By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 12/30/07

Education is much more than the bestowal of facts, figures, and opinion by teachers. More than anything it should be the inculcation of deliberative and critical thinking skills into our students. Such was my argument a couple of weeks ago, and that too many of our teachers seek to indoctrinate rather than truly teach how to think. My thesis upset Martin Hackworth so much he did an entire satire piece on it, proving by his defensiveness his culpability as an indoctrinator.

I would submit that any good teacher is comfortable teaching various perspectives on the same issue, and facilitating a non-threatening environment where the students can, through the Socratic method, make inquiries, research further, and fully think through issues. If we are not teaching our children critical thinking, they enter school as a “skull full of mush” and leave thirteen or seventeen years later as nothing more than narcissistic and even more vacuous “skulls full of mush,” but with the dangerous side effect of thinking they know it all.

To Mr. Hackworth and other educators to whom the concept of teaching critical thinking and various perspectives is anathema, I would suggest taking a few days digesting the immense amount of research available proving its efficacy. The ERIC database maintained by the U.S. Department of Education makes an outstanding starting point. A search of “critical thinking” yields over 12,000 abstracts.

According to one study there, published in October, the researchers found that by teaching various perspectives in a manner designed to require critical thinking (i.e. not indoctrination per the teacher’s opinion), the experimental group “showed a statistically significant improvement on critical thinking subscales, such as truth-seeking, open-mindedness, self-confidence, and maturity, compared with the control groups” (i.e. those indoctrinated by teacher opinion). That sounds like what education is supposed to accomplish.

The researchers went on to say that, “Our findings suggest that if teachers purposely and persistently practice higher order thinking strategies for example, dealing in class with real-world problems, encouraging open-ended class discussions, and fostering inquiry-oriented experiments, there is a good chance for a consequent development of critical thinking capabilities.” That is not possible in a closed, opinion driven classroom environment like my daughter struggled through, ironically, in a critical theory literature class last semester.

There is no teacher I respect or admire more than my mother-in-law, Edith Hunt, who has been teaching and tutoring for nearly thirty years. She can work with virtually any child, and excels with those underperforming for their grade level, if they are willing to work. In a matter of months, she can have them performing at or above grade level. One fourth grader could hardly read the word “this” when she started with her, and by the time she completed her elementary training, she had earned the Presidential Academic Excellence Award.

What you or I would classify as a miracle accomplishment is simply a proven method of teaching that she has perfected. Rather than coddling and pampering the child, high expectations are agreed to by Mrs. Hunt, the student, and the parents, and a rigorous process of teaching ensues. As important as fundamental facts and figures are at the elementary level, the most crucial element is training the student to look at material from different perspectives, thereby facilitating critical thinking.

And it’s not just in social studies that this teaching process develops critical thinking skills, it’s across all disciplines. The example cited above from the ERIC database was conducted with science students. Mrs. Hunt validates this approach from her experience even in teaching basic math and reading skills. She maintains that 60% of her teaching is geared to critical thinking, and only 40% to the actual academic material. She maintains that by getting the student to look at words and problems from different angles and perspectives stimulates the cognitive processes necessary to not just develop a fine student, but a future adult who can compete and participate proactively in the competitive job market of the 21^st century.

A “blogger” on the Journal weblog from my column two weeks ago, Natasha, made the following observation: “I think the root cause of the problem is we are not teaching critical thinking in secondary education. Logic and argument are beyond our student population not because they are unintelligent but because they are uneducated. This leaves them unable to recognize bad argument and therefore subject to indoctrination. Instead of all the feel good touchy feely classes that now dominate our high schools we should insist that classical debate and argument are taught. Society can remain free only as long as the people are free thinkers.”

Mrs. Hunt validates this notion. She conducts drills with her students to ensure they have the fundamental information for a given discipline as one aspect of her tutoring. When the teacher of one of her students was asked if she did drills, she replied matter-of-factly, “Oh, no. Some of them may not do that very well, and it would hurt their self-esteem.”

I think that’s the “feel good touchy feely” aspect of contemporary public education that Natasha was referring to. The irony to the teacher’s comment, however, is that by engaging in such exercises, these students’ self-esteem grows by leaps and bounds as they at first struggle with, and then master the concepts thought by the teacher to be too challenging to their self-esteem!

