Sunday, August 1, 2010

Unpacking Liberalism: Interview with my daughter.



My daughter Cecily is 18, and she attends the University of Arizona where she studies Classics (her true love is Latin). 


The high school Cecily attended (a public, charter school founded eight years ago) has as its motto: Truth, Goodness, Beauty. The school, along with its sister schools, uses a classical, Great Books model to teach students the basis of Western Civilization. 


By contrast, the University of Arizona approaches most liberal arts courses through the prism of "race, gender, and class" -- a standard model of the left. After hearing her outrageous stories from the classroom this past year, I decided to interview her about these two completely different approaches to education. 


Me: Cecily, what's the main difference you see between your high school and your university?


Cecily: In high school, our model was Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. I got to college and I was shocked to realize that the actual world cares nothing about truth, goodness and beauty, but instead it's all about race, gender and class. Really, all they care about is emotions instead of reason and intellect. It's all about "We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings." If something "offends" someone, that's not okay.


We had to watch The Little Mermaid (Disney movie) in my English 101 class and see how it related to race, gender and class. We were shown by the professor that the movie was actually a representation of "mermaid" as one race and "humans" as another. And we were supposedly taught by the film to see that there was something wrong with the mermaid race and that's why Ariel wants to be human.


Me: You mean, in the professor's view, the writers of the movie were supposedly trying to show us that the mermaids were inferior to humans?


Cecily: Yes. The teacher said we need to look at this and see how it applies to everyday life.


Me: So, since your teacher was talking about "race," was the mermaid vs. human thing supposed to be about black people vs. white people?


Cecily: Yes, but class issues, too. But I'm not done with the race stuff. The teacher pointed out that the only black mermaid was the one waving at the end, a very insignificant creature. Pretty much I wanted to laugh, because we also read the original version, and it is an Anglo-Saxon fairy tale! I mean, we don't take African folk stories and try to make the characters white, so it made me laugh to hear her say that.


And in reality, this movie has nothing to do with race, it's simply a tale about mermaids for children. In fact, it's a Hollywood, dumbed-down version of the Christian tale of the The Little Mermaid.


Me: What was your teacher's purpose in all this?


Cecily: To show that rich, white men see themselves as superior to everyone else. And to show us that it's a horrible depiction of women because Ariel wants to be with a white man -- not just an ordinary white man, but with a prince, in other words, a rich white man.


Also, the teacher pointed out that the servants were shown as a bit overweight and not as pretty as Ariel, which showed that the poor are not as good as the rich. It's also a horrible depiction of men, according to the teacher, because the movie shows us that men should be manly and buff, sailing the seas with a dog at their side, and have a pretty woman, too. And that that is the only type of man who can get a woman.


Me: So, your teacher was basically indicting the filmmakers for promoting harmful stereotypes?


Cecily: Yes. Stereotypes that poison the minds of children at a young age. This will live in their subconscious, etc., etc.


Me: You've had one year of college. Did you find that this kind of liberal worldview (seeing through the lens of race, gender, class) is common? Did you experience this a lot in your classes?


Cecily: Yes.


Me: So it wasn't unique to this teacher?


Cecily: No.


Me: And this is a very different paradigm from your high school {where students are educated the way kids used to be educated}?


Cecily: Yes. In my high school Humane Letters class, we read books and dialogues that actually had great significance and shaped Western Civilization. In my college classes this year, we looked at contemporary stuff, or if we did look at older works it was to relate them to a current agenda, a.k.a. race, gender, class. There was no looking for objective truth. It was all subjective: How would this make another person "feel."


Me: You could never draw conclusions?


Cecily: No. You couldn't look for a "truth" that could unite us all as humans. It was always, "What is this saying about women? What is this saying about black people? What is this saying about poor people?"


Me: Would you say then, that liberals/leftists have an obsession with putting people into categories? Separating them into different groups and compartments?


Cecily: Yes. They are the ones who are the racists, in my opinion. They are racist against white people, sexist against men, and classist against rich people. At my high school, we'd try to find uniting qualities of human nature (i.e., people are simply people). It shouldn't matter what sex, color, or social status, because at our core, humans are the same.


