đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș punkerslut-a-real-education.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:10:37. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: A Real Education Author: Punkerslut Date: January 28, 2002 Language: en Topics: education Source: Retrieved on 22nd April 2021 from http://www.anarchistrevolt.com/books/arealeducation.html
When a person thinks about education today, they are likely to get
pictures of colleges, universities, teachers, and schools in their head.
Rarely, if ever, do they consider the actually value of a real
education. Today in school, the curricula taught to the students is
likely to consist o academics and health issues. Students receive the
same daily dose of history, math, English, and science. In classes,
students are taught to memorize various bits of data. For history, they
memorize dates, people, and locations. For math, they memorize various
formulas and equations. Science and English tend not to differ: it is
the memorization of sterile facts and static data. The schools today are
not a place where things are learned, nor is it a place that is bent on
creating a sense of wonder and awe for the average student. Rather, it
is a place of repetition, to turn students into cassettes that can
replay information at desire. Information that is only lost with years
of life that degrade the useless education learned at our modern
learning institutions.
What year was the Treaty of Ghent signed? What city did John Calvin
spread his Theocracy to? What is Photosynthesis? These are all questions
which, in themselves, they are not useless pieces of data. To those in
certain fields, however, they can very valuable pieces of information.
To others, they are simply interesting and intriguing to know such
information. However, the retainment of such memorized facts is often a
fruitless venture, resulting in wasted money, time, and energy. You may
be able to make a child memorize the United States Constitution, but
within a few weeks, I would find it doubtful if the child could
recollect more than three sentences. Instead, you could have taken that
time to show the child something real and meaningful. A child could be
taught how logic and reasoning abilities. They could be taught how to
separate science from pseudoscience. They could be taught about a
cultural idea that would interest them and get them involved in a book,
an author, a song, an artist, a musician, an orator, a leader, a poem, a
technology, an art form, etc., etc.. They could be taught about how the
Universe formed: the origins of life, matter, stars, higher elements, as
well as thousands of other topics.
The formal, educational system as it is working today certainly does not
produce any fine, intelligent individuals. It does not foster
independence and it did not teach compassion. It is the affirmation of
dependence and dogma. In tests of average 17-year-olds in many world
regions, the U. S. ranked dead last in algebra; they averaged 43%. Only
13 nations did worse in chemistry. Even though many American high school
seniors are in advanced chemistry courses, only 1% know as much as 25%
of Canadian students. South Korean students are far ahead of American
students in all aspects of mathematics and science. 59% of school
children in 1984 believed in astrology. The problem isnât just with
school students. Every philosopher who has dealt with the education
problem has at least admitted that how children are taught eventually
leads to the production of how the new society thinks. It shouldnât be
amusing that American adults lack in education as well. A quarter of
Americans believe in astrology. A third thing that Sun-sign astrology is
âscientific.â 63% of American adults are unaware of the fact that all
the dinosaurs were dead before humans arose. 75% do not know that
antibiotics do nothing to viruses. 57% do not know that âelectrons are
smaller than atoms.â Polls show that half of Americans do not know that
the Earth goes around the Sun and takes a year to do it. Undergraduate
classes at Cornell University, even the brightest students, and many of
them do not know that the Sun itself is a star. 95% of Americans are
âscientifically illiterate.â Thatâs the same amount of African slaves
that were illiterate prior to the Civil War â and a slave learning to
read back then carried severe penalties! [1] Carl Sagan notes on this
lack of education...
In American polls in the early 1990s, two-thirds of all adults had no
idea what the âinformation superhighwayâ was; 42 percent didnât know
where Japan is; and 38% were ignorant of the term âholocaust.â But the
proportion was in the high 90s who had heard of the Menendez, Bobbit,
and O. J. Simpson criminal cases; 99 percent had heard that the singer
Michael Jackson had allegedly sexually molested a boy. The United States
may be the best-entertained nation on Earth, but a steep price is being
paid. [2]
Carl Sagan wrote an article concerning these statistics and it was
published. Many of the letters he received were from classrooms. Here
are some of the responses concerning the dwindling education of American
students (grammar and spelling unchanged)...
then we can just import all of our products and then we donât have to
spend all of our money on the parts for the goods.
most likely going to come over the U. S. anyway?
Itâs going slowly, but the cure for cancer is coming right along.
than any other country if we wanted to.
any social life.
you try to tell us this in a little nicer manner?... Have a little pride
in your country and its capabilities.
in all, you raised a good point. [3]
It is obvious that formal education extinguishes whatever love of
sciences and knowledge that existed prior to the schooling. From school
one learns to hate knowledge. Upon hearing or learning of new scientific
progress, an average American is likely to associate it with the
monotonous educational system that is in place today. With this
association comes the apathy of learning new knowledge. Students are
taught to retain facts for a relatively short period of time. It would
be doubtful if a student could recall 10% of their classes, or even 2%
of what they learned in those classes. From the statistics of the
intelligence of Americans and school students today, it is obvious that
any intelligent person would hold skepticism towards the efficiency of
the modern, formal, educational institutions of our time. As far as
school goes, a man will learn more of he does not attend, and a personâs
natural love of the sciences will be freed from the sheer inadequacy of
schools. Albert Einstein is most notable for stating, âIt is a miracle
that curiosity survives formal education.â However, we need not take the
word of a high-ranking scientist to know that modern schooling is
destructive to education. Any experience within American schooling will
be able to easily confirm the theory that formal schools in America
today make for individuals who detest learning itself. To quote Carl
Saganâs experience when teaching various grades in school...
Except for children (who donât know enough not to ask the important
questions), few of us spend much time wondering why Nature is the way it
is; where the Cosmos came from, or whether it was always here; if time
will one day flow backward, and effects precede causes; or whether there
are ultimate limits to what humans can know. There are even children,
and I have met some of them, who want to know what a black hole looks
like; what is the smallest piece of matter; why we remember the past and
not the future, and why there is a Universe.
Every now and then, Iâm lucky enough to teach a kindergarten or
first-grade class. Many of these children are natural-born
scientists--although heavy on the wonder side and light on the
skepticism. Theyâre curious, intellectually vigorous. Provocative and
insightful questions bubble out of them. They exhibit enormous
enthusiasm. Iâm asked follow-up questions. Theyâve never heard of the
notion of a âdumb question.â
But when I talk to high school seniors, I find something different. They
memorize âfacts.â By and large, though, the joy of discovery, the life
behind those facts, has gone out of them. Theyâve lost much of the
wonder, and gained very little skepticism. Theyâve worried about asking
âdumbâ questions; theyâre willing to accept inadequate answers; they
donât pose follow-up questions; the room is awash with sidelong glances
to judge, second-by-second, the approval of their peers. They come to
class with their questions written out on pieces of paper, which they
surreptitiously examine, waiting their turn and oblivious of whatever
discussion their peers are at this moment engaged in. [4]
The schooling process has rendered curious, intelligent children into
mindless zombies: uninquisitive, dull, and uncreative. If this is not
the surest proof that our schools need reform, then I am not sure if any
such proof exists! Bright-eyed children who are yearning to learn about
the Universe enter our school system. What comes out at the other end
are quite the opposite: adults who are neither ambitious enough to learn
nor creative enough to invent. The flame of every individual, the lust
for learning and desire for knowledge, is thoroughly extinguished by
these traditional methods of âteaching.â The only thing accomplished by
modern schooling is a backward process: destroying any creative
processes in the minds of its students. There may be students in these
schools who genuinely wish to excel and try to do so by doing well in
their studies, but in the overall perspective, the educational system
fails to develop students into lovers of learning or intelligent beings.
The education system should return to the roots of education. It should
not be based on shoving knowledge down the throats of unwilling
children, making them hateful of learning. Learning should be a creative
process. It should not be burdened with tests and quizzes, constantly
questioning the intellectual level of the student. School should be a
place of learning, not a place of grades and marks. 25% of Canadian
students are at the same level as 1% of the best American students in
chemistry, despite the fact that American students are subjected to
rigorous testing. It is obvious that even with testing, American
students do not retain the knowledge that they learn from such classes.
Such information is eventually lost and discarded at a later date. It
should be no surprise, either. When students have to take certain
courses in their schools simply to graduate, and when many of these
courses contain completely erroneous data, the students will forget all
of the useless information fed to them. Year after year, this process
continues: short-term memorization of facts and eventually deletion of
these facts. The student, in the end, gains nothing but a diploma which
only holds assurance that nothing of value was gained. In mockery of
diplomas, Mark Twain has written...
Now then, to me university degrees are unearned finds, and they bring
the joy that belongs with property acquired in that way; and the
money-finds and the degree-finds are just the same in number up to
date--three: two from Yale and one from Missouri University. It pleased
me beyond measure when Yale made me a Master of Arts, because I didnât
know anything about art; I had another convulsion of pleasure when Yale
made me a Doctor of Literature, because I was not competent to doctor
anyoneâs literature but my own, and couldnât even keep my own in a
healthy condition without my wifeâs help. I rejoiced again when Missouri
University made me a Doctor of Laws, because it was all clear profit, I
not knowing anything about laws except how to evade them and not get
caught. And now at Oxford I am to be made a Doctor of Letters--all clear
profit, because what I donât know about letters would make me a
mutli-millionaire if I could turn it into cash. [5]
The same monotonous, traditional methods of teaching should be
abandoned. History class should not be restricted to a book anymore than
wood shop class or art class. Education should not be about repetition
and memorization. Education is supposed to be about learning new things
that can intrigue students and mesmerize them. It is about making
students independent so that they can enter society as productive,
happy, free, and capable citizens. Education is not supposed to make
anyone compassionate or kind, but it is what gives students tools to
become compassionate and kind. It provides a way for individuals to
better themselves. Education is about the building of the character, of
the person, of each individual student. It is not at all about the
memorization of static facts which soon become forgotten. What education
can principally be defined as, is the creation of independence of an
individual, so that they may be creative, productive, and happy in their
own life. To this end, it is only obvious that all school classes must
be made voluntary. The mere concept of forcing a child into a âlearning
classroomâ is absurd! To make courses and classes mandatory is
tantamount to extinguishing the flame of curiosity. When a student,
particularly a child, is forcefed facts and monotonous data, it can do
nothing but harm the child. It makes them hate education, because all
they can associate education with is the dread of being forced into
classes where they learn nothing at all. But this is not fair at all, to
say they learn nothing at all. They certainly do learn to detest the
government which unrightly abuses them and they learn to hate education
in all its forms. If a child is given the privilege, the independence,
to choose the classes which interest them the most so that they may
excel in those fields, then they child will become educated. Mandatory
classes will dishearten the studentâs zeal for education. The facts of
mandatory classes are soon forgotten, and the class itself is useless.
It is stupid and ignorant to believe that students can be forced into
classes and then make them learn information. The only way a student can
learn is if they willingly desire to learn, and the only way to do that
is to provide students with a wide range of classes to choose from with
interesting, provocative topics, as well as to give the student the
opportunity to attend classes voluntarily or not at all. To quote Carl
Sagan...
