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. 

Carte Blanche?

Sometimes we do a thing in order to find out the reason for it.  Sometimes our actions are questions not answers.
            John Le Carre, A Perfect Spy 

Over the last few days, it has been revealed that the National Security Administration was monitoring German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone (as well as Americans’ phone and internet purchasing activities).  The NSA explained away its action by saying one, everyone does it and two, it was not collecting specific details.  While some Americans are outraged, Germans are more appropriately angry and Ms. Merkel, who was raised in the surveillance state of East Germany, understands all too well the implications.  From the American point of view however, the cries of injustice ring a little hollow.  The idea of government espionage and the protesting Americans’ accusations have technological, societal and moral components and implications.

First, the issue of U.S. government espionage is a product of technological advancements that Americans have increasingly demanded.  Over the last couple of decades, we have required from technology greater power and access to our normal lives and previously considered private domains.  We incessantly and without thinking give our information over at the drop of a hat so that credit card companies and grocery stores can monitor our purchasing and food consumption habits.  Yet, we are outraged by our government’s ability and willingness to use technology to monitor the behavior of foreign leaders (or us) – be they friendly or not.  We demand our lives be open books for our own benefit and feign shock and dismay that others are also benefiting.

Second, this is a societal issue.  We demand that our government know everything.  When the September 11^th attacks happened, some called for answers and wondered why our government did not know.  When Americans are killed overseas, we want to know when the chain of command broke down, why and what the government plans to do about it.  As a society, we are constantly amping up our expectations of government and then wonder why they are listening to or recording everything.  We cannot have both concepts.  We have, over the decades, created a myth that a government can and should be capable of all matter of things and there is a price for that knowledge. 

Lastly, there is a moral implication to the American outrage.  Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and others of that ilk have used various methods not dissimilar to our government to hack into and dispense information in such a way as to compromise the United States and, at least initially, get away with it.  Some American protestors hail them as “heroes.”  It would seem, at the least, there is a certain moral relativism that makes the charges as it relates to the government’s actions.  It’s legitimate to question the morality of the U.S. government and its efforts to monitor as much as possible but what are Americans doing to encourage this behavior?  By our acceptance of one, do we not accept the other?  Those who point to the actions of the government leading to the response are suggesting that the end justifies the means.  Such arguments are on shaky moral ground.   

It is not surprising that our intelligence efforts are so pervasive.  I don’t prescribe to the attitude that “those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.”  That argument is ambiguous and diverting.  The answer lies with Abraham Lincoln.  When he describes a government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” he is not speaking of just the liberties we enjoy as citizens of this democracy.  He is also speaking to the responsibilities of American citizens.  We are not casual observers of the things that transpire in our government and in our society.  We allow it and in doing so, bad things happen.  I do believe that our government should have secrets in order for it to do its job and espionage is essential.  It’s also evident that our expectations and demands of government are not realistic.  A traditional liberal approach requires a paternalistic government.  I think that is dangerous and it might be what we have.

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 Road Less Taken

In the aftermath of September 11, I heard stories of people who, once they realized they were assumed dead, set out to live a different life – one free from the obligations and responsibilities of the present life.  When I first heard those stories, I considered the motivations and emotions behind that kind of decision.  I considered a person who felt trapped – by a wife, by kids, by a job that never appealed to them, by bills that piled high and by the friends, family and expectations that are part of a life with 30 or 40 years of experience.  As I considered the motivations of such a drastic, draconian behavior, I must admit that there is something alluring, enticing about dropping “off the grid” as it were. 

My next thought was if something like would even be possible nowadays.  Do you think it is really possible for a person to disappear but still exist?  Could one avoid cameras?  Could one avoid the police and various other agencies, as well as pictures on milk cartons and the like?  One would have to live by cash and would have to earn cash in a way that would not require identification.  We have an entire underclass in the United States who does this out of necessity but the subterfuge is more concentrated with work.  Imagine ducking the ubiquitous cameras and other technological trappings that surround us and remain anonymous, hidden.  It would seem to be a near Herculean task – so much so, it forces one to wonder if it is even possible.  It is just the U.S. or could someone drop off the map easier in England, Japan, Germany or Greece?  Does our technology and all-encompassing society create the desire to leave it all behind?

In the 1800s, Americans could escape easy enough because of our existence along the wilderness frontier.  Indeed, one theorist suggested that the frontier served as our cultural and societal outlet.  The people who went west were not just running towards fortune but also running away from the law, a wife with kids or from oneself.  As our frontiers have closed, we have turned upon ourselves in some ways and in doing so, we have made our lives more challenging and potentially more suffocating.  Most other countries might not understand stand this but our cultural wanderlust has characterized us and our inability to do it now without creating a true fresh start can be frustrating. 

