Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Reverse Discrimination and Overlooked Handicaps

Reverse Discrimination and Overlooked Handicaps

Numerous people now benefit from affirmative action programs that are intended to make up for past wrongs, insure the disadvantaged get a fair share and promote diversity.  The trouble with this approach is that many genuinely disadvantaged people are left out. Consider the following.

Physical Attractiveness
In a study entitled "What Is Beautiful Is Good," researchers from the American Psychological Association showed photographs of attractive, average, and unattractive people to university undergraduates. The students were asked to rate the people in the photos on various personality traits and behavioral tendencies, based solely on their appearance in the pictures.

Compared to unattractive people, attractive people were assumed to possess a higher number of positive traits. The students rated them confident, strong, assertive, candid, warm, honest, kind, outgoing, sensitive, poised, sociable, exciting, and nurturing. The physical-attractiveness stereotype has been replicated in several different experimental paradigms. As Aristotle noted, "Personal beauty is a greater recommendation than any letter of introduction."

Weight is another physical characteristic that results in discrimination and unfair treatment. Research shows they are often perceived as lazy, unintelligent, slovenly, and unattractive. Several studies also demonstrate that such negative attitudes toward obese individuals contribute to discrimination in the work place. Specifically, obese people are not hired as often as people of normal weight; are less likely to be promoted; and often report being discriminated against by managers and peers.

Short Stature
Height, particularly in men, is another physical attribute associated with negative stereotypes and discrimination. A 1992 study by researchers from Michigan State University demonstrated that short men are often judged inferior to tall men in several personal attributes. People tend to judge taller men as more socially attractive, higher in professional status, more masculine, more athletically inclined, and more physically attractive than short men. Similar studies have found that short men often experience discrimination in professional settings. For example, short job applicants are not hired as often as taller applicants; short employees earn less, on average, than taller employees; and short political candidates lose elections more often than taller candidates.

Some Other Factors
Research also demonstrates that people with red hair color are often stereotyped as "clownish" and "weird." Negative stereotyping based on language and dialect (i.e., Southern accents, ebonics) also is a common occurrence. Additionally, children who wear brand-name clothing and shoes are judged "popular," "wealthy," and able to "fit in with their peers" compared to children who do not wear name brands.

What does such research have to do with affirmative action? The answer is "Everything." If unattractive, obese, or short people, for example, experience discrimination in a broad setting shouldn't we be prepared to apply compensatory measures for anyone victimized by prejudice? Why should some qualify for fair share treatment (positive discrimination) just because their particular group has more political muscle?

Instead of focusing on skin color or other group differences, perhaps we should embrace the character-based vision of Martin Luther King, Jr. and focus on each person's individual humanity, rather than his or her race,ethnicity, or what have you. After all, in the end, isn't character, not group membership, the most important difference of all?

Monday, December 19, 2016

My Tribe Wants Your Tribe's Stuff: Limits on Multicultural Schooling

Much obeisance is paid to the need for "multiculturalism" in the school curriculum. How else, ask the disciples, can educators promote a sense of empowerment and worth in all Americans? How else can they truly engage the many communities they serve? How else can they run schools that are strong and accountable community institutions? 

True enough. But this comprehension and valuing will not change the fact that groups, be they tribes or nations, compete for limited resources at one another's expense.

This defines multiculturalism's limits. Why? Because it is difficult to even tolerate, much less honor, another group's culture when that group's gain is your group's loss. 

Competition for resources has long existed and will continue to exist, "...for as long as grass should grow and water flow." And that means multiculturalism is generally limited to the winners granting token recognition to the losers.

