ANTI-ABORTION CRUSADERS: more unctuous sexual hypocrisy?

Remember Janice Jackson’s Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction?" Halftime television viewers got a very brief glimpse of one of Janice's boobs, with a paisty over the nipple, and the usually inert U. S. Congress sprang into action. They hurriedly convened a high-level hearing to investigate this moral outrage that some wags were calling “nipplegate.” During this congressional circus a host of lawmakers, each pretending grave moral outrage than the other, took turns climbing out of the congressional clown car to confront network executives and pressure the FCC to crack down on anything that might provoke sexual arousal among the pubescent.

Puritanical posing is a standard feature of American politics. Our politicos have hitched a ride on America’s sexual hangups at least as far back as the 1870's. That's when congress joined forces with Anthony Comstock, then the nation’s self-appointed moral policeman, and suppressed access to anything that might free women from unwanted pregnancy; or, heaven forbid, increase their sexual knowledge and/or pleasure. 

Comstock was the founder of the powerful New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. (You may be reminded of Saudi Arabia's present-day "Commission for the Protection of Virtue and Suppression of Vice.") Blocking access to information about birth control was Comstock’s chief objective. He also wanted to stifle access to information about abortion. And while he was at it, he set out to eliminate “obscene” books (including serious novels) “dirty” pictures, sex toys and anything else he thought contrary to God’s word — as he interpreted it.

Comstock launched his society's activities by commencing highly publicized vigilante raids on luckless retailers. He "confiscated" and handed over to the police hundreds of purloined “bad books” and well as “articles made of rubber for immoral purposes and used by both sexes.” (One wonders what the police did with them.) Then, emboldened by the success of this larcenous campaign, Comstock began a national crusade to criminalize sex education, birth control, abortion (except to save the life of the mother, but more on that later) sex toys, racy illustrations and “bad books.”

His crusade was hugely successful. In fact in 1873 Congress joined in by passing, without debate, the Comstock inspired, "Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use." This draconian federal law defined sex education, particularly as it pertained to preventing conception, as "obscene." Here is an excerpt: “Whoever … shall sell, or lend, or give away, or in any manner exhibit … or shall otherwise publish … or shall have in his possession, any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture, drawing or other representation, … or instrument … of an immoral nature, or any drug or medicine, or any article whatever, for the prevention of conception, or for causing unlawful (emphasis added) abortion, or shall advertise the same for sale, … shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, he shall be imprisoned at hard labor in the penitentiary for not less than six months nor more than five years for each offense, or fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars, with costs of court.” 

This U. S.  law also specified that it was a crime to send any "obscene" materials through the mail. That provision led to a government sinecure for Comstock. He was anointed a special agent of the US Post Office with exclusive enforcement powers over the "morality" of the nation's mail. He held this position, — in essence, America’s sexual morality czar — for the next 42 years. 

In this role Comstock was able to prosecute anyone sending information about birth control, or committing any other "sexual offenses,” via the mail. And he was zealous in so doing. Upon retirement Comstock boasted that he had victoriously brought charges against more than 3,600 defendants and destroyed 160 tons of "sexual materials." And remember, that included information about birth control, since that was officially "obscene."     

Of course this law only covered items sent via the mail. But Comstock, a zealous fellow, wasn't content with that. He moved on to push for state laws far transcending postal restrictions. In the following years Comstock successfully campaigned for the passage of draconian morality laws that were eventually enacted in every state in the union. 

A crusading Comstock even provoked a famous suicide when feminist Ida Craddock killed herself rather than be imprisoned for sending sex education information by mail. Her suicide note reads, in part, “I am taking my life because a judge, at the instigation of Anthony Comstock, has declared me guilty of a crime I did not commit -- the circulation of obscene literature. Perhaps it may be that in my death, more than in my life, the American people may be shocked into investigating the dreadful state of affairs which permits that unctuous sexual hypocrite Anthony Comstock to wax fat and arrogant and to trample upon the liberties of the people, invading, in my own case, both my right to freedom of religion and to freedom of the press." Thus ended the life of a feminist sex education pioneer. Hundreds of others ended up in federal penitentiaries. 

Were there any limits to Comstock's zeal? Apparently, a very limited one. He once was asked by an interviewer, "Do the laws ever thwart the doctor's work; in cases, for instance, where pregnancy would endanger a woman's life?"  Comstock replied: "A doctor is allowed to bring on abortion in cases where a woman's life is endanger (sic)." But then he added "... is there anything in these laws that forbids a doctor telling a woman that pregnancy must not occur for a certain length of time or at all? Can they not use self-control? Or must they sink to the level of the beasts?"" (Harpers Weekly, Birth Control and Public Morals; Mary Alden Hopkins. May 22, 1915)

So how far has America come since Comstock? Is the current torrent of anti-abortion legislation a piece of the same Comstockian pie? Is there a dime's worth of difference between the present-day politicians pushing this cause and Comstock's law-making confederates some 150 years ago? You decide. 