Last week, a woman who left her family in Pennsylvania and disappeared in 2002 re-emerged in Florida.  For all those years, she had managed what many think is impossible and a few consider desirable.  She initially left her family upon feeling a sense of dread and helplessness at a pending divorce and losing her home by joining up with some caring didicots who were hitchhiking to Florida and asked her to join them.  She did and was spending the last seven years of her life with a man who, together, did odd jobs and worked only in cash.  She now has to face her family after giving up a life that she had clearly not envisioned.   

I’ve grown frustrated with technology and the seemingly comprehensive nature of the world around us.  I escape it by going camping and trying to remove myself from the phone my boss forced me into a few years ago.  Reading over this, it sounds like, in a few years, I’m going to be in a cabin in Montana, writing my manifesto and I’m very cognizant that it is something that needs to be avoided.  I’m not seeking to remove myself from people but from our inventions – like laptops, the internet, etc.  I have a beautiful wife and a wonderful life and have little to want or need.  Still, from time to time, I wonder about the liberating sense of leaving everything behind, hitting the open road and, as Bob Dylan said, “go out and see what others need.” 

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? 

Queuing Up For Community

When several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life.

            Aristotle, Politics  

For those above the age of forty, there might be memories of a community feel to your neighborhood where children played with one another, parents chatted and shared the dispensing of discipline and a general protectiveness of the neighborhood.  Strangers in the neighborhood were welcomed but asked their business.  New neighbors were greeted and made to feel a part of the communal esprit de corps.  In a great many neighborhoods today, that feeling no longer exists.  People are sequestered in their air conditioned homes and only come out and communicate with neighbors when the lawn needs mowing or watered.  However, I have experienced another example of community – the queue. 

About ten years ago, I was attending a baseball game and parked in the lot of a closed K-Mart, one I’d used before and one where about fifty others were using as well.  We made the long but manageable trek to the ballpark, enjoyed the game and returned to the lot only to find nearly seventy cars had been towed.  As the various fans gathered, we began to fan out, looking for a sign and sure enough, behind a tree, was a sign warning of towing.  In a society increasingly known for looking out for oneself, we gathered together and made a plan.  One person called the towing company to find out the cost of getting our cars out ($150) and another sought out the nearest ATM machine.

Together, we walked about two miles to the towing company and approached the window together.  In the midst of this line, I discovered that we were together, bounded as one in the face of injustice.  Injustice might be a bit overwrought but we did develop a camaraderie that night as we helped one another with answers to questions.  People before us told us the procedure upon stepping up to the company’s representative, jokes were shared that mocked the officiousness of the company and a general affinity for one another who shared the same predicament was evident. 

Yet, these types of instances need not be all bad.  Eight years ago, I queued up to vote in the presidential election.  People were excited and represented those willing and desirous of doing their civic duty.  Early on in my wait, it was discovered that a young man near the front was voting for the first time.  The citizens clapped and congratulated him and upon his exit, he was congratulated once more, this time with high-five slaps and handshakes.  I’ve always felt this congeniality when voting before and since but that day, it brought home for me the nature of Americans and their sense of community.

In the face of recent technological breakthroughs and cultural changes, there is much to bemoan about the loss of community.  I also honestly believe the future of our community is dependent upon the revival of physical, actual (non-virtual) communities.  Yet, there are moments where people break from their own lives and work and commiserate with one another in a genuine togetherness.  I wonder if this phenomenon is common in other countries.  Perhaps, other countries have not seen their sense of community erode the way it has here in the States.  I know that the U.S. is not devoid of this attitude and there are plenty of examples of it but it is not as strong as it once was.  Perhaps, we can take a lesson from the queue.  There is still something within us that craves this feeling. 

The Troubles for the Discipline of History

Last week, a colleague of mine interviewed for a job as an advisor to social studies teachers within a local school district. People like this provide support, resources and in-service workshops on the topics of social studies. During the interview, he was asked what are the biggest troubles facing the discipline. Now, it would be easy to hit this one out of the park but my friend had to be careful. What troubles the discipline is something about which school officials do not want to hear anything negative.

If you are a regular reader of this blog, first, thanks, second, you have read my takes on technology. However, I do not want this is to be a tired refrain. I have what (I feel) are solid and common sense reasoning for my suspicions of technology. School districts throughout the country search desperately for something that could miraculously raise their test scores, gain special recognition and if they are really lucky, get a mention in U.S. News and World Report during its annual education issue. Yet, it is within their supposed salvation that school districts could be embracing its destruction.