For a more detailed treatment of this subject see: http://newfoundations.net/?page_id=303

Monday, October 31, 2016


In the 1990’s the Oklahoma State Board of Education imperiously declared that by the year 2000: "All schools will focus instruction on the needs of each individual student at all levels within the framework of an integrated curriculum."
How could a secondary teacher assigned an average of, say, 110 students per day, possibly individualize instruction for each and every one of them? This was plainly impossible. And teachers had to accomplish this within the framework of a newly “integrated curriculum” — whatever that meant. This was even more impossible.
This “reform” was also borderline impossible for elementary teachers as well. Designing and implementing instruction for small groups of, say, 5 or 6 youngsters is demanding but doable. But truly individualizing newly integrated subject matter for each of 20 or more children is just about impossible — particularly when the teacher had to keep the rest of the children orderly and learning. [1]
This alleged “reform” actually was a mind-numbing combination of wishful thinking and political hot air. But Oklahoma educators had to appear to comply. This doubtless gave rise to dozens of mind-numbing meetings and vast amounts of useless paperwork. Meanwhile, from Kenton in the panhandle to Sallisaw on the Arkansas border, this top-down  “reform” greatly interfered with educators actually doing their job.
Years have passed since the Oklahoma “reform” deadline. Was the state’s public education improved? No, of course it wasn’t. The whole “reform” effort was an odious, time-wasting, paper project inspired by a hollow slogan — “integrating the curriculum.” Worse, it was forced on educators by self-important political hacks that either didn’t have a clue about the day-to-day realities of classroom teaching, or didn’t give a damn.
One day, far in the future, a janitor will be tidying up the Oklahoma Department of Education’s back offices. In a musty corner he or she will stumble across yellowed old curriculum integration documents submitted by every one of the state’s 520 school districts in order to document how they had managed to accomplish the impossible.
“What is all of this?” the janitor will wonder as he or she struggles to carry the overflowing boxes to the trash. Meanwhile, in State Education Department board-rooms across the country, and the Department of Education in Washington, a new crop of clueless political appointees will be crafting still other top-down reforms to convince gullible voters that their particular administration really does care about children — provided it isn’t costly.

[1] These numbers are based on 2016 Oklahoma averages as compiled by the National Center for Educational Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/SASS/tables/sass0708_2009324_t1s_08.asp

Thursday, October 27, 2016


By Gary K. Clabaugh, Professor Emeritus, La Salle University

Rewritten 8/16/16
In olden times, when hope still mattered, a frog named Horace treasured tadpoles. When they thrived, Horace was very, very happy. When they failed to to thrive, Horace was very, very sad.

Horace lived in the Kingdom of the Frogs where Bullfrogs reigned supreme. These puffed up monsters took up the best end of the pond, ate a great deal more than they needed, croaked so loudly no one else could be heard, and conducted their most important business hidden deep in the bottom muck.
Tadpoles need nurturing and ordinary frogs used community nurturaries to provide that. In fact, they paid taxes to the Bullfrogs for community pond nurturary upkeep. The Bullfrogs, on the other hand, cared little about community nurturaries because they enrolled their tadpoles in very expensive, private ones. Here they were exempted from the omnipresent tests and measurements imposed on lesser tadpoles by the Bullfrogs.
One day the Bullfrogs began harrumphing very loudly that state run nurturaries were just plain awful. A King-appointed panel of powerful Bullfrogs even proclaimed, "If another kingdom were responsible for the awful condition of our pond nurturaries it would be a cause for war." (Bullfrogs frequently found causes for wars — though they rarely fought in them.) The panel ignored the fact that Bullfrogs ultimately determined the condition of community nurturaries.
Sub-adequate nurturary conditions closely reflected sub-adequate frog living conditions in the ever-growing stagnant end of the pond. And because they controlled the water flow the Bullfrogs determined how much of the pond was stagnant.
Anyway, as Horace came of age he thought, and thought (in the way that only frogs can think), about what to do with his life. "I know!" he exclaimed, "I'll nurture tadpoles."
Certification was necessary to become a tadpole nurturer. But that process was undemanding because of the ongoing need for inexpensive, compliant nurturers. Besides, at Amphibian University, which had a Bullfrog controlled board of trustees, the tadpole-nurturing program was little more than a source of tuition income.
When it turned out that the undemanding certification standards still were too demanding for the casually committed, the Bullfrogs set up alternative routes to certification. "Nurture for the Kingdom," was one example. When it was created a Bullfrog official solemnly croaked, "Alternative certification opens tadpole nurturing careers to bright young frogs who otherwise would choose another vocation."
Horace wondered (as best a frog can wonder), "Since tadpoles are so very important for our frog future, why do the Bullfrogs make it ever easier to become a tadpole nurturer?"
Meanwhile the Bullfrogs continued to stoke dissatisfaction with community nurturaries. They began croaking that these nurturaries would be much better if for-profit Bullfrog firms were to take over their management at public expense. (Bullfrogs are very enthusiastic about profit making — especially when it’s at public expense.)
Anyway, Horace too easily achieved certification at Amphibian U. and signed up for a job as a community tadpole nurturer in the most stagnant part of the pond.
was delighted to nurture young tadpoles. But he soon discovered that while he and his fellow tadpole nurturers were held accountable, they had no say about how the nurturary was run or what nurturing materials they had to use. Worse still, nourishment and oxygen were in scant supply. Those scarcities made the tadpoles much harder to nurture. Sometimes the tadpoles even turned on one another, or on a frog nurturer.
Some blamed Bullfrog rules and inadequate funding for this nurturary’s plight. Others blamed it on the frog administrator’s who had sold out in order to feel more like a Bullfrog. Still others thought local community nurturary board member’s lack of knowledge was at fault. (Board members weren’t required to know anything about tadpoles or teaching.)
In fact ignorance of tadpole teaching was common at all levels of community tadpole nurturary management. Even the Bullfrog who was Secretary of Tadpole Nurturance possessed none of this knowledge whatsoever. But he was well connected in the pond and very skilled at croaky solemnity. Ignoring the many environmental factors limiting tadpole growth, for instance, he pompously advised tadpole nurturers that if they just had "higher expectations" their tadpoles would thrive.
About this time the Frog King emerged from the muck on the bottom of the pond, swam to the surface, stuck his thick Bullfrog head out of the water, and croaked out a royal decree. "Henceforth," he thrummed, "every tadpole succeeds!" And with that, the King dove back down into the muck. (Little additional money for tadpole nurturance accompanied the King’s declaration).

