I asked a guy who grew up under the still-existing Communist education in Russia whether they really had to sing songs about Lenin and the heroism of Stalin(!) and he confirmed it; started in kindergarten.
But, he said, NOBODY believed it. Kids sang along, but with no more belief than in Rudolph having a red-light nose.
I asked a guy who grew up under the still-existing Communist education in Russia whether they really had to sing songs about Lenin and the heroism of Stalin(!) and he confirmed it; started in kindergarten.
But, he said, NOBODY believed it. Kids sang along, but with no more belief than in Rudolph having a red-light nose.
Not to diss the needed efforts by parents and teachers to push back, by journalists to expose and embarrass - notice the Ohio school dropped the videos as soon as they were *questioned*, like cockroaches avoiding the light.
But, they're more pathetic than scary. The global warming issue is so over - that was before this staggering summer. All you can do is embarrass yourself with it. The sexual-minority ranting will fare no better, as the kids grow up. The "Gay Agenda" propaganda in the 90s had everything going for it, no politician brave enough to oppose it - so much more ignorance then. And it lost.
The larger issue of "indoctrination" in schools isn't even about the material; it's how kids and teachers are expected to behave. Teachers used to turn a blind eye to most bullying, would consign "different" kids to *needing* some bullying, because they'd have to be tough, what with that harelip.
I just didn't see younger and younger engineers showing up in my office with less and less math and physics. They were just as good engineers as ever, so I assume the overall system can still pound calculus into you. What I saw were people more and more sensitive to other's feelings.
That alone is what these folks hate, believe it or not. They've always turned "compassion" into an insult: "bleeding-heart liberals", then "politically correct", then "woke": all translate to "concerned for others who have it harder".
Ling’s piece, at least as I read it, was about introducing more “traditional” and characteristically “Christian” ways of thinking about things, back into the school curriculum – a nostalgic return to they way things used to be.
It was, as Ling saw it, a rather overt and ideologically “conservative” thrust, intended to counter (its proponents would say supplement or complement) the current “progressive thinking” on various contentious matters, like gender.
Which is to say, returning to a more traditionally-conceived and majoritarian worldview: the mental constructs and conventions of earlier times. What was familiar in both public and parochial schools in the 1950s and remains the dominant view in some parts of the US – along with much nostalgia for it.
It wasn’t really about the students’ ability to get along with one another or their empathy or compassion for others – which, I agree with you, are important elements of social cohesion, and complement the tolerance for differing viewpoints to which I referred.
Although, to be fair, that idea is not at all inconsistent with a Christian viewpoint; and some would say, it lies (or ought to lie) at its core.
It is also part and parcel of the pluralism that we purportedly welcome in society itself. Although I note the disapproval in some “progressive circles” when Muslim parents take that pledge at face value, and absent their children from school “pride” exercises, that clash with their deeply held religious views. Or when conservative politicians do not applaud the progressive zeitgeist.
In the result, these may be tricky things to balance or accommodate. Especially here in Ontario, where there is a parallel “Roman Catholic” school system. Or in Quebec, where the dividing lines are linguistic and cultural.
You observed, that the young engineers whom you encountered, seemed perfectly competent, at least in the subjects like mathematics that they learned in school. And they didn’t seem to be much moved, or adversely affected, by these contending ideological currents. Which is my experience too.
I replied that the nature and focus of their training – the classes they took and the subjects they were required to master in order to get their accreditation - may not be such as to prompt a deep reflection on the kinds of social constructions and debates, that animate the curriculum in a humanities or social science department. Just like you would expect law schools to be concerned about abstractions like “justice” and the operational meaning of words like “equality” or “fairness”. And they might not be top of mind for an aspiring electrical engineer.
Accordingly, I doubt that we disagree at all, on this point.
And in fact, I think that engineering training – with its scientific and empirical roots, allied with a pragmatic, problem-solving focus – can be a pretty good grounding for pondering social questions. Indeed, in my experience, it can inject a refreshing note of pragmatism into the equation.
Not sure how you could read a story about people becoming more-sensitive to other's concerns, while remaining equally-good at engineering, as the engineering "protecting" them from being more-sensitive to other's concerns.
Compassion for those with challenges in our society is orthogonal to expertise in professions, is my experience. An article in The Atlantic interviewed those with and without college degrees and didn't find much difference in "wokeness":
I think it's quite right that kids are more resistant to this indoctrination than we give them credit for. But some learners are very deferential to authority: if it's in the course book, they're inclined to believe it. But there's also the broader opportunity cost. If you're spending your time teaching intelligent design, you're not doing something else. And, finally, adopting this kind of regimented curriculum forces out good teachers who know better. And losing good teachers is arguably the worst thing for an education system.