At college, the teachers are not showing people as equal, but as unequal, and it's always based on externals not internal things. They base it on shallow things that don't matter.


Me: Do you think that the "race, gender, class" model tends to divide people?


Cecily: They are trying to make you aware of differences instead of forgetting about differences -- supposedly to be sensitive. Instead of just seeing people as people. I think it starts as a good intention, but as they go into it, it doesn't end with good intentions. Like, they end up hating the white male.


There is more to her college adventures in liberalism, and I will post more interviews later. Meantime, I confess to being annoyed that not only are my tax dollars going to support these classes and professors, but it also costs a small fortune in tuition as well. Parents are paying universities to teach their kids leftist ideology, which is the ideology of "victimhood." I have no problem with that if that is what the parents want, but I think most parents would be appalled if they really knew what is being shoveled into their kids' brains on college campuses.


Exit question: Why is it good to teach in a way that divides groups according to superficialities instead of uniting them through things that transcend? 



49 comments:

  1. I like Cecily. I want to be her friend IRL.

    Kudos to you for raising such a sharp girl with a good head on her shoulders! Sad, though, that this is what our youth is learning in universities.

    ReplyDelete
  2. PS--Cecily, I have a younger brother who will turn 19 this fall and is starting college also. I have wanted to find him a nice Catholic girl for a long time...so...just in case you're interested...;-)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Look who is the new matchmaker in town! ;)

    Umm, yes, Cecily, please come and visit me and bring your humane letter books from highschool because I need to be taught...

    Praise be to God to be able to see "junk" for what it is...Did you have to write a paper on what he taught because I would LOVE to read that! hahaha

    He might fail you though! hahaha

    ReplyDelete
  4. I do agree that it does start with good intentions. There is the belief that you cannot understand without knowing the history of a group, class, race, etc. and I can agree with that on every level. It gets taken to an extreme, however, where you are being told to ONLY focus on those differences. That in turn (and in my experience) causes people not only to imagine disparities where none exist (see the Little Mermaid example), but to also engage in it themselves and generates more negative feelings & actions. It enhances the divisions, it doesn’t erase them and if you are taught to look at the world this way, then all you ever see is differences between people.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I only wish I had her head on my shoulders as I went through college at a VERY liberal university. It a ten times worse if you go into helping professions such as teaching, social work, etc. I agree with ann and C, good intentions that have gone too far. Thanks for the enlightening interview. I only hope to raise Charlie to be able to think for himself on these matters.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am so dreading sending my kids off to college. This kind of drivel just doesn't make any sense. How is it being tolerant to focus so exclusively on differences?

    ReplyDelete
  7. UGH...this completely took me back to my college days- the academic side at least- and it was not a pleasant journey back! What a good head you have on your shoulders, Cecily! I'm so inspired to hear you note the differences between truth, beauty and goodness & race, class and gender.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And that is why higher education makes me nervous. Not all of it, but you have to be willing to sort through a lot of the garbage and determine that in the end the professors serve a purpose of brainwashing. Unless you study something impartial like mathematics. I can say that after my husband left CSUS it was then that he found the Church. So some good does come out of it :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I always say that I'm glad I was ignorant to politics and everything having to do with it while in high school and college, because I would have seriously lost sleep over it if I had been aware (because I would have been too nervous to speak up and it would have driven me nuts!). Ignorance was bliss I guess. Thank goodness there are students like Cecily who see what's really going on!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hebrews, Cecily is 19 in the fall, too! Send me a photo and bio of your brother!! :) My email is allthemillers@cox.net. If you think I'm joking then you haven't read my matchmaking post, right Sew?? :)

    Cecily has accepted all my blog friends as her facebook friends, ha! She is a good sport! (And even started her own blog which startled me, since she said she'd never have one! Like her momma, ha!)