Since most school children emerge with only a tiny fraction of what
theyâve been taught permanently engraved in their long-term memories,
isnât it essential to infect them with consumer-tested topics that
arenât boring... and a zest for learning? [6]
The case for proper educational reform is two-part: to produce a vast
array of intriguing, provocative, and classes, and to give students the
independent choice to select the classes that they wish to take. Few, if
any, can argue with the first part. It is obvious that when a student is
interested in what they are learning, it will be more likely that they
will learn more. To make a class interesting, it must avoid repetitive
exercises and the educational administration should do as much as
possible to make the class as different, informative, and as creative as
possible. This is something that I hardly need to argue. There are
those, however, who would find it improbable that a society can move
forward when students are wholly given the option themselves to choose
classes or not. If given the choice to go to classes or not, many would
assume that students would simply skip all the classes that they signed
up for. If this voluntary system of choosing to go to the classes you
desired was put into effect today, I hardly doubt this objection:
students absolutely would skip their classes. However, this would be
entirely due to the boredom, monotony, and the generally poorly run
classroom. When individuals learn in a hostile environment where they
are forced to learn, they learn only to detest schooling. With this idea
in mind, it is obvious that students would skip class, and the reasons
are all too clear: the hatred of education is bred into students from
our modern, formal, educational institutions. If classrooms were set up
in a way that was intriguing and interesting, they would have more
appeal with students. There is then the other objection: if classrooms
provided an interesting, intriguing atmosphere, children who were
apathetic still may avoid school altogether. However, a child who is
forced to sit in a classroom âlearningâ will only dishearten any
interest they have for education. A student can easily memorize dull
facts and forget them a year later with great ease. A student gains
nothing by being forced into a class that is uninteresting or dull to
them. In fact, it hurts any natural feelings they have for learning.
Education cannot be forced. It can only be chosen. That is the principle
of an efficient school: freedom of conscience and classes.
The question of religion now comes into regard with education. Many
schools and colleges during the Renaissance were supported by the
Jesuits and the Catholic Church. To what extent shall religion govern
education? Any educated person can come to the conclusion that religion
is an ignorant pursuit in itself. To incorporate its principles into the
educational system is much worse than not teaching students anything at
all. It sets a shaky foundation. Perhaps one or two individuals can find
moral or inspirational value in religion, but to search for facts,
science, and truth, religion will be the last place to aid in any way at
all. In reference to Isaiah 40:22, Carl Sagan has said...
If you accept the literal truth of every word of the Bible, then the
Earth must be flat. The same is true for the Quâran. Pronouncing the
Earth round then means youâre an atheist. In 1993, the supreme religious
authority of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, issued an edict,
or fatwa, declaring that the world is flat. Anyone of the round
persuasion does not believe in God and should be punished.â [7]
In 1999, 68% of of the public want the teaching of both Evolution and
Creationism as science in school. 40% are in favor of teaching
Creationism instead of Evolution. [8] Carl Sagan notes on the religious
fervor of Creationists...
I meet many people offended by evolution, who passionately prefer to be
the personal handicraft of God than to arise by blind physical and
chemical forces over eons of slime. They also tend to be less than
assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence. Evidence has little to
do with it: What they wish to be true, they believe is true. Only 9
percent of Americans accept the central finding of modern biology that
human beings (and all the other species) have slowly evolved by natural
processes from a succession of more ancient beings with no divine
intervention needed along the way. (When asked merely if they accept
evolution, 45 percent of Americans say yes. The figure is 70 percent in
China.) When the movie Jurassic Park was shown in Israel, it was
condemned by some Orthodox rabbis because it accepted evolution and
because it taught that dinosaurs lived a hundred million years
ago--when, as is plainly stated at every Rosh Hashonah and every Jewish
wedding ceremony, the Universe is less than 6,000 years old. The
clearest evidence of our evolution can be found in our genes. But
evolution is still be fought, ironically by those whose own DNA
proclaims it--in the schools, in the courts, in the textbook publishing
houses, and on the question of just how much pain we can inflict on
other animals without crossing some ethical threshold. [9]
The ethic of incorporating religion into education cannot be ignored.
Only a slight knowledge of history is required to understand that
scientific dependence on religion will bring about the ruin of a
civilization. As Adolf Hitler took control of Germany, he commented on a
new way of thought, âWe stand at the end of the Age of Reason. A new era
of the magical explanation of the world is rising. There is no truth, in
the scientific sense.â [10] On the evening that Hitler took control of
Germany, Leon Trotsky is noted for saying...
Not only in peasant homes, but also in city skyscrapers, there lives
along side the twentieth century the thirteenth. A hundred million
people use electricity and still believe in the magic powers of signs
and exorcisms.....Movie stars go to mediums. Aviators who pilot
miraculous mechanisms created by manâs genius wear amulets on their
sweaters. What inexhaustible reserves they possess of darkness,
ignorance and savagery! [11]
Adolf Hitlerâs usage of religion was sparse. He used religion to justify
his actions. To quote him, âTherefore, I am convinced that I am acting
as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the
Lordâs work.â [12] Considering that his tyranny was based on religious
dogma, itâs no doubt that he detested free and secular schools. In
regards to schooling, he has said...
Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no
religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a
religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character
training and religion must be derived from faith.... We need believing
people. [13]
In one statement to the public, Pat Buchanan stated, âWeâre going to
bring back God and the Bible and drive the gods of secular humanism
right out of the public schools of America.â [14] Rev. Romaine F.
Bateman â Pastor of the First Baptist Church of Milburn, New Jersey â
said, âWashington and Lincoln were un-Christian and their names are
unworthy of being brought before the public.â [15] How could an
intelligent history class occur when names are erased from the book
because of religious dogma? William Dembsky once said, âAny view of the
sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as
fundamentally deficient.â [16] I donât think any educated person would
find themselves shaken from this babble â the fact that astronomy,
chemistry, or physics do not incorporate religious dogma does not mean
that they are deficient. Jerry Falwell, the Christian Fundamentalist,
once said, âThe Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is
absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith
and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history,
etc.â [17] Since it is commonplace information that the Bible has many
mistakes, should we actively teach those mistakes, including the
Flat-Earth Theory and Creation âScienceâ? Bill Keith has said, âIf I had
my way, I would have the Book of Genesis taught in all our elementary
schools.â [18] By teaching a religion, students do not gain anything of
value, but learn to incorporate dogma and superstition â false tools â
into their lives. Upon seeing iguanas, Reverend Walter Lang said...
We really have dinosaurs today, without any question. You just need the
right weather conditions, as I see it, to get huge creatures. And in the
ocean, of course, we have huge creatures.... this is where the
plesiosauruses seem to be today, and perhaps also this fire breathing
dragon is still down there â very rare, but occasionally there. [19]
Walter Lang is not the only Creationist who believes that dinosaurs
still walk the Earth. Kent Hovind has quoted many sitings of dinosaurs,
all from the middle of Europe to Florida, and even accepting the
testimony of individuals who were intoxicated with LSD. Kent Hovind has
said the following...
Well, if Evolution is true, youâre nothing important. Youâre just a bit
of protoplasm that washed up on the beach. And youâre not worth a thing.
As a matter of fact, youâre part of the problem, because youâre one of
the polluters of the environment, and the more of you we can get rid of,
the better. See, thatâs normal thinking if Evolution is true. [20]
The fallacy of Hovindâs quote is that it lacks intelligence. It doesnât
rely on evidence and it makes arguments by making Evolution look bad
rather than by debunking it. In fact, he says things about Evolution
that arenât even true. If someone believes Evolution, it does not mean
that they are trying to âget rid ofâ humans. However, to the audiences
that are willing to pay $50 to listen to Hovind slander Evolution, they
learn that Evolution is about not being worth anything and that humans
are problems. This isnât science. This isnât even remotely smooth
talking. On Kent Hovindâs part, this is making yourself look stupid.
Mockery of science hardly disproves it. Hovind is not the only one to
make himself look ignorant. Henry Morris has said the following...
The approach we try to take here [Morrisâs Institute for Creation
Research] is to assume that the word of God is the word of God and that
God is able to say what He means and means what He says, and thatâs in
the Bible and that is our basis. And then we interpret the scientific
data within that framework. [21]
Henry Morris believes that the world is only a few thousand years old,
as do many Creationists. Evolution is not the only belief which affirms
the billions of years old the Earth is. So many scientific fields are
entirely dependent upon the age of the Universe being billions of years
old. Geology, astronomy, biology, cosmology, and physics are all
sciences which require that the Universe is millions or billions of
years old. One cannot delve into the chemical fission or fusion of
stars, the evolution of animals, the formation of rocks, the movement of
stars, the nature of starlight, or any other particular subject without
immediately recognizing that the Earth is billions of years old. Even
the elementary basics of so many fields requires us to accept the age of
the Earth to be hundreds of millions of years old. The Creation Research
Society is quoted for saying...
We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept
Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation
of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into
sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all
mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus
Christ as our Savior. [22]
Are these people scientists? Should we depend on them for delivering
knowledge and objective truth to us? Absolutely not. They are obviously
biased individuals who are not attempting to be scientific in any way.
They do not look for evidence nor do they attempt to use rational
principles. They use faith, not reason. It is quite dubious that they
are religious zealots who are attempting to prove the âscientific
groundâ of a purely religious belief. They are not the only religious
zealots. Rev. W. D. Lewis is noted for saying...
I shall never be in full sympathy with our system of irreligious
education. Why should we be compelled to attend and support our schools
if there is nothing that can be done to compel us to attend and support
our churches? ... If education is absolutely necessary for our community
life, so is religion. Or yet why should we be compelled to support the
idea of government if we are at liberty to treat the idea of God with
contempt? ... You will never make a full success of a compulsory
government or a compulsory education until you give the same dignity to
religion and make it compulsory; at any rate compulsory enough to make
it respected throughout the land. The nation that plays fast and loose
with its idea of God will soon or late play fast and loose with its idea
of education and its idea of government.... If God doesnât matter, then
nothing else matters, and all the compulsions of life might just as well
be set aside. [23]
The Creationist position wishes to advance itself by taking the battle
to courts, schools, and the legislative branch. One Fundamentalist,
William Jennings Bryan, who was the prosecutor in the Scopes Trial, is
noted for saying, âAll the ills from which America suffers can be traced
back to the teaching of evolution. It would be better to destroy every
other book ever written, and save just the first three verses of
Genesis.â [24] Tennessee eventually dropped Evolution as a subject in
schools. To quote the law itself...
It shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the universities,
normals, and all other public schools of the state which are supported
in whole or in part by public funds of the state, to teach any theory
that denies the story of the divine creation of man as taught in the
Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower state of
animals. [25]
There are many serious efforts to destroy modern science from various
religious standpoints. To quote Carl Sagan...
Under the guise of âcreationism,â a serious effort continues to be made
to prevent evolutionary biology â the most powerful integrating idea in
all of biology, and essential for other sciences ranging from astronomy
to anthropology â from being taught in schools. [26]
Easily deducted from an analysis of religion and science, as well as
religion and the school system, it becomes quite obvious that they have
no place together. Religious individuals would have our schools teach
that the dinosaurs are still alive and roaming the world today, despite
the utter lack of scientific proof to back this up one bit. Furthermore,
there are a wide variety of various dogmas which may inhibit the
intellectual institution which we wish to nurture our students in.
Should we teach students that the Earth is only a few thousand years
old? In doing so, we throw out hundreds and hundreds of subjects of
science that depend entirely on the Universe being billions of years old
â from chemistry to anthropology to geology. Should we teach students
that Creationism is the way humans were created? In doing so, we throw
out all the evidence and proof that shows distinct relation between
humans and apes. The fact that apes and humans share 99% DNA is thrown
out. The fact that humans have many vestigial organs which serve no
purpose to us now yet served a purpose to our ancestors (such as male
nipples which served an Asexual species, or the appendix which is
believed to have served the Digestive System of a larger species) â all
this evidence is thrown out. The determination of causal relationships
in the natural world is destroyed. As learners and thinkers, we must
understand things for ourselves. To appoint a god to explain things is
only proof of our ignorance, and to teach this god to students would
corrupt their minds and destroy any possible education. I do not believe
that we should teach students that there is no god at all; I do not
believe that god should be taught in the classroom, just like I do not
believe that Atheism should be taught in the classroom. It is imperative
to education that schools do not teach god as an acting force on nature.
