For those inquiring about my South Middleton school board candidacy ...
|
I recently decided to throw my name into the hat for the South Middleton school board, and thanks to the support of many members of our community, it looks like my name will be on the ballot in November. As a father of three current South Middleton students (and another who'll be a Bubbler soon enough!), I consider myself fully invested in the excellence of South Middleton schools. And as a college professor, I have clear and concrete ideas about what it means for K-12 schools to prepare students for the next stage(s) of life, whether that be college, trade school, or something else.
Since the start of my write-in campaign back in April, I've received a number of questions -- about where I stand on particular issues, about my social or political affiliations, and so on. Below, I've compiled a short list of what, by my count, seem to be the most common questions, as well as my responses to them. If you have follow-up questions about anything you read here, feel free to reach out. |
|
"Are you a Republican or Democrat?"
The short answer is: Neither. I've been a registered Independent for as long as I can remember. And this isn't because my political views tend to fall between those of Republicans and Democrats. Honestly, I think of it as an extension of the habits and values I've developed as a philosopher. I understand that many people disagree with this -- some might even take offense to it -- but personally, I believe critical thinking must always at least begin completely divorced from allegiances or affiliations of any kind, be they political, religious, or whatever. Call me naive, but I think it's best to approach each issue as impartially as possible, examine the arguments and evidence as open-mindedly as possible, and withhold all judgment until it seems clear that the cumulative weight of the arguments and evidence seems to be weighing in favor of one view as opposed to others. If that happens also to be the view of this or that political party, then so be it. But when I'm thinking about difficult moral and political issues, my aim is never to make sure I end up agreeing with one party, one ideological camp, one moral tribe, or whatever.
One practical upshot of this approach is that I'm not particularly "cliquish" when it comes to my ethics or politics. I can enjoy hanging out and chatting with people of all moral and political (and religious, etc.) persuasions -- from the furthest right to the furthest left, and everyone in between. And one reason for this is that I'm constantly open to hearing new arguments, new evidence, new perspectives, and so forth. Even with respect to issues about which I'm most confident ... I still assume I could be wrong. So, I might as well hear everyone out, all the time, no matter the issue.
Another upshot is that I'm highly attuned to the moral psychology of group purity norms, and, to be frank, find all of it stupid and uncritical.
One practical upshot of this approach is that I'm not particularly "cliquish" when it comes to my ethics or politics. I can enjoy hanging out and chatting with people of all moral and political (and religious, etc.) persuasions -- from the furthest right to the furthest left, and everyone in between. And one reason for this is that I'm constantly open to hearing new arguments, new evidence, new perspectives, and so forth. Even with respect to issues about which I'm most confident ... I still assume I could be wrong. So, I might as well hear everyone out, all the time, no matter the issue.
Another upshot is that I'm highly attuned to the moral psychology of group purity norms, and, to be frank, find all of it stupid and uncritical.
"What are your thoughts on politics in the classroom?"
I think it's both important and useful to distinguish between general knowledge and worldview. By "general knowledge," I'm referring to all those things a person must know in order to maximize their potential to flourish individually, and also to contribute positively to their families, communities, and society as a whole -- things like reading and writing, fundamentals of science and mathematics, basic principles of government and economics, and so forth. And by "worldview," I'm referring to a set of beliefs and values by which people make sense of themselves, comprehend human nature, and answer questions about difficult and controversial issues in religion, morality, and politics -- such as beliefs about the existence and nature of God, beliefs about sexuality and gender, and so on. (For the record, I don't pretend that the line between general knowledge and worldview is always crystal clear, but (a) it's clear enough in most cases, and (b) whenever it's unclear, I think the wisest thing is usually to assume it's a worldview matter.)
With this distinction in mind, my view is that K-12 public schools should focus only on the teaching and promotion of general knowledge, and leave the shaping, informing, and overseeing of a child's worldview entirely to that child's parents or guardians. One implication of this is that K-12 classrooms should remain religiously, morally, and politically as neutral as possible. The same moral logic that prohibits the teaching of Biblical Creationism in K-12 public schools should also prohibit the teaching or promotion of explicitly left- or right-wing political views. Students should have no idea where their teachers stand on issues like abortion, immigration, and gun rights; and if and when some of these issues are discussed in the classroom, both/all sides of the debate should be given equal attention and consideration.
People sometimes act as if such neutrality is difficult -- some even call it "impossible" -- but I've been doing it myself for almost 20 years. Whenever I've taught the abortion debate, for instance, I've assigned well-regarded readings defending both pro-choice and pro-life positions, given each reading a fair and critical hearing in class, and then let the students decide for themselves which (if either) is the better argument. Not a single one of those students has any idea what my own views on abortion are -- because (a) that's not my place, and (b) it's none of their business. Anyone pretending classroom neutrality is too difficult or impossible is being disingenuous. And anyone opposing classroom neutrality likely only does so because they assume (oftentimes correctly) that their own preferred worldview is the one most likely to be promoted. If the tables were turned, these same people would immediately be in favor of neutrality.
(On a semi-related side-note: I find it absurd that a position in favor of religious, moral, and political neutrality would be labeled, by some, as a "far right" view. As far as I can tell, the only people who seriously think such a thing are people who happily align themselves with a particular strain of Western progressivism, influenced heavily by critical theory, and who therefore see classroom neutrality as a threat to the ideas and aims of critical pedagogy. In such cases, then, claims to the effect that K-12 classroom neutrality is an "extreme" or "far right" view can and should be rejected, as they are made in bad faith.)
With this distinction in mind, my view is that K-12 public schools should focus only on the teaching and promotion of general knowledge, and leave the shaping, informing, and overseeing of a child's worldview entirely to that child's parents or guardians. One implication of this is that K-12 classrooms should remain religiously, morally, and politically as neutral as possible. The same moral logic that prohibits the teaching of Biblical Creationism in K-12 public schools should also prohibit the teaching or promotion of explicitly left- or right-wing political views. Students should have no idea where their teachers stand on issues like abortion, immigration, and gun rights; and if and when some of these issues are discussed in the classroom, both/all sides of the debate should be given equal attention and consideration.
People sometimes act as if such neutrality is difficult -- some even call it "impossible" -- but I've been doing it myself for almost 20 years. Whenever I've taught the abortion debate, for instance, I've assigned well-regarded readings defending both pro-choice and pro-life positions, given each reading a fair and critical hearing in class, and then let the students decide for themselves which (if either) is the better argument. Not a single one of those students has any idea what my own views on abortion are -- because (a) that's not my place, and (b) it's none of their business. Anyone pretending classroom neutrality is too difficult or impossible is being disingenuous. And anyone opposing classroom neutrality likely only does so because they assume (oftentimes correctly) that their own preferred worldview is the one most likely to be promoted. If the tables were turned, these same people would immediately be in favor of neutrality.
(On a semi-related side-note: I find it absurd that a position in favor of religious, moral, and political neutrality would be labeled, by some, as a "far right" view. As far as I can tell, the only people who seriously think such a thing are people who happily align themselves with a particular strain of Western progressivism, influenced heavily by critical theory, and who therefore see classroom neutrality as a threat to the ideas and aims of critical pedagogy. In such cases, then, claims to the effect that K-12 classroom neutrality is an "extreme" or "far right" view can and should be rejected, as they are made in bad faith.)