    I love all the comments.... I know, it is just nonsensical. I think it's good and well to teach about the sufferings and history of a people or group. But when it's ALL about victimhood and division (oppressed vs. oppressor), then you get this awful result, where none of us are united in our humanity as children of God. Why can't academia go back to teaching about truth, goodness and beauty? It actually was the point of education, to look for truth, when the Catholic Church started the university system way back when.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Although I didn't comment when I originally read this post, it gave my hubby and I great material to talk about on our way to a church function today. Especially after we read a bumper sticker that said, "Ban stupid people, not dogs". That really kicked it into high gear!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Your daughter was taught to think with logic and not emotion...go her! I'm so glad she was able to critically look at the professor's intentions and find the truth. You should be one proud mama! :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Fascinating and frightening. It'll be 10 more years before I have a college-aged kid... how much worse will it be then?!?!
    Tell Cecily I said she's extremely intelligent and grounded in reality and truth and not to let these loony college teachers infect her with their insanity and immorality. She's right and they are WRONG.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I need parenting lessons from you! Cecily, you rock!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wow, you have one smart daughter!

    I graduated in '02... I am not sure I would have been an English major had it not been for one phenomenal professor who taught with the Socratic method and was well-versed in the classics. He is brilliant, and I believe he was a devout Christian but he would never reveal that in class. :) It was beautiful watching him challenge our assumptions and worldviews, forcing to really look at the logic, to unpack what we thought was PC and showing us how prejudice and irrational we really sounded!! I hope Cecily finds one like this.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thank you all for your kind words! :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Cecily, you're awesome and I love you.

    Leila, I appreciate your writing this. It's very important. I hope you don't mind my posting this link here. I've been learning a lot about the way the Left thinks in my coverage of them. Just as you can't really know what a Catholic thinks unless you learn the basics on the Incarnation or Grace, you can't know how the Left thinks unless you learn about the larger philosophies they hold to and are actively teaching as theory in our universities, in community organizing, and everywhere that they teach their views. Transformative Justice and Transformative Learning are two key theories they teach actively and with much gusto in our churches and in their seminars and in our universities. I posted about Transformative Justice at this link .......which includes a link back to my previous post on Transformative Learning (Education). You don't have to pay attention to the politics I'm addressing, but I do talk about these theories and it might help you to get inside their heads a little bit. They have disordered thinking about what "justice" is. That's the bottom line. They're not intentionally malicious. They just have some extremely mixed up views about things.

    http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/07/27/transformative-justice-and-the-left-why-the-tea-party-is-racist/

    ReplyDelete
  18. Leila,
    Your Exit question: "Why is it good to teach in a way that divides groups according to superficialities instead of uniting them through things that transcend?" A loaded question, no doubt, and of course a rhetorical one. He who finds "good" in that style of teaching is reversing the truth, and thus we all know the answer to your exit question. After all, this is spiritual warfare, and he who reverses Truth is the prince of trickery. It doesn't exist only at the university level...

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm with Hebrews! I want to be Cecily's friend IRL! She sounds amazing! I don't know that I could formulate answers like that now let alone when I was 18. You have raised a great young lady!

    ReplyDelete
  20. That is one smart daughter you have there! I was sorely disappointed in my liberal arts education, but I didn't find anything to challenge me in college - my HS experience was far superior than any higher education I received, so I just floated through and got my diploma. Sad, but there isn't much left to college these days but touchy-feely PC nonsense - no kind of learning at all.

    ReplyDelete
  21. OH a girl after my own heart! Way to be strong and informed, Cecily! Keep pursuing the true, the good and the beautiful--and if necessary transfer to the University of Dallas (where verum, bonum, pulchrum is also the motto)! ;)
    I was also a classics major AND my husband and I taught at a Trinity School, which wrote the curriculum for your daughter's charter school (From your description, I'm fairly certain it is the same one our headmaster went down to Arizona to start). I taught Latin, Italian and Old Testament there and my husband taught physics, biology, 10th grade humane letters and Latin. What an outstanding curriculum, especially for high school, that the schools have. Young people are really taught to think critically and are prepared fully for the "real world" fluff many universities present as their curriculum. I always tell my husband that we can live wherever we want until our oldest is in 7th grade and then I'm moving wherever there is a Trinity School (I'm not sure if the charter school works the same way, but Trinity goes from grades 7-12), but I guess we can also choose Arizona for the charter school there. :)

