The Purpose Of Education

• 10 years ago

By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK

It struck me many times during the 30 years I spent teaching history at a public high school in the suburbs of New York City that my understanding of the purpose of an education was starkly different from that of the education establishment. The establishment stressed the importance of teaching students “how to think for themselves,” “values clarification,” respect for “diversity of opinion,” and the dangers of “ethnocentrism,” the importance of challenging “conventional views” to help students “make their own free choices” regarding religion, morality, and politics.

My problem was that I favored ethnocentrism and conventional views, if by that one meant the best of Western civilization. My preferred definition of the purpose of an education was Russell Kirk’s: “to defend, protect, and extend the heritage of the Christian West.” I was also fond of G.K. Chesterton’s aphorism in defense of traditional values from his book Orthodoxy, chapter 4, “The Ethics of Elfland”:

“Tradition means giving a vote to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.”

How did I handle the clash between my views and those of the education establishment? Well, I did not talk about using my classes to defend the heritage of the Christian West. Because I didn’t do that in my classes. Many of the parents of my students who paid my salary were not Christians. But I never felt that to be a problem. I made sure that my classes, especially my honors European history classes, received a fair and accurate presentation of the writers, philosophers, and political theorists whom Chesterton considered the defenders of tradition. It should be obvious: “Values clarification” cannot take place without that side of the story being told.

We discussed Darwin, Marx, and Nietzsche, but also Thomas Aquinas, Edmund Burke, and G.K. Chesterton. No administrator or parent ever complained. How could they? The Christian West is part of the liberals’ “global village.” The Holy Grail for the education establishment is the “presentation of both sides” of an issue. And, in all sincerity, that was all I was seeking to do. My goal was not to proselytize, but only to ensure that traditional views were given a hearing in the “fair exchange of ideas.”

Did my liberal colleagues do the same? No. Many of them, even those who were graduates of prestigious universities, knew next to nothing about Thomas Aquinas and Edmund Burke. I couldn’t change the world. All I could control was the content of my classes, and I worked to do that in a fair manner.

Some good news: Things might be moving in our direction on this matter. One need not be a conservative or a Christian to come to the same conclusions about the purpose of an education as Russell Kirk and G.K. Chesterton.

Steven Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard. His book The Sense of Style: The Thinking Person’s Guide to Writing in the 21st Century will be published in September. He is also a frequent contributor to a variety of websites where educational issues are discussed. I came across the passage below on one of those websites. (You will have to take my word that I am reproducing it accurately. I cannot track down the source. I tried, I tried. . . .)

I am not sure, but my suspicion is that Pinker would not appreciate being linked with Kirk or Chesterton. Yet consider how his application of common sense and an appreciation for civility and reasoned discussion leads him to a conclusion very similar to Chesterton’s and Kirk’s understanding of the purpose of education. Pinker does not write of a “democracy of the dead” or the importance of preserving and extending the heritage of the West, but his analysis reaches similar conclusions.

“It seems to me,” writes Pinker, “that educated people should know something about the 13-billion-year prehistory of our species and the basic laws governing the physical and living world, including our bodies and brains. They should grasp the timeline of human history from the dawn of agriculture to the present. They should be exposed to the diversity of human cultures, and the major systems of belief and value with which they have made sense of their lives.

“They should know about the formative events in human history, including the blunders we can hope not to repeat. They should understand the principles behind democratic governance and the rule of law. They should know how to appreciate works of fiction and art as sources of aesthetic pleasure and as impetuses to reflect on the human condition.”

Beyond that, “a liberal education should make certain habits of rationality second nature. Educated people should be able to express complex ideas in clear writing and speech. They should appreciate that objective knowledge is a precious commodity, and know how to distinguish vetted fact from superstition, rumor, and unexamined conventional wisdom. They should know how to reason logically and statistically, avoiding the fallacies and biases to which the untutored human mind is vulnerable. They should think causally rather than magically, and know what it takes to distinguish causation from correlation and coincidence.

“They should be acutely aware of human fallibility, most notably their own, and appreciate that people who disagree with them are not stupid or evil. Accordingly, they should appreciate the value of trying to change minds by persuasion rather than intimidation or demagoguery.”

I can’t see Russell Kirk or G.K. Chesterton taking exception to the above.

What about “building a student’s self-esteem,” “promoting diversity,” and discouraging “judgmental” attitudes? Writes Pinker, “I believe (and believe I can persuade you) that the more deeply a society cultivates this knowledge and mindset, the more it will flourish. The conviction that they are teachable gets me out of bed in the morning. Laying the foundations in just four years is a formidable challenge. If on top of all this, students want to build a self, they can do it on their own time.”

+ + +

Readers are invited to submit comments and questions about this and other educational issues. The e-mail address for First Teachers is fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net, and the mailing address is P.O. Box 15, Wallingford CT 06492.