Although Mr. Hackworth scoffed at the notion that American education is falling increasingly behind the rest of the world, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, “the nation’s report card” tells a different story. According to the Assessment, “less than one-third of American students are doing well in reading, writing, math, science and other important subjects.” That means whatever we’re doing is not working.

We’re creating a generation of sheep that is too ill-informed to see through the specious reasoning of indoctrinated contemporary education, and who haven’t been equipped with the tools of reasoning and critical thinking. A paradigm shift of sorts is necessary on the part of educators and with the committed support of parents and administrators, to teach our children to think critically, and not just indoctrinate them according to the teachers or professors opinion.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 12/23/07

“I’m offended every time I hear a Christmas Carol, or see a nativity scene, or see a cross, especially if it’s all lit up. Even the Santa Claus and decorations bug me because I know that it all has to do with Christmas.” Such was the comment made on a California radio talk show earlier this week by a fellow who is undoubtedly miserable, because he allows others so much control over his life and his attitude.

It really is disconcerting that there are some who suffer great angst by a national celebration which is intended to acknowledge not just the birth of Jesus Christ, but our humanity and commonality.

Calvin Coolidge said, “Christmas is not a time nor a season, but a state of mind. To cherish peace and goodwill, to be plenteous in mercy, is to have the real spirit of Christmas.” When explicated in those terms it’s hard to imagine anyone taking umbrage at open celebration of Christmas.

Some are quick to take offense at various elements of our culture, and this time of year such quick relapses seem to increase significantly. Confucius is credited with saying, “He who takes offense when none is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a bigger fool.”

That seems appropriate consideration for any who take offense at what is not intended to offend. Some, like the caller cited above, take offense from displays like nativity scenes or menorahs, appellations of “Christmas Trees,” or greetings like “Merry Christmas,” and even music that may make reference to He whose birthday we celebrate as a national holiday. No offense is intended, but a free and open expression of anything with a hint at religiosity creates an anxiety for some even as our celebration of Christmas continues to morph into more of a secular celebration

Each of us determines for ourselves whether we will be offended, easily or otherwise. And it’s not just about Christmas or religious expression, it’s about everything in life. When we are offended, we’re making a conscious decision to allow someone else control over our attitude. If we allow others to offend us, whether intentional or otherwise, we sacrifice too much control of our lives to others.

Contrast those who are so quick to take offense at the drop of a “Merry Christmas,” with an atheist philosophy professor I had an ongoing discussion with on the Journal’s weblog recently. After commending him for wishing readers “Merry Christmas,” he responded back, “By the way, if there's a ‘war on Christmas,’ I'm not part of it. It's fine with me if people want to put a manger scene in front of City Hall. Being an atheist doesn’t mean I can't enjoy holidays and traditions.” What a healthy, mature, and tolerant attitude! He obviously has learned the great lesson of life that he can choose to be offended or not, it’s strictly voluntary, and that going through life with a chip on his shoulder, just waiting for someone to knock it off, is no way a live. That gives people you don’t even know control over you and how you live, essentially allowing others to dictate a state of thralldom for as long as you allow it.

I appreciate Coolidge’s perspective on Christmas, for certainly there is an increase in sensitivity to others at this time of year in spite of the often hectic schedules we maintain as we shop for just the right gift for each of our loved ones. But the foundational motivations for finding that gift are love and gratitude. That principle of love can and should be shared by all people, not just this time of year, but throughout the year. If there were a way of packaging this spirit of love and sharing that as our gift to everyone, think how much better the world would be. We could conduct mass shipments of it to the Middle East and to America-haters and “infidel-haters” all over the world, and even in our own midst, and most of the problems of the world would be solved.

Charles Dickens penned in 1843 the now immortal “A Christmas Carol,” that played a significant role in making of our Christmas observance the overt celebration that it is today. But it was also instrumental in transforming a holiday from one disavowed by many Christian sects because of its communal hedonistic excess to one of personal goodwill and compassion. If one man can, through his creativity and power of communication, do so much to transform Western holiday observance, how can we deny the potential of each of us, within our spheres of influence, to create such a transformation of our Christmas observance?