    ReplyDelete
  22. PS--Oh and in case Hebrews brother doesn't work out, I also have a brother who is 18. He is starting at University of Dallas this fall and probably needs a year to get acclimated to solid education coming from a recent Jesuit "miseducation", but I think he'll be a great catch in no time. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  23. Adrienne, wow!! Seriously, you and dh taught at a Trinity school? Yes, Great Hearts schools are based on the Trinity model... is it Dan Scoggins or Andrew Ellison whom you were referencing? That is so cool!!!! Some of the Great Hearts schools are starting to add the lower grades, but the base model was 7-12. This year my kids' school (Veritas) started a sixth grade. The first inner-city school of the Great Hearts system starts in third grade, to reach them early. It's all tuition-free (because it's publicly funded) and there is no theology taught. But the model is fabulous for anyone and everyone, and in just a few years, we have become some of the top schools in the state (even though we have to provide our own [modest] sites and we get much less funding per child than a regular public school).

    You rock, Adrienne! You are our kind of woman! :) Your dh is amazing, too. And, keep my informed about your brother as the years go by... You never know. ;)

    Oh, and we did go and visit UD (she and I loved it, but it was too expensive). Her very best friend goes there!! And a few other of her high school friends attend UD. Several of the Great Hearts teachers are UD alum.

    The good thing for her is that she can be a "light" on the campus of a secular university, which is much needed. I think she enjoys that. She likes the battle. :)

    ReplyDelete
  24. I am intrigued by the idea of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness as a learning model. If anyone has the time, I would love to see just a couple lines of example, on how one would "teach" The Little Mermaid (just for comparison) through this light. Just trying to make sense of this (because honestly, I *do* think the Disney version of Little Mermaid is a complete train wreck...) But I'm not trying to get too caught up in the particular example- certainly teaching everything as a search for "Who is being opressed this time?" is a sad way to learn.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Actually neither Andrew or Dan, but they both worked under our old headmaster Andrew Zw.erneman at Tempe Prep, and in looking it up, it looks like Dan took over as headmaster when our Andrew left to be headmaster at the Trinity School in Northern Virginia. Such a small world!
    Too bad about UD. I hear you on the cost; it is so expensive now. When I started 10 years ago, it was $14K for tuition and they were giving amazing scholarships and I also had the benefit of a sibling discount. I had heard their budget has tightened a lot. They also used to give free tuition to National Merit Scholars (my hubby got to go tuition-free because of that), but I have heard they are not able to do that anymore either. Really a shame, especially in this economy. However, good for your daughter for having such a positive outlook on her role at a secular school! Her role is very important there. Growing up in Oregon, I know how tough it can be to be a "light in the darkness". She sounds like she is a very good witness to Truth. And as an added bonus, it must be nice to have her closer to home!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Monica, mostly it is about showing how the human spirit can and does transcend the limitations of this broken world.

    Interestingly, the original Little Mermaid tale (which they also read in class) was a Christian allegory. There is a part where the Little Mermaid has a resurrection after her pain and suffering and sacrifice. These are universal themes (suffering, sacrifice, redemption, sin, mercy, love.... truth, goodness, beauty). It's the sort of searching and pondering which elevates us all, rather than pitting group against group, victim vs. oppressor. It doesn't mean we don't see that there are true victims and oppressors out there (there are many), but we don't frame everything in the paradigm of collective guilt, collective victims (race, class, gender).

    Great question, by the way. Education used to be about a search for TRUTH. That was the *point* of learning and being educated! But now, it's all about making people feel good, or recognize their victim (or victimizer) status, etc. There is no objective "truth" for the left, so they don't search for it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Adrienne, yes, small world!! :)

    It's so expensive now.... and Cecily only got a small scholarship, while UofA gave her a pretty good one. We had to go were the money was, since we have seven more kids to put through college, and I don't want them to incur debt. As long as they have the Great Books high school education, I'm okay with them going to a secular school (as long as their faith is strong). Their high school education is like a college education used to be, so at least they are not missing out on anything on that score.