If we teach that rainbows are a sign of god that he will not flood the
world again, and if we teach this in school, what will the students
think when they create the chemical reaction that produces a rainbow in
their own laboratory? If we teach that lightning is the work of Allah
trying to kill people, as the Quâran would have us believe, what would
students think when they find out that it is actually the build up of
positive and negative electrons on different surfaces? If we teach all
these dogmatic, superstitious, and â inevitably â religious doctrines,
then these students will not be able to understand and grasp scientific
causes to effects. I do not believe that the thought of religion should
be removed from school entirely. In fact, I think quite the opposite.
Religion should be discussed in a history class, so that students may
see it with an objective sense and learn how it affected cultures and
societies. To teach religion as fact, though, is no real education at
all. Francisco Ferrer recounts his experience with a religious woman...
AMONG my pupils was a certain Mlle. Meunier, a wealthy old lady with no
dependents, who was fond of travel, and studied Spanish with the object
of visiting my country. She was a convinced Catholic and a very
scrupulous observer of the rules of her Church. To her, religion and
morality were the same thing, and unbelief-or â impiety, â as the
faithful say-was an evident sign of vice and crime.
She detested revolutionaries, and she regarded with impulsive and
undiscriminating aversion every display of popular ignorance. This was
due, not only to her education and social position, but to the
circumstance that during the period of the Commune she had been insulted
by children in the streets of Paris as she went to church with her
mother. Ingenuous and sympathetic, without regard to antecedents,
accessories, or consequences, she always expressed her dogmatic
convictions without reserve, and I had many opportunities to open her
eyes to the inaccuracy of her opinions.
In our many conversations I refrained from taking any definite side; so
that she did not recognize me as a partisan of any particular belief,
but as a careful reasoner with whom it was a pleasure to confer. She
formed so flattering an opinion of me, and was so solitary, that she
gave me her full confidence and friendship, and invited me to accompany
her on her travels. I accepted the offer, and we traveled in various
countries. My conduct and our constant coon compelled her to recognize
the error of thinking that every unbeliever was perverse and every
atheist a hardened criminal, since I, a convinced atheist, manifested
symptoms very different from those wash her religious prejudice had led
her to expect.
She thought, however, that my conduct was exceptional, and reminded me
that the exception proves the rule. In the end, the persistence and
logic of my arguments forced her to yield to the evidence, and, when her
prejudice was removed, she was convinced that a rational and scientific
education would preserve children from error, inspire men with a love of
good conduct, and reorganise society in accord with the demands of
justice. She was deeply impressed by the reflection that she might have
been on a level with the children who had insulted her if, at their age,
she had been reared in the same conditions as they. When she had given
up her belief in innate ideas, she was greatly preoccupied with the
following problem: If a child were educated without hearing anything
about religion, what idea of the Deity would it have on reaching the age
of reason? [27]
If there is one sole purpose of education, it is independence: equipping
individuals with the proper tools that they need so that they may
flourish and prosper in the world, and that their creative, emotional,
and productive outlets may blossom. An educational environment should be
open, warm, and welcoming. None should be shunned from being who they
are. Freedom of expression in symbols, clothing, and speech should go
unrestrained. If, however, you enter the school system provided to
students today, you would find oppressive and malicious teachers,
accompanied by an administration who hold no value at all to rights. By
destroying the right to Free Speech, formal education serves the purpose
of independence. When a student, especially an aspiring, young child,
wishes to express themselves and who they are, and when the school
administration steps in and says that is unacceptable, it is the
destruction of the very principles that education is based on. Schools
should come with freedom of speech, expression, and conscience. Schools
in the United States have been the slavery of thought, destroying any
effort of students to be themselves. The hand that reached for something
more, the right to govern their own soul, was struck, beaten, and abused
by the school leaders. It took place in American schools, which
suppressed education rather than promoted it. Education is a supremely
important to a free society. To quote Robert Green Ingersoll...
I BELIEVE that education is the only lever capable of raising mankind.
If we wish to make the future of the Republic glorious we must educate
the children of the present. The greatest blessing conferred by our
Government is the free school. In importance it rises above everything
else that the Government does. In its influence it is far greater.
[...]
We need far more schoolhouses than we have, and while money is being
wasted in a thousand directions, thousands of children are left to be
educated in the gutter. It is far cheaper to build schoolhouses than
prisons, and it is much better to have scholars than convicts.
The Kindergarten system should be adopted, especially for the young;
attending school is then a pleasure â the children do not run away from
school, but to school. We should educate the children not simply in
mind, but educate their eyes and hands, and they should be taught
something that will be of use, that will help them to make a living,
that will give them independence, confidence â that is to say,
character.
The cost of the schools is very little, and the cost of land â giving
the children, as I said before, air and light â would amount to nothing.
[28]
The schools of the United States serve as centers for the
desensitization of the population. It relinquishes any natural love of
education and destroys any feelings that citizens can make a difference.
Rights have been deprived from students and conscience of students have
been trampled. This is the trend in dictatorial governments: a failure
to understand or recognize the value of a conscious being. Some students
have even been given detention, a form of punishment, for failing
grades. [29] In 1943, the West Virginia State Board of Education made it
mandatory that students salute the flag during the Pledge of Allegiance
in school. Justice Jackson explained the situation...
The Board of Education on January 9, 1942, adopted a resolution
containing recitals taken largely from the Courtâs Gobitis opinion and
ordering that the salute to the flag become âa regular part of the
program of activities in the public schools,â that all teachers and
pupils âshall be required to participate in the salute honoring the
Nation represented by the Flag; provided, however, that refusal to
salute the Flag be regarded as an Act of insubordination, and shall be
dealt with accordingly.â
[...]
Failure to conform is âinsubordinationâ dealt with by expulsion.
Readmission is denied by statute until compliance. Meanwhile the
expelled child is âunlawfully absentâ and may be proceeded against as a
delinquent. His parents or guardians are liable to prosecution, and if
convicted are subject to fine not exceeding $50 and jail term not
exceeding thirty days.
Appellees, citizens of the United States and of West Virginia, brought
suit in the United States District Court for themselves and others
similarly situated asking its injunction to restrain enforcement of
these laws and regulations against Jehovahâs Witnesses. The Witnesses
are an unincorporated body teaching that the obligation imposed by law
of God is superior to that of laws enacted by temporal government. Their
religious beliefs include a literal version of Exodus, Chapter 20,
verses 4 and 5, which says: âThou shalt not make unto thee any graven
image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is
in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou
shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them.â They consider that
the flag is an âimageâ within this command. For this reason they refuse
to salute it. [319 U.S. 624, 630] Children of this faith have been
expelled from school and are threatened with exclusion for no other
cause. Officials threaten to send them to reformatories maintained for
criminally inclined juveniles. Parents of such children have been
prosecuted and are threatened with prosecutions for causing delinquency.
[30]
Thousands of Jehovah Witnesses were dismissed from school because they
refused to salute the flag. The actual law of the state read...
âWHEREAS, The West Virginia State Board of Education holds that national
unity is the basis of national security; that the flag of our Nation is
the symbol of our National Unity transcending all internal differences,
however large within the framework of the Constitution; that the Flag is
the symbol of the Nationâs power; that emblem of freedom in its truest,
best sense; that it signifies government resting on the consent of the
governed, liberty regulated by law, protection of the weak against the
strong, security against the exercise of arbitrary power, and absolute
safety for free institutions against foreign aggression, and
âWHEREAS, The West Virginia State Board of Education maintains that the
public schools, established by the legislature of the State of West
Virginia under the authority of the Constitution of the State of West
Virginia and supported by taxes imposed by legally constituted measures,
are dealing with the formative period in the development in citizenship
that the Flag is an allowable portion of the program of schools thus
publicly supported.
âTherefore, be it RESOLVED, That the West Virginia Board of Education
does hereby recognize and order that the commonly accepted salute to the
Flag of the United States-the right hand is placed upon the breast and
the following pledge repeated in unison: âI pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it
stands; one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for allâ-now
becomes a regular part of the program of activities in the public
schools, supported in whole or in part by public funds, and that all
teachers as defined by law in West Virginia and pupils in such schools
shall be required to participate in the salute honoring the Nation
represented by the Flag; provided, however, that refusal to salute the
Flag be regarded as an act of insubordination, and shall be dealt with
accordingly.â [31]
The disgustingly cruel and vindictive law, which so openly says of the
United States flag, âthat emblem of freedom in its truestâ and then
proceeds to state that students HAVE NO FREEDOM in their decision to
salute it or not! To those students who were heroes, brave and true to
the last for what they believed, the state spared them no sympathy, no
respect, and no rights. The policy that dealt with students who
disagreed with school regulations was as follows...
If a child be dismissed, suspended, or expelled from school because of
refusal of such child to meet the legal and lawful requirements of the
school and the established regulations of the county and/or state board
of education, further admission of the child to school shall be refused
until such requirements and regulations be complied with. Any such child
shall be treated as being unlawfully absent from the school during the
time he refuses to comply with such requirements and regulations, and
any person having legal or actual control of such child shall be liable
to prosecution under the provisions of this article for the absence of
such child from school. [32]
If the mind of man is free, then man will be inclined to search for
himself the truthful and the reasonable. If the mind of man is held in
chains, forced into one direction, and given no choice, then man will
not become free at all. He will become a slave of the state, with no
real liberties and no real education. The only thing that can be rest
assured in the life of this civil slave is that anything he says or
believes that is not conforming will be suppressed by the state. In
1954, the case of Brown v. Board of Education finally reached the
Supreme Court. It was the case which settled the dispute concerning
racial segregation. Until this point, schools were made just for whites
or just for blacks. Segregation and Jim Crow Laws governed the
educational system. It made for an unfree society. Francisco Ferrer,
executed for his Atheism and his belief that school systems should be
free, wrote the following...
CO-EDUCATION OF THE SEXES
THE most important point in our programme of rational education, in view
of the intellectual condition of the country, and the feature which was
most likely to shock current prejudices and habits, was the co-education
of boys and girls.
[...]
In my own mind, co-education was of vital importance. It was not merely
an indispensable condition of realising what I regard as the ideal
result of rational education; it was the ideal itself, initiating its
life in the Modern School, developing progressively without any form of
exclusion, inspiring a confidence of attaining our end. Natural science,
philosophy, and history unite in teaching, in face of all prejudice to
the contrary, that man and woman are two complementary aspects of human
nature, and the failure to recognise this essential and important truth
has had the most disastrous consequences.
[...]
Woman must not be restricted to the home. The sphere of her activity
must go out far beyond her home; it must extend to the very confines of
society. But in order to ensure a helpful result from her activity we
must not restrict the amount of knowledge we communicate to her; she
must learn, both in regard to quantity and quality, the same things as
man. When science enters the mind of woman it will direct her rich vein
of emotion, the characteristic element of her nature, the glad harbinger
of peace and happiness among men.
[...]
CO-EDUCATION OF THE CLASSES
THERE must be a co-education of the different social classes as well as
of the two sexes. I might have founded a school giving lessons
gratuitously; but a school for poor children only would not be a
rational school, since, if they were not taught submission and credulity
as in the old type of school, they would have been strongly disposed to
rebel, and would instinctively cherish sentiments of hatred.
