Guest post by Stacy: Is there an eclipse of reason in education?

Thank you to the lovely Stacy Trasancos, at Accepting Abundance, for today's guest post!

Eclipse: “Absence, cessation, or deprivation of light.”

Reason: “To think something through.”

I never knew what a parochial school was until our kids entered a small private Catholic school about six years ago. I had no idea about the history of the university and no clue what the “Ph” in Ph.D. really meant even as I proudly appended the title to my name. Then I became Catholic and my eyes were opened. 

I grew up in Texas in the 1970s and 1980s and I remember that history class was a joke, usually taught by a coach with more important things to do, and although I loved learning, it seemed the ultimate end in all classes was to make good grades. Why? So you can go to college. Why? So you can get a job. 

When I taught high school in Texas in the 1990s it was the same. Teachers had to submit lesson plans for specific state-directed objectives. Grading had to reflect a bell curve and students had to pass standardized exams. Funding and grades were the metrics to show that people were learning. Why? College and a job. The cultural message was also that women could be anything a man could be and so they should not settle for baking cookies and just being a housewife.

When my own daughter started Kindergarten in Pennsylvania, I began graduate school; I was living out the “get a job” mentality. I thought it was great that my daughter could get bussed off to school for “free” and I didn’t have to worry about anything. It was no different when my son started school in 2000 in Virginia. I even availed myself of the school lunches and after-school programs so I could work long hours at my VIP job, which I worked my whole life to achieve. 

Then in 2004 I began conversion to Catholicism, and little by little life started making more sense. For one, I realized children matter much more than careers. We began homeschooling in Massachusetts and continued for four years. As I changed, I also started to understand learning and education in a new light, not as something to get a job but as something to complete yourself, to know yourself, to understand your world.

When my daughter wanted to go back to public school for her junior year so she could experience a senior year graduation, we let her. She took the state standardized tests and maxed out the score. She made good grades. She was even inducted into the National Honor Society, successful by all objective measures. Then in April, after she had nearly completed her whole junior year, an administrator called to tell us she could not graduate the next year because she needed 24 credits to graduate. They literally wanted her to go to high school for four years and graduate at age 20. Needless to say, she got her GED and quit. We pounded on the school board for two years and got the senseless rule changed, but that experience really landed home the idea that public school is not about learning, but about an over-reliance on numbers and money. 

Eventually my son, weary of three baby sisters, wanted to end homeschooling. My husband suggested parochial school, and that’s when my eyes were fully opened. To enroll, the parents had to bring the student for an interview. The building was 100 years old and walking into it felt like stepping back in time, in stark contrast to the city’s new $50 million vocational high school that appears to be a glamorous shopping mall. Anyway…

When we met the principal, she showed genuine interest in my son and his spiritual development, in our family as a whole, and in introducing us to everyone else. The school was much like homeschooling, only in a bigger family. He started the next day because he said he wanted to, and so the principal even gave him uniforms from the recycled clothing closet to spare us a hasty trip to the uniform store.

Six years later we are preparing for the fifth child to enter that same school. It is a much fuller experience than what I experienced in four different states as a student, a teacher and a parent over the span of nearly 30 years. It’s not so much that it is a Catholic private school as it is the approach Catholics in general take towards education, wherever their kids go for instruction. 

The education is basic, chalkboard style “learn-to-take-pride-in-your-work” and “you-get-what-get-and-you-don’t-get-upset” kind of stuff.  It is practical, solid and no-nonsense, grounded in reason and wisdom. The children read the classics, learn to sing and dance, and being rude is a serious offense. Everyone is expected to take care of things, including the old building (which is paid for). The teachers spend as much time educating the children about moral responsibility as they do teaching them how to read, write and do arithmetic. 

I’ve never known a single student who dropped out or graduated unable to read, and the teens actually look me in the eyes and open doors for me when I visit. They engage, and can speak about a range of issues. The baby in my arms is usually grabbed and passed around by giggling adolescent girls and curious boys. 

Sure people will say that the school is excellent because it’s private and there’s lots of money. Nope. I dug up some numbers regarding the cost. The state spends four times as much to educate a single student as we do. It is worth noting that many students at our school are not Catholic or do not have the money for tuition. The Church welcomes them anyway with whatever they can afford, and Catholics share the rest of the bill.