"WOKE" RHETORIC AND THE SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY

Over emphasis on injustice backfires. It discourages the personal responsibility that is so essential for meaningful change. Become convinced you are a powerless victim and you will behave accordingly.  

For instance, African-Americans dealt with profound injustice in immoderate amounts for centuries. But over-emphasis on this injustice, (By excessively "woke" educators, for instance.) can initiate a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Thomas Theorem — well known among sociologists — explains how that works. Put simply, when a situation is defined as true, it is true in its consequences. That's because outcomes depend as much on the individual’s perception of the situation as they do on the situation itself.

Should a person perceive that they are a hapless victim, they will behave accordingly. Human behavior is not defined by objective facts, but by how people view and make sense of those facts. As helpless victims, they discount their own agency; their own ability, even their own degree of responsibility for what happens in their lives. When that happens, no oppressor is needed. The oppressed become their own oppressor. Understanding themselves to be powerless, they impatiently await salvation. And that usually leads to a very long wait, indeed. 

I spent over 50 years as an educator. And one of the saddest and most disheartening aspects was watching the above happen over and over again. Instead of availing themselves of this opportunity, many kids turned their back on it. And in doing so destroyed the very best life chance many of them will ever have. In 2025 providing them this opportunity cost the public an average of $17,000.00 per student per year. That's one hell of a gift. Yet many kids turn their nose up at it. Perhaps because accepting that gift has been made compulsory.  

Clearly school curricula, policies and procedures sometimes are out of step with the world these kid's live in. Nevertheless, schooling still provides a precious means of life enhancement. For instance, many of the kids I saw doing this were African-American. That's particularly ironic. Slave owners rigorously opposed any attempts to school their "property." They also stifled any attempts by that "property" to learn on their own. That is because slave-masters knew that an education is potentially liberating. Yet descendants of these slaves too often reject the opportunity to gain that education. So much the worse for them.

Whatever our school's shortcomings, and they are many, they still offer one of the best opportunities many kids will ever have. But this opportunity can only by seized by youngsters who eschew self-pity, focus sharply on their own agency, and take full responsibility for their own behavior. Ironically, the well meaning sympathy of the excessively "woke" undermines that. In trying to be helpful, they are doing the opposite. How sad!

SCHOOL REFORM FOLLIES: an example

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 is plainly impossible. And teachers had to accomplish this within the framework of a newly “integrated curriculum” — whatever that meant. 

This “reform” was 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 ridiculous when the teacher had to keep the rest of the children orderly and learning simultaneously. [1]

This so-called “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” interfered with educators actually doing their job.

Years have passed since the Oklahoma “reform” deadline. Was the state’s public education improved? Of course it wasn’t. The whole “reform” effort was an odious, time-wasting, paper project inspired by hollow slogans "individualizing instruction" — “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 documents submitted by every one of the state’s 520 school districts in order to document how they 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, not to mention the Department of Education in Washington, a new crop of clueless political appointees will be crafting still more 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

RESPONSIBILITY AND TOP-DOWN SCHOOL REFORM

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 remained conveniently obscure. It came to mean that any child, including special education students and non-English speakers, who failed to pass high stakes tests in math and reading had been "left behind." But that is clearly nonsense. How in hell can a child pass a reading test when they don't understand English? How about a badly damaged special needs child with a 30 IQ? Were they left behind because they failed a high stakes math test?

Who established such  mindlessness? 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.

Here's another thing. In the past learners had at least some responsibility for learning. This “reform” placed the entire burden on educators. Even youngsters who adamantly refused to learn had no responsibility for failing. They were victims, carelessly, even callously,  “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 term “left behind” was a slogan.

  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, award ceremonies, 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

UNFAIR TEACHER ACCOUNTABILITY: driving out the brightest

UNFAIR ACCOUNTABILITY: out with the best and 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 in excess of 50%. That means one half or more of the youngsters are absent on any given day. Nevertheless, their teachers are held to account when these same kids score poorly on high stakes tests. It's 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 from, 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. Others worry about being assaulted or killed, And there are those who are too depressed or angry to care about school while others are making so much money selling drugs they think  schooling is a joke.

Some schools are so filled with children beset by problems and/or so poorly managed that both learning and teaching are nearly impossible. Plus there is a plentiful supply of cowardly principals who fail to back teachers in matters relating to order and safety. Their schools become 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: where's the line

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. 

