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 propone…
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.
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.