In the US, Catholics educated 2.1 million students in the 2009-2010 school year with our own 10 billion dollars, thus saving the American taxpayer over $22 billion dollars in education expenses. The average cost per student was $4,800. The public schools spend over twice this much, $10,400 per student. And even though we educate kids at less than half the cost, Catholic education stands head and shoulders above every other form of education that we have in this country. The national Catholic school graduation rate is 99.1% of high school students.  Of these graduates, 84.7% go on to college, compared to 44.1% of public school graduates. 

Regarding the university, well, I’ve learned that is a Catholic idea too. In the words of Blessed Cardinal John Henry Newman, a university is a “place of teaching universal knowledge.”  The word comes from the Latin word “universitas” which means community, corporation, totality – universality. Catholic means universal, whole, united, too. Catholics are big on wholeness and unity!

Catholics, in medieval times, started the first universities to pass on knowledge. The earliest universities were developed under the aegis of the Church in Western Europe.  It was only later that the state took over education. Just like I’ve met impressive children with Catholic educations, I’ve met impressive college graduates, too, from traditional Catholic universities, at least half of whom are young women either happily raising a family or looking forward to it. The men and women are versed in the richness of history and the classics, and they present themselves with a sense of dignity and propriety. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Catholic-educated child refer to me by my first name.

As to philosophy, although most college students today don’t know what that word really means, the classical meaning of the word dating back to ancient Greece is a “love of wisdom.” In early universities, all reasoned discourse and knowledge was philosophy. Education is supposed to be about answering ultimate questions, the search for a worldview, the search to know the important things in life that we need to seek and to strive for as human beings.  It is the development of the self in relation to what has come before, what comes after and all that exists in the present. 

Comparing the truncated, superficial (and expensive) education in our country today with the ancient wisdom of the Church leaves me with the ominous sense that education in the US has experienced an eclipse of reason. I wonder how long it will take people to realize that, just like love, when knowledge is pursued without seeking higher transcendental ends where we are eternally responsible for our actions, the result is never satisfying or sustainable. An economic system can only sustain so many people making grades for the sole sake of getting a job, people who do not possess the foundation of understanding and wisdom to know why they should work in the first place, or what truth they are working toward.

“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.”   Fides et Ratio




.

Quick Takes, including a dramatic home makeover by Danya!

I'm away from the computer for a few days, but yippee for being able to schedule posts in advance!!

1. Okay, this is the best thing ever. A while back, I lamented that my house never looks as pretty as the other blogger ladies' houses. I have always oohed and aahed over the "before" and "after" pictures of their home interiors, while being stuck with no taste and no talent of my own. Well, lucky for me, I have a friend named DANYA!!! Yes, our own dear Danya has done something for me that I could never in a million years do for myself. And she did it out of love. Are you ready for this? Here is a "before" picture of my living room:

What house full of boys would be complete without pink walls?

And now, after Danya and her beautiful daughter worked their magic on a shoestring budget, I have my own "after" pictures! Ta-daaaa!!!

Have to add one more, because Jesus is in it (over there on the left!), overlooking the peace and tranquility of at least one room in this house!

I am relaxing just looking at these pictures.

I mean really? Who else but Danya could make pink walls work? If you think that's amazing, you should see the photos from the baby shower she threw for me a year and a half ago. I thought it was a royal wedding reception!

Now, she is not done yet, as there are still some touches to add. A couple of glowing lamps, and a large, round mirror over the armoire ("rose window" style!).

Bottom line? Danya, you are the bee's knees, sister!

2. Since I am away from the blogging world for a few days, I asked the wonderful Stacy at Accepting Abundance to write a guest post. She was kind enough to accept, and her post on education, a subject she knows well, will run on Monday.

I won't be able to follow the comments, but I thought I'd throw out this interesting story, which sticks in my craw to this day: I was on an internet forum a few years ago (so what if it was a Clay Aiken fan group???), discussing educational choice with a staunch supporter of the NEA and the public school system. She kept talking about money, money, money, as if that were the answer to the problem of educational decline. I told her that my children attended a tiny private Catholic school which was housed in an old public school building, in a bad neighborhood, with no indoor toilets for the kids (the parents were in charge of cleaning the restrooms each week!). There was no library, no auditorium, no sports fields. The kids sat in mismatched desks and never saw a computer in a classroom. And yet, without all the "necessary" bells and whistles, my kids were getting an excellent and complete education, at a cost per student which was thousands less than the state was spending per student in public schools.

