CHAPTER 2MORALITY AND EDUCATION Before the advent of "pragmatism" in the 1930's, much of education had embedded within it a strong moral component. Indeed, Plato stated that education, not legislation, is the institutional setting where civility may be inculcated (Cornford 1945:41). He defined civility as comprising wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice (Cornford 1945:124-125). As Plato stated," When people have an eye for the multitude of beautiful things or of just actions or whatever it may be, but can neither behold Beauty or Justice itself nor follow a guide who would lead them to it, we shall say that all they have is beliefs, without any real knowledge of the objects of their beliefs (Cornford 1945:188)." "Belief then is of beautiful things; knowledge is of Beauty. The believer lives in a world of dreams or shadows; the knower lives in the world of Reality (Hacker 1961:54)." Hence, the questions frequently asked dealt with what was good and right, with the premise that education was to be not merely a knowledge of facts and ideas, but that an educated person was to be civil, a good citizen, one who had and fostered a sense of community. This phenomenon was by no means universal, but was implied in much of education. As Bloom asked, "...when there are no shared goals or vision of the public good, is the social contract any longer possible (Bloom 1987:27)?" Particularly since the advent of pragmatism, the implied question changed from "is this good" to "does this work." This change in focus has had many repercussions, not the least of which may be what has been called "inert ideas (Whitehead 1953:13)." As whitehead stated: "A merely well-informed man is the most useless bore on God's earth.... In training a child to activity of thought, above all things we must beware of what I will call 'inert ideas'-that is to say, ideas that are merely received into the mind without being utilized, or tested, or thrown into fresh combinations.... Education with inert ideas is not only useless: it is, above all things, harmful...(Whitehead 1953:13)". Ideas bereft of values may be seen to be inert, in that they are useless for living an examined and "good" life. It seems that universities have increasingly promulgated a vocational emphasis, and emphasis upon one's career, and downplayed or ignored ethics and moral sensibilities, without which one can be educated, but not intelligent. Intelligence presupposes a sense of right and wrong, a sense of honor and integrity, justice and humility that must be integrated into the courses we teach. To be effective, education must be morally sensible. Such belief systems in the social sciences and education as 'situation ethics' and 'moral relativism' seem to have compromised moral integrity and social ethics. The fact is usually ethics do transcend situations; there is absolute truth whether we care to face it or not. No one doubts this contention when we add a column of figures, but when such absolute truth offends our values or puts us at a perceived disadvantage, we take umbrage and retreat to moral relativism (Maneker 1995:57). Such education bereft of overarching values with which morally sensible people agree may be seen to lead to the inculcation of ideas-"inert ideas"-that are devoid of values, feeling based upon data and, hence, concreteness to the individual. It is only when ideas are concrete to the student, where he or she can introject them and thereby inform his or her moral imperatives, that they are meaningful and enduring. But moral imperatives are hardly recognized, let alone made explicit to the student, so much of his or her education contains a mere recitation of facts and ideas that are not likely to endure. Such an educated person may well be harmful to the society, in that he or she may be able to rationalize any atrocity if there is little or no awareness of the moral imperatives necessary in order to have a civil and just society. The bureaucratization of education leads to conforming personalities of both students and faculty; the outcome of which are careerists, conformers, and not critical thinkers. Since society does not reward critical thinkers, and since universities are reactive institutions seeking to please a society that doles out its resources based largely upon its short-term goals, it is highly unlikely that ideas will be anything but inert. When ideas are not meaningful or esteemed, "personality" becomes their substitute. Smiling when one does not feel like it, saying things people want to hear, dressing well, and comporting oneself appropriate to the expectations of people who can enhance one's career, become paramount. Such traits may be seen to be tinged with some degree of "sociopathy." Some such characteristics are: glibness and superficial charm, conning and manipulative behavior, shallow affect, and lack of empathy (Magid and McKelvey 1988:14). Beyond the lack of apprehension of truth and civility, much of education, particularly higher education, has witnessed a regression to the mean. That is, academic performance, motivation, and academic standards have decidedly lowered over the past few decades. Since colleges and universities have become the handmaidens of politicians, parents and students who view it is a means of greater employment possibilities, the institutions of higher education have capitulated by selling their wares to the lowest bidder. As academic performance and student motivation lessen, particularly in the liberal arts and social sciences, where there has historically been no vocational emphasis, faculty have more drastically curved grades, lowered expectations