One of the district’s yoga teachers emphasized that her and others like her work hard to keep the language and the direction of the class ecumenical.  However, some parents are not convinced and have pulled their students out of the class.  They object to certain postures and phrasing that would elicit questions that run contrary to their faith. 

Based on my previous experiences, classes such as these cater their presentation of yoga to be applicable to any personal conviction.  Indeed, all faiths have, as a component of its practice, a meditation-like function and insofar as that is true, students and adults of all faiths can apply the meaning they wish.  Parents should see this not as indoctrination, which is not the intention of the class but rather a search for well-being and right mindfulness on the part of the student.  Some school officials are seeing some benefit from students able to work stress out of the goal-oriented and success-oriented model of public schools.   

On the whole, if we can encourage greater physical fitness and a greater mental awareness, away from the hectic, pell-mell environment that competitive education can sometimes engender, I say let’s have it.  The religious concerns and the threats of lawsuits based on the establishment clause of the First Amendment are capricious.  I understand the concerns of interjecting religion into a school curriculum and the dangers it poses.  While there are many who practice the art of yoga as a religious devotion throughout the world, many more do so simply as a way to better tap into what they are capable of if they venture beyond themselves.   

 

The Dangers of Childhood

A happy childhood is poor preparation for human contacts.
            Colette, 19th-century French writer

A happy childhood has spoiled many a promising life.

            Robertson Davies, 20th-century Canadian writer

About seven years ago, I worked with my mentor and friend at my previous school to learn more about the history of the community.  To do so, we flipped through and studied past senior yearbooks, which thankfully stretched back to the 1910s.  For anyone who has done so, one is struck by a single observation – the fact that the teenagers appear to be adults.  I think, in comparison and by every definition, students today appear and act younger.  Over the last five years, I’ve assisted a good friend and colleague in taking students to Germany and hosting German students in the U.S.  Once more, I’m struck by the maturity (both in appearance and actions) of the Germans.  Between these two experiences and over an 18-year teaching career, it is apparent that the way we treat and handle children and teenagers is ultimately doing them a disservice.   

One of the refrains I hear the most, particularly within my capacity as a teacher, is the concern that issue “A” is too much stress and responsibility upon younger people.  I have heard administrators and teachers alike mention high school students as children.  It is the culmination of our attitude towards them and what we expect from them.  We see them as helpless, as someone to be coddled and protected.  Therefore, we protect them from bad grades, failing grades and being held back a year.  The infantilization of our students is realized in the students’ perception of their own abilities.   

As has often been cited in international studies, American students have high opinions of themselves and their potential but produce very little.  It is the end result of our coddling.  We pump students up with praise at the drop of a hat, take away all possibility of failure and in the end, we get a gaggle of cocky ne’er-do-wells.  Everything the education system does is designed to create immediate results and little to no thought is given to the long-range impact of these decisions.   

The second feature of this condition is the child-centric approach to parenting, marketing and the like.  Modern family psychologists talk of the importance of praise and finding worth in everything the child says and does.  The fear of damaging self-esteem has created, in some cases, some intolerable people to be around.  It is not the students’ fault but it is a problem that we adults have created.  The question is what should be done?  Unfortunately, many people don’t see the problem.  If we cannot show people the problem, there is no hope of reaching a better path.   

Compounding the problem of officials, teachers and parents not recognizing the problem is the fact that they try to demonize those who object to their education philosophy.  Over my career, I and others like me have tried to make the point that we need to take a different approach to students.  What we receive is the criticism that we don’t like children, we want them to fail, etc.  They have no argument to back up their philosophy so the only thing left is to create a moral argument with reformers playing the role of the boogeyman.  They attempt to invalidate our position, not with a cogent argument of their own but with demagoguery.  It is frustrating and irritating.  It is one thing to have a discussion or debate and to fail to convince or convert others.  It is another thing to be discounted altogether and to be characterized as antithetical to your true beliefs.  I care for my students and want what is best for them.  The current environment is not it.   

Martin Buber, the German philosopher and writer, once said that teachers must focus on teaching the adult the child will become.  Even pop-psychologists like the late Steven Covey preached the idea of keeping the end in mind.  We as teachers and administrators cannot make decisions with regards to students based on what is best for them now.  Rather, we must consider the impact on the adult they will become.  The more we infantilize our students/children, the greater challenges we place before them as adults.

 

As Naismith Turns in his Grave...

Last week, I wrote an article on the benefits of hosting exchange students, or teachers.  Indeed, the joys of such an experience will far outweigh any negatives that can be conceived.  However, earlier this week, we took our German guests to a pre-season basketball game.  What I witnessed by the presentation of a modern-day NBA game is likely one of the worst experiences I have ever endured – certainly at a sporting event.  In the two or so hours that comprised the game, I was inundated with a cacophony of noise and nonsense, the likes to which I have seldom been subjected.  Admittedly not a basketball fan, as a sports fan, it is nearly impossible to enjoy a modern basketball game. 