There is no escape from the dilemma. There is no middle term in the
school for the disinherited class alone; you have either a systematic
insistence, by means of false teaching, on error and ignorance, or
hatred of those who domineer and exploit. It is a delicate point, and
needs stating clearly. Rebellion against oppression is merely a question
of statics, of equilibrium. Between one man and another who are
perfectly equal, as is said in the immortal first clause of the famous
Declaration of the French Revolution (â Men are born and remain free and
equal in rightsâ), there can be no social inequality. If there is such
inequality, some will tyrannise, the others protest and hate. Rebellion
is a levelling tendency, and to that extent natural and rational,
however much it may be discredited by justice and its evil companions,
law and religion.
I venture to say quite plainly: the oppressed and the exploited have a
right to rebel, because they have to reclaim their rights until they
enjoy their full share in the common patrimony. The Modern School,
however, has to deal with children, whom it prepares by instruction for
the state of manhood, and it must not anticipate the cravings and
hatreds, the adhesions and rebellions, which may be fitting sentiments
in the adult. In other words, it must not seek to gather fruit until it
has been produced by cultivation, nor must it attempt to implant a sense
of responsibility until it has equipped the conscience with the
fundamental conditions of such responsibility. Let it teach the children
to be men; when they are men, they may declare themselves rebels against
injustice. [33]
Francisco Ferrer was far beyond his time. In the Nineteenth Century,
public schooling was little more than experimentation or controlling of
the masses by the ruling. It was not at all about Education. Yet, amidst
the barbaric, brute, and superstitious swarming, he arose with
revolutionary ideas. Education for all, that they may be free. His
schools have been called âFree Schools,â and it cannot be hard to see
why. He utilized the principles of equality and freedom, whereas other
schools were cruel and vicious. To quote Epictetus, âWe must not believe
the many, who say that only free people ought to be educated, but we
should rather believe the philosophers who say that only the educated
are free.â [34]
Middle schools and high schools are not the only places which are
inadequate in delivering a proper education to the population. Colleges
also suffer from inadequate teaching methods, and many fail to give
rights to their faculty or students, despite the fact that it is often
stipulated that the college is much more free than any other learning
institution. The reason why the college is oppressive cannot be hard to
see: colleges get their teaching methods from the traditional, orthodox
institutions. Colleges are just a heightened form of learning from the
high school. It can obviously be seen why they would resemble their
counterparts. In the 1950âs and the 1960âs, freedom of conscience and
expression, freedom to be who you are without being thrown in jail and
kicked out of your job, was denied. In 1964, Washington State passed the
following statute concerning those who wish to attend college...
âSubversive personâ means any person who commits, attempts to commit, or
aids in the commission, or advocates, abets, advises or teaches by any
means any person to commit, attempt to commit, or aid in the commission
of any act intended to overthrow, destroy or alter, or to assist in the
overthrow, destruction or alteration of, the constitutional form of the
government of the United States, or of the state of Washington, or any
political subdivision of either of them by revolution, force, or
violence; or who with knowledge that the organization is an organization
as described in subsections (2) and (3) hereof, becomes or remains a
member of a subversive organization or a foreign subversive
organization. [35]
In such clear and extensive terms defined, anybody who disagrees with
the government, is punished. The Communist Control Act of 1954 made the
Communist Party an illegal party. The Supreme Court clarifies the
issue...
This class action was brought by members of the faculty, staff, and
students of the University of Washington for a judgment declaring
unconstitutional 1931 and 1955 state statutes requiring the taking of
oaths, one for teachers and the other for all state employees, including
teachers, as a condition of employment. The 1931 oath requires teachers
to swear, by precept and example, to promote respect for the flag and
the institutions of the United States and the State of Washington,
reverence for law and order and undivided allegiance to the Government
of the United States. The 1955 oath for state employees, which
incorporates provisions of the state Subversive Activities Act, requires
the affiant to swear that he is not a âsubversive personâ: that he does
not commit, or advise, teach, abet or advocate another to commit or aid
in the commission of any act intended to overthrow or alter, or assist
in the overthrow or alteration, of the constitutional form of government
by revolution, force or violence. âSubversive organizationâ and âforeign
subversive organizationâ are defined in similar terms and the Communist
Party is declared a subversive organization. [36]
Teachers from all over the state of Washington were disallowed from
freedom of conscience and expression. The form for the college read as
follows...
âSTATE OF WASHINGTON
âStatement and Oath for Teaching Faculty of the University of Washington
âI, the undersigned, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
the constitution and laws of the United States of America and of the
state of Washington, and will by precept and example promote respect for
the flag and the institutions of the United States of America and the
state of Washington, reverence for law and order, and undivided
allegiance to the government of the United States;
âI further certify that I have read the provisions of RCW 9.81.010 (2),
(3), and (5); RCW 9.81.060; RCW 9.81.070; and RCW 9.81.083, which are
printed on the reverse hereof; that I understand and am familiar with
the contents thereof; that I am not a subversive person as therein
defined; and
âI do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I am not a member of the Communist
party or knowingly of any other subversive organization.
âI understand that this statement and oath are made subject to the
penalties of perjury.
................................................
(SIGNATURE) [37]
The state of Washington was not a free state. The government disallowed
the existence or the progression of those who were Communists. It is
rather an affirmation of ignorance than it is of any ideology when the
government disallows foreign political parties. In 1968, the Supreme
Court argued again on whether or not schools can be segregated into
different races. Even though the Supreme Court had already ruled that
schools should not segregate individuals because of their race, the
school districts continued such a plan. To quote the Supreme Court
document of the case...
Respondent School Board maintains two schools, one on the east side and
one on the west side of New Kent County, Virginia. About one-half of the
countyâs population are Negroes, who reside throughout the county since
there is no residential segregation. Although this Court held in Brown
v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483(Brown I), that Virginiaâs
constitutional and statutory provisions requiring racial segregation in
schools were unconstitutional, the Board continued segregated operation
of the schools, presumably pursuant to Virginia statutes enacted to
resist that decision. In 1965, after this suit for injunctive relief
against maintenance of allegedly segregated schools was filed, the
Board, in order to remain eligible for federal financial aid, adopted a
âfreedom-of-choiceâ plan for desegregating the schools. The plan permits
students, except those entering the first and eighth grades, to choose
annually between the schools; those not choosing are assigned to the
school previously attended; first and eighth graders must affirmatively
choose a school. The District Court approved the plan, as amended, and
the Court of Appeals approved the âfreedom-of-choiceâ provisions
although it remanded for a more specific and comprehensive order
concerning teachers. During the planâs three years of operation no white
student has chosen to attend the all-Negro school, and although 115
Negro pupils enrolled in the formerly all-white school, 85% of the Negro
students in the system still attend the all-Negro school.
[...]
...The respondent School Board continued the segregated operation of the
system after the Brown [391 U.S. 430, 433] decisions, presumably on the
authority of several statutes enacted by Virginia in resistance to those
decisions. Some of these statutes were held to be unconstitutional on
their face or as applied. 1 One statute, the Pupil Placement Act, Va.
Code 22â232.1 et seq. (1964), not repealed until 1966, divested local
boards of authority to assign children to particular schools and placed
that authority in a State Pupil Placement Board....
[...]
The New Kent School Boardâs âfreedom-of-choiceâ plan cannot be accepted
as a sufficient step to âeffectuate a transitionâ to a unitary system.
In three years of operation not a single white child has chosen to
attend Watkins school and although 115 Negro children enrolled in New
Kent school in 1967 (up from 35 in 1965 and 111 in 1966) 85% of the
Negro children in the system still attend the all-Negro Watkins school.
In other words, the school system remains a dual system. Rather than
further the dismantling of the dual system, the plan has operated simply
to burden children and their parents [391 U.S. 430, 442] with a
responsibility which Brown II placed squarely on the School Board. The
Board must be required to formulate a new plan and, in light of other
courses which appear open to the Board, such as zoning, 6 fashion steps
which promise realistically to convert promptly to a system without a
âwhiteâ school and a âNegroâ school, but just schools. [38]
The law that allowed the segregation of races was still in effect after
the first Supreme Court case argued against segregation, and it existed
for more than a decade after the case! The year of 1969 was the most
important year concerning the rights of students. It was the year the
famous Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case
took place. As explained by the Supreme Court...
Petitioner John F. Tinker, 15 years old, and petitioner Christopher
Eckhardt, 16 years old, attended high schools in Des Moines, Iowa.
Petitioner Mary Beth Tinker, Johnâs sister, was a 13-year-old student in
junior high school.
In December 1965, a group of adults and students in Des Moines held a
meeting at the Eckhardt home. The group determined to publicize their
objections to the hostilities in Vietnam and their support for a truce
by wearing black armbands during the holiday season and by fasting on
December 16 and New Yearâs Eve. Petitioners and their parents had
previously engaged in similar activities, and they decided to
participate in the program.
The principals of the Des Moines schools became aware of the plan to
wear armbands. On December 14, 1965, they met and adopted a policy that
any student wearing an armband to school would be asked to remove it,
and if he refused he would be suspended until he returned without the
armband. Petitioners were aware of the regulation that the school
authorities adopted.
On December 16, Mary Beth and Christopher wore black armbands to their
schools. John Tinker wore his armband the next day. They were all sent
home and suspended from school until they would come back without their
armbands. They did not return to school until after the planned period
for wearing armbands had expired â that is, until after New Yearâs Day.
[39]
It was, however, a success for the children who desired rights and
freedom of expression. Not all of the Justices of the Supreme Court felt
this way, however. Justice Black explained why he dissented from the
decision reached by the court...
In my view, teachers in state-controlled public schools are hired to
teach there. Although Mr. Justice McReynolds may have intimated to the
contrary in Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, certainly a teacher is not paid to
go into school and teach subjects the State does not hire him to teach
as a part of its selected curriculum. Nor are public school students
sent to the schools at public expense to broadcast political or any
other views to educate and inform the public. The original idea of
schools, which I do not believe is yet abandoned as worthless or out of
date, was that children had not yet reached the point of experience and
wisdom which enabled them to teach all of their elders. It may be that
the Nation has outworn the old-fashioned slogan that âchildren are to be
seen not heard,â but one may, I hope, be permitted to harbor the thought
that taxpayers send children to school on the premise that at their age
they need to learn, not teach. [40]
The premise of developing education in the minds of students is not to
turn them into useless drones, capable of reciting any string of
repetitive data. Students are conscious beings. They should be taught to
think, to critically examine claims, to be analytical in their
procedures. The lesson of education, in the mind of Justice Black, is
that it should be reduced to one message: âExist, Consume, Obey.â Such a
cruel and heartless life we would lead as individuals if this was the
true state of mind. However, people are not satisfied with this. They
will not be told what to do and they will not conform simply because of
certain fears that we will think. Just because we may be another race,
social status, gender, or age, it does not mean in any way that we
deserve less consideration, that we are to be victims without reprieve.
If we were principally brutes and cowards, schooling would consist of
just this: listening, memorization, and recitation. Students would work,
not think or learn. It would be in no form a decent education, but
rather a process by which individuals are stripped of their rights and
unavailing are thrown into the real world, without independence or
knowledge of any of their rights. To further slander the position of
those who believe students deserve rights, Justice Black continued...
Here a very small number of students have crisply and summarily refused
to obey a school order designed to give pupils who want to learn the
opportunity to do so. One does not need to be a prophet or the son of a
prophet to know that after the Courtâs holding today some students in
Iowa schools and indeed in all schools will be ready, able, and willing
to defy their teachers on practically all orders. This is the more
unfortunate for the schools since groups of students all over the land
are already running loose, conducting break-ins, sit-ins, lie-ins, and
smash-ins. Many of these student groups, as is all too familiar to all
who read the newspapers and watch the television news programs, have
already engaged in rioting, property seizures, and destruction. They
have picketed schools to force students not to cross their picket lines
and have too often violently attacked earnest but frightened students
who wanted an education that the pickets did not want them to get.
