Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page
]]]]]]]]]] The Ticking Bomb of Nuclear-Age Education [[[[[[[[[[
By Andre Ryerson
[From The Wall Street Journal, 31 May 1988, p. 24:3]
(Kindly uploaded by Freeman 10602PANC 9/09/1988)
Not content to criticize the phenomenon of "global,"
"nuclear-age" and "peace" education, representatives of eight
foundations gathered in Chicago last month to consider a more
direct challenge to what may be the most successful venture ever
launched by the American left: teaching children in the public
schools to interpret the world from a radical perspective.
Sponsored by the Independence Institute of Colorado [14142
Denver West Parkway #101, Golden, CO 80401], "Classrooms for a
Free Society" sought to assess something scarcely touched by the
press, but which may decide the role America will play in the
world within a decade or two.
Teaching children from kindergarten through high school that
wars are caused by the weapons democracies construct for their
defense, that there was no reason for the U.S. to use the atomic
bomb against Japan in 1945, that economic "competition" (instead
of "sharing") is what divides the world into hostile camps, and
that the Cold War was essentially the fault of the U.S. -- these
are not doctrines most parents expect to find in the local
school, nor does the average taxpayer imagine such uses for his
money.
Yet careful inquiry has shown that these and similar beliefs
are quietly becoming part of the standard school curriculum under
the rubric of peace and global education. The activist
organizations that publish such politicized teaching materials in
many cases have been assisted by distinguished foundations
(Danforth, Carnegie) and supported by eminent public figures
(Carl Sagan, the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh). Many cities, from Los
Angeles to Cambridge, Mass., have made nuclear-age courses
mandatory for the public schools.
Peace education, also called nuclear-age education, emerged in
1982 when nuclear-freeze activists turned their energies toward
schoolchildren. Groups such as Educators for Social
Responsibility and the Union of Concerned Scientists created
teaching guides that treated the Soviet Union as a benign entity,
while blaming American weapons, policies and values as the
principal threat to world peace.
Older than peace education is global education. While aimed
at fostering global understanding, in many respects it carries a
like message and used the same exercises to encourage a "new
world order," as the Center for Teaching International Relations
puts it. Based at the University of Denver, the center
distributes global-education materials nationwide. The doctrine
of "moral equivalence" between the Soviet Union and the U.S. is
encouraged, and one curriculum guide tells students, "Think of
the U.S. and U.S.S.R. as rival street gangs."
Death and destruction caused by war are luridly emphasized,
with "death education" added to concentrate the emotional
attention of the young. The loss of liberty that would follow
from a pacifist foreign policy, however, is never weighed. The
use of force, even in self-defense, is treated as an uncivilized
option.
Free-enterprise economies are viewed unfavorably by global
educators. One of the center's guides tells the teacher to
"simulate economics by having students scramble for coins tossed
on the floor." Students are then asked to "redistribute" the
coins "more equitably." Private property is treated as a source
of social conflict, not one of the foundations of prosperous
economies and political liberty. No mention is made of Western
successes in reducing pollution, next to which the communist
record is dismal. Instead students are told in the center's
materials, "For America the polluter, all the world's a toilet."
Like the curricular guides for peace education, global
education guides cap their specialized picture of the world with
calls for the students' "commitment to action," excited urgings
that they "dare to think the unthinkable" and "go for the works."
Among options for students to consider are circulating petitions,
joining anti-war groups, forming their own, writing press
releases and staging news conferences.
In the words of Raymond English, of Washington's Ethics and
Public Policy Center, this belongs to "the run-before-you-can-
walk theory of education." Children are called on to change the
world before they have studied it -- indeed, often before they
have learned how to spell.
How can international relations be studied without turning
America's public schools into centers for political
indoctrination?
At the April meeting, Robert Pickus confessed -- as one of the
early proponents of global education -- that he was chagrined at
the turn it had taken. But Mr. Pickus, head of the Madison
Foundation and the World Without War Council, remained hopeful
that mainstream educators could, with guidance, get back on the
track, teach respect for America's values and traditions, offer
knowledge of the Soviet Union and its ideology, and put an end to
blame-America-first reflexes.
Others said that sensible curricular materials are desperately
needed, without which well-meaning educators have no choice but
to use those available.
Charles Heatherly of the Heritage Foundation granted that his
foundation is not particularly involved in this area of public
policy. Neil Pickett of the Hudson Institute said that Hudson
had thus far limited itself to studying the effects of peace
education on children. Only Keith Payne of the National
Institute for Public Policy could offer the encouraging news that
his supplement to a history text -- a balanced, centrist account
of the world since 1945 -- was in preparation with a publisher.
What probably remains the greatest obstacle to achieving
balance in the teaching of peace, war and international relations
is that the materials marketed to schools by the left remain
unknown to the general public, and replacing them may be likened
to getting rid of government subsidies to dairy farmers. Milk,
like peace, seems worthy of our vague and unthinking benevolence.
The difference is that the one bears a monetary cost; the other
may cost us, a generation hence, a realistic foreign policy
founded on democratic values.
---------------------------------
Mr. Ryerson, a free-lance writer, is a former professor of
French and humanities at Amherst.
Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page