As it was a pre-season game, the amount of people who arrived early to check out the ambiance was few and scattered.  This makes the first annoyance I felt all the more perplexing.  Microphone in hand, a loud local radio personality nearly screamed, wondering if people were ready for some basketball.  Before I had time to overcome the audio assault and compose an answer in my head, he proceeded with a litany of announcements, each of which required more “energy” and “enthusiasm.”    In the minutes leading up to the game, the handful of fans were given a club volume level of the latest popular songs.  Part of me felt that, “surely, the noise will go away during the actual game and I need to endure it a tad bit more.”  Don’t get me wrong, I like new popular music as much as the next person (“I just met you, this is crazy…”).  Yet, at this point, I just wanted to get to the game.

Once the game began, the loud speakers shoe-horned in the latest, greatest club music around every millisecond it could.  During the game, an unceasing amount of demands (pleas?) for participatory chants from the fans prevented the slightest chance of hearing the actual game taking place before me.  While I’m not a fan of the sport, like my good friend and sport aficionado is wont to say, I like to hear the squeaking of the shoes and the calling and maneuvering of the players.  Yet, the production value was relentless.  Topping the shrill of the music was the arena announcer who screamed at us to do this or that.  I work for a living and my whole life, I’ve never met a more demanding, demonstrative and screaming task master.  Every time the sparse crowd attempted to recover and enjoy some peace and quiet, the amps would pulsate with more “requests” to cheer or stomp our feet and the fans, in a near Pavlovian reaction, responded.

Now, I’m more than willing to admit that my reaction is due simply to the fact that I’m getting old.  However, I walked away from the arena slightly deaf, fighting through some ringing in the ears and wondering what it all meant.  What does it mean that people seem to need or find enjoyment in this constant level of stimulation?  What is this the result of?  Computers and various hand held devices have rendered people so incapable to maintain any focus or interest that it has turned basketball into an orgy of sound, chaos and frenetic energy.  The game is not enough and it made me wonder what the fans were valuing. 

Sadly, it is even seen in churches.  My wife and I have visited so many and I get an immediate urge to flee when I see screens over the pulpit.  I have images of PowerPoint presentations on the Gospels or the Prophets, complete with music and video.  Again, I’m drawn to the question, is the core product no longer enough?  I’m often told, and it is not totally without merit, that we must appeal to a new demographic who require new things in the presentation of education, faith or something as unimportant but fun like sports.  However, the church and the school have traditionally served as a warning or barrier to the trends in society.  It might not be a bad idea for sports

I left the arena that evening tired and disturbed.  I worry what the impact is on my students and their ability to learn.  We are turning our people into Pavlov’s warning and with the exception of some of my colleagues, I worry that we are spitting into the wind.  I worry that, ultimately, we will go so far that it will be difficult to reverse the effects.  Why can’t people just agree with me? 

Opening Doors and Eyes

When I was young, foreign cultures were all around.  In the city of Baltimore, there are various groups in their own neighborhoods, complete with their own shops, hawked in their own languages and offering items that were unique to their culture.  As a child, my parents took me to Greektown, Little Italy, the remnants of Corned Beef Row and Little Bohemia.  As an adult, I have been fortunate enough to travel throughout the world and see amazing things.  However, there has been one experience that has topped them all – being hosted by and hosting someone from another country. 

In 2000, my now-wife worked for a non-profit that sponsored and organized student exchanges.  It is here I met her as a teacher tapped to take students to western Germany.  I was placed in the home of a teacher and experienced a “different” culture in a way that no other can.  No matter how many cultural trappings might be found at the nearby Marriott, it is nothing compared to the immersion of staying and living with a family.  I’ve also stayed with two families on two separate occasions in Japan.  Yet, as special as that was, it was also wonderful to share my culture with someone else.   

We have hosted teachers from Germany or Japan and taken them to visit historical sights within my own city and area but also have exposed them to some of the hidden treasures of my country’s culture.  For example, it is interesting to visit a cemetery to experience one of the most intimate of one’s culture – how we experience and express death.  I take them to worn down, partially torn down areas to show what used to be – in our rush to always create something new, it is important to take some time and enjoy and understand what once stood in its place.  Just as important is to visit those places that represent where we, as a culture, hang out – every place from the local watering hole, to the nearby park, the neighborhood movie house or any place that represents what we do when simply living.  We might find it difficult to see the specialness in the mundane or ordinary, but it is not that way for the visitor. 

As much as I’ve enjoyed the food of a culture, it can make for memorable and enjoyable moments when showing a foreigner the intricacies of our cuisine.  The experience that a traveler has with another’s food culture in their home country can be underrepresented or misrepresented.  Therefore, to show the “real thing”, as it were, is rewarding.  I think of how amazing local seafood or Mexican food, Jewish cuisine or something simple as ballpark food can be an eye-opener.  Think of your favorite local food or favorite place to visit and then imagine what it would be like to experience it for the first time again.  To see a guest do just that fills one with a mixture of delight and envy. 

There are many groups that sponsor foreign exchanges.  Sister Cities International is probably one of the largest, though not every city is as active in exchanges as might be seen in another city.  Many foreign language departments at local high schools or colleges often sponsor such exchanges and it might be worth your time to explore those options.  Some families I’ve spoken with have expressed reservations – we have a small house, we don’t have the money to do something every day for the student, what if they don’t like their stay, etc.  There are many reasons why someone might divert themselves from the opportunity to host.  However, these travelers have accepted this opportunity to stay with a family because they want to move beyond the obvious and see something that few explorers can.  You can be a part of that.