Students engaged in such activities are apparently confident that they
know far more about how to operate public school systems than do their
parents, teachers, and elected school officials. [41]
Justice Black, by his own admission, is an individual who believes that
there are different rights for different classes. While one class may
vote or run for office, another has absolutely no means to affect the
government. If a student is taught in a learning environment where they
have no rights, where they are not given the right to speak their minds
or educate their friends on their inner most feelings â if this is the
school which we wish to educate our children in, then they will learn
nothing. They will be ignorant zombies, only taught to obey and not to
participate, only taught to accept and not to question. This is no real
education in any sense. Teaching occurs, yes, but not of any meaningful
sort. The value of vice and the embracement of cruelty are engraved onto
the minds of students who unwilling must accept this abomination that
some have dared to call âa free nation.â Nonetheless, the students won
their rights in this case, or at least some rights.
In 1925, the famous Scopes Trial raged. A biology teacher was charged
for teaching the theory of Evolution in a school. In Tennessee, it was a
crime for any teacher to teach that mankind descended from lower
animals. In 1928, Arkansas adopted a similar law. The text of the law
was as follows...
â 80â1627. â Doctrine of ascent or descent of man from lower order of
animals prohibited. â It shall be unlawful for any teacher or other
instructor in any University, College, Normal, Public School, or other
institution of the State, which is supported in whole or in part from
public funds derived by State and local taxation to teach the theory or
doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of
animals and also it shall be unlawful for any teacher, textbook
commission, or other authority exercising the power to select textbooks
for above mentioned educational institutions to adopt or use in any such
institution a textbook that teaches the doctrine or theory that mankind
descended or ascended from a lower order of animals.
â 80â1628. â Teaching doctrine or adopting textbook mentioning doctrine
â Penalties â Positions to be vacated. â Any teacher or other instructor
or textbook commissioner who is found guilty of violation of this act by
teaching the theory or doctrine mentioned in section 1 hereof, or by
using, or adopting any such textbooks in any such educational
institution shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall
be fined not exceeding five hundred dollars; and upon conviction shall
vacate the position thus held in any educational institutions of the
character above mentioned or any commission of which he may be a
member.â [42]
The question of evolution is simply of question of which thinking you
favor: scientific or none. In this time, the state agreed to teach the
theory of Creationism. A religion became instituted by the state. The
politicians agreed with each other that every individual in their state
should be taught the theory of Creationism, whether or not they were
Creationists or Christians themselves. The legend that humans derived
from Adam and Even, the myth that the gods made humanity in their own
image was adopted. Education in these states ceased to exist. Children
were indoctrinating into the massive legions of superstition and
arrogance. One poster for the Anti-Evolution League read, âThe Conflict
â Hell and High school.â These advocates of Creationism did not wish to
excel science, nor did they wish to heighten mankind to understanding.
Their one and only goal was to force their religion onto the
impressionable minds of young children. The rose of education was
plucked like a weed as this law was passed. Henry Louis Mencken remarks
the following at the close of the Scopes trial...
Such obscenities as the forthcoming trial of the Tennessee evolutionist,
if they serve no other purpose, at least call attention dramatically to
the fact that enlightenment, among mankind, is very narrowly dispersed.
It is common to assume that human progress affects everyone â that even
the dullest man, in these bright days, knows more than any man of, say,
the Eighteenth Century, and is far more civilized. This assumption is
quite erroneous. The men of the educated minority, no doubt, know more
than their predecessors, and of some of them, perhaps, it may be said
that they are more civilized â though I should not like to be put to
giving names â but the great masses of men, even in this inspired
republic, are precisely where the mob was at the dawn of history. They
are ignorant, they are dishonest, they are cowardly, they are ignoble.
They know little if anything that is worth knowing, and there is not the
slightest sign of a natural desire among them to increase their
knowledge.
Such immortal vermin, true enough, get their share of the fruits of
human progress, and so they may be said, in a way, to have their part in
it. The most ignorant man, when he is ill, may enjoy whatever boons...
modern medicine may offer â that is, provided he is too poor to choose
his own doctor. He is free, if he wants to, to take a bath. The
literature of the world is at his disposal in public libraries. He may
look at works of art. He may hear good music. He has at hand a thousand
devices for making life less wearisome and more tolerable: the
telephone, railroads, bichloride tablets, newspapers, sewers,
correspondence schools, delicatessen. But he had no more to do with
bringing these things into the world than the horned cattle in the
fields, and he does no more to increase them today than the birds of the
air.
On the contrary, he is generally against them, and sometimes with
immense violence. Every step in human progress, from the first feeble
stirrings in the abyss of time, has been opposed by the great majority
of men. Every valuable thing that has been added to the store of manâs
possessions has been derided by them when it was new, and destroyed by
them when they had the power. They have fought every new truth ever
heard of, and they have killed every truth-seeker who got into their
hands.
[...]
The so-called religious organizations which now lead the war against the
teaching of evolution are nothing more, at bottom, than conspiracies of
the inferior man against his betters. They mirror very accurately his
congenital hatred of knowledge, his bitter enmity to the man who knows
more than he does, and so gets more out of life. Certainly it cannot
have gone unnoticed that their membership is recruited, in the
overwhelming main, from the lower orders â that no man of any education
or other human dignity belongs to them. What they propose to do, at
bottom and in brief, is to make the superior man infamous â by mere
abuse if it is sufficient, and if it is not, then by law. [43]
The Supreme Court of Arkansas clarified the issues precisely. To quote
the document of the Arkansas Supreme Court...
This appeal challenges the constitutionality of the âanti-evolutionâ
statute which the State of Arkansas adopted in 1928 to prohibit the
teaching in its public schools and universities of the theory that man
evolved from other species of life. The statute was a product of the
upsurge of âfundamentalistâ religious fervor of the twenties. The
Arkansas statute was an adaptation of the famous Tennessee âmonkey lawâ
which that State adopted in 1925. The constitutionality of the Tennessee
law was upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court in the celebrated Scopes
case in 1927.
The Arkansas law makes it unlawful for a teacher in any state-supported
school or university âto teach the [393 U.S. 97, 99] theory or doctrine
that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals,â or
âto adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teachesâ this
theory. Violation is a misdemeanor and subjects the violator to
dismissal from his position.
[...]
Appeal was duly prosecuted to this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1257 (2). Only
Arkansas and Mississippi have such âanti-evolutionâ or âmonkeyâ laws on
their books. [44]
It was not until 1968 that this insane ideology was removed from the
schools. If an individual wishes to pursue a scientific career, they
will inevitably run to many conclusions. In particular, they will find
that the Universe is billions of years old. Even astronomers who are
studying the skies will realize that the light from many of the stars
far away is already billions of years old and the stars that gave off
that light are already destroyed. With regard to Evolution, Ernst Mayr
has said the following...
No educated person any longer questions the validity of the so-called
theory of evolution, which we now know to be a simple fact. Likewise,
most of Darwinâs particular theses have been fully confirmed, such as
that of common descent, the gradualism of evolution, and his explanatory
theory of natural selection. [45]
All up to this point in time, teachers, principals, and other school
administration had complete control of their school. If an individual
behaved improperly â âimproperlyâ defined as the leaders of the school
deemed fit â then the teachers could suspend that individual for any
amount of time, without cause or reason. They were tyrants of schools,
enforcing a cruel dictatorship. Schools were not about freedom and
education â they were about cruelty, abuse, and suppression. The power
to make the life of any student hell was held reservedly by the
administration, and it went unquestioned. If dropping your pencil on the
floor warrants a suspension, you will be suspended. These were not
schools of the free and they were not schools for education. They were
schools that taught students to respect and obey an authority, no matter
how cruel and vindictive that authority was. By striking fear into the
hearts and corruption into the minds of students, the schools of this
time accomplished much: students became disenchanted with learning and
held a thick hatred for the world. In 1974, several students were
suspended for school for doing nothing. Dwight Lopez and Betty Crome
were suspended for ten days by school administration because they had
been near public disruptions at the time of their occurrence The two
students were willing to plead their innocence, and the school had no
proof that the students committed any crime, but the school suspended
the students without allowing them a hearing.
Appellee Ohio public high school students, who had been suspended from
school for misconduct for up to 10 days without a hearing, brought a
class action against appellant school officials seeking a declaration
that the Ohio statute permitting such suspensions was unconstitutional
and an order enjoining the officials to remove the references to the
suspensions from the studentsâ records. A three-judge District Court
declared that appellees were denied due process of law in violation of
the Fourteenth Amendment because they were âsuspended without hearing
prior to suspension or within a reasonable time thereafter,â and that
the statute and implementing regulations were unconstitutional, and
granted the requested injunction.
[...]
The nine named appellees, each of whom alleged that he or she had been
suspended from public high school in Columbus for up to 10 days without
a hearing pursuant to 3313.66, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. 1983
against the Columbus Board of Education and various administrators of
the CPSS. The complaint sought a declaration that 3313.66 was
unconstitutional in that it permitted public school administrators to
deprive plaintiffs of their rights to an education without a hearing of
any kind, in violation of the procedural due process component of the
Fourteenth Amendment. It also sought to enjoin the public school
officials from issuing future suspensions pursuant to 3313.66 and to
require them to remove references to the past suspensions from the
records of the students in question.
The proof below established that the suspensions arose out of a period
of widespread student unrest in the CPSS during February and March 1971.
Six of the named plaintiffs, Rudolph Sutton, Tyrone Washington, Susan
Cooper, Deborah Fox, Clarence Byars, and Bruce Harris, were students at
the Marion-Franklin High School and were each suspended for 10 days on
account of disruptive or disobedient conduct committed in the presence
of the school administrator who ordered the suspension. One of these,
Tyrone Washington, was among a group of students demonstrating in the
school auditorium while a class was being conducted there. He was
ordered by the school principal to leave, refused to do so, and was
suspended. Rudolph Sutton, in the presence of the principal, physically
attacked a police officer who was attempting to remove Tyrone Washington
from the auditorium. He was immediately suspended. The other four
Marion-Franklin students were suspended for similar conduct. None was
given a hearing to determine the operative facts underlying the
suspension, but each, together with his or her parents, was offered the
opportunity to attend a conference, subsequent to the effective date of
the suspension, to discuss the studentâs future.
Two named plaintiffs, Dwight Lopez and Betty Crome, were students at the
Central High School and McGuffey Junior High School, respectively. The
former was suspended in connection with a disturbance in the lunchroom
which involved some physical damage to school property. Lopez testified
that at least 75 other students were suspended from his school on the
same day. He also testified below that he was not a party to the
destructive conduct but was instead an innocent bystander. Because no
one from the school testified with regard to this incident, there is no
evidence in the record indicating the official basis for concluding
otherwise. Lopez never had a hearing.
Betty Crome was present at a demonstration at a high school other than
the one she was attending. There she was arrested together with others,
taken to the police station, and released without being formally
charged. Before she went to school on the following day, she was
notified that she had been suspended for a 10-day period. Because no one
from the school testified with respect to this incident, the record does
not disclose how the McGuffey Junior High School principal went about
making the decision to suspend Crome, nor does it disclose on what
information the decision was based. It is clear from the record that no
hearing was ever held.