and requirements, and rewarded shoddy performance to retain students. For example, in one of my student's university classes, 40% was a "D." Indeed, student cheating on papers and examinations, another indicator of the encroachment of pragmatism, has been tolerated, where it is increasingly unlikely that the offender will be expelled; the worst that can usually be expected is an "F" in the course. To the degree that funding and general resource allocation is based upon the number of students enrolled, there is sometimes subtle and not so subtle pressure to retain students at whatever cost. So, if student performance declines, one lowers his or her expectations accordingly. Therefore, what was a "B" in 1989 may well be a "D" in 1999, but still be recorded as a "B" so that students will keep corning back and that other students can be recruited to the major, the department and to the college or university. To the degree that the economy has worsened and that organizations are downsizing in the global economy, the university student and his or her parents become more fearful about career prospects. Therefore, an attempt is made to major in departments that have a vocational emphasis and, if that is not feasible, to obtain a college or university degree, major in a subject that one can take lightly, for which one has little interest or motivation to succeed, and in which one will be rewarded for shoddy performance. To the degree that education is not allocated sufficient resources, it is to that degree that competition for students among universities and departments will become even more frenetic, with the academic standards and expectations increasingly diminishing. As was stated by Max Weber, "Now, matters are such that German universities, especially the small universities, are engaged in a most ridiculous competition for enrollments . .(and) the number of students enrolled is a test of qualification, which may be grasped in terms of numbers, whereas the qualification for scholarship is imponderable.... And the question whether (one) is a good teacher or a poor teacher is answered by the enrollments with which the students condescendingly honor him (Gerth and Mills 1958:133)." Another consequence of education being bereft of moral sensibility is the increased bureaucratization of education. In the past, administrators were usually seasoned scholars who would temporarily devote their time to university governance and then return to the classroom and their scholarship, or retire. We now have professional, career administrators, who use their positions as stepping-stones to further their bureaucratic careers, and frequently care little or nothing about their disciplines. Indeed, because of the large differential in income between faculty and administrators, faculty increasingly seek administrative posts and obsequiously conform to administrative mandates, personalities, and whims. What was once viewed as a noble profession has been denigrated to a bureaucratic lifestyle of people who, to use Bertrand Russel's phrase, would "rather die than think (Andreski 1972:16)." Regarding these administrators, "the memorandum is replacing the book (Mills 1961:103-104)." Regarding the bureaucrat, Marx once said that to such a person "the world is an object to be manipulated (Mills 1961:114)." The results of increased bureaucratization of universities populated with administrative careerists is that there seems to be an entrenched timidity among faculty, and a lack of an esprit de corps, a consciousness of kind (Maneker 1995:52-53), a sense of serving a noble, higher purpose. Rather than care about the intellectual, emotional, and spiritual well-being of students, education is sold in the economic market-place; allegiance is more likely to be given to the institution and its functionaries rather than to the needs, not necessarily the wants, of the students. And no one seems to blush. Along with the lack of studying the moral imperatives that allow a civilization to flourish, education bereft of a commitment to studying the student's moral imperatives allows the student to introject whatever values are bandied about. This phenomenon not only hurts the student, and devalues the worth of education, but helps create a contempt for education and its personnel in the society at large. Educators were always distrusted when they encouraged critical thinking; when students were encouraged to explore other paradigms, and question their own values. Such distrust is understandable, and "comes with the territory." However, part of the current distrust we experience may well be due to the perception that we do not respect the moral function of what we do. Whether or not we can help provide jobs, we can and must impart the values consistent with civility and sensitivity to our students. Memorized facts will quickly fade, if not married to one's values. However, values that ennoble the student and make him or her a more sensitive, caring, critically thinking human being, will likely help abate this distrust. Regardless, if we are distrusted and under-funded, it would be more noble if it were due to our imparting of values consistent with a meaningful social contract, along with the critical thinking skills that inform those values and make them more enduring, than due to the fact we are merely gate-keepers enshrining bureaucratic conformity. Our moral charge demands such commitment.
REFERENCES Andreski, Stanislav Bloom, Allan Cornford, Francis Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C. Wright Hacker, Andrew Magid, Ken and McKelvey Maneker, Jerry Mills, C. Wright Whitehead, Alfred North |
