How To Screen Out Teachers With "Undesirable" Political Beliefs
Blogger David Thompson wrote about an InsideHigherEd piece by Brooklyn College history prof KC Johnson, who writes about school programs that demand that their students promote "social justice" (links live in Johnson's piece)
At the State University of New York at Oneonta, prospective teachers must "provide evidence of their understanding of social justice in teaching activities, journals, and portfolios . . . and identify social action as the most advanced level."The program at the University of Kansas expects students to be "more global than national and concerned with ideals such as world peace, social justice, respect for diversity and preservation of the environment."
The University of Vermont's department envisions creating "a more humane and just society, free from oppression, that fosters respect for ethnic and cultural diversity."
Marquette's program "has a commitment to social justice in schools and society," producing teachers who will use the classroom "to transcend the negative effects of the dominant culture."According to the University of Toledo, "Education is our prime vehicle for creating the 'just' society," since "we are preparing citizens to lead productive lives in a democratic society characterized by social justice."
This rhetoric is admirable. Yet, as the hotly contested campaigns of 2000 and 2004 amply demonstrated, people of good faith disagree on the components of a "just society," or what constitutes the "negative effects of the dominant culture," or how best to achieve "world peace . . . and preservation of the environment."
An intellectually diverse academic culture would ensure that these vague sentiments did not yield one-sided policy prescriptions for students. But the professoriate cannot dismiss its ideological and political imbalance as meaningless while simultaneously implementing initiatives based on a fundamentally partisan agenda.
...As one conference devoted to the concept explained, using this standard would produce "teachers who possess knowledge and discernment of what is good or virtuous." Advocates leave ideologically one-sided education departments to determine "what is good or virtuous" in the world.
Thompson notes:
This egregious and sinister treatment prompted Johnson to raise an entirely legitimate question:Must prospective public school teachers accept a professor's argument that "white English is the oppressors' language" in order to enter the profession?
And here's what happened in the wake of that question:
Of course, the heroes at FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, defending free speech rights on campus), led by constitutional lawyer Greg Lukianoff, came to his defense.
All is not well in The Academy, however. Check this out from FIRE's blog:
Columbia University's Teachers College requires students to demonstrate a "commitment to social justice" and employs "dispositions," which it defines as "observable behaviors that fall within the law and involve the use of certain skills," to evaluate students. These dispositions, "expected of Teachers College candidates and graduates" and "assessed at each transition point," include "Respect for Diversity and Commitment to Social Justice." FIRE has criticized such ideological requirements in several letters to Columbia University and Teachers College, arguing that evaluating students according to their commitment to an officially defined political belief is a violation of a student's right to decide for himself or herself what is and is not socially just. Teachers College President Susan Fuhrman told FIRE that the policy would be reevaluated in 2007, but I guess Columbia likes having ideological litmus tests, since we have seen no change to this policy yet. Is Columbia willing to try to defend this policy in public?
The phrase "social justice" is in most contexts in which it is used basically interchangeable with the term "communism". It just sounds nicer.
Lobster at October 17, 2010 4:31 AM
why can't universities stick to teaching subjects and not feel good bullshit that won't help you earn a dime in real life
ron at October 17, 2010 8:36 AM
Social Justice always entails collectivism and the authority of identity claims, because its concern is social organization. Civil rights are necessarily abstracted to groups, cultures, societies, nations et.al. The model assumes the preeminence of social attributes like race, gender, class etc.. So you're loading the deck simply by accepting the legitimacy of the model.
Also historically, the Social Justice movement has always assumed the superiority of socialist or fascist social arrangements. It's dishonest to now claim that the term's historical usage no longer applies.
But these policies may turn out to be a good thing if they further delegitimize public education, and undermine the public standing of teachers. The public system has become incurable in its current form and needs to be dissolved.
mark at October 17, 2010 9:27 AM
"Is Columbia willing to try to defend this policy in public?" By "defend", if we mean "socially and professionally isolate opponents and call them racist and homophobe", then yes, Columbia is willing to do that.
Mark's claims about the abstracting of civil rights are spot on. Once civil rights have been removed from the tangible realm of the individual, then it is easy to further dilute and abstract them until they no longer have any meaning. At that point, they become dispensations to be granted by the governing class at its whim. We've seen this recently with the health-insurance waivers.
Cousin Dave at October 17, 2010 10:25 AM
Also: I meant to add that I also agree with Mark that at this point, reforming the public school system is impossible. The anti-reformist and quo-formist forces are just too deeply embedded. The only thing that will get rid of them is to completely nuke the system.