Surely we can each be “Dickens” in our homes, neighborhoods, and communities, by redoubling our focus on the charity which is at the heart of our observance. Surely we can, through our individual acts of kindness, and increase in sensitivity, mollify the malcontents, touch the lives of those who may think they are forgotten or unappreciated in our society, and somehow ameliorate the temporal conditions of those who may have less than we.

Said Dickens of Ebenezer Scrooge, “…he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge. May that be truly said of us, and all of us.” A fitting end for his book, and a noble goal for each of us.

Regardless of your theological beliefs, may the spirit of Christmas fill your home, so you can find joy in extending charity, service, and heart-felt comfort in reaching out to the lonely and the needy. Even the secularists amongst us would be hard pressed to criticize our observance of Christmas if it translated to such humanistic altruism, which is what He whose birthday we celebrate would desire of us. To each of you, Merry Christmas, in the full, inclusive context of all the good that Christmas represents.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 12/16/07

Throughout most of the 20^th century the United States led the world in most educational categories. That is no longer the case. There are undoubtedly many factors that could be affecting the quality of education in America, there is but one factor I’d like to address here: indoctrination is not education.

This semester at Idaho State University, my daughter was taking an upper division Critical Theory class. The syllabus indicated that the course was about “The application of critical theory to the reading of world literature.” This ended up being a uni-dimensional academic experience for her, as the instructor lectured more on dogmatic political theory than on literature. The only thing about the class that seemed to be “critical” was what he heaped upon anyone who disagreed with him, and the only theory that had relevance in the course was his own. Instead of a literature critical theory class, it was wholesale “bash America” and “praise Europe” indoctrination. Even evidence provided by other students in the class that would dispute the instructors’ arguments were minimized and discounted as incorrect and inconsequential.

Another daughter had an astronomy class that she really enjoyed two years ago, until the instructor turned the class into an indoctrination course on man-made global warming. No evidence or arguments against the theory were condoned or given any credence, because the professor was an ideologue and was only open to evidence supporting his position on the issue, not an open dialogue on all available data on the subject. In essence the instructor was saying the scientific method, which demands examination of anomalous data and variant explanations to find answers, was null and void in his classroom.

As a Freshman at Century High School, my son was taking a class in which the teacher made a factually incorrect statement about President Bush and our involvement in liberating the Iraqi people and toppling the oppressive totalitarian regime of Saddam Hussein. The next day my son took it upon himself to provide some documentation to the teacher proving that the statements made the previous day by his teacher were false. The teacher promptly kicked him out of class. Obviously the teacher was more interested in opinion, his own, rather than the truth.

Contrast that with his teacher this year in world history and government at Century. He teaches the facts, allows his students to discuss them without forcing an ideology upon them, and encourages them to think through the issues and substantiate them based on their research. There is no intimidation, no compulsion to adhere to his opinion, no indoctrination based on an ideological agenda, and no recrimination if they don’t agree with him.

I know these are anecdotal at best, and but few of many possible examples, but perhaps they illustrate one of the problems with our educational system and one reason why we’re lagging behind the rest of the world educationally. Oftentimes it seems educators are more intent on dogmatic indoctrination and social engineering causes in our schools and universities than they are committed to teaching facts, and the skills to interpret and understand them relationally, and then articulate them cogently.

Student papers are marked with lower grades because their content runs contrary to the teacher’s personal opinions, rather than based on argument, structure, syntax, and supporting evidence. More effort is expended by some teachers in attempting to reeducate the student in correct thinking, as opposed to helping the student improve on their communication and writing skills.

When I transferred to Idaho State University from a junior college, there was no doubt in my mind that I would end up in the private sector, in business, in one capacity or another. But rather than taking the traditional approach of studying business, I opted for a liberal arts program, having resolved that the most substantive skills required in business are an ability to communicate effectively, both orally and through the written word; an ability to think through issues and problems without gravitating to conventional wisdom to solve them; and an ability to research and find solutions. To me, the liberal arts program, or Arts and Sciences as it is now known by at ISU, was precisely what I needed and ISU filled my personal academic prescription perfectly.