    And, yes, I LOVE having her closer to home! She was able to come and see her baby brother when he was born and even come home on some weekends. :)

    ReplyDelete
  28. For the Mom's here listening. Cost truly is a problem when it comes to educating our kids, I deal with it in my family life too. So, if you choose the generic State University because of cost, try to do these things: If it is at all possible, get AP credits in English so you can place out of theme based freshman English seminars. Many of the students come to college ill prepared, and non English major types are in those courses. Frequently videos are used instead of college reading materials, because you might have learning disabled kids right in the mix. I am the only one here not surprised to see Disney's The Little Mermaid as the assignment. A real college level course would have the students seek out the original tales and write sophisticated thoughts about myth and fairytales, and it can be done. An unsophisticated superficial approach is forcing race, gender and class over the top of things that were never intended to be read that way. Cecily must take an additional lesson from this experience: She needs to advocate for herself, read the course catalogs, and now that she knows how things are at the school, she needs to read the reading lists for the classes and take courses where there is content. I am afraid, yes, it was a waste of money so that some kids could get an English credit, at one size fits all (therefore, no one)university. At this school, seek out what they do best, or most effectively. I don't know what her/your goals are for her education or I could be more specific. Place out of intro courses where possible! Graduate in as short a period of time as the school permits. AP credits can speed this along. Design your own independent study courses or work on honors work/a thesis demonstrating true scholarship. This will waste less cash, and satisfy your needs better than taking their pablum and having to spend too much time showing you have learned the proper liberal leaning "attitudes."

    ReplyDelete
  29. SpottyBlogger, welcome to the Bubble! Great insights and I thank you for them!

    Cecily's situation is unique. She came from a high school that does not offer AP classes, as all of the curriculum is "core" and there are no electives. Very traditional, classical education. So, it's as if all her classes are AP, but the state schools, while acknowledging the difficulty of the curriculum, have no mechanism for having her opt out.

    Another issue with her is schedule. She actually did drop her first English class her first semester, because she saw the syllabus and heard the teacher say that the explicit sex talks she intended to have might offend religious people. There was some (basically) soft-core porn offerings, comic book analysis and a 'hate-the-white-man' work. So, she dropped it and couldn't fit into any other course to fit her schedule.

    Unfortunately, she has to work these silly, "general education" courses into her schedule where she can, and this time she had only one choice which would fit her schedule and her need to get this gen ed class out of the way. That's why she has to just deal with a lot of these gen ed classes. They fill up quickly and she must go with the ones she can fit around her Classics classes (which are not flexible).

    Yes, she is a Classics major, and thankfully, as her time at UofA goes on, she will be immersed in Classics and not the other bunk that is offered. So, it's a grin and bear it type situation, and an opportunity to be a voice for sanity in the gen ed classes.

    I agree that she should try to graduate in three years (thus saving a lot of money)... In fact, I think three years for liberal arts should be the new paradigm considering the rising costs involved (don't get me started on what education costs, ha!).

    And, to the credit of the teacher in this English class, they did read the original Little Mermaid fairy tale, which she enjoyed, as there was no attempt to inject the race, class and gender stuff, which was a nice (if brief) respite.

    I hope you will stick around the Bubble and keep commenting! You have a lot of knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  30. PS: When I say "comic book analysis" I mean that literally. They were going to be analyzing a comic book. Better yet, it was a comic book about Muslim women.

    ReplyDelete
  31. It would seem that things have gotten a lot worse.

    I took English 101 back in 1996, and I don't remember being confronted with the sort of nonsense this girl was subjected to. We read. We wrote. We studied writing to become better writers. Bad ideas simply weren't part of the curriculum.