There was no testimony with respect to the suspension of the ninth named
plaintiff, Carl Smith. The school files were also silent as to his
suspension, although as to some, but not all, of the other named
plaintiffs the files contained either direct references to their
suspensions or copies of letters sent to their parents advising them of
the suspension. [46]
It would not be acceptable for any institution, be it of learning,
recreation, or work, to suspend or punish anyone when there is no
evidence or reason behind it. The educators in our learning institutions
felt that they had the right to persecute without the burden of proof.
They felt that they could suspend or punish, without a care or thought
as to whether or not it was justly done. Justice Powell stated the
following at this court decision...
In assessing in constitutional terms the need to protect pupils from
unfair minor discipline by school authorities, the Court ignores the
commonality of interest of the State and pupils in the public school
system. Rather, it thinks in traditional judicial terms of an adversary
situation. To be sure, there will be the occasional pupil innocent of
any rule infringement who is mistakenly suspended or whose infraction is
too minor to justify suspension. But, while there is no evidence
indicating the frequency of unjust suspensions, common sense suggests
that they will not be numerous in relation to the total number, and that
mistakes or injustices will usually be righted by informal means. [47]
What Powell fails to recognize is that by giving teachers the ability to
suspend a student up to ten days, without any reasons what so ever, a
system of inhumanity rather than education will evolve into the
schooling. It has been said by many ethical and social reformers that to
give limitless powers to anybody will only lead to greed and corruption.
To quote Albert Leffingwell, a physician who worked with the American
Humanitarian League when arguing against Vivisection and animal
testing...
Doubtless the Czar of Russia prefers unlimited power to the restrictions
of a written constitution; but absolutism, whether on the imperial
throne or in the physiological laboratory, has not offered to the world
the highest type of conduct. What, for instance, would be thought of the
president of a great and wealthy university who should proclaim that, as
regards the expenditure of the treasurer, no restraints or restrictions
were ever imposed; that complete confidence in personal character took
the place of all vouchers and receipts? [48]
The point made by Albert Leffingwell is unmistaken: if we give unlimited
power to individuals, they will inevitably abuse their position. In free
governments where the citizens are given the right to choose the destiny
and fate of laws, there is often a system of checks and balances The
president does not have unlimited power; nor does Congress, the House of
Representatives, or judges. All individuals in the government have a
means to check and balance each other. However, this system which has
been used by thousands of governments to prevent corruption and abuse of
power tumbles to dust when implemented in the school system. Corrupt and
brutalizing governments which wish to have nobody check or control their
power will eliminate this system of checks and balances It is the
product of a power-hungry dictator who wishes to rule without caprice.
And it is this very system â born of abuse, greed, and corruption â that
Justice Powell would want our education to be based on! If the citizens
of a cruel government learn nothing but cruelty, how can the students of
a cruel administration learn anything but just that: cruelty? The
concept itself is ridiculous. The principle of a free education is based
on making the students independent, so that they may excel and succeed
in the real world. To place students in a hostile environment where they
are afforded no rights is not at all a form of education; it is a form
of state-instituted abuse.
If there is one thing which has been evident in process of education, it
is that the rulers of these so-called âplaces of learningâ have always
been quick to guide education their own way. When education is guided by
a biased source or forced, it is no longer education. It may be called
brainwashing or indoctrination, but it is far from an education. In many
ways, the teachers, principals, and superintendents have all been quick
to destroy the principle of education by replacing it with forced
thinking, which is no kind of thinking at all. One particular way that
schools have done this is by refusing the existence of another point of
view. The text books do not speak of this view â and if they do, it is
negatively, the teachers do not discuss it, and the librarians refuse to
house such books. Banning books has always been a way that the masses
have been controlled. When Uncle Tomâs Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe
was published, revealing many of the harsh realities of slavery, there
were many book burnings of it in the south. The Catholic Church compiled
a list of thousands of banned books in 1948. Today, many churches are
burning Harry Potter books, as well as other sorts of media, including
Pokemon cards. Here are some of the most challenged books in school
libraries...
3. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
5. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
6. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
7. Harry Potter (Series) by J.K. Rowling
8. Forever by Judy Blume
13. The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
16. Goosebumps (Series) by R.L. Stine
17. A Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Newton Peck
18. The Color Purple by Alice Walker
23. Go Ask Alice by Anonymous
40. Whatâs Happening to my Body? Book for Girls: A Growing-Up Guide for
Parents & Daughters by Lynda Madaras
41. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
43. The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton
44. The Pigman by Paul Zinden
47. Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes
52. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
53. Sleeping Beauty Trilogy by A.N. Roquelaure (Anne Rice)
54. Asking About Sex and Growing Up by Joanna Cole
55. Cujo by Stephen King
56. James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
58. Boys and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy
61. Whatâs Happening to my Body? Book for Boys: A Growing-Up Guide for
Parents & Sons by Lynda Madaras
70. Lord of the Flies by William Golding
77. Carrie by Stephen King
83. The Dead Zone by Stephen King
84. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
88. Whereâs Waldo? by Martin Hanford
93. Sex Education by Jenny Davis
95. Girls and Sex by Wardell Pomeroy [49]
There are some who would say that it might be acceptable if this list
consisted of books that were purely racist or dangerous. That is to say,
they would at least find that acceptable, but to ban â or try to ban â
this list of books is appalling. There are those who say banning books
about murder is acceptable, but I do not find the banning of any
knowledge acceptable at all! If you set a student in one direction of
learning, without allowing them to turn and the check the other
directions, the student will become narrow-minded. To quote Carl Sagan,
â...censoring knowledge, telling people what they must think, is the
aperture to thought police, foolish and incompetent decision-making, and
long-term decline.â [50] Books by Mark Twain and John Steinbeck were
challenged more often than The Anarchist Cookbook by William Powell.
[51] Powellâs publication contains methods for creating bombs and
explosives yet the stories of Huckleberry Finn have been deemed less
appropriate. In no way do I think that any book should be banned. To
hold a monopoly on thought is tyrannical, and certainly not a principle
of education. Education means freedom â both of expression and
conscience â yet we so often meet school boards who are desiring to ban
books. Two of Mark Twainâs books make the top 100 most challenged books.
Of school boards, Mark Twain himself has said, âIn the first place God
made idiots. This was for practice. Then he made School Boards.â [52]
These books that are banned are excellent books. They ignite the
imagination and stimulate the mind. Mark Twainâs novels of childhood to
scientific books by Huxley to Maya Angelouâs books of freedom â to ban
such books would be a crime. Some of these books are about sexuality.
Now the knowledge of oneâs own body is illegal, forbidden knowledge? To
the educatorâs of today, it would appear that way. The most challenged
authors of the year 2000 were: J.K. Rowling, Robert Cormier, Lois
Duncan, Piers Anthony, Walter Dean Myers, Phylis Reynolds Naylor, John
Steinbeck, Maya Angelou, Christopher Pike, Caroline Cooney, Alvin
Schwartz, Lois Lowry, Harry Allard, Paul Zindel, and Judy Blume. [53]
There are certain schools which punish children for carrying such banned
books on school property! And so children are not given the right to
expression or freedom of conscience. Now, being placed in the hostile
school environment, under the rule of an administrator who believes they
have full and total control, they are not given the right to read the
books that they desire. If so much as one book is banned, it is not
education. It is control of thought â a principle which is conflicted
with a real education.
In 1975, a committee of parents and students of the Island Trees Union
Free School District of New York banned several books from its high
school and junior high school libraries that they deemed to be
unacceptable. To quote the Supreme Court document relating to this
incident...
Petitioners are the Board of Education of the Island Trees Union Free
School District No. 26, in New York, and Richard Ahrens, Frank Martin,
Christina Fasulo, Patrick Hughes, Richard Melchers, Richard Michaels,
and Louis Nessim. When this suit was brought, Ahrens was the President
of the Board, Martin was the Vice President, and the remaining
petitioners were Board members. The Board is a state agency charged with
responsibility for the operation and administration of the public
schools within the Island Trees School District, including the Island
Trees High School and Island Trees Memorial Junior High School.
Respondents are Steven Pico, Jacqueline Gold, Glenn Yarris, Russell
Rieger, and Paul Sochinski. When this suit was brought, Pico, Gold,
Yarris, and Rieger were students at the High School, and Sochinski was a
student at the Junior High School.
In September 1975, petitioners Ahrens, Martin, and Hughes attended a
conference sponsored by Parents of New York United (PONYU), a
politically conservative organization of parents concerned about
education legislation in the State of New York. At the conference these
petitioners obtained lists of books described by Ahrens as
âobjectionable,â App. 22, and by Martin as âimproper fare for school
students,â id., at 101. It was later determined that the High School
library contained nine of the listed books, and that another listed book
was in the Junior High School library. In [457 U.S. 853, 857] February
1976, at a meeting with the Superintendent of Schools and the Principals
of the High School and Junior High School, the Board gave an âunofficial
directionâ that the listed books be removed from the library shelves and
delivered to the Boardâs offices, so that Board members could read them.
When this directive was carried out, it became publicized, and the Board
issued a press release justifying its action. It characterized the
removed books as âanti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Sem[i]tic, and
just plain filthy,â and concluded that â[i]t is our duty, our moral
obligation, to protect the children in our schools from this moral
danger as surely as from physical and medical dangers.â 474 F. Supp.
387, 390 (EDNY 1979).
A short time later, the Board appointed a âBook Review Committee,â
consisting of four Island Trees parents and four members of the Island
Trees schools staff, to read the listed books and to recommend to the
Board whether the books should be retained, taking into account the
booksâ âeducational suitability,â âgood taste,â ârelevance,â and
âappropriateness to age and grade level.â In July, the Committee made
its final report to the Board, recommending that five of the listed
books be retained and that two others be removed from the school
libraries. As for the remaining four books, the Committee could not
agree on two, took no position on one, and recommended that the last
book be made available to students only with parental approval. The
Board substantially rejected the Committeeâs report later that month,
deciding that only one book should be returned to the High School
library without restriction, that another should be made available
subject to parental approval, but that the remaining nine books should
âbe removed from elementary and secondary libraries and [from] use in
the curriculum.â Id., at 391. The Board gave no reasons for rejecting
the recommendations of the Committee that it had appointed. [54]
The rulers of a school have not held justice close to heart. They are
not friends of fairness and they are not allies of love. They can be
characterized as heartless beings, with no desire to promote education.
This is not entirely their fault however. The school boards, the
legislative branches, the conservative groups, and all the others
involved have given discretion of everything to school administration.
To suspend someone, force them to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance,
disallow them the right to expression, disallow them the right to
freedom of conscience, to disallow them from reading books, among other
things, have all been choices of the teachers. The concept of fairness,
when dealing in these situations, is an obscure concept, unworthy of
consideration. When the leaders of our country give absolute rights to
the teachers of our schools, it should be obvious that there will be
many unjust conflicts caused by these teachers. When they may do as they
wish, who is to say that they should not do wrongly? There is no one.
The principles which govern an enslaved country to the wills of a
Fascist dictatorship are the same same principles which govern a school
to the wills of a Fascist administration. This fact should be appalling,
but by many people it is promoted. And yet, under this infamous and
cruel regime, it is expected that the flower of intelligence and
creativity should blossom. In 1980, the administration at the Piscataway
High School in Middlesex County, New Jersey, illegally searched the
contents of a students purse. The Supreme Court document explains...
On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex
County, N. J., discovered two girls smoking in a lavatory. One of the
two girls was the respondent T. L. O., who at that time was a
14-year-old high school freshman. Because smoking in the lavatory was a
violation of a school rule, the teacher took the two girls to the
principalâs office, where they met with Assistant Vice Principal
Theodore Choplick. In response to questioning by Mr. Choplick, T. L.