The instructional and tutorial competence and excellence of my professors afforded me as fine an education as I could receive anywhere, in my estimation. I have had acquaintances and colleagues through the years who have been educated in the finest Ivy League and west coast universities, and yet what I received from ISU was not inferior in any way, as far as I can ascertain.

The primary reason for this was the quality of instruction and the teaching styles of my professors. Not only were they extremely proficient and capable in their disciplines, but they were not closed-minded or dogmatic in their instructional style. As their lectures coincided with current events, they were open to contrary opinion and divergent perspectives. They allowed open discussion without intimidation, only demanding of the students that they know and understand the facts, and be able to substantiate their conclusions accordingly. Papers were graded based on our grasp of the relevant material, our ability to think through issues, articulate them, and support our arguments, whether our conclusions agreed with theirs or not.

While none of my ISU professors taught as ideologues, they nonetheless had their opinions and they shared them. Throughout the process, they didn’t try to indoctrinate, and their teaching was superb. But that was nearly 25 years ago, and things have obviously changed.

Perhaps every teacher, instructor, and professor should go through some introspective process where they determine whether they are truly teaching, or indoctrinating. They are not synonymous.

By Richard Larsen
Published – Idaho State Journal, 12/09/07

There’s something very disconcerting in the realization that a candidate for the highest post in the land feels a need to make a declaration regarding his religion. After all, Article VI of the Constitution mandates that there is not to be a religious test for public office. Yet Mitt Romney, a member of the LDS Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) obviously felt compelled to make such a declaration this week.

Nearly 60 years ago, John F. Kennedy made such a speech, obviously similarly compelled to make such a statement. He said then, (I quote only portions as you will be able to ascertain that the paragraphs are not contiguous) to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September, 1960, “Because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured - perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me - but what kind of America I believe in.”

“I believe in an America where… no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.”

“For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew - or a Quaker - or a Unitarian - or a Baptist.”

“Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end - where all men and all churches are treated as equal - where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice.”

“I ask you tonight to judge me on the basis of my record … instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic Church leaders…”

Mitt Romney, sounding rather Kennedy-esque, proclaimed in his Houston speech this week (again, I quote only portions of the text), “Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for President, not a Catholic running for President. Like him, I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.”

“It's important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.”

“We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion.”

“Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

“They're not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They're the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.”

Hugh Hewitt, law professor, evangelical Christian, and conservative talk show host who wrote a book about Romney said after the historic event, “The speech will shame many critics into if not silence, at least a more guarded display of hostility to faith, while reminding millions of people of faith about the glories of religious tolerance. Rescuing the campaign of 2008 from the theological inquisition it had sometimes become will be one of the legacies of the speech, as all candidates and many commentators will now simply be able to say: ‘I agree with Romney and reject the imposition of theological litmus tests on presidential candidates.’”

Even Chris Matthews of MSNBC called it “the best speech of the campaign,” and added, “For the first time in this campaign and it has been long already, I heard greatness this morning.”

Theological differences should not be used as the basis for rejecting a candidate. Differences in values, vision for America, and positions on issues should provide the line of demarcation for whether a candidate wins our trust and our vote. Those who vote against a candidate based on religion are ignorant, bigoted, or both.

We should no more vote for or against a candidate based on their religion than we should vote for or against a candidate based on their gender or skin. The only exception I can think of is one that is antithetical to American standards of equality, liberty, and tolerance like an adherent to Shariah law that places national interests in subservience to their theology.

This is too great a country, with too many good people, to allow religious or ethnic intolerance a role in the selection of our leaders. Political parties are anxious to convince prospective voters of the breadth of their “tents,” referring to the diversity, tolerance, and disparate political views which create a composite of their respective parties. In light of that, the LDS Church must have a very broad tent of its own, to claim such political opposites as Harry Reid and Mitt Romney.

Tasteless Expressions of Free Speech Have Consequences

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 12/02/07

Our actions, words, and expressions can sometimes spawn unintended consequences. Even when acting within legal parameters of free speech, what we say and do can harm our causes and cast aspersions on our country. Such was the case last month in China.

Reminiscent of the fall-out from Natalie Maines infamous statement at a London concert of the Dixie Chicks when she declared their disapprobation of the current President hailing from Texas, the U.S. team of women at the World Bridge Championships in Shanghai displayed a sign declaring “We didn’t vote for George Bush.”