    Viewing everything as an issue of race, sex and class is just standard Marxism. Well actually it is the modern version of it. Once upon a time everything was about class. Then Antonio Gramsci inserted race into it. Somewhere along the line sex was added in as well. The evil empire fell. The Berlin wall was torn down. The light of liberty shone behind the iron curtain. But we failed to defeat the 5th columnists in our own midst, and they have continued to attack us from within. We have to finish the job.

    I'm particularly disturbed that these students would be watching a movie. That is the kind of thing that I used to hear about students in sub-par HIGH SCHOOLS doing instead of actually reading the book a movie is based upon. Now I find it happening at the university level as well.

    The good news is that not everything at the university is all ate up with lies. Softer subjects tend to be vulnerable to this sort of thing. Real subjects are more resistant. Your daughter should seriously consider pursuing a major in Engineering or Business. These are two areas where leftist nonsense simply doesn't apply. If someone builds a bridge and it falls down, they can't blame it on false consciousness created by the oppression of the patriarchy. When ideas are subject to objective reality, it tends to create a mindset that is grounded in that reality and resistant to things that cannot be validated.

    I work at a university and the business and engineering faculty I know tend to be apolitical, the engineering faculty in particular.

    I see students pursuing majors that won't lead to anything but a lifetime of student loan payments. French. People actually major in French. How does an understanding of French literature put food on the table, let alone lead to a genuinely good job? Such a degree is purely recreational.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Lee, I agree.

    My daughter is a Classics major and I'm thinking she will end up teaching Latin in her old high school (or one of the other Great Hearts Schools). That would be rewarding for her, as she would help in the cause of keeping classical education (and the foundations of Western Civilization) alive. She has a solid scholarship, and she works, so her costs have been kept to a minimum.

    If she didn't have a scholarship (and some of my children may not), I would be loathe to pay for the type of nonsense she is learning in most of the gen ed courses.

    It's going to be interesting to see how it all falls out with each of my children.

    But the education paradigm has to change, if only on the financial side of things. No one will be able to afford it. (And the product ain't so great.)

    ReplyDelete
  33. My husband made it through the UofA with faith intact. He was a history major. His stories of the Newman Ctr back then would be a scandal to repeat but I hear it is much better now.

    My dd is going to UD in the fall. Good sized academic scholarship + solid need based aid plus a small loan plus her working and a little help from grandma and mom and dad and it's good but she'll have to be very frugal.

    Because of the way the state of TX structures it's acceptance and scholarships, we would have been paying the same or MORE for her to go to UT (blech!!!)

    ReplyDelete
  34. anonymous, that is good to hear! Yes, the Newman Center is better now, and my dd is active in it. She is a stickler for doctrine, so she has been pleasantly surprised. I am so glad to hear your dh made it out okay!!

    Her best friend goes to UD! We would have loved it (we visited!) but just couldn't swing it. My son is going to UA for engineering. He is strong in his faith and has his sister on campus for strength, ha ha. (She has been in Italy all semester, and that has been a dream.)

    I like to matchmake….maybe your dd and my ds? ha ha!!!

    ReplyDelete
  35. This reminds me of what I've always thought - English teachers think WAY MORE about a story than the authors did. Most stories are just that - stories to entertain. Not social commenteries/meant to be "read into".

    ReplyDelete
  36. Tanz--
    Reading into a story beyond its entertainment value is the only chance at gaining anything from a story.
    Sure, interpretations can sometimes run wild- hopefully backed by strong observations to at least present some kind of fresh thinking.

    Cecily's teacher's interpretation does present a strong argument. You could easily say the same thing about Sesame street or anything else for kids. Look for trouble, and you'll find it.
    Look for positives in the Little Mermaid, like love and sacrifice, and you'll find them, too.

    Perhaps instead of hating on the teacher in this class, I would have just argued the opposite ideals. You know, for fun.

    That's the point of college. Think of things a little deeper. You don't all have to become a "left-wing devil" afterwards, that's optional.

    ReplyDelete
  37. A, -- but of course the purpose of liberal indoctrination is not to "think of things a little deeper", but to show that the whole world is about oppressed vs oppressor. :) That's not thinking deeply, that is thinking with the crowd (academic elite). The purpose of a liberal education is to seek truth, goodness and beauty. Secular academia has forgotten what a true education is supposed to be. And if they don't know it, how will their students?