O.âs companion admitted that she had violated the rule. T. L. O.,
however, denied that she had been smoking in the lavatory and claimed
that she did not smoke at all.
Mr. Choplick asked T. L. O. to come into his private office and demanded
to see her purse. Opening the purse, he found a pack of cigarettes,
which he removed from the purse and held before T. L. O. as he accused
her of having lied to him. As he reached into the purse for the
cigarettes, Mr. Choplick also noticed a package of cigarette rolling
papers. In his experience, possession of rolling papers by high school
students was closely associated with the use of marihuana. Suspecting
that a closer examination of the purse might yield further evidence of
drug use, Mr. Choplick proceeded to search the purse thoroughly. The
search revealed a small amount of marihuana, a pipe, a number of empty
plastic bags, a substantial quantity of money in one-dollar bills, an
index card that appeared to be a list of students who owed T. L. O.
money, and two letters that implicated T. L. O. in marihuana dealing.
Mr. Choplick notified T. L. O.âs mother and the police, and turned the
evidence of drug dealing over to the police. At [469 U.S. 325, 329] the
request of the police, T. L. O.âs mother took her daughter to police
headquarters, where T. L. O. confessed that she had been selling
marihuana at the high school. On the basis of the confession and the
evidence seized by Mr. Choplick, the State brought delinquency charges
against T. L. O. in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of
Middlesex County. 1 Contending that Mr. Choplickâs search of her purse
violated the Fourth Amendment, T. L. O. moved to suppress the evidence
found in her purse as well as her confession, which, she argued, was
tainted by the allegedly unlawful search. The Juvenile Court denied the
motion to suppress. [55]
Of what rationality can be contained in the mind of Mr. Choplick? The
same may be asked of a rock with a similar answer. Perhaps a search
would seem reasonable if there was sufficient cause for it. However,
there was not significant enough reason at all to search the belongings
of this student. A student may break a single rule of a school without
being stripped of all their rights. If a student curses, for example â
which in itself is nothing but a crime against a pathetic culture â upon
cursing, does this student no longer possess any rights? May the
administration search their belongings? The student in this case had not
broken any laws and she did not put the school at danger. The only thing
that she did was the breaking of a school regulation. This does not mean
that the student has no rights at all. Perhaps a punishment could be
merited, but not an unconstitutional search and seizure. The Supreme
Court clarified the issue...
In determining whether the search at issue in this case violated the
Fourth Amendment, we are faced initially with the question whether that
Amendmentâs prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to
searches conducted by public school officials. We hold that it does.
[469 U.S. 325, 334]
It is now beyond dispute that âthe Federal Constitution, by virtue of
the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures
by state officers.â Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 213 (1960);
accord, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25
(1949). Equally indisputable is the proposition that the Fourteenth
Amendment protects the rights of students against encroachment by public
school officials:
âThe Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the
citizen against the State itself and all of its creatures â Boards of
Education not excepted. These have, of course, important, delicate, and
highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform
within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the
young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of
Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the
free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles
of our government as mere platitudes.â West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v.
Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 637 (1943).
These two propositions â that the Fourth Amendment applies to the States
through the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the actions of public school
officials are subject to the limits placed on state action by the
Fourteenth Amendment â might appear sufficient to answer the suggestion
that the Fourth Amendment does not proscribe unreasonable searches by
school officials. On reargument, however, the State of New Jersey has
argued that the history of the Fourth Amendment indicates that the
Amendment was intended to regulate only searches and seizures carried
out by law enforcement officers; accordingly, although public school
officials are concededly state agents for purposes of the Fourteenth
Amendment, the Fourth Amendment creates no rights enforceable against
them. [469 U.S. 325, 335]
It may well be true that the evil toward which the Fourth Amendment was
primarily directed was the resurrection of the pre-Revolutionary
practice of using general warrants or âwrits of assistanceâ to authorize
searches for contraband by officers of the Crown. See United States v.
Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 7â8 (1977); Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616,
624â629 (1886). But this Court has never limited the Amendmentâs
prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures to operations
conducted by the police. Rather, the Court has long spoken of the Fourth
Amendmentâs strictures as restraints imposed upon âgovernmental actionâ
â that is, âupon the activities of sovereign authority.â Burdeau v.
McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 475 (1921). Accordingly, we have held the Fourth
Amendment applicable to the activities of civil as well as criminal
authorities: building inspectors, see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387
U.S. 523, 528 (1967), Occupational Safety and Health Act inspectors, see
Marshall v. Barlowâs, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 312â313 (1978), and even
firemen entering privately owned premises to battle a fire, see Michigan
v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 506 (1978), are all subject to the restraints
imposed by the Fourth Amendment. As we observed in Camara v. Municipal
Court, supra, â[t]he basic purpose of this Amendment, as recognized in
countless decisions of this Court, is to safeguard the privacy and
security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental
officials.â 387 U.S., at 528. Because the individualâs interest in
privacy and personal security âsuffers whether the governmentâs
motivation is to investigate violations of criminal laws or breaches of
other statutory or regulatory standards,â Marshall v. Barlowâs, Inc.,
supra, at 312â313, it would be âanomalous to say that the individual and
his private property are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment only
when the individual is suspected of criminal behavior.â Camara v.
Municipal Court, supra, at 530. [469 U.S. 325, 336] [56]
The Supreme Court ruled against T. L. O.. School administration of a
school may search the belongings of any individual who has broken any of
the rules. If a rule requires that a student has to stand for the Pledge
of Allegiance, and the student does not, then the administration of that
school is given the right to search the belongings of that student. Not
because there is a decent threat to the school and not because the
security of the school is in jeopardy, but only for egotistic and unfair
reasons. Even if a child is guilty of doing no wrong, think of how
easily a school administrator could get a child in trouble. At one time,
a teacher or principal could suspend a student without any reasonable
cause, and this position was actually defended by certain individuals!
With this combination, any student is susceptible to unfairness and
cruelty. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly
explains that every citizen of this country has the right to their own
property, that they should not be subjected to unjust search and
seizures. This right of the people was violated when T. L. O.âs
belongings were searched, and every defender of freedom should be
outraged. For if one individual is suppressed, then nobody is free.
Justice Stephens, along with Justice Marshall and Justice Brennan,
dissented from the opinion of the court. They held that a student has
rights and breaking a school rule does not strip a student of the right
to fairness. Justice Stephens stated the following to the court...
Assistant Vice Principal Choplick searched T. L. O.âs purse for evidence
that she was smoking in the girlsâ restroom. Because T. L. O.âs
suspected misconduct was not illegal and did not pose a serious threat
to school discipline, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that Choplickâs
search [469 U.S. 325, 371] of her purse was an unreasonable invasion of
her privacy and that the evidence which he seized could not be used
against her in criminal proceedings. The New Jersey courtâs holding was
a careful response to the case it was required to decide.
The State of New Jersey sought review in this Court, first arguing that
the exclusionary rule is wholly inapplicable to searches conducted by
school officials, and then contending that the Fourth Amendment itself
provides no protection at all to the studentâs privacy. The Court has
accepted neither of these frontal assaults on the Fourth Amendment. It
has, however, seized upon this âno smokingâ case to announce âthe proper
standardâ that should govern searches by school officials who are
confronted with disciplinary problems far more severe than smoking in
the restroom. Although I join Part II of the Courtâs opinion, I continue
to believe that the Court has unnecessarily and inappropriately reached
out to decide a constitutional question. See 468 U.S. 1214 (1984)
(STEVENS, J., dissenting from reargument order). More importantly, I
fear that the concerns that motivated the Courtâs activism have produced
a holding that will permit school administrators to search students
suspected of violating only the most trivial school regulations and
guidelines for behavior. [57]
Justice Stephens made an absolutely valid point: when the rulers of a
school have the power to search the belongings of another individual,
just for breaking the most insignificant of rules, massive amounts of
students will suffer the injustice of thoughtless and careless teachers
and principals. This is the current state of our âeducationalâ system:
the rights of a student are tossed aside entirely when they have broken
but one rule. There is no heart in the tormentor to care, and there is
no mind in legislative to improve things. The school environment is a
bleak, barren place. Students learn â yes, they learn â but vice is
confirmed and virtue rejected. Rights mean nothing to them, and they are
desensitized by the time their formal schooling is finished, unaware of
rights and unaware of compassion. In 1987, the Supreme Court argued over
the right of Free Speech in schools again. This time, it considered
whether school newspapers have the right to Free Speech. The incident
that brought up this trial is described...
Respondents, former high school students who were staff members of the
schoolâs newspaper, filed suit in Federal District Court against
petitioners, the school district and school officials, alleging that
respondentsâ First Amendment rights were violated by the deletion from a
certain issue of the paper of two pages that included an article
describing school studentsâ experiences with pregnancy and another
article discussing the impact of divorce on students at the school. The
newspaper was written and edited by a journalism class, as part of the
schoolâs curriculum. Pursuant to the schoolâs practice, the teacher in
charge of the paper submitted page proofs to the schoolâs principal, who
objected to the pregnancy story because the pregnant students, although
not named, might be identified from the text, and because he believed
that the articleâs references to sexual activity and birth control were
inappropriate for some of the younger students. The principal objected
to the divorce article because the page proofs he was furnished
identified by name (deleted by the teacher from the final version) a
student who complained of her fatherâs conduct, and the principal
believed that the studentâs parents should have been given an
opportunity to respond to the remarks or to consent to their
publication. Believing that there was no time to make necessary changes
in the articles if the paper was to be issued before the end of the
school year, the principal directed that the pages on which they
appeared be withheld from publication even though other, unobjectionable
articles were included on such pages. [58]
The rights of the students were certainly infringed. The principal, a
monstrous ignoramus, believes that students shouldnât talk about what
they are already doing: sex. The principal is the epitome of suppression
and ignorance. No such greater contumely can be committed than this, to
destroy all expression and hope of a new generation. Before reaching the
real world, these students must survive in a cruel and hostile
environment. They are not given the right to express. They are
suppressed, held under the thumb. The cry for emancipation has come from
the Abolitionists to the Suffragists, but with little reform skill, the
judges and leaders fail to see that what they put the students through
in schools destroys them. If you ask someone today who graduated from
such a school, they would be able to tell you the date that Napoleon
took over France and how few rights they were granted by the
Constitution. They will be able to tell you how every time they sought
something more, freedom of conscience, freedom of choice, freedom of
expression, they were pushed back, knocked down, and humiliated. Every
time the inexperienced hand of reason tried to make an attempt to
understand the real world, to show the real world itself, it was cut
off, dismantled. There are no rights in schools. Those students who
believe they deserve them with find themselves with bitter opposition.
In this case of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, students lost
the right to publish their own thoughts in the school newspaper. They
are now subject to criticism from a man unbeknownst to the very subject
of justice: the principal. Ignorance in hand, unavailing suppression a
goal; our education systems are inadequate to say the least. Justice
Brennan, as well as Justice Marshall and Justice Blackmun, dissented
from the Supreme Court in its decision. These men believed that to
censor a student newspaper would be to break the First Amendmentâs
promise of Free Speech. Brennan dissented, stating...