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 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 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 9^th 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 considering, even mentioning, evolution.

A biology teacher avoiding such a centrally important topic is patently ridiculous. Evolution is a central principle of biology. Nevertheless, he was the only high school teacher I ever had with the courage to take a moral stand on anything memorable. The rest dodged moral commitments as if they were oncoming buses, and by so doing taught moral cowardice by example.

Teaching How

Another consideration is the type of teaching a teacher is engaged in. Consider teaching someone how to do something. Let’s say 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 who aspire to pack them follow the exact same time-tested procedures.

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

Do professors teach anything as straightforward as parachute rigging? Sometimes. 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. So 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 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. But he also made it clear there were some things you must always and some you must never do. Most were related to hygiene.

I was told to choose my own tools. A variety were available. I tried them all. (This was more choice than I ever had as a secondary school teacher. District “leadership” chose my teaching tools. Chief among them was 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, teachers can be accused of indoctrination.  To improve their ability to appraise educational policy, for instance, I taught my college students how to identify slogans. I explained that they are statements containing vague key terms that can be variously interpreted. That's why slogans generate broad agreement. But the very shallow nature of that consensus as soon as the vague terms are defined. 

To sharpen their understanding, I provided them with the mission statement of the Red Lion Area School District. (I used Red Lion’s because I once taught there.) I told them to identify any slogans it might contain. Then, should there be any, I told them to list questions 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 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.

Insights such as these can be unwelcome. But teaching that sort of critical thinking skill 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 for that word in his Decline and Fall of the Ideal of Romanticism (1948). When that kind of dogmatic certainty is taken into the classroom, indoctrination is assured.

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

Keep in mind, though, that students can compare the gospel according to Professor Smith with the gospel according to Professor Jones of the outside world 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 charismatic 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, or at least pretend to teach, the “true belief” that the man-made concept of evolution is patently false.

Should life science professors in real schools 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 at all, 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 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. 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.

Must teaching to involve indoctrination? Not when it is the artful fostering of a love or passion. Unfortunately, however, artful cultivation is not the only way to foster a deep passion — particularly if it is religious or political. Thealternative 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 used as 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. And it's precisely how you create terrorists who are perfectly willing to blow themselves up in order to eradicate infidels and gain sexual access to a hefty supply of virgins.

Education and indoctrination both involve teaching and learning. But that is where the similarity ends.

WHEN GRADES ARE FUNNY MONEY

Discussions of  public schooling are usually solemn but they seldom are serious. Most of what is said is a stew of wishful thinking seasoned with a sprinkle of lies. So let’s be novel and take a rational approach based on simple truths.

Let's begin by recognizing that people respond to incentives. When a behavior is rewarded, people do more of it, and more intensely. If behavior is costly, (Costly from their point of view, mind you. ) people do less of it.

Now, let’s consider grades. Some youngsters regard good grades as rewarding in and of themselves. Others see them as valuable because it pleases their parents. Still others see them as means to other ends, such as a scholarship or admission to a favorite school. And for many, it's all of the above. In any case, youngsters who regard grades as valuable, will work to achieve them.

But some youngsters regard good grades as valueless. Sometimes, even undesirable. (Good grades might make them a target for their peers.) They see little or no connection between what they get and any future they imagine for themselves. In addition, some parents couldn't care less about their children’s grades. (Read Claude Brown’s biography, Man Child in the Promised Land, for a sad, real life account.) So, given such situations, it makes more sense not to try and possibly raise some hell instead.

What rewards can a teacher offer that will make a student want to learn? Well, there is teacher praise. But that generally appeals to kids who already care about grades. Alternatively, some teachers develop a token economy. They buy, typically at their own expense, affordable things that most kids would like to have. Then, using, say, poker chips, they establish and economy where those chips can be cashed in for prizes. That sometimes works, but it is costly, requires book keeping and can be regarded as bribery.

An alternative is for  teachers to make lack of effort, or outright opposition, prohibitively costly? That can be effective. Corporal punishment was used that way for centuries. An ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic even reads, “Learning comes with blood.” But modern pedagogues are forbidden to use corporal punishment as motivation. In fact, the authorities would punish them.

So what are teachers left with? In some cases, inner city schools for instance, a sizable, sometimes paralyzing, number of kids care less about grades. And they cannot be motivated by, or successfully threatened with, anything else. The net result is "students" who are impossible to teach because they lack motivation. And that breeds all kinds of trouble.

What it to be done? Not much. The present strategy seems to be just blame it on the teachers. That’s wholly unfair, but not for politicians. For them it works pretty well.

For articles related to this topic try the site search at www.newfoundations.com.