    ReplyDelete
  38. A… maybe I could ask this way: What do you think is the purpose of a liberal arts education?

    ReplyDelete
  39. …i.e., "thinking deeper", but about what and to what end?

    ReplyDelete
  40. --"thinking deeper", but about what and to what end? ... Secular academia has forgotten what a true education is supposed to be..."

    Not all teachers are awesome- but there's still some that push the envelope- and can risk their jobs in the process. Those few are what make me disagree with your above statement.
    Though Cecily's teacher came off as aggressive- he made a valid argument backed by distinct observations. It was a poorly translated example of pushing young minds to look past the surface value of things. Think beyond the garbage surrounding you and to see the Truth, even if it IS NOT beautiful or good (both of which are subjective). Little Mermaid is an old movie, merely reflecting what was acceptable at the time. NOW try watching a kids show- it's like a little U.N. meeting. There's always an asian kid, and hispanic kid, and black kid, a white kid etc. Teacher's observations weren't outlandish at all once you compare the details from kid's entertainment then, to now.

    This teacher's Truth behind Little Mermaid could be different from what you and I would see. But he argued it well, and that's where he succeeded.
    Where teacher failed, is not leaving his argument up for the class to debate.
    That's where stronger learning occurs.

    I'm not sure if Cecily missed it, or if the teacher was only doing half his job. The way it should have gone, and often goes under BETTER teachers:

    Teacher points out the differences of classes, of victims and oppressors, of racism and intolerance in the old fashioned Little Mermaid... as a way to show how things USED to be. How wrong was that, right kids. Be different than that. Love and accept your neighbor regardless of color, status or class.

    Ah, I sound like a Brophy boy all right.

    --

    "the purpose of liberal indoctrination is to show that the whole world is about oppressed vs oppressor."

    You're not afraid of the liberal indoctrination, you're afraid of it being the only perspective being taught. Though it's safer in our public school system to teach that way, it's not the only song being sung. Speech, English, Writing and Debate classes are prime examples of this. Assignments like reflections on literature for example, are open to interpretation regardless of someone's political edge. As long as the claims are backed by solid observation (like our Little Mermaid teacher) the paper is worthwhile.
    History classes won't preach the Bible's version of events, for obvious reasons.
    Education is for the public at large. So it has to be widespread, easily swallowed by anyone.

    Oppressed vs Oppressor, is just part of the Race/Gender/Class menu being served. Training kids to notice the Big 3 and the pains they each endure is preventative maintenance. We don't want our ugly history of violent racism, hatred and social ignorance to repeat itself.

    To conclude, don't take Cecily's half-lesson as the end-all for colleges now.
    It wasn't long ago that I graduated myself. I remember both sides being powerfully argued. The idea was observe, dissect, and understand every angle. Then mold your own agenda based off of your findings.

    Ok I can't write anymore.
    Damn Liberals and such.

    ReplyDelete
  41. But you miss the point. The Little Mermaid was not about racism and intolerance and oppression. That was a leftist interjection, and only to push an agenda. That is manipulation. That is politics. It's not courageous at all to fall in line with the leftist agenda. And that agenda is not one of many "lenses" being taught in universities, it's the dominant one. (With some wonderful exceptions.) Most kids have never learned how to think, and teaching kids to see all of life as oppressor/oppressed is not "thinking".

    How familiar are you with classical education, and the search for Truth, Goodness and Beauty (which are not subjective, by the way)? And I don't think you answered: What is (or what always has been) the purpose of liberal arts education?

    ReplyDelete
  42. A. "The Other Side" CentrellaAugust 8, 2011 at 11:25 PM

    " The Little Mermaid was not about racism and intolerance and oppression. That was a leftist interjection, and only to push an agenda. That is manipulation. That is politics. It's not courageous at all to fall in line with the leftist agenda."