The first of the two major problems facing social studies education is the prevalent use of technology. There is no discrimination or caution on how and what to use with regards to technology. In essence, technology could prove to be as destructive to the learning process as the teacher twenty years ago that just showed movies. What school districts fail to understand is that if technology is to be used, it must be as a tool, not as the means to the end. Often, in workshops, I hear about websites that bring the student into history. There are sites that allow the student to pretend they are settlers setting out to cross the plains. There are sites that allow the student to pretend they are soldiers in the trenches of World War I. Under the auspices of teaching the child more about its respective subject, it does the exact opposite. Remember, all websites and all programs are designed with a business paradigm, not an educational one. The other dangerous part of technology is the professed ease that it allows the student to explore history. The exploration of history is not easy. It has never been easy. It should not be easy. Our constant search to create “fun” and “easy” ways of studying history is destroying the subject and students’ ability to truly understand it.

The second major problem is that with the focus and reliance of technology, we are moving away from the tools traditionally used to better understand the subject. Each discipline requires particular skills to truly understand it. For history, a reading subject, students must be able to critically read a text, understand point of view and understand the information within a historical context. It is this last part that is most undermine by technology. Today, the internet is used as a fact gathering instrument (if it is used academically at all) and it is creating increasingly shallower well of information. To truly understand history includes an ability to work through an in-depth text and to forego, indeed to be suspicious of, snippets of information. Historically, dictators and manipulators have used bits of information, and people’s unwillingness to demand more, to sway people down horrible paths. Technologically, we are doing it to ourselves. History requires the taking in of large amounts of information. If our students lack the intellectual and academic stamina to endure this, it jeopardizes the future of the discipline.

Some might find this an odd thing to get worked up over. However, this is my discipline, my passion and, in some ways, my life. Furthermore, I care deeply about my students. I’m not interested in what is good for them now. I care about what is good for them five, ten, fifteen years down the road. The German philosopher Martin Buber once said that a teacher should not just instruct the child in front of them but the adult they will become. That is what I seek and not so much on what will allow them to pass a six-week period or a semester. Sadly, the opposite is the rule of thumb for education specialists and officials today. They search frantically for what will bring up scores today with little understanding or care for the long term impact of their decisions. This needs to change.

Not Your Father's Protest

One of the lasting impressions of the Occupy Wall Street movement that swept the country is the rather vapid nature of the protestors’ arguments and their inability to express their point beyond the slogans they yell at the top of their lungs. The Egyptian revolution that booted Hosni Mubarak from power have replaced his autocratic rule with two parties who have not shown the capacity or the ideological wherewithal to implement the democracy so craved by those in the streets. What is the reasoning for these two scenarios? It might have much to do with social networking.

The counter-culture movement of the late 1960s can be described in many ways, and has. However, the essence of the movement was a set of literature, discussions and an evangelist’s zeal to recruit and spread the message. Authors like Hermann Hesse, Jack Kerouac and Henry David Thoreau heavily influenced the movement, as did the eastern philosophies; each used to reject the predominant culture of the country. The movement also depended on group discussions to work through their philosophy. Whether gathered in salons or bars, the movement was dependent upon the person’s ability to express and explain his or her ideas. Lastly, the leaders of the movement were able to go throughout a campus or an area and make their point, argue against those who disagreed with them and string together cogent arguments. Personally, I think the counter-culture movement was filled with naïve and spoiled children whose arguments were Pollyanna but they studied, they read and had the capacity to make their point. Today’s social networking undermines what used to be necessary for protests.

Let’s take the example of Egypt. What best explains a movement to get rid of one dictatorship in lieu of two; two political parties that do not treasure or purport democracy or participatory government? Social networking and media are not a medium for an exchange of ideas but of slogans and chants. Yet, when one is speaking of ideas as complex and potentially dangerous as the protest against government, it would behoove activists to have a clearer idea and goal in mind than just removing a leader. I sincerely believe the reason for the elections of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi, if I’m to believe the rationale for the jettison of Mr. Mubarak, is due to a lack of a discussion and lack of consensus on what type of government they wished. While it may be true that the two groups are more connected to Egyptian values and culture, they do not express what the protestors said they wanted – a greater political voice, more say in the running of the government. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafi do not represent a possible government that would tolerate too much opposition. Recent further unrest, I’m afraid, are a sign of things to come for the mis-represented Egyptian people.

In the United States, the voice of the 99% is as incoherent and divergent as one would expect from 99% of anything. They speak in slogans that are material for their posterboards. The vast majority of people at some of the larger protests do not seek the betterment of society but the destruction of the same. Indeed, their numbers suggest they are actually the 1%, if that. There is no literature or search for truth in these protestors. The fact that they are content with the slogans and mantras and signs suggest that the truth holds no interest. The protests and the gatherings are spontaneous in the worst sense of the word. They exist without an examination of the facts of their case. They exist without an examination of possible solutions. Indeed, these protests exist without much thinking at all. They were the product of “meet here” and “click like” if you embraced the idea of muddling up the works.

