I think that indoctrination, brainwashing, etc. can be as much about what you do not offer to students as what you do offer to students.
People probably write volumes and volumes of books about public and/or private education really being indoctrination, brainwashing, or some other form of control. But I think that I can sum it all up in one sentence: if by offering something and/or not offering something to students you are privileging any alternative then that is controlling people and not educating them.
That means that even if you offer, say, both history and biology, if you act like biology is more important then you are controlling people. Let students decide for themselves what is important and you are a true educator.
I recently read--in Scientific American, I believe--someone saying that secondary school students "deserve" to be taught about the science of climate change. Well, if for political reasons you do not offer instruction on the topic of climate change--again, it is as much about what you do not offer as what you do offer--then that is controlling people. But to privilege a topic/issue and say that students "deserve" to be taught about it is not filling an indoctrination/brainwashing-motivated void--I would argue that it is its own form of indoctrination.
If it is as much about what you do not offer, does that mean that I--moderate-to-left, wouldn't-touch-fundamentalism-with-a-ten-foot-pole I--think that instruction in Intelligent Design, creation science, etc. should be offered in public schools? Yes. They are ideas. They are what people think. Some people may not like them. Some people may not agree with them. But just because we do not like an idea does not mean that we have the right not to educate young people about it. People do not like the ideas/thinking of Segregationists, communism or fascism, but we educate young people about them. An education is a guided tour through what people have thought, not filling minds with absolute truths. I assert that anybody who says that something is or is not true is not a teacher--a teacher tells you that, right or wrong, true or false, for better or for worse, this is what people have thought.
Separation of church and state? If you are teaching Intelligent Design, creation science, etc. as some of the many alternative ideas that people have had then the separation of church and state should not be an issue.
A lot of people want to keep things like Intelligent Design out of public schools because they say that it is people trying to indoctrinate young people.
Only a fool would deny that things like the call for teaching Intelligent Design in public schools is about controlling people. In Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul, Kenneth R. Miller shows how the Intelligent Design movement is really about changing the definition of science and in the process subjugating or destroying science. I have read the book. I get that.
But what a lot of people do not seem to get is that privileging "science" is a form of indoctrination / controlling people. I am becoming increasingly convinced that scientism is a full-blown ideology. Doing things like saying that children "deserve" to be taught about the science of climate change is part of that ideology, I believe.
Yes, we should teach young people about the science of climate change. Not because they "deserve" to be offered such instruction, but because, as much as time and funding will allow, true educators will teach them every idea--everything that people have thought.
And here is something that the left and the right, liberals and conservatives, atheists and Christian fundamentalists, and everybody in between probably will not like: A Brief History of Everything, by Ken Wilber, would be a true educator's dream to assign to students. A book that not only could be said to cover almost the entire constellation of ideas but integrates all of them as well--it would make modern science, Intelligent Design and every other idea competing for people's attention look like brief episodes of intellectual fidgeting.
People probably write volumes and volumes of books about public and/or private education really being indoctrination, brainwashing, or some other form of control. But I think that I can sum it all up in one sentence: if by offering something and/or not offering something to students you are privileging any alternative then that is controlling people and not educating them.
That means that even if you offer, say, both history and biology, if you act like biology is more important then you are controlling people. Let students decide for themselves what is important and you are a true educator.
I recently read--in Scientific American, I believe--someone saying that secondary school students "deserve" to be taught about the science of climate change. Well, if for political reasons you do not offer instruction on the topic of climate change--again, it is as much about what you do not offer as what you do offer--then that is controlling people. But to privilege a topic/issue and say that students "deserve" to be taught about it is not filling an indoctrination/brainwashing-motivated void--I would argue that it is its own form of indoctrination.
If it is as much about what you do not offer, does that mean that I--moderate-to-left, wouldn't-touch-fundamentalism-with-a-ten-foot-pole I--think that instruction in Intelligent Design, creation science, etc. should be offered in public schools? Yes. They are ideas. They are what people think. Some people may not like them. Some people may not agree with them. But just because we do not like an idea does not mean that we have the right not to educate young people about it. People do not like the ideas/thinking of Segregationists, communism or fascism, but we educate young people about them. An education is a guided tour through what people have thought, not filling minds with absolute truths. I assert that anybody who says that something is or is not true is not a teacher--a teacher tells you that, right or wrong, true or false, for better or for worse, this is what people have thought.
Separation of church and state? If you are teaching Intelligent Design, creation science, etc. as some of the many alternative ideas that people have had then the separation of church and state should not be an issue.
A lot of people want to keep things like Intelligent Design out of public schools because they say that it is people trying to indoctrinate young people.
Only a fool would deny that things like the call for teaching Intelligent Design in public schools is about controlling people. In Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul, Kenneth R. Miller shows how the Intelligent Design movement is really about changing the definition of science and in the process subjugating or destroying science. I have read the book. I get that.
But what a lot of people do not seem to get is that privileging "science" is a form of indoctrination / controlling people. I am becoming increasingly convinced that scientism is a full-blown ideology. Doing things like saying that children "deserve" to be taught about the science of climate change is part of that ideology, I believe.
Yes, we should teach young people about the science of climate change. Not because they "deserve" to be offered such instruction, but because, as much as time and funding will allow, true educators will teach them every idea--everything that people have thought.
And here is something that the left and the right, liberals and conservatives, atheists and Christian fundamentalists, and everybody in between probably will not like: A Brief History of Everything, by Ken Wilber, would be a true educator's dream to assign to students. A book that not only could be said to cover almost the entire constellation of ideas but integrates all of them as well--it would make modern science, Intelligent Design and every other idea competing for people's attention look like brief episodes of intellectual fidgeting.