    Then the purpose behind her (not his, sorry, female teacher) argument is where we disagree. We'd have to ask her to be certain.

    ---

    How familiar are you with classical education, and the search for Truth, Goodness and Beauty (which are not subjective, by the way)?

    Too familiar. Our argument is proof in itself that Truth is subjective. We both read the same interview with Cecily and got the opposite Truths from it.
    Goodness is defined in the Bible. It's defined differently elsewhere, subjectively.
    Like I think condoms are pure goodness- shocker.

    And beauty? That's the MOST subjective. Take a Jackson Pollock painting.
    Half the people laugh at it, 'my kid could paint that crap'. Yet his paintings sell to others for more than my house is worth.

    --

    "And I don't think you answered: What is (or what always has been) the purpose of liberal arts education?"

    Here's what liberal arts is supposed to be:
    http://www.virtualsalt.com/libarted.htm

    My opinion? High school, part 2. It's for kids that don't know what to do with themselves but are too wimpy to join the Army.

    ReplyDelete
  43. No objective Truth? No objective Goodness? No objective Beauty? But you say you believe in God?

    Hmmmm…

    Here's a little something I wrote about Truth:

    http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2010/10/pilate-said-to-him-what-is-truth.html

    There is subjective truth and objective Truth.

    You said we both got opposite "Truths" from this post? I don't even know what that means, unless you mean we both had different opinions on what the teacher should have done or what she meant? But opinions are not Truth. So, that's irrelevant.

    Liberal arts, classical education, go way back to the purpose of university education. What was it for? Not a modern day Q and A. What were the original universities for? Why were they founded? What is philosophy, anyway? What is the purpose of a liberal (in the classical sense) education? It's a short answer. :)

    Although I do like the thing about kids who are too wimpy to join the Army…. :)

    ReplyDelete
  44. "No objective Truth? No objective Goodness? No objective Beauty? But you say you believe in God?"

    There are two things I've run into in life that actually are genuinely good.
    The first, is God. Infinitely good.
    Only because a God of infinite evil wouldn't create, but destruct. A God of infinite indifference wouldn't create anything- he wouldn't care enough.

    The other genuinely good thing. Kids, when they're really young. Like 1-5 years old. Before they have the chance to *learn* rotten behavior.

    As for beauty, people see that how and where they want, come on now.

    Truth is based purely on facts. But opinions can sway "truth"s too.

    Like (opens can of worms) the truth behind the Iraq war.

    ReplyDelete
  45. A, but you are missing the point. What is Good is Good because it's of God. For example, mercy is Good. Purity is Good. Humility is Good. Etc. There is a moral law (God's law). This is Good. Adults can choose and do the Good. We can also do evil. We try to do Good and avoid evil, of course, but we need to know and identify the Good so that we can do it. The Good is accessible by natural law (I've written a lot about that here on the blog) and of course by Revelation as well.

    Truth as "facts"? Well, yes, it is true that I am sitting at my desk. But, that's not what I am talking about when I speak of objective, unchanging Truth. Truth is what is real, and what will always be real (before or after Creation). Objective Truth is what we are born to seek.

    The transcendent Truth, transcendent Beauty, transcendent Goodness. I think you are not getting the big picture, which is why we need to go back to a classical education for all. :) Even I am deficient in it. Plato, Aristotle, etc… A good place to start, for the pre-Christian thoughts on the things we "can't not know" (to quote the book I recommended for this year).

    Did you read that link I posted?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Yay! You win Leila :)
    I was indeed throwing Pilate all over the place.
    You ARE formidable.

    One of these days I'll admit I'm on your side. It's just fun to see how deep the rabbit hole goes sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Oh, A! Don't do that to me… With eight kids and a real life, I can't go down too many rabbit holes just for fun. ;)

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE, when commenting, do not hit "reply" (which is the thread option). Instead, please put your comment at the bottom of the others.

To ensure that you don't miss any comments, click the "subscribe by email" link, above. If you do not subscribe and a post exceeds 200 comments, you must hit "load more" to get to the rest. We often have meaty and long discussions -- trust me, they're worth following!