The Frog King
The Bullfrogs declared that all community tadpole nurturaries must regularly measure and report tadpole growth. The results were proclaimed throughout the land and community tadpole nurturers were held publicly accountable." (There was not even a mention of measuring tadpole growth in the private tadpole nurturaries that served the Bullfrog's offspring.)
The Bullfrogs assured frogs with tadpoles that they had the right to transfer them to other community nurturaries if theirs got low scores. In reality, such transfers were very difficult. But that didn’t stop the Bullfrogs from boasting about the policy.
Horace and his fellow tadpole nurturers wondered how they could be held responsible if the tadpoles were under their care only six and a half hours a day, five days a week, 180 days of the year. The rest of the time (and that was a great deal of time indeed), tadpoles were "cared for" at home by their frog mothers and fathers — if the later could even be found.
In fact, by the time frog parents brought their tadpoles to the nurturary to be taught, their all-important early growth period was already over and the damage inflicted at home was more or less permanent. For this reason Horace often got tadpoles with needs that were well beyond his simple skills. He struggled bravely (or at least as bravely as a frog can struggle),

Horace’s Bullfrog-owned greenhouse
but try as he might he just couldn't get the stunted tadpoles to meet the Bullfrog’s puffed up standards.
He even tried expecting more, as the Bullfrogs advised, but that that just made things worse. “I guess I’m not very good at expecting,” Horace said to himself.
About this time a Bullfrog-owned corporation took over the community nurturary where Horace worked. The bottom line was no longer tadpole nurturing but profit making. Changes were introduced but tadpole growth did not improve. In fact, fewer tadpoles blossomed than before. But at least the Bullfrogs were more content.
With the coming of summer, nurturing ended. And there was a sad new weariness in Horace's bulgy eyes. He still loved tadpoles. Only now he kept dwelling on their frequent failure to thrive.
Horace spent the summer thinking about his future. Should he keep nurturing or not? In the end his love of tadpoles won out. Hoping things would improve he returned to his job in the community nurturary.
Actually things were worse. Over the summer the nurturary had been taken over by a for-profit corporation and love of tadpoles was entirely absent. Improving tadpole measurements in order to make a profit was all that mattered. And because the Bullfrog set standards were impossibly difficult for damaged tadpoles, some nurturers started cheating.
Horace would have none of that. He played by the rules and continued to do his best. "Worthwhile things are seldom easy," he would say to himself. But reality slowly smothered what was left of his hope. Finally, after a particularly discouraging day (and frogs aren’t easily discouraged), Horace just hopped sadly away, never to be seen again.
Some say he hopped to another pond where there were no Bullfrogs. Others say Bullfrogs dominate every pond in the world and that Horace died of a broken heart. In any case, he is gone — forever.