Do you know what this lady said to me, after I described the state of our school?

She called me a liar!

Seriously, I could not believe it! I still don't believe it! I politely asked if she were kidding, and she said it again! Oh, my. I know, I'm still bitter. But I knew then that some conversations are just not possible.

3. Speaking of liars, how about that Planned Parenthood? They are at it again, those crazy kids, and they are good! Check it out, here. If only the media would call Cecile Richards out. Ah, a girl can dream. Indiana residents, I hope you are all over this!

4. In the "eclipse of reason" file, from Sweden:

No 'him' or 'her'; preschool fights gender bias

Those poor kids. 

5. Speaking of gender roles as "societal construct", how do the proponents of a gender-neutral world explain the difference between the lesbian culture and the gay male culture? They are very, very, very different cultures. What accounts for that, if (as we have heard on this blog) there is no essential difference between men and women? Of course, most of us realize and expect that gay men would be different from gay women, because (drum roll)... men and women are essentially different. Even when they are gay!

6. I challenge any reader, left or right, to listen to Dennis Prager on the radio for one week. He is Jewish, conservative (grew up very liberal), thoughtful and respectful, and utterly brilliant. I don't agree with everything he says by a long shot, but I am always edified when I hear him discuss matters of religion, politics, philosophy and society. If you like the discussions in the Bubble, you will love his show.

7. Finally, have a wonderful Fourth of July weekend! May God bless America! And speaking of that, check out the amazing, faith-filled lyrics to some of our nation's most patriotic songs, here. I remember learning them in my public elementary school. Do they still do that anymore? If not, remember to teach your kids these national treasures!

Thanks to Jen, who's enjoying her babymoon, for hosting!

.

My regrettable exchange with a Catholic university professor.

Recently, I had an interesting and disheartening email exchange with a professor at a prominent Catholic university. It was my intention to reprint the entire exchange here but the professor has threatened to take legal action against me if I do. Specifically, he will move to have Blogger shut down the Bubble if I show you his words. 


I've struggled a bit with whether or not to write this post at all, but after praying on it for a couple of days, I've decided to go ahead. It's just one more confirmation of what others (including the Vatican) have known for decades: that something has gone horribly awry in Catholic higher education.


Because of the professor's threats of legal action, I will reprint only my emails here, and then summarize what the professor said in response. He will remain unnamed.


My words are in blue, the summary of the professor's words are in red, and my commentary is in black italics.


It all began when I followed a link that was put in the comment section of a post. The linked article was presented as being from a Catholic source, when in fact it was from an anti-Catholic source that has been publicly denounced by the US Bishops. My point in contacting the website's owner was to clarify for him that his source was misleading. I sent the following email:


Greetings Professor!

If this is from your website:

[Here I inserted the web address of the article in question.]

You might want to check out this:

[Here I linked to a post of mine which used official Church teaching to debunk one of the article's main (erroneous) points.]

I am sure you don't want to purposely misrepresent Catholic teaching. Your page (written by "Catholics" For a Free Choice) also says: "Contrary to popular belief, no pope has proclaimed the prohibition of abortion an 'infallible' teaching."


It is also true that the Catholic Church has never declared, ex cathedra, that God exists. That doesn't mean it's not infallibly taught. Again, for more accurate information about Catholicism, you might want to check out this post:

[Doctrinal Quiz Show Answer: Papal Infallibility]

In it, I make clear that "an ex cathedra pronouncement (extraordinary Magisterium) is not the only kind of infallibility on the block, and definitely not the most common. Many dissident, unfaithful 'Catholics' will use the bogus argument that 'the pope only declared two things infallibly!' to justify their rejection of a hundred other Catholic truths."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is another great source for authentic Catholic teaching.


Blessings and Merry Christmas!
Leila 


I did not spend a lot of time looking at the professor's website. I wrote the note quickly, assuming he was a professor in some small school somewhere, probably a Protestant or someone who was very confused about authentic Catholic sources.


