Posted on 02/09/2009 9:05:13 PM PST by jazusamo
Letters from parents often complain of a sense of futility in trying to argue with their own children, who have been fed a steady diet of the politically correct vision of the world, from elementary school to the university.
Some ask for suggestions of particular books that might make a dent in the know-it-all attitude of some young people who have heard only one side of the story in classrooms all their lives.
That is one way of going about trying to de-program young people. There are, for example, some good books showing what is wrong with the "global warming" crusades or showing why male-female differences in income or occupations are not automatically discrimination.
Various authors have written a lot of good books that demolish what is currently believed-- and taught to students-- on a wide range of issues. Some of those books are listed as suggested readings on my website (www.tsowell.com).
Yet trying to undo the propaganda that passes for education at too many schools and colleges, one issue at a time, may not always be the best strategy. There are too many issues on which the politically correct party line is considered to be the only way to look at things.
Given the wide range of issues on which students are indoctrinated, instead of being educated, trying to undo all of that would require a whole shelf full of books-- and somehow getting the students to read them all.
Another approach might be to respond to the dogmatic certainty of some young person, perhaps your own offspring, by asking: "Have you ever read a single book on the other side of that issue?"
Chances are, after years of being "educated," even at some of the highest-priced schools and colleges, they have not.
When the inevitable answer to your question is "No," you can simply point out how illogical it is to be so certain about anything when you have heard only one side of the story-- no matter how often you have heard that one side repeated.
Would it make sense for a jury to reach a verdict after having heard only the prosecution's case, or only the defense attorney's case, but not both?
There is no need to argue the specifics of the particular issue that has come up. You can tell your overconfident young student that you will be happy to discuss that particular issue after he or she has taken the elementary step of reading something by somebody on the other side.
Elementary as it may seem that we should hear both sides of an issue before making up our minds, that is seldom what happens on politically correct issues today in our schools and colleges. The biggest argument of the left is that there is no argument-- whether the issue is global warming, "open space" laws or whatever.
Some students may even imagine that they have already heard the other side because their teachers may have given them their version of other people's arguments or motives.
But a jury would never be impressed by having the prosecution tell them what the defendant's defense is. They would want to hear the defense attorney present that case.
Yet most students who have read and heard repeatedly about the catastrophes awaiting us unless we try to stop "global warming" have never read a book, an article or even a single word by any of the hundreds of climate scientists, in countries around the world, who have expressed opposition to that view.
These students may have been shown Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" in school, but are very unlikely to have been shown the British Channel 4 television special, "The Great Global Warming Swindle."
Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that students are being indoctrinated with the correct conclusions on current issues, that would still be irrelevant educationally. Hearing only one side does nothing to equip students with the experience to know how to sort out opposing sides of other issues they will have to confront in the future, after they have left school and need to reach their own conclusions on the issues arising later.
Yet they are the jury that will ultimately decide the fate of this nation.
I piss off most of the liberals I teach with. I am a conservative who teaches environmental science. Sweet Justice!!!!!
Thanks for the ping jaz.
“Yet they are the jury that will ultimately decide the fate of this nation.”
We’ve read about the parents not allowed to observe at the schools, and the children being told to not tell their parents about school activities, and we recently read about Algore telling the children to NOT believe their parents.
It’s control freaks out of control jaz.
ping
I believe that's true in many many cases but there's that few who come around after struggling to pay taxes and they start raising their own.
Good for you, glad to hear it. :)
Well, there is home schooling, and there is private school.
There is infiltrating the public schools :).
No matter how hard it is to acknowledge it, it is our responsibility to raise our kids right. It is easier to avoid the programming than to de-program, I think.
At the least those of us who have to put our kids in public schools can spend an hour after dinner doing regular de-programming as we help go through homework. It would be time well spent.
Those of you with older kids do be aware that you can home school with satellite programs and so forth, not too expensive. You need to be able to trust your kids alone at home during your work hours, though.
The brainwashing/imprinting combination of the public schools and pop culture is deadly. Most college age kids are literally unable to think outside a few narrow parameters.
Wow. Spot on.
Most schools no longer concern themselves with teaching critical thought.
That fries me reading about schools that are not open with parents and that algore thing was unbelievable, that just should not be allowed to happen.
So true.
they are the jury that will ultimately decide the fate of this nation.
All for the better, actually. Leave that to his students. I remember Hayakawa in the senate. He didn't seem too happy there.
I don’t know how many areas of the country have homelink programs to help parents home school, our area does and it has been a big help to my daughter. I believe this program was one of the first in Battle Ground, WA.
Some students may even imagine that they have already heard the other side because their teachers may have given them their version of other people's arguments or motives.
But a jury would never be impressed by having the prosecution tell them what the defendant's defense is. They would want to hear the defense attorney present that case.
This is critical as this tactic is the only way most students do hear of the other sides case and sadly they do think this is exactly as presented by a very biased opposed faculty. Great article. Sad very sad it happens in the first place as another poster mentioned--it would be best to not have them indoctrinated to begin with.
My big question having once been one of these brainwashed robots and seeing how bad it is today and how early it happens is have we created the fascists of tomorrow that have to be suppressed with muscle because they can not tolerate opposition or points of view that are different and become violent toward us non conformists to their brainwashed reality.
Or the cold of Alaska...
Bob Jones University has a satellite and similar programs available for reasonable rates, and they work all over the country.
I believe that kids can be immunized to programming, at least partially. They'll always be exposed to it; it's a big weird world. Teaching them how and why to think early will allow them to decide what to think all by themselves later on.
“Hearing only one side does nothing to equip students with the experience to know how to sort out opposing sides of other issues they will have to confront in the future, after they have left school and need to reach their own conclusions on the issues arising later.”
****
Isn’t that Lefty’s goal?
>> [fight the dogma] by asking: “Have you ever read a single book on the other side of that issue?”
Parents can find themselves in the difficult position of balancing fact and stress for the child. The process of challenging the child’s ‘education’ often reverberates back into the classroom. The child becomes the messenger retaining the most recent set of instructions.
To question the ‘educator’ can be intimidating for the child. Many ‘educators’ being proud/defensive of their politics/beliefs can strike back at the inquisitive student in a combative manner, and do so with the intent of terminating the discussion indefinitely — a concern for parents.
The seeding of factoids that upset certain ‘educators’ can be risky business some parents would rather avoid; protecting the child from a hostile response by the ‘educator’ whether the payback is through devaluation of grades, embarrassment, or outright hostility.
It’s the parents responsibility to know that nature and substance of information the school systems are flushing through the minds of the students. The ‘trust but verify’ approach may work best for the pre-college years. Prayer may be the best option once the youngster heads off to the front line.
Face it; once HEW was split into 2 departments [HHR & Education], the department of Education became the Dept. of Indoctrination!
Next will be the converting of the FCC into a Broadcast Indoctrination Commission.
As we raised our 2 Boys, Sue and I talked “Politics” and Ideas over dinner and during TV time.We had books, our books, not just “kid Lit”.
We were more Effective in warping our kids, than the Teachers Unions were.
Even after they left home, they continued to borrow from our bookshelf. Now, our Daughters-in-Law are reading Ayn Rand!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.