Ethan Jewett wrote: > > One contrary perspective is that there is only one Truth and > everybody who doesn't hold that Truth to be the truth is wrong. > (Some forms of Platonism, most Straussians, etc.) > > Of course, such a belief is just as unfounded as the belief > that there are many possible truths. (Brandon, and IB and other > multi-culturally oriented programs, to some extent.) > > And that belief is, in turn, just as unfounded as the belief that all > "truths" are truth. (True cultural relativism.) > > This is fun, isn't it? Of course, now we have to critically > analyze your demand for critical analysis (without bothering > to provide any on your own) to make sure that you don't have > underlying beliefs about the need for critical analysis because > those beliefs will be (you guessed it) unfounded.
There have been two tracks that I have been trying to pursue in this thread. First, that we need to question how certain ethical systems are introduced into the curriculum, what their effects are, and how they impact the quality of instruction. Secondly, as several posters have pointed out, there is a question of how equitable these programs are. For the time being, I will pursue the former issue. "WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT..." (There's some value to rote memorization.) The Signers did not say, "We hold these truths to be relative and dependent on context." In fact, it is cultural relativity that allowed slavery to perpetuated in this country for another 100 years after the Declaration of Independence. What is relevant here is not absolutism, as Mr. Jewett has illustrated there are dangers inherent in both approaches, but rather that it is important for the public schools to educate students in the basic political axioms upon which our country was founded. Whether they agree with them is idiosyncratic, but the ability to articulate them should not be. I also believe that it is relevant to question the acceptance of a program into the Minneapolis public schools whose mission statement contradicts the fundamental axioms of our own political system. Along with the supporters of the International Baccalaureate program, I agree that rigor and high standards are important for quality education. However, I do not agree that these criteria should be limited to a select group of (mostly White) students. It is interesting to note that while these programs have entrance requirements, charter schools do not. I would like to remind List members of a post I made some time ago about the testing requirements for all French high school graduates. French students are required to write essays on philosophical topics such as: * Does knowledge inhibit the imagination? * Is a coherent thought necessarily true? * Can a work of art be considered immoral? * Is a philosopher necessarily a man of his times? * Is reason a guarantee against deception? This is in contrast to the BASIC skills tests our high school graduates are expected to complete. Perhaps we can learn something from the IB program other than all truth is relative. Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
