We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Teachers College’s Conceptual Framework, which represents the “philosophy for teacher education at Teachers College,” requires students to possess a “commitment to social justice.” Moreover, students are expected to recognize that “social inequalities are often produced and perpetuated through systematic discrimination and justified by societal ideology of merit, social mobility, and individual responsibility.”
Somehow, they forgot to add intelligence, ability, energy, honor, determination, persistence, and character to their list of evil excuses for discrimination by The System, not doubt for the benefit of the "ruling class." (This is like entering a time machine to 1968.)
However, the point is that if you like the idea of merit, mobility, and individual responsibility, you are not cut out to be a graduate of Teacher's College. They actually assess their students on these political criteria. This is ridiculous politically-correct drivel worthy of the late 1960s - but if they really believe it, our kids are in trouble.
I am so grateful that I was taught "critical thinking" in school. I learned to see through this sort of nonsense. .
Added comment from Dr. Bliss, at the editor's request:
When they use the term "social justice," I get the creeps. It generally means quasi-totalitarian state control when people use it these days. But social justice can be seen in many different ways, depending on your reading of Plato, Montesquieu, Locke, Adam Smith, de Toqueville, etc; depending on your understanding of history and, perhaps most importantly, on your understanding of human nature. What is fascinating - if stereotypical - about the Teacher's College manifesto is that it is based on a vision of students - and people (except them, who get to make the rules) as victims of a "system," rather than free persons in the most free country in the world, with more abundant opportunity than has ever existed in history. Theirs is an oppressive message, designed to nurture blame, defeatism, dependency, resentment, and helplessness rather than to nurture optimistic, brave, energetic Americans with the can-do spirit.
Coment from The Barrister, of Maggie's Farm:
Ditto to the above. A couple of points: 1. This is warmed-over 60's stuff. I suspect the people who run the place are all in their 50s, and still fighting "the revolution" and seeing themselves as part of "the movement." Sheesh - you'd think they would have grown past that by now. 2. Who appointed teachers to be propagandizers? No-one would hire teachers to do that - that's the lowly, undignified job of politicians, journalists, and commentators! Don't they have to teach trig and calc and physics and chemistry and econ and music and all that? Isn't that enough to do? 3. The excuse-making angle: If kids don't learn much, it's not the teachers' fault or the schools' fault - it's the system. The system doesn't want them to succeed. Bad, bad system! The system should go sit in the corner for ten minutes. 4. But wait a minute - the public education system is already controlled by the Teacher's Unions. Woops. Oh, well, it must be the other system that wants the kids to be oppressed. Like, the kids' parents, who work and vote and pay the schools' bills and comprise the "American system"? This makes no sense. With these attitudes, it is no wonder that most Americans would quit the state schools if they had the choice to do so.
In 1998 James Rachels, a philosophy professor, published a small (218pages) book titled, "The Elements of Moral Philosophy". This book immediately became the required reading and only textbook used in an ethics course. This course is required for all undergraduates prior to graduation. This little book starts out with the question: what is morality?. The sections that followed are broken down thus:
2. Cultural relativism
3. Subjectivisim in ethics
4. Does Morality depend on Ethics?
5. psychological egoism
6. Ethical Egoism
7. The Utilitiarian Approach
8. The debate over utilitarianism
9. Are There Absolute Moral Rules?
10. Kant and Respect for Persons
11. The Idea of a Social Contract
12. Feminism and the Ethics of Care
13. The ethics of Moral Virtue
14. WHAT WOULD A SATISFACTORY MORAL THEORY BE LIKE?
After spending the entire course breaking the student's preconceived ideas of morality, it is in the last section that we find the chapters that are not intended to make inquiries. The chapters that the students MUST AVOW to, or loose grade points. One of these chapters deals with the fact that only good, or nice, people should be given jobs. It should not be dependent on their ability to do the job --a morality based on nonmeritocracy is the primary theme.[ Of course, this new strategy enables the those in power to place the most maleable and obedient into any position.]
In this section you will also find a chapter that makes it very clear that there is no physical reason you cannot, or should not use the anus for sex. YES, THAT IS RIGHT YOU READ IT CORRECTLY! This chapter enforces upon the student an obedient acceptance of homosexuality.
Now you may ask which school do I know for sure is using this required textbook? Would you believe me if I told you it is a Jesuit University?
Deaer Class-factotum--oh, how I wish that were true. You need to read the book. It is in small paper back size--not too long and a very easy read. The message is quite clear--the new human will not resist homosexuality; will not expect a job, because of experience,or education; will not ask for a legal system that is grounded on the 10 Commandments (relative ethics are kinder in communities of great poverty) etc.
And, of course the teacher is watching--who really buys into this stuff, will be the student encouraged onto a glass elevator fast tracked into a career of "leadership".
You might be able to find the book on ebay, or at Barnes/Noble, or Amazon.com