Wednesday, October 26, 2016


Gary K. Clabaugh
Professor Emeritus of Education, La Salle University

23 October 2016

School reform efforts typically employ key terms that are vague and undefined. Consider the late unlamented “No Child Left Behind Act” of 2001. What exactly did “left behind” mean? That was conveniently obscure. Though by implication it meant any child, including special education students and non-English speakers, who failed to pass high stakes tests in math and reading.
Who established such a mindless definition? It was an unholy amalgam of crafty politicians, federal and state bureaucrats and professional test makers. All of whom were far, far removed from the realities of the classroom.
Historically learners had always had at least some responsibility for learning. But this “reform” placed the entire burden on educators. Even youngsters who adamantly refused to learn had no responsibility for failing. They were victims, who had carelessly, even callously,  been “left behind.”
I once heard a youngster defiantly tell a teacher: “You aint gonna teach me shit.” Was he being “left behind," or willfully refusing to get on board? Youngsters like this young man were not a rarity then nor are they now. Nevertheless, the NCLB Act placed 100% of the responsibility for learning on the shoulders of his teachers. How did such a one-sided  arrangement ever become reality? Well, for one thing the defintion of “left behind” was rarely discussed openly. It was buried in a mound of detail.
  Slogans are useful if we want to establish a broad but very shallow consensus among people of varied interests. That is why they’re employed in harmless ceremonial situations such as marriage,  awards, ship christenings, building dedications, funerals, and so forth. They create the momentary solidarity necessary for common celebration. But it is an entirely different matter when slogans are used to sucker voters, justify wars or, as in this case, sneak entirely unrealistic education “reforms” goals into law.
 So what will the next generation of presently gestating “reforms” produce? If past is prologue, they will produce nothing but distraction, wasted time and superfluous effort on the part of frontline educators. But at least they will provide protective cover for wily politicians and busy work for a lot of otherwise largely useless bureaucrats.

[1] These numbers are based on 2016 Oklahoma averages as compiled by the National Center for Educational Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/SASS/tables/sass0708_2009324_t1s_08.asp

Sunday, July 24, 2016

Unfair Accountability: driving out the best and the brightest

TEACHING AS A CAREER: driving out the best and the brightest

Gary K. Clabaugh
Emeritus Professor of Education
La Salle University

Why is a teaching career less lustrous than it used to be? In large part because teachers are being blamed for things they cannot control. For instance, some inner city  public schools have a daily absentee rate of 20+%. That means one fifth or more of all the youngsters are absent on any given day. Nevertheless, their teachers are to be held to account when these same kids score poorly on high stakes tests. It is plainly ridiculous, even Kafkaesque, to hold educators accountable for failing to teach children who aren't there. Yet this is precisely what is happening.

Now let's consider the tens of thousands of children who are physically present, but emotionally and intellectually absent. Instead of focusing on learning, they are wondering where their next meal is coming, if there family will be evicted, if Mom is going to disappear again, get falling down drunk, or end up beaten half to death by her abusive boyfriend. Still others worry about being assaulted or killed, And there are those who are too depressed or angry to care about school. Others are making so much money selling drugs they think  schooling is a joke.

The fact is some schools are so filled with children beset by problems and/or so poorly managed that both learning and teaching are impossible.Then there are cowardly principals who fail to back teachers in matters relating to order and safety and their schools tbecome scary mad houses. No one, no matter how skilled or determined, can teach in the midst of chaos. Yet teachers still are to be held to account where chaos rules. 

These impediments to learning certainly aren't invisible. In fact, they could not be more obvious. Yet allowances are not made for them when it comes to teacher "accountability." No one should be held accountable for things they can't control. Holding teacher's feet to the fire while ignoring anything and everything that destroys instruction and makes teaching impossible is base foolishness. There is no surer way to demoralize and embitter a caring teacher. Yet that is what is going on in school after school all over this country. 

So as the accountability craze continues to intensify, what sort of teachers and teacher candidates will be left? The very bottom of the barrel, I suspect. 

