In this atmosphere of relative morals and situational ethics, the war on absolutes is being waged, and a recent cultural engagement is to be found in the attack on Denver area Cherry Creek schools by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.
Excerpts from the FFRF website outline the issue:
“In throwing out the Foundation’s original lawsuit, District Judge Maria S. Krieger gave the Foundation 10 days to address her concerns. Krieger held that the 40 Developmental Assets program have “a secular purpose” and ruled that the Foundation could not challenge only one of the 40 assets, but had to contest “the overall package.” She challenged the Foundation to provide facts “sufficient to show that the program, in its full context, advances religion.” Krieger expressed “some doubt” that the Foundation could meet her challenge.”
“Foundation attorney Robert R. Tiernan, in his return bout, has introduced evidence linking the District’s 40 Developmental Assets to a Lutheran, scripture-based program.”
The Assets “create an excessive entanglement with religion, have the principal effect of advancing religion, and have no valid secular purpose,”
"Barton G. Priever, a parent with a child in the District, filed an affidavit noting that the District could not back up its claims of studies proving the claims of the 40 Development Assets. No research has been published in professional or scientific journals."
"The Foundation and its plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the District from adopting, promoting, endorsing, approving and/or publicizing the 40 Developmental Assets."
The suggested, voluntary 40 Developmental Assets that the FFRF, Inc finds objectionable and without secular purpose are the following:
Asset #1: Family Support
Asset #2: Positive Family Communication
Asset #3: Other Adult Relationships
Asset #4: Caring Neighborhood
Asset #5: Caring School Climate
Asset #6: Parent Involvement in Schooling
Asset #7: Community Values
Asset #8: Youth as Resources
Asset #9: Service to Others
Asset #10: Safety
Asset #11: Family Boundaries
Asset #12: School Boundaries
Asset #13: Neighborhood
Asset #14: Adult Role Models
Asset #15: Positive Peer Influence
Asset #16: High Expectations
Asset #17: Creative Activities
Asset #18: Youth Programs
Asset #19: Religions Community
Asset #20: Time at Home
Asset #21: Achievement
Asset #22: School Engagement
Asset #23: Homework
Asset #24: Bonding to School
Asset #25: Reading for Pleasure
Asset #26: Caring
Asset #27: Equality and Social Justice
Asset #28: Integrity
Asset #29: Honesty
Asset #30: Responsibility
Asset #31: Restraint
Asset #32: Planning and Decision
Asset #33: Interpersonal Skills
Asset #34: Cultural Competence
Asset #35: Resistance Skills
Asset #36: Peaceful Conflict
Asset #38: Self-esteem
Asset #39: Sense of Purpose
Asset #40: Positive View of Personal Future
An example of objectionable scripture is the following, taken to be an example of a Biblical teaching attached to Asset #4, and Asset # 34:
Asset #4: Caring Neighborhood
Leviticus 19: 18,33-34 Love your neighbor as you love yourself
Mark 12:31-33 Jesus: Love your neighbor as yourself
Asset #34: Cultural Competence
Isaiah 11:1-10 The peaceful kingdom
Romans 15 :4-13 Live in harmony with each other
The argument then is this: if it is moral in nature, and even if it is voluntary, it is not just of no secular value, it is anathema to the FFRF, because it can be found in the Bible. Children are to receive no ethical or moral value exposure at all in the secular, Atheist, government school system.
For Atheists claiming a superior ethic, one wonders just what that ethic might be, and by what authority it might be asserted. Since the above ethical points are despised and anathema, then what sort of moral behaviors DO Atheists approve for the nation’s children? Total amorality as an educational value seems fit for anarchical societies only; for heathen cultures or primitive tribal groups; or for totalitarian governments, ruled by whim and fiat.
Moreover, if no moral behavioral principles are acceptable, then what is to be made of the Atheists claims of moral outrage? The easily offended Atheists are basing their outrage on personal proclivities. And their demand is that all personal proclivities are sacrosanct, and to be protected from all other personal proclivities, a blatantly irrational position.
Moral outrage is actually meaningless in an atmosphere where morals are situational, temporary, varied, of personal import only, and not to be taught in any consistent form to children. The drive to maintain governmental control over education and the financial and other punishment of home schooling and the alternative education sources drives home the Atheist agenda, which is: Materialism under the umbra of science, and the banishment of moral systems altogether; the elimination of truth and the enthronement of provisional science factoids as the universal material god of empirical knowledge.
In fact, the FFRF, Inc plaintiff parent, B.G. Priever, insists on scientific studies to prove the 40 Assets are of value, a blatantly Materialist cant. In fact the real issue should be the avoidance of the misuse of science as a source of morals, a religion in and of itself. Scientific morality was tried in several very large and inauspicious social experiments in the 20th Century. In fact the 20th Century could well be called the century of Death By Atheist Social Experimentation, (DeBASE). We are back on that same track, if FFRF, Inc is successful in its pursuit of elimination of ethics and morality.
2 comments:
Hi Stan,
The worse problem here is that there is absolutely no evidence that character education of any kind is more than a huge waste of time and money.