The gesture, although legal free speech, was tasteless, even though, according to the women, it was impromptu, scribbled on the back of a menu that was displayed prominently at an awards dinner. As a result of their actions, the non-profit United States Bridge Federation is facing the possibility of corporate sponsors withdrawing their support, and the team members facing sanctions, including suspended membership in the Federation and a ban from national and international competition.

Jan Martel, president of the Bridge Federation, said afterward, “This isn’t a free-speech issue. There isn’t any question that private organizations can control the speech of people who represent them.” The team members have contested that claim saying their speech cannot be censored and they are free to express themselves publicly, even overseas. Even though free speech is a right for Americans to enjoy, tasteless expressions still have their pejorative consequences.

The Federation is right to impose sanctions since the team’s actions reflect badly on the team, the Federation, the corporate sponsors, and the sponsoring country.

Team members have been stunned by global reaction to what they saw as a spontaneous gesture, or as Gail Greenberg, team captain, put it, “A moment of levity.”

It should be obvious to that even humorously intended gestures and expressions can have harmful consequences. Although intended as mirth, the act illustrated how even lightheartedness can be as classless as expressions made in seriousness.

As tasteless as this act was, it comes nowhere near the defamatory and insulting actions and comments of former President Jimmy Carter. Over the past few years he has lauded totalitarian leaders like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Fidel Castro, praised former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Yugoslav strongman Josef Tito, and former Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceaucescu. He’s also sided with former North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung and his son Kim Jong Il against U.S. foreign policy. He has regaled our current President abroad by calling him “America’s worst president,” and claimed that the U.S. was more problem than solution around the world. Indeed, his global efforts denouncing the United States and undermining U.S. foreign policy, even abroad, has earned him the moniker “The Worst Ex-President.” So much for the notion that “politics ends at the water’s edge.”

Carter’s charges against the current President are even more inscrutable in light of the fact that Carter's abandonment of the shah in 1977-78 helped lead to the Islamic revolution (and the murder or imprisonment of many of the Iranian leftists who had supported overthrowing the shah), the emboldening of the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan and the rise of radical Islam worldwide.

Certainly the actions of our former President have done much more harm to American interests and our perception around the world than a group of outspoken bridge players. Yet inexplicably he continues to spew his anti-American venom around the globe, and is hailed by some as a bold outspoken critic of American foreign policy.

Another example of bad taste was on display at a political rally in South Carolina last week when a woman asked presidential candidate John McCain, “How do we beat the b****?” The reaction of those in attendance left little doubt as to who the McCain supporter was referring to, as laughter filled the room, and McCain responded uncomfortably, “May I give the translation?” followed by, “That’s a good question,” Although criticized by political pundits for not denouncing the questioner, McCain went on to explain how he “respects Senator Clinton.” However incorrectly Senator McCain handled the question, the error clearly lies with the questioner. Although just a private citizen, she seems to be as oblivious to the fact that such language cheapens and degrades the public political discourse as former President Carter and the bridge players are.

Jim DeMint, Senator from South Carolina, when asked about the McCain rally incident responded with wisdom and class, “I think it’s a huge mistake for us to show that kind of disrespect to any candidate.”

Each of us needs to realize that even though we enjoy the freedom in this country to express ourselves, it should be done tastefully, respectfully, and thoughtfully. Criticism of actions, policy, and issues is proper. Name-calling, aspersions, and ad hominem attacks cheapen the public discourse and mitigate the potential good that can result from thoughtful and deliberative dissent.

Consequences of our indiscriminate expressions of free speech cannot be deemed censorship, since they’re not imposed by government. But associations, groups, and sponsoring entities can require a respectful decorum when being represented by common citizens, and fallout from indiscretions can be swift and substantive, as illustrated by the retribution heaped on the Dixie Chicks after their folly, with slumping CD sales, and radio disk-jockey’s refusing to play their music.

We may not be as high profile as those cited, but we all contribute to, or detract from, the quality of public discourse. Consequently, we can all make the personal decision to be a contributor to a mature, thoughtful discussion, or a gutter-dwelling dialogue that contributes to the ideological divisions so pervasive today.