To examine these and similar issues further, see articles at www.newfoundations.com

Indoctrination vs. Education: Part 2

Gary K. Clabaugh, Professor of Education Emeritus
La Salle University

Indoctrinate (noun)
1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.

Is it indoctrination if a professor deliberately sets out to change student opinion? Yes, but only if they are pushing an unbalanced, partisan or biased point of view. If students fail to acquire more refined opinions they have missed education’s most essential element.

Joseph Goebbels, indoctrination was his business

Professorial Opinion

A key factor is whether or not the professor indicates he or she is expressing their personal opinion. Recently a professor teaching a film class showed a clip involving suicide. A number of students spontaneously expressed the opinion that suicide was cowardly. The professor responded that suicide might be better understood as the ultimate expression of will.

Did his response stray into the realm of indoctrination? I don’t think so. The professor only indicated this was an alternative view. Moreover, by expressing it, he gave students the opportunity to reconsider their own opinion.

What about the fact this was a film class? Suicide was hardly in the course syllabus. Should professors withhold their opinion when a topic strays like that? Must a professor of mathematics, for instance, avoid expressing an opinion on, say, holocaust denial, if it to comes up in class? I don’t think so. After all, his or her silence constitutes a lesson in itself.

I well remember my 9th grade biology teacher. He told our class that his fundamentalist religion prevented him from teaching the class from an evolutionary point of view. Then he subsequently struggled to teach the subject without mentioning evolution.

A biology teacher avoiding such a centrally important topic is patently ridiculous. But he was the only high school teacher I ever had with the courage to take a moral stand on anything. The rest dodged moral commitments; and by so doing taught moral cowardice by example.
Goebbels speaking.jpg

Teaching How

Here is another consideration. The type of teaching a professor is engaged in. Consider teaching someone how to do something. Let’s examine something very straightforward like how to pack a parachute. I observed this type of teaching at the Parachute Rigger’s School, Fort Lee, Virginia. The instructor’s job is to make certain all students follow the exact same time-tested procedures.

Opportunities for biased instruction in this how to teaching are minimal. There is one best way and the master riggers repeatedly remind students that every parachute must be packed in exactly that manner. Lives depend on it, including the packer’s life because he or she has to periodically jump with a chute chosen at random they themselves have packed. The official motto of Army parachute riggers is: “I will be sure always.” And they had better be.

rigger in redcap.jpg
A parachute rigger in his trademark red cap.

Do professors teach anything as straightforward as parachute rigging? Sure they do. Mathematics, engineering, foreign languages and the sciences come immediately to mind. Properly using a sling hygrometer (it measures relative humidity) is not a matter of opinion. Neither is balancing a chemical equation or computing structural stress loads. And professors teaching these kinds of skills have the least opportunity to give themselves over to indoctrination.

But teaching how is not always one-dimensional. At times there are several acceptable ways to do things. I was an apprentice barber, for example, and I learned various ways to produce a first-rate haircuts. The master barber resisted the temptation to only teach me the one he favored. He demonstrated all the techniques and it was my job — given individual customer characteristics —to discover which ones worked best for me. Of course he also made it clear there were some things you must always do and some you must never do. Most were related to hygiene.

I was also told to choose my own tools. It was a multi-chair shop and a variety were available. I tried them all. (This was more choice than I ever had as a secondary school teacher. There district “leadership” chose my teaching tools. Chief among them the textbook.)

Sometimes those teaching how ignore legitimate alternatives. Why? Conceit, vainglory or insecurity come to mind. In any case, students deserve to be taught every legitimate alternative. Otherwise it becomes indoctrination.

Even when teaching how is done carefully, however, professors can be accused of indoctrination.  To improve their ability to appraise educational policy, for instance, I taught my students how to identify slogans. I explained they are statements containing vague key terms that can be variously interpreted. Thus they generate a broad but very shallow consensus. I then provided them with the mission statement of the Red Lion, PA. Area School District. (I used Red Lion’s because I taught there.) I told them to identify any slogans it might contain. Then, should there be any, I told them to list any questions that these vague terms obscured. Here is Red Lion’s statement: “In partnership with our communities, to prepare all students to reach their greatest potential, thus becoming responsible and productive citizens.