It is not that things are perfect or that a people do not have the right to want a better government. However, the organization of these movements lacks the information and forethought about what to do once they have grabbed the world’s attention. Social critic Neil Postman said, “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.” The egoism to demand change but the passivity that prevents study. Sound familiar?

Books, R.I.P.

For whom does the bell toll? Today, it was Borders. The book seller behemoth fell to the online acumen of its major competitor, Barnes and Noble. Now, over 400 stores will be shut and some 11,000 people will lose their jobs, according to a recent article in The Baltimore Sun. From a brick-and-mortar stand point, Barnes and Noble must also read the writing on the wall. The sad part is, the industry is doing it to themselves.

This past year, I had a student who bought himself one of those electronic readers. He tried to sell me on the idea of buying one. It should be known that I’m a committed bibliophile. I love the feel and the texture of a book. I love the smell and the sensation of turning pages. It is such a tactile and intellectual experience. It was fostered as a small child when my parents displayed the joys of reading. Being a bit of a loner as a kid, I loved and depended upon books. Now, I see my students, those who like to read, curling up to an e-reader? It is a sad and typical sign of today’s generation.

So, my student looks at me and says he can hold thousands of books on this thing. First of all, no one reads thousands of books at one time so what is the point of that feature? At most, you might be one of those people who can read two books at the same time. What energy does it take to carry two books? I can see if they were encyclopedias but other than that, this feature of the e-reader does not hold water. The commercials say you can even read the e-reader in bright sun light. You know what else you can read in bright sunlight…books. Some books on the e-reader, particularly older or classic ones, are free. Such things exist in the real world as well. They are called libraries. Would all of you e-readers be sad if you could not annotate your own personal copy of Plato’s Republic upon checking them out from the library? There are only about five people in the entire country who have any business writing suggestions on the margins of their copy of Plato’s most famous work. My student is not one of them, neither am I and no offense, I believe that might go for anyone else reading this blog. It also has a feature that can allow you to identify the definition of a word. You know what else does that? A dictionary.

The more I see the commercials and talk to those who have it, the less benefit I see with the e-reader. However, when I walk into Barnes and Noble, there is a grand display to entice the modern reader to abandon the printed word. A bookstore promoting an e-reader seems, ultimately, counter-intuitive and self-destructive. It is quite likely bookstores will die out and I realize that I might come across as an old guy wishing for simpler days, but why must they provide the instrument of their own death?

A Post-Postman World

Ever heard of Neil Postman? If not, your cultural education is not complete. For that matter, reading Postman might not complete it but you’ll be closer. One of his most powerful books was entitled, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Most of the essays found within deal with the detrimental impact of television but the same arguments could be applied to computers and the modern craze for all things technological.

It is easy to write off such musings and subjects as the product of a master’s study reading list and true, I first came across Postman while in graduate school. However, reading his thoughts on the impact of technology on our society has forced me to reconsider everything I do in the classroom and in my daily life. Much of the “progress” in the educational field is equated with the level of technology in the classroom. However, I’m not sure what I’m doing with my students (or more to the point, “to my students”) by allowing them access to computers and other media within the arena of knowledge is helping or furthering my goals for the students.

If I tell a kid to research something, the computer trains them to type in a generic question, press enter, click on a link, read a quick sentence with the keyword within and voila – the student has been educated. That is – educated by modern definitions. I would say the kid knows only the surface information and today’s culture suggest that is all that is necessary. Today, I heard a mathematician on NPR talk about the lack of need for students to have a strong command of handwritten mathematical abilities because computers and its programs are capable of doing the same. What kind of position is that for an educator to take? Hell, not even an educator – what kind of position is that for a learned individual to take? A most recent study by Columbia University suggested that students who rely on the internet to gather information remember less because, in their minds, they can always go back to the internet and refresh. There is no reason to learn.

I’ve had the experience – as I’m sure you have as well – of a teller with a “down” computer and unable to calculate correct change. I have to do that for them. If a student in my class learns that the ramifications of the Spanish-American War for the U.S. was, in part, that it acquired Puerto Rico and Guam as territories, what does the student really know? They know the equivalent of the mathematical skills to input numbers into a computer program. What do they really know about the meaning of having Puerto Rico or Guam as a territory? What do they know about the implications for the inhabitants of those islands in the wake of America’s governance? What do they know about how possession of these islands changed U.S. foreign policy? My suggestion is, not much.

What creates this short-cut minded approach to knowledge? It is the medium by which we seek knowledge. The book, today, remains the single most important and effective way to gather and gain information and knowledge. However, our generation has not the patience for such time-consuming activities. The students scream for a website that breaks it down for them or the abbreviated notes on the same. Meanwhile, I’m screaming for a child with the intellectual stamina to endure a book. The numbers capable of taking up that banner are dwindling at an alarming rate.