Alan:
I agree with most everything you say here, and especially with your
identification of some of the root problems which lead to making
overwhelming demands on the public school sysytem. I ask, then, only
because I don't know, when you would have been going through the school
system that operated in the manner you describe. The reason I ask is I'd
like to see if there is any consensus on the list that schools functioned
the way you describe them in your first paragraph. Would this have
begun in the post-early-60s? By 1970? 1980? When do people think other
factors began to enter in?
Richard Dougherty
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "A.E. Brownstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:09:37 -0700
>I appreciate the power of Tom's argument (and his caveat at the end.)
>
>I offer three modest responses. First, I recognize that schools taught the
>"consensus" principles of Christianity for a long time. But there was a
>period after that consensus unraveled
>and before schools began to take on a lot of what I view as extraneous
>programs -- when public schools, at least in places like the Bronx,
>operated the way that I have described them. We did have the Regents
>prayer, but there was very little of anything else regarding religion --
>and none of the new stuff. Schools did a very good job on the academics.
>Parents, houses of worship, after school religious classes and other
>mediating institutions took care of the many other important aspects of a
>young person's education.
>
>Second, I think the reason the schools have taken on some much more of this
>non-academic role has less to do with people thinking this is really the
>proper role for schools (although I recognize that this part of the story)
>and more to do with social changes that have made it less convenient for
>families and after school mediating institutions to do their jobs. (e.g.
>suburban lifestyles, two worker families etc.) I would like to see us
>spend more time figuring out how to facilitate the role of families and
>after school mediating institutions and less on fragmenting the public
>along religious lines.
>
>Third, I do not for a moment discount the deep lack of consensus over
>highly value-laden issues in our society. But I also think we should not
>ignore the rich grounding of consensus that does exist. I don't want to
>understate the difficulty people will have working together. But I do think
>when people have the chance to see what they have in common, and recognize
>that some of their feelings about their schools not being sensitive to
>their beliefs and their children's needs are shared fairly broadly -- but
>in different ways, then it becomes a bit easier for people to work out ways
>to reconcile their differences.
>
>Alan Brownstein
>UC Davis
>
>
>
>At 12:36 PM 8/23/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>>I agree, Alan, that there was religious teaching in public schools well
>>before the modern instances of teaching highly value-laden matters in
>>secular terms (sex education, values clarification etc.). But that
>>religious teaching was frequently part of the "limited and traditional"
>>public school to which you refer. The conclusion that strikes me
powerfully
>>from this is that public schools have very seldom been, and will very
seldom
>>be, as limited in their aspirations as you suggest they can and should be.
>>People will always insist that public schools must go well beyond the three
>>Rs and into normative formation of children.
>>
>>For a long time in the past, the normative body of thought that the
majority
>>believed should be taught was the supposed "consensus" principles of
>>Christianity. Over time, the argument has become strong that trying to
>>teach such principles in state schools is inappropriate because there is a
>>deep lack of consensus (outside Christianity, and inside) over such
>>principles, with many people rejecting them as a starting point. But the
>>lesson of that argument, I'd submit, has not been learned by those
today who
>>(like their religious predecessors) want the public schools to teach
>>normatively on value-laden issues, but now just want to leave out the
>>religious perspectives from the normative teaching and teach only the best
>>and highest secular perspectives relative to the issues. The same problem
>>is present: a deep lack of consensus over highly value-laden issues, this
>>time with many religious people rejecting the basic starting premise that
>>the issues can be addressed normatively without explicitly putting
religious
>>principles at the base of the teaching.
>>
>>We can argue over whether addressing this through school choice comes
at too
>>high a social price, but it seems to me that to deny there is a problem
>>reflects just a lack of sympathy with those pervasively religious
people, in
>>the moral philosophy sense of putting oneself in the other person's
position
>>(to be clear, I don't attribute to Alan such a lack of sympathy).
>>
>>Tom Berg
>>University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
>>
>> _____
>>
>>From: A.E. Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Tue 8/23/2005 10:56 AM
>>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>>Subject: RE: Hostility
>>
>>
>>
>>Yes. But I think I have been consistent with my comments on the religionlaw
>>list in arguing for a more limited and traditional role for the public
>>schools. Public schools should not be the source of all learning.