Students typically came up with questions such as these: What does this “partnership” amount to? Who decides what counts as a “community?” What sorts of “potential” are to be developed fully? And why assume that developing student “potential” always produces “responsible” and/or “productive” citizens?

Teaching students to think in this way can make school administrators unhappy. It also provokes parents who are threatened by critical thinking. In a sense, then, this lesson provoked “dangerous” thoughts. For example, upon learning about slogans one of my students blurted out: “The Ten Commandments!” “What about them? I asked. “They’re all slogans!” she replied.

burning 2.jpg
One way to deal with critical thinking       pinterest.com

Insights such as these can be welcome. But teaching critical thinking is hardly indoctrination. On the contrary, it is an antidote.

Teaching That

The temptation to indoctrinate increases when a professor is teaching that. In other words, is teaching “facts.” Why? Because what counts as a “fact” depends on what authority is relied on. For instance, it is a fact that the earth is over 4 billion years old when one relies on the authority of science. But if you rely on the literal words of the Bible it is, perhaps, 6 to 8 thousand years old.

In too many cases the relied upon authority is the professor him or her self. In other words, they have succumbed to teaching their particular “truth” as the one and only gospel.

I recall debating a colleague in the humanities regarding the definition of romanticism. He insisted that his definition was the only correct one even when I showed him other definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. He even refused to expand his definition when I demonstrated that F.L. Lucas actually identified 11,936 different meanings in his Decline and Fall of the Ideal of Romanticism (1948). When that kind of false certainty is taken into the classroom, indoctrination is assured.

In disciplines such as science, mathematics and engineering, the matter of authority is relatively unproblematic.  These disciplines properly rely on the consensus of their academic community. But things are not so straightforward in the arts. Here there is more debate and disagreement; and, consequently, more room for indoctrination.

We should keep in mind, though, that students can compare the gospel according to Professor Smith with the gospel according to Professor Jones and reach their own conclusions. Indoctrination is maximally effective only when all disagreement is expunged. For instance, in schools such as Liberty University or Oral Roberts University the Bible, as interpreted by one or another preacher, is the ultimate authority. Hence the physical universe is officially designated as the direct creation of God —the one and only great designer and lawgiver. Consequently, life science professors must teach the “true belief” that the man-made concept of evolution is patently false.

Should life science professors give equal time to creation “science” in order to avoid indoctrination? (You might recall George W. Bush advocated this when he was President.) No, because creation “science” is not science, but religion. Why? Because it relies on an a piori faith commitment rather than empirical evidence.

That is why schools that teach creation “science” and the supremacy of the Bible over all other forms of knowledge are not institutions of higher education, but institutions of more elaborate indoctrination. Liberty University and Oral Roberts University come immediately to mind.

Teaching To

Teaching to must evoke far greater student commitment than teaching how to.  You can teach someone how to read, for example, but that doesn’t mean you have taught him or her to read. Likewise, you can teach someone how to be a Roman Catholic. But that is no guarantee you have taught them to actually be Roman Catholic.

Successfully teaching someone to do something, that is to actually embrace it, is orders of magnitude more difficult than teaching them how to. It can come down to fostering a deep and abiding love in students for what they are learning to do. Imagine a ballerina who practices until her feet bleed because while she was learning how to dance, she also was learning to dance.

This also applies to just teaching someone how to read, versus teaching them to read. The later occurs when a student reads because he or she wants to. They have learned to enjoy reading for its own sake. The teacher who accomplishes this transformation deserves special respect.

Does teaching to require indoctrination? Not when it is the artful fostering of a love or passion. Unfortunately, artful cultivation is not the only way to foster a deep passion — particularly if it is religious or political. The other way involves daily programming, preferably from early childhood, in isolation from competing messages. Doubt and dissent are unwelcome — even punished. Students are repeatedly told how they should think, act and feel. Shame and guilt are instruments of control; and students are encouraged to believe that they are being inducted into a special group that stands apart in important ways from the great mass of humanity. What kind of teaching is this? It is indoctrination, in spades.

Hitler Youth salute their Leader.

Education and indoctrination are two very different things. They both involve teaching and learning. But that is where the similarity ends.