Cousin Dave at October 17, 2010 10:28 AM
I'm close to finishing my Masters in Elementary Ed. at Hunter College in NYC. Aside from the required "social justice" requirements in pretty much every course, EVERY teaching candidate in NYC is required to take two different classes - each taught by the same lunatic professor - both of which of based on an almost identical curriculum, which boils down to: Western Civ = racist, misogynist, bigoted and terrible; minorities, indigenous peoples and non-Western Civs = everything that is right and glorious.
I contemplated quitting the program after literally every class session. But pretty much everyone else in these classes ate it up with a spoon. The coming election can only be the beginning. We're going to have a very long walk back through the institutions if we're going to save America.
Tom at October 17, 2010 11:27 AM
The only way to posit all other groups as glorious and good is to refuse to teach anything about them.
There are few "good guys" in history. But there are plenty of winners and losers.
Robert at October 17, 2010 2:25 PM
(Or to lie about them alot, that would work too)
Robert at October 17, 2010 2:25 PM
Makes me wonder whether 3 Dog Night was wrong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCMyd8kuZvc
Flynne at October 17, 2010 3:14 PM
"We're going to have a very long walk back through the institutions if we're going to save America."
I'm still waiting for Andrew Breitbart's Big Education. What's worse is I know what he'll uncover will only make my stomach hurt and dread when my girls go to college.
Juliana at October 17, 2010 3:19 PM
I've got a college freshman, Juliana. I told her to stick to music, math and biology. Can't do too much damage in those departments. Hopefully.
o.O
Flynne at October 17, 2010 3:27 PM
"why can't universities stick to teaching subjects and not feel good bullshit that won't help you earn a dime in real life"
It might depend upon one's course of study. In the computer science department, we didn't have this crap. Mostly, I assume, because code runs the way it runs regardless of your feelings about it.
Steve Daniels at October 17, 2010 5:13 PM
This is why I dropped out of my anthropolgy course and joined the army - the though of trying to teach history to people these days was enough to make me kill myself
lujlp at October 17, 2010 5:56 PM
As a current high school science teacher who waded through her TOTALLY USELESS master's degree, I see that this social justice is another way to keep teachers from teaching basic skills AND keep up the "nobody is a loser" mentality that is KILLING education.
Susan at October 17, 2010 6:42 PM
Leftist indoctrination ('social justice' etc) in teachers' education for decades. During these decades, a rise in the frequency of women teachers molesting boys.
OK yeah there is also mass saturation of impulse-driven behavior from the media. Still, I wonder about the curricula back in teachers' college...
Alicia at October 17, 2010 6:50 PM
Sadly, the “if-you-expose-us-we-will-silence-you” approach isn’t confined to the States. See, for instance, this little episode.
Katharine Birbalsingh is that rarest of birds, a non-leftist educator working in British state schools. She recently spoke at the Conservative Party conference and acknowledged the unmentionable:
“If you keep telling teachers that they’re racist for trying to discipline black boys and if you keep telling heads that they’re racist for trying to exclude black boys, in the end, the schools stop reprimanding these children. When the lawyers argue against a school and readmit a black boy, who do we think suffers the most? It’s all the other black boys who now look to this invincible child and copy his bad example. Black children underachieve because of what the well-meaning liberal does to him.”
http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2010/10/one-to-watch-methinks.html
The conference attendees (and much of the public) loved her frankness. Her employers and colleagues did not. They promptly suspended her, then made her resign.
As one commenter asks,
“Are teachers free to have and to express non-left political views or not?”
David Thompson at October 17, 2010 11:44 PM
Ahh, yes - "social justice": the idea that the mouth-breathing criminal is worth every bit as much as the valedictorian.
When you abet criminal behavior, what does that make you? I suggest that you should also be called on it.
Radwaste at October 18, 2010 2:19 AM
Disciplinary committees to punish "wrong" thoughts and words, all in the name of academic freedom. Some folks are completely oblivious to history, and completely immune from irony.
They are teaching our teachers.
Note for commenter Tom at 11:27 yesterday: Were your colleagues really lapping all the indoctrination up, or do you think some were just going through the motions, so as not to make waves? I'm just a little curious about how seriously they were taking it.
Old RPM Daddy at October 18, 2010 5:21 AM
Also don't forget the idea that there should be no valedictorian, because the ones who don't make it would have their feelings hurt. We've redefined "excellence" as "existance" and given everybody an award for it.
Robert at October 18, 2010 5:24 AM
The word "social" as a qualifier typically negates the word it modifies:
"Social Justice" is injustice.
"Social Security" is insecure.
"Social Science" is unscientific.
The Monster at October 18, 2010 6:45 AM
I began my Master's at Lesley college in MA. It was so cheesy that I left for another school, which was also fairly lefty but nowhere near Lesley.