>>
>>But I'm not sure that it is the expansion of what is taught in school (sex
>>education, values clarification etc) that accounts for efforts bring
>>religion into the public schools or to fragment the public sector along
>>religious lines. Religion in the schools (typically Protestant religion)
>>goes back far before these changes in what public schools teach -- as do
>>efforts to fund religious schools.
>>
>>Alan Brownstein
>>UC Davis
>>
>>
>>At 11:54 PM 8/22/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>> >Alan, would you concede that the message that "not all important
things are
>>
>> >taught at school" is at least weakened when schools go beyond academic
>> >subjects and into highly-values-sensitive (even if important)
subjects like
>>
>> >sex education, tolerance, values clarification, and so on -- as so
many now
>>
>> >do?
>> >
>> >Tom Berg
>> >University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
>> >
>> > _____
>> >
>> >From: A.E. Brownstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
>> >Sent: Mon 8/22/2005 11:42 AM
>> >To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>> >Subject: Re: Hostility
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >But the tensions created by pluralism are not limited to schools. They
>> >extend throughout society. And the movement toward "going our separate
>> >ways" isn't limited to schools, it extends to many other public programs
>> >(see, e.g. charitable choice). In theory, it could apply to almost the
>> >entire public sector.
>> >
>> >Moreover, while we avoid confronting our differences by separating
>> >ourselves, we also lose the opportunity to appreciate all the things that
>> >we have in common and the values that we do share, and the experience of
>> >learning how to work out our differences at the local level of the
>> >neighborhood school.
>> >
>> >During his recent visit to a Synagogue in Germany, Pope Benedict XVI
>> >condemned religious bigotry and spoke of the need to get to know each
other
>>
>> >much better. How do we do that if we increasingly fragment society along
>> >religious lines?
>> >
>> >As to Mike McConnell's comment, most of what I learned that is
important to
>>
>> >me, I learned outside of school. That's true for my children as
well. What
>>
>> >children learn when important things are not taught in school is that not
>> >everything that is important "in the real world of intellectual inquiry,"
>> >and the rest of the real world as well, is taught in school. Why is
that a
>> >problem?
>> >
>> >Alan Brownstein
>> >UC Davis
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >At 07:49 AM 8/22/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>> > >You know, I think the bottom line is our society is too pluralistic
for a
>>
>> > >one-size-fits-all curriculum at the government school monopoly.
>> > >
>> > >I empathize with Sandy when he expresses concern about students being
>> > >taught ID (and teachers being required to teach ID) in the public
>>schools.
>> > >Many others feel the same way about sex ed, gay pride week, and
>> > >evolutio-as-fact in the government schools.
>> > >
>> > >I still think Mike McConnell said it best when he said: "A secular
school
>>
>> > >does not necessarily produce atheists, but it produces young adults who
>> > >inevitably think of religion as extraneous to the real world of
>> > >intellectual inquiry, if they think of religion at all." The public
>> > >schools are designed to inculcate and assimilate and mold
impressionable
>> > >children--many believers simply don't like the mold designed (or did it
>> > >evolve) by those who control the public school curriculum.
>> > >
>> > >So many of the issues that cause deep friction among us concern who
gets
>> > >to control what our children are taught in the public schools. I
wish we
>> > >could agree to disagree, and go our separate ways to schools of our own
>> > >choosing.
>> > >
>> > > From my perspective, one of the advantages of teaching ID in the
public
>> > > schools is that it would allow liberal secularists to appreciate the
>> > > value of opt-outs (parental excusals from objectionable
curriculum), of
>> > > academic freedom for teachers (as Sandy put it, of teachers
required to
>> > > teach things they disdain), and school choice (being allowed to exit
>> > > without penalty).
>> > >
>> > >Cheers, Rick Duncan
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >University of Nebraska College of Law
>> > >Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
>> > >
>> > >"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or
>> > >Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle
>> > >
>> > >"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
>> > >numbered." --The Prisoner
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>> >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>> >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>><http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw>
>> ><http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw>><http://l
ists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw> >
>> >
>> >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>> >private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>> >posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
(rightly or
>> >wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>> >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>> >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>><http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw>
>> >
>> >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>> >private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>> >posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
(rightly or
>> >wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>><http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw>
>>
>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>>private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
>>wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>>
>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>>private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
>>wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly
or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