The professor wrote back and explained that his website was reading for graduate students and he wished I had explored his website more carefully. In his course, he includes readings from many different religious perspectives, including "liberal Catholics." He teaches a graduate course for university students, and while it is not a catechism class, he does have them read official Catholic teaching. Students in his class (half of whom are Catholic, half not) are expected to use "critical tools" to dissect and evaluate the essays. He is not teaching a Catholic theology course, but a law course. He would not have used that particular article if he were teaching the official Catholic position. He kindly wished me a Merry Christmas and New Year.


I responded:


Dear [Name], 

Thank you for the response! Unfortunately, with eight children I didn't have time to read through your blog carefully. Someone had used the source from your site as a factual reading of Catholic thought and teaching. I imagine that is not uncommon, thus the problem.

I guess I would just hope that, as a professor, you would make sure that a page such as that, from a very anti-Catholic source, would have a very large caveat written across the top, that this source is in fact, not Catholic. That would be the intellectually honest thing to do. Please understand, I'm not accusing you of being intellectually dishonest.... we all have oversights that need to be pointed out.

(And this is just for me, but I'm guessing that the 50% of your class who are Catholic don't have a clue how to discern what is authentic Catholic teaching. I was once one of those Catholics, and it's the norm. So, for the sake of educating Catholics who were once just like me, I hope you will keep your sources very clear.)

Blessings!
Leila


And because I had "one last thought," I sent off one more quick email:


One last thought, [Name]. 

"Catholics for a Free Choice" is not a "liberal Catholic perspective" it is a non-Catholic perspective. Even the US bishops (many liberals among them) have denounced the group publicly for being not Catholic. So, to claim this group as a "liberal Catholic" group is factually incorrect.

Thanks!

Leila

So, at this point I am still naive and hopeful, thinking that I would get a response of understanding, a concession that the article could be misleading. I assumed that an academic would understand that clarity and facts are necessary when guiding students to think their way to truth. I was honestly not expecting the response I got....


The professor informed me that his website was the farthest thing from a blog... it was an academic resource for his university graduate students, and his professorial duty is to stimulate big ideas and have lively discussions [clearly he has not yet read the discussions we have on this blog, but he's welcome to join us!]. If he tells his students what to think in advance, that is not true education. He quotes a priest, Fr. Hesburgh, whom he calls the "greatest Catholic educator of the 20th century." Fr. Hesburgh has said: "The university is where the Church does its thinking." The professor ends by saying that he has rarely seen a blog where much thinking takes place. [Ouch! That seemed unnecessary.]


He also responded to my follow-up email by saying that the group "Catholics for a Free Choice" calls itself that, not he.


I admit that the insulting tone of his note drove me to dash off my next email. I could have been more diplomatic, but it could have been worse, right?


[Name], forgive me, but that attitude is why university education is seen as such a joke by so many these days.


Sadly, the university is where the Church used to do its thinking. Today, most Catholic colleges (not all) are wastelands.


(And I say all that as a summa cum laude graduate of Boston College.)

God bless!

Leila

The professor responded with four Latin words:


Summa veritas summa ignorantia. 


I assumed it was a dig, discussed it with my daughter who studies Latin, and had it later confirmed by two Latin teachers that it certainly could be a dig, depending on the context. The dig about my blog and then about me was so absurd as to be amusing, and I did laugh in disbelief of it all. I'm not proud of it, but I replied with the following:


Thanks for the chuckle, [Name]!  My daughter, a classics major with an emphasis in Latin, enjoyed this exchange of emails. Perhaps you might like the interview I did with her on my blog (we peasants like blogs). Then again, you might not like the interview after all. But it says a lot about academia today:


[Unpacking Liberalism: Interview with my daughter]


God bless!

I quickly sent another email asking him if I had permission to use his emails on my blog. 