As such, your rant about the lack of character education in school is fundamentally flawed.
I am continually baffled at how character education - which on the surface of it sounds great - can win funding and accolades while never demonstrating evidence of either need or results. Is all that is required for adoption is a slick marketing campaign to the politicians and school boards in order to acquire popular support (complete with entreaties to emotional and fear issues and a healthy dose of language from pop psychology and a wink to Christian religion) and then you are done? Who could object to "character education", right?
Moreover, the phrase functions wonderfully as political catchword. Yet, even President Bush, asks that "the adoption of public programs should be results-based". In that view, the adoption of character education in our community should be seriously questioned.
Research on the subject has yet to turn up one peer-reviewed study demonstrating any scientifically validated need for or result from character education programs. On the other hand, flaws in the "research" showing "correlations" are well documented. The many references in this article are to studies with no more basis than subjective feedback (usually surveys) from vested participants. There is really no excuse for a reputable study to not have been conducted at this point - especially, when considering that character education has no basis in accepted educational theory in the first place. Such a dearth of validity makes it hard to just give it the benefit of the doubt.
What's worse, the actual peer reviewed studies that have been done, show character education programs to be not only ineffectual, but "negatively correlated" with results!
Today's character education would seem to fall right in line with a string of similarly flawed and famously failed school programs: "religious education", "moral education", "values education"... However, not to be deterred by lack of results, character education programs abound, forging ahead – each trotting out entirely different lists of politically-entangled core values and means for implementing them! Their dissensions from one another's goals and criticisms of each other is enlightening.
Certainly, it is unfortunate for the entire field that there is no valid psychological definition of "character". The term has no clinical meaning; which probably also explains why there can be no way to measure if an individual has a deficit of it, or if a school program can improve it. If there was anything quantifiable, one might be able to judge the benefit of one approach over the other - or any benefit at all.
It is telling, perhaps, that the one thing these competing programs all agree on is that the end goal is the child or employee's compliance with authority and conformity with conservative values. Is that how we wish to define the greatness of America's "national character" these days? What about the spirit of inquiry, independence and innovation that defines the true character of a great nation? On the much-lauded "Magic School Bus" TV show, the class slogan is "Take Chances, Make Mistakes. Get Messy!", just the opposite of the stated goals on character education lists.
Sure, on the face of it, who wouldn't be in favor of something as grand sounding as character education? Yet, slick marketing aside, that is not enough to justify exposing our children to such an unknown, ideologically-driven quantity. As far as the schools go, even if character education could be proven to achieve its conservative aims, public education has no business taking the culture wars to children.
What should schools be focusing on as root causes, instead? The best academic minds in the business recommend focusing on creating an even playing field by correcting antagonistic factors in the social structure; ensuring a fair, well-funded educational environment, providing solid, verifiable facts; developing the critical thinking skills to separate the "angles" and hype from the truth; and then let students decide for themselves what kind of society they will create for themselves.
In sum, character education sure sounds good - if only it worked. Isn't it time for some real investigative reporting into the claims of character education, instead of all the cheerleading?
--
A 2007 report released under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Education found that vast majority of character education programs have failed to prove their effectiveness.
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/character_education/topic/
For essays and references, please see http://members.cox.net/patriotismforall/character_ed_links.html
Anthologized in "Taking Sides: Issues in Educational Practice", 2008 McGraw-Hill/CLS
--
"Teachers and schools tend to mistake good behavior for good character. What they prize is docility, suggestibility; the child who will do what he is told; or even better, the child who will do what is wanted without even having to be told. They value most in children what children least value in themselves. small wonder that their effort to build character is such a failure; they don't know it when they see it."
--
How Children Fail, John Holt
The Cherry Creek program is voluntary. I repeat the question above, in a modified form: If Atheists deny the utility of the values and behaviors stated in the "40 Assets", what values and behaviors do they recommend?
As it is, schools have behavior requirements for students; not to have such things would mean chaos. The value of behavior training should be, but apparently is not, obvious.
In fact, ""Take Chances, Make Mistakes. Get Messy!" is a behavior statement of a particular character trait: Creative activities, Asset #17. It is not measurable in terms of length and width or weight. It is a description of creative behavior.
So should it not be encouraged? Why is it so hard to accept that some character traits are beneficial (good) and some are not beneficial (not good)? The war against such an admission is merely another facet of the secular attack on morality of any and all kinds. It is based in the hopeless relativism such as you described.
Within such relativism there is no standard for anything, including logic and rational thought processes which are based on absolutes such as the First Principles. And the result is chaotic worldviews, unable to settle into any environment that is not variable, adjustable, and based on whim.
The concept of "character" is therefore not acceptable in such a worldview, because it is based on non-varying, non-whimsical concepts.
The idea that character is not measurable is mistaken. One need only note the massive drop-out rates to see that personal strength and persistence of pursuit toward goals is very weak indeed. And the drop-out rate has an empirical number attached, which school systems were recently forced to release -accurately - to the public. Denial of ability to measure character is no excuse.
Post a Comment