First off, I consider myself pretty damn left wing. But this... it was just feel good nicey-nice.
Two incidents come to mind... role playing incidents.
One, we were divided into three groups, which were supposed to act out teaching styles... Eurocentric, Afrocentric, Multicultural. The European group did this crazy rigid nazi-like roleplay of a classroom, while the other two did skits that were all feel-good and holistic. I think I pissed the teachers off when I asked if anyone had ever actually BEEN to a European classroom. Given that Reggio Emilio, Montessori, and Waldorf come from Europe... and that clitoredectemy comes from Africa... I'll stick with European education, thanks.
The second was a role play designed to make us more understanding and compassionate. We were supposed to play roommates looking for another roomie. So this girl comes in, and eventually reveals she's just been released from prison because she was a convicted felon.
Now, we were SUPPOSED to debate a bit and then eventually accept her as our roomie. It was pretty clear thats what the teacher wanted. I, however, rebelled because fuck no, I wasn't going to live with a convicted felon. I was being realistic. I argued that even if she was good and had repented, chances are that a lot of the people in her social circle who would be coming over hadn't repented, and there was a safety issue. I forget what we concluded, but I think it involved my character moving back in with her parents until she found a subletter.
They could pretend they were being lefty all they liked, but their anti-feminist ideas that women should put their fear of hurting someone's feelings before their personal safety was nauseating. Not being afraid to say no is like the first thing they teach you in self-defense class.
Then there was the textbook in one of my classes that railed against white protestants. It discussed Rousseau, Dewey, Horace Mann so I was like ok, why aren't we reading Rousseau, Dewey and Horace man instead of the cliff notes version?
Ugh. Nauseating.
Not to mention NEITHER school I went to, not Lesley nor the more challenging one, offered a single course in gifted education. I managed to convince a professor who gave us a project about special education that gifted counted as special ed, and to do my project around it, but resources were limited and there was no support and everyone was skeptical because "Everyone's gifted" which most people are, but some people are exceptionally so and need extra help as a result.
NicoleK at October 18, 2010 6:47 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/17/how_to_screen_o.html#comment-1767722">comment from The MonsterI find THE worst data and research methods abuse in the social sciences. It's far too often a search for ways to justify ideology rather than a search for the truth.
Amy Alkon at October 18, 2010 6:47 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/10/17/how_to_screen_o.html#comment-1767730">comment from NicoleKI'm stunned when I hear some of the stories about schools from friends, especially a conservative lesbian friend with two sons. One of her sons had a class about how wonderful the Aztecs were. Hello? They sacrificed babies!
Amy Alkon at October 18, 2010 6:49 AM
So the Aztecs were pro-choice?
The Monster at October 18, 2010 7:21 AM
"One of her sons had a class about how wonderful the Aztecs were. Hello? They sacrificed babies!"
They were wonderful, man, like, except for the baby-sacrificing part. They lived in perfect harmony, man, until Cortez the Killer came along, and, like, Neil Young had to come along and scold him! (He was a little late. And that, friends, is how the album Live Rust got its hippiest-dippiest song.)
Old RPM Daddy at October 18, 2010 7:44 AM
@Old RPM Daddy - "Were your colleagues really lapping all the indoctrination up, or do you think some were just going through the motions, so as not to make waves? I'm just a little curious about how seriously they were taking it."
You're right, some of them may have been sitting there, silently seething as I was.
But there was definitely a majority who actively agreed with the professor and were nodding along with every "point" he made. I would emerge from each class literally trembling in disgust and frustration. Good times.
Tom at October 18, 2010 7:48 AM
Silence is acceptance.
Robert at October 18, 2010 9:30 AM
I had a great history teacher in high school, a sarcastic, skinny, wry middle aged lady... she told us about the Aztecs and the sacrifices and the way they treated the neighboring tribes, and then she talked about the horrible things the Spanish did, and then cynically summed it up, deadpan, "Yeah... the Aztecs and the Spanish, they really deserved each other".
It doesn't look as hilarious in print, but it was pretty funny.
NicoleK at October 18, 2010 11:16 AM
One of the oddest things about the Spanish conquest was that the Spanish crown had given out remarkably advanced (socially) orders regarding how the natives were to be treated. At least certainly by the standards of the period.
Those orders were largely ignored in practice by the people who went over there, but they were no worse in their behavior than any other significant people in history.
History is kind of a bloody subject. We look at it with revulsion because we've instituted a moral standard much higher than in former times.
We also of course, have the luxery and convenience of no longer needing any of those brutal methods to achieve a comfortable standard of living.
Robert at October 18, 2010 3:57 PM
Social justice: A phrase meaning we get our way, you shut up.
Robert at October 18, 2010 3:58 PM
Leave a comment