The professor responded by saying that since I had written two insulting emails to him, he would not give me permission to use his emails. He told me they are copyrighted. He said he was not sure if I knew how insulting my emails were, and then went on to defend Catholic higher education as being far from a wasteland. He provided me with his teaching and publishing credentials (which are certainly impressive). He took issue with the fact that I denigrated the institutions that he loves. And he felt that my use of the words "that attitude" was a personal attack. He said that the people who read my blog might enjoy the attack on a Catholic university education, but he didn't. After stating that his attempt to have a conversation with me failed, he told me of a prestigious award that he will be receiving soon. [I have absolutely no doubt that he is a learned, effective and beloved teacher.] He said if all his students reacted as I did, he would give up. He also added some nice words about my daughter studying Classics, and wanted to know how she translated the Latin maxim.


I responded:


[Name], 

My understanding is that emails are public domain and I can print them. I will double check. 

The comments you made to me were insulting, actually, which is the only reason I was insulting back. Very elitist, really. I was shocked.

As soon as I looked up Fr. Hesburgh (whom I had never heard of in 17 years of hanging out in faithful Catholic circles) and discovered that he spearheaded Land O Lakes, the biggest rebellion against the Church in forever, I knew all I needed to know. He helped to ruin Catholic universities. Not cool. [Catholic readers! If you are not familiar with the Land O'Lakes Declaration, you must click this link and read what happened there. It is your duty as a Catholic to understand.]

Anyway, I will tell my daughter. Thanks!

Blessings,

Leila

PS:  Are you Catholic? [Turns out he is Catholic.]


The response I got was fairly long and full of insults, and I will not repeat them here, for two reasons: One, I hope that the professor will decide to engage in dialogue with me sometime in the future, when he stops being upset with me. Two, he admitted at the end that it was a nasty email (although he said I "deserved it"), which he regretted writing. I will not embarrass him by summarizing it here. 


This is my response to that nasty email, which I had to pare down before I sent it, as I was pretty heated:


Dear [Name],

This is all so interesting to me, and terribly sad.

I will not use your emails, but I will use mine and summarize yours. I will not use your name, either. Tell me if that's legal. If you say no, I will consult with my lawyer friends just to be sure. 

Anyway, you needn't worry about anyone of importance reading my blog, since people like me and my ilk are non-intellectual peasants, apparently. 

I don't know Fr. Hesburgh, but I do know Land O Lakes and the disaster left in its wake. Fr. Hesburgh is not a name I recognized as an orthodox Catholic, because he is obviously not an orthodox Catholic. I don't spend a lot of time reading dissident Catholics or their publications.

BC didn't teach me elitism, it taught me almost nothing. I realize that truth is no longer the goal of education in most Catholic universities, and that is a shame. Every single one of my friends who was a practicing Catholic going into BC had left the practice of the Faith upon graduating [or soon after]. I include myself in that tally. I am the only one [that I know of] who is currently a practicing Catholic (having come back to the Church in my late twenties). This may please you, as a sign of "progressive thought", but I believe it's a tragedy.

Thankfully, the younger generation of lay faithful (and priests/seminarians/sisters) are increasingly orthodox.

I wrote my "reversion" story years ago, and I called it, "I Was Robbed." 

[My reversion story: I Was Robbed]

Hundreds of people in my generation have written me to tell me that my story is their story, too [okay, "hundreds" was an exaggeration, but the number is well over one hundred]. They feel robbed as well. It is people like Fr. Hesburgh who robbed our generation of the right to know and learn authentic Catholicism. This is a heavy burden he faces.... and you as well, if you are complicit in perpetuating the lie that Magisterial teaching is simply another "opinion" to be evaluated equally with the the voices of dissent.

I sent my daughter to UofA because that's what we could afford. In many ways it is a wasteland, but the Classics department is sound.

You know nothing of my stance on immigration. My position is that of the Arizona bishops. You can read it online.

I would love to know what I misunderstand about papal authority. Which parts of my "blog" are in error? Please advise. My audience is regular Catholics (peasant class, not academics), and I am not writing an undergraduate treatise for them. I am making things clear and understandable, meeting people where they are. Christianity is a religion of the people, and the basics are accessible to all people. [Okay, you all know that I am not actually calling you peasants!!! I was reacting to his elitism with some self-deprecation... the professor was clear that he finds me ignorant and foolish.]