I asked a guy who grew up under the still-existing Communist education in Russia whether they really had to sing songs about Lenin and the heroism of Stalin(!) and he confirmed it; started in kindergarten.
But, he said, NOBODY believed it. Kids sang along, but with no more belief than in Rudolph having a red-light nose.
Not to diss the needed efforts by parents and teachers to push back, by journalists to expose and embarrass - notice the Ohio school dropped the videos as soon as they were *questioned*, like cockroaches avoiding the light.
But, they're more pathetic than scary. The global warming issue is so over - that was before this staggering summer. All you can do is embarrass yourself with it. The sexual-minority ranting will fare no better, as the kids grow up. The "Gay Agenda" propaganda in the 90s had everything going for it, no politician brave enough to oppose it - so much more ignorance then. And it lost.
The larger issue of "indoctrination" in schools isn't even about the material; it's how kids and teachers are expected to behave. Teachers used to turn a blind eye to most bullying, would consign "different" kids to *needing* some bullying, because they'd have to be tough, what with that harelip.
I just didn't see younger and younger engineers showing up in my office with less and less math and physics. They were just as good engineers as ever, so I assume the overall system can still pound calculus into you. What I saw were people more and more sensitive to other's feelings.
That alone is what these folks hate, believe it or not. They've always turned "compassion" into an insult: "bleeding-heart liberals", then "politically correct", then "woke": all translate to "concerned for others who have it harder".
Ling’s piece, at least as I read it, was about introducing more “traditional” and characteristically “Christian” ways of thinking about things, back into the school curriculum – a nostalgic return to they way things used to be.
It was, as Ling saw it, a rather overt and ideologically “conservative” thrust, intended to counter (its proponents would say supplement or complement) the current “progressive thinking” on various contentious matters, like gender.
Which is to say, returning to a more traditionally-conceived and majoritarian worldview: the mental constructs and conventions of earlier times. What was familiar in both public and parochial schools in the 1950s and remains the dominant view in some parts of the US – along with much nostalgia for it.
It wasn’t really about the students’ ability to get along with one another or their empathy or compassion for others – which, I agree with you, are important elements of social cohesion, and complement the tolerance for differing viewpoints to which I referred.
Although, to be fair, that idea is not at all inconsistent with a Christian viewpoint; and some would say, it lies (or ought to lie) at its core.
It is also part and parcel of the pluralism that we purportedly welcome in society itself. Although I note the disapproval in some “progressive circles” when Muslim parents take that pledge at face value, and absent their children from school “pride” exercises, that clash with their deeply held religious views. Or when conservative politicians do not applaud the progressive zeitgeist.
In the result, these may be tricky things to balance or accommodate. Especially here in Ontario, where there is a parallel “Roman Catholic” school system. Or in Quebec, where the dividing lines are linguistic and cultural.
You observed, that the young engineers whom you encountered, seemed perfectly competent, at least in the subjects like mathematics that they learned in school. And they didn’t seem to be much moved, or adversely affected, by these contending ideological currents. Which is my experience too.
I replied that the nature and focus of their training – the classes they took and the subjects they were required to master in order to get their accreditation - may not be such as to prompt a deep reflection on the kinds of social constructions and debates, that animate the curriculum in a humanities or social science department. Just like you would expect law schools to be concerned about abstractions like “justice” and the operational meaning of words like “equality” or “fairness”. And they might not be top of mind for an aspiring electrical engineer.
Accordingly, I doubt that we disagree at all, on this point.
And in fact, I think that engineering training – with its scientific and empirical roots, allied with a pragmatic, problem-solving focus – can be a pretty good grounding for pondering social questions. Indeed, in my experience, it can inject a refreshing note of pragmatism into the equation.
I suspect that the need to master the concrete and measurable realities of the material world, confers a degree of immunity to the “woke narrative”.
Not sure how you could read a story about people becoming more-sensitive to other's concerns, while remaining equally-good at engineering, as the engineering "protecting" them from being more-sensitive to other's concerns.
Compassion for those with challenges in our society is orthogonal to expertise in professions, is my experience. An article in The Atlantic interviewed those with and without college degrees and didn't find much difference in "wokeness":
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/11/young-people-college-grads-wokeness/620674/
...only by age.
I think it's quite right that kids are more resistant to this indoctrination than we give them credit for. But some learners are very deferential to authority: if it's in the course book, they're inclined to believe it. But there's also the broader opportunity cost. If you're spending your time teaching intelligent design, you're not doing something else. And, finally, adopting this kind of regimented curriculum forces out good teachers who know better. And losing good teachers is arguably the worst thing for an education system.