When the young men and women of Hazelwood East High School registered
for Journalism II, they expected a civics lesson. Spectrum, the
newspaper they were to publish, âwas not just a class exercise in which
students learned to prepare papers and hone writing skills, it was a ...
forum established to give students an opportunity to express their views
while gaining an appreciation of their rights and responsibilities under
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution ....â 795 F.2d
1368, 1373 (CA8 1986). â[A]t the beginning of each school year,â id., at
1372, the student journalists published a Statement of Policy â tacitly
approved each year by school authorities â announcing their expectation
that âSpectrum, as a student-press publication, accepts all rights
implied by the First Amendment .... Only speech that âmaterially and
substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate
disciplineâ can be found unacceptable and therefore prohibited.â App. 26
(quoting Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393
U.S. 503, 513 (1969)). The school board itself affirmatively guaranteed
the students of Journalism II an atmosphere conducive to fostering such
an appreciation and exercising the full panoply of rights associated
with a free student press. âSchool sponsored student publications,â it
vowed, âwill not restrict free expression or diverse viewpoints within
the rules of responsible journalism.â App. 22 (Board Policy 348.51).
[484 U.S. 260, 278]
This case arose when the Hazelwood East administration breached its own
promise, dashing its studentsâ expectations. The school principal,
without prior consultation or explanation, excised six articles â
comprising two full pages â of the May 13, 1983, issue of Spectrum. He
did so not because any of the articles would âmaterially and
substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate
discipline,â but simply because he considered two of the six
âinappropriate, personal, sensitive, and unsuitableâ for student
consumption. 795 F.2d, at 1371.
In my view the principal broke more than just a promise. He violated the
First Amendmentâs prohibitions against censorship of any student
expression that neither disrupts classwork nor invades the rights of
others, and against any censorship that is not narrowly tailored to
serve its purpose.
I
Public education serves vital national interests in preparing the
Nationâs youth for life in our increasingly complex society and for the
duties of citizenship in our democratic Republic. See Brown v. Board of
Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954). The public school conveys to our
young the information and tools required not merely to survive in, but
to contribute to, civilized society. It also inculcates in tomorrowâs
leaders the âfundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a
democratic political system ....â Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68, 77
(1979). All the while, the public educator nurtures studentsâ social and
moral development by transmitting to them an official dogma of
ââcommunity values.ââ Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 864
(1982) (plurality opinion) (citation omitted). [59]
Justice Brennan, as well as the other Justices who dissented with him,
is a man beyond his time. Today the legislatures, politicians, and
so-called educators believe that education is a thing about control,
making students intelligent and smart. Perhaps in an age when
civilization has recognized that education is more than just rote
memorization of sterile facts, that education is more than teaching
obedience, that education is not cruelty â perhaps in this age of
civilization when we as a whole realize that education is about
encouraging creativity, honing reverence, and developing values. When
the schools supported with our tax money realize that education is not
about forcing things onto students, but letting the students explore
things, then we will have what is called a real education. Until that
date, until that epiphany of education, our schools will serve the
purpose of suppression and desensitization.
The relationship of the church to the school has already been stated
previously: they should not intertwine at all. School is about the
education of the heart and the mind, preparing individuals so that they
can properly make the choices that govern their life as they become
productive, happy, and secure in themselves. When we invoke dogmatic
principles along a sound education, they will inevitably corrupt each
other. If we have a religion class, where it is taught that the rainbow
is a sign from god and then we have a science class where the students
artificially produce rainbows in class, will not the classrooms be at
odds? If we have a religion class that teaches women are inferior to men
and that slavery is acceptable, as the Bible suggests, and a class for
philosophy that teaches that every conscious being holds value, will
they not be at odds? A fitting education has no place for religion, and
religion has no place for a fitting education. They are bitter
opposites, enemies of each other. The church has always detested
questioning and thought, making it a crime to read and investigation
punishable by death. A true education fosters the very opposite: freedom
in conscience and expression, encouraging investigation and examination.
The school of our nation has generally sided with the church. In 1963,
the Supreme Court handled the case concerning school prayer. Up to this
time, school prayer was mandatory. Justice Clark explains the
situation...
Once again we are called upon to consider the scope of the provision of
the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which declares
that âCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....â These companion
cases present the issues in the context of state action requiring that
schools begin each day with readings from the Bible. While raising the
basic questions under slightly different factual situations, the cases
permit of joint treatment. In light of the history of the First
Amendment and of our cases interpreting and applying its requirements,
we hold that the practices at issue and the laws requiring them are
unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause, as applied to the
States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
I.
The Facts in Each Case: No. 142. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by
law, 24 Pa. Stat. 15â1516, as amended, Pub. Law 1928 (Supp. 1960) Dec.
17, 1959, requires that âAt least ten verses from the Holy Bible shall
be read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each
school day. Any child shall be excused from such Bible reading, or
attending such Bible reading, upon the written request of his parent or
guardian.â The Schempp family, husband and wife and two of their three
children, brought suit to enjoin enforcement of the statute, contending
that their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States are, have been, and will continue to be violated
unless this statute be declared unconstitutional as violative of these
provisions of the First Amendment. They sought to enjoin the appellant
school district, wherein the Schempp children attend school, and its
officers and the [374 U.S. 203, 206] Superintendent of Public
Instruction of the Commonwealth from continuing to conduct such readings
and recitation of the Lordâs Prayer in the public schools of the
district pursuant to the statute. A three-judge statutory District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that the statute is
violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as applied
to the States by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and
directed that appropriate injunctive relief issue. 201 F. Supp. 815. 1
On appeal by the District, its officials and the Superintendent, under
28 U.S.C. 1253, we noted probable jurisdiction. 371 U.S. 807.
The appellees Edward Lewis Schempp, his wife Sidney, and their children,
Roger and Donna, are of the Unitarian faith and are members of the
Unitarian church in Germantown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where they,
as well as another son, Ellory, regularly attend religious services. The
latter was originally a party but having graduated from the school
system pendente lite was voluntarily dismissed from the action. The
other children attend the Abington Senior High School, which is a public
school operated by appellant district.
On each school day at the Abington Senior High School between 8:15 and
8:30 a. m., while the pupils are attending their home rooms or advisory
sections, opening exercises [374 U.S. 203, 207] are conducted pursuant
to the statute. The exercises are broadcast into each room in the school
building through an intercommunications system and are conducted under
the supervision of a teacher by students attending the schoolâs radio
and television workshop. Selected students from this course gather each
morning in the schoolâs workshop studio for the exercises, which include
readings by one of the students of 10 verses of the Holy Bible,
broadcast to each room in the building. This is followed by the
recitation of the Lordâs Prayer, likewise over the intercommunications
system, but also by the students in the various classrooms, who are
asked to stand and join in repeating the prayer in unison. The exercises
are closed with the flag salute and such pertinent announcements as are
of interest to the students. Participation in the opening exercises, as
directed by the statute, is voluntary. The student reading the verses
from the Bible may select the passages and read from any version he
chooses, although the only copies furnished by the school are the King
James version, copies of which were circulated to each teacher by the
school district. During the period in which the exercises have been
conducted the King James, the Douay and the Revised Standard versions of
the Bible have been used, as well as the Jewish Holy Scriptures. There
are no prefatory statements, no questions asked or solicited, no
comments or explanations made and no interpretations given at or during
the exercises. The students and parents are advised that the student may
absent himself from the classroom or, should he elect to remain, not
participate in the exercises. [60]
The oppression was not just in that school. There were many other
schools that suppressed non-Christian thought. To quote Justice Clark
again...
In 1905 the Board of School Commissioners of Baltimore City adopted a
rule pursuant to Art. 77, 202 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. The
rule provided for the holding of opening exercises in the schools of the
city, consisting primarily of the âreading, without comment, of a
chapter in the Holy Bible and/or the use of the Lordâs Prayer.â The
petitioners, Mrs. Madalyn Murray and her son, William J. Murray III, are
both professed atheists. Following unsuccessful attempts to have the
respondent school board rescind the rule, this suit was filed for
mandamus to compel its rescission and cancellation. It was alleged that
William was a student in a public school of the city and Mrs. Murray,
his mother, was a taxpayer therein; that it was the practice under the
rule to have a reading on each school morning from the King James
version of the Bible; that at petitionersâ insistence the rule was
amended 4 to permit children to [374 U.S. 203, 212] be excused from the
exercise on request of the parent and that William had been excused
pursuant thereto; that nevertheless the rule as amended was in violation
of the petitionersâ rights âto freedom of religion under the First and
Fourteenth Amendmentsâ and in violation of âthe principle of separation
between church and state, contained therein....â The petition
particularized the petitionersâ atheistic beliefs and stated that the
rule, as practiced, violated their rights
âin that it threatens their religious liberty by placing a premium on
belief as against non-belief and subjects their freedom of conscience to
the rule of the majority; it pronounces belief in God as the source of
all moral and spiritual values, equating these values with religious
values, and thereby renders sinister, alien and suspect the beliefs and
ideals of your Petitioners, promoting doubt and question of their
morality, good citizenship and good faith.â [61]
This was not a system of freedom, nor was it a system of education. At
best it can be considered a system of suppression and forced majority
opinion. At worst, it can be called the epitome of arrogance:
destruction of conscience and expression. If any person was forced to
recite a prayer of another religion, it would be considered nothing
short of tyranny. To viciously impose such mandatory bigotry among
students in an institution of âeducationâ is no education at all. In
this kind of institution, values are destroyed or forced before they are
given a chance to grow and bloom. In 1992, a similar question of the
school and the church was brought into perspective. At a high school,
various religious figures were brought forth to speak to the class The
Supreme Court explains...
Deborah Weisman graduated from Nathan Bishop Middle School, a public
school in Providence, at a formal ceremony in June, 1989. She was about
14 years old. For many years, it has been the policy of the Providence
School Committee and the Superintendent of Schools to permit principals
to invite members of the clergy to give invocations and benedictions at
middle school and high school graduations. Many, but not all, of the
principals elected to include prayers as part of the graduation
ceremonies. Acting for himself and his daughter, Deborahâs father,
Daniel Weisman, objected to any prayers at Deborahâs middle school
graduation, but to no avail. The school principal, petitioner Robert E.
Lee, invited a rabbi to deliver prayers at the graduation exercises for
Deborahâs class. Rabbi Leslie Gutterman, of the Temple Beth El in
Providence, accepted.
It has been the custom of Providence school officials to provide invited
clergy with a pamphlet entitled âGuidelines for Civic Occasions,â
prepared by the National Conference of Christians and Jews. The
Guidelines recommend that public prayers at nonsectarian civic
ceremonies be composed with âinclusiveness and sensitivity,â though they
acknowledge that â[p]rayer of any kind may be inappropriate on some
civic occasions.â App. 20â21. The principal gave Rabbi Gutterman the
pamphlet before the graduation, and advised him the invocation and
benediction should be nonsectarian. Agreed Statement of Facts 7, id., at
13. [62]
The school promoted public prayers, holding no rights of free expression
or free conscience to students. The Rabbi Guttermanâs prayers were as
follows...
âINVOCATION
âGod of the Free, Hope of the Brave:
âFor the legacy of America where diversity is celebrated and the rights
of minorities are protected, [505 U.S. 577, 582] we thank You. May these
young men and women grow up to enrich it.
âFor the liberty of America, we thank You. May these new graduates grow
up to guard it.
âFor the political process of America in which all its citizens may
participate, for its court system where all may seek justice, we thank
You. May those we honor this morning always turn to it in trust.
âFor the destiny of America, we thank You. May the graduates of Nathan
Bishop Middle School so live that they might help to share it.
âMay our aspirations for our country and for these young people, who are
our hope for the future, be richly fulfilled.
AMENâ
âBENEDICTION
âO God, we are grateful to You for having endowed us with the capacity
for learning which we have celebrated on this joyous commencement.
âHappy families give thanks for seeing their children achieve an
important milestone. Send Your blessings upon the teachers and
administrators who helped prepare them.
âThe graduates now need strength and guidance