[Oh, this next part is going to sound like bragging, and that makes me cringe a bit, but I hope you can understand why I said it.] I am not a liar. Lying is a sin, and as a Catholic, I avoid sin. Yes, I am a summa cum laude graduate of Boston College, [college and year]. I found the classes there quite simple, and I aced them. In addition, I scored in the 99% percentile in the nation on the logic section of the GMATs. Not that those things impress me, as academic credentials and awards are nothing in the eyes of Heaven. What impresses me are the virtues of humility, obedience and holiness. [And the Good Lord knows that's the truth!]

I also regret this exchange, just as I regret what has happened in the American Church over the past 40+ years, where Truth and Knowledge and Wisdom (and real education) have been traded for 30 pieces of silver.

Final thought.... what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?

Blessings to you, my brother in Christ,

Leila

I did not hear from the professor again.  (*I have since discovered that he's been out of town.)


Thinking over the exchange in the past few days, and praying about it, I have gone from the pettiness of wanting to expose the professor out of spite (not pretty, I know), to feeling just plain sad about the whole thing. He felt injured and so do I.


Our interchange is a microcosm of the rift between orthodox Catholics and Catholics who dissent from the teachings of the Magisterium. The Body of Christ is broken, which is heartbreaking and scandalous. Faithful Catholics have long lamented the state of Catholic universities, as has the Church herself: Pope John Paul II tried valiantly to bring nominal Catholic universities back into the fold by issuing Ex Corde Ecclesiae ("From the Heart of the Church") back in 1990.


I would welcome further dialogue with the professor, or with any other academic who holds his views. But for now, I continue to regret what has transpired, both in recent days and recent decades.




"Not in mortification, not in prayer, not in labor, not in rest, but in obedience is the essence and merit of holiness." -- St. Maximilian Mary Kolbe, martyr of Auschwitz


For the conclusion and moral of the story, go here.


**UPDATE: This morning I received a thoughtful and lengthy email from the professor, in response to my last email. He was not, at that time, aware of this blog entry. I wrote back and told him that I had already written a post on our exchange. I hope to write a follow-up post in the near future....


**Second UPDATE: Once the professor learned that I had already posted about him, he informed me that he was disappointed, and that our conversation is now over. 

There's a Liberal Bubble, too.

I believe there is a Liberal Bubble. And it's not little.

I believe that a large number of secular humanists rarely, if ever, come into meaningful contact with conservatives or conservative ideas. 

Kick me for bringing up Dennis Prager again, but I think he is dead on with this observation: It is possible for a liberal in America to go through his whole life without encountering conservative thought in any depth or significance (though it will be presented to him in caricatured form).

By contrast, conservatives constantly come into contact with liberals and liberal thought. There is simply no avoiding it, since the major societal institutions -- schools/academia, arts and entertainment, the mainstream media, even the government and courts -- are bastions of modern liberalism and "progressive" activism.

A couple of things I've read recently brought this home for me.

The first was written by a regular reader and commenter, MaiZeke, on her own blog. She told her readers:

One of the reasons I’m following this other blog [Little Catholic Bubble] is to actually hear how conservative minds think (esp religious conservative minds). I just never meet anyone like this in real life...

And then, from Mrs. M, on the question of objective truth:

I have to be honest and say that the idea of 'truth' isn't something I've thought about too much in my life, so I can't guarantee that my position on it will be very clear.

Now, I think it's commendable that MaiZeke comes to this blog to find out how we think. I wish more liberals were as open-minded as she. I hope that she discovers over time that our conservative positions are reasoned and consistent, even if she doesn't ultimately agree with them.

And I appreciate Mrs. M's honesty. If she hasn't thought too much about the idea of "truth," it's because it isn't taught anymore. There has been a huge paradigm shift in education over the past few decades. Truth used to be the end of education. It was the goal. Today, it's entirely possible for an American student to go through the entire education system (kindergarten through graduate school) without having been taught to seek what is true, good and beautiful.

Living in a bubble is not good if it's about purposely insulating oneself from those who live and think differently. My "bubble" (a silly name I call my Catholic community) is a joy and a comfort; however, I venture out often to engage a spectrum of people and ideas. Some liberal readers have taken shots at me for living in a "Little Catholic Bubble" -- and then they've scurried away to bubbles of their own, never to be heard from (or challenged in their thinking) again.

I am grateful that MaiZeke and Mrs. M are not like those hit-and-run liberals. I am grateful that they have chosen to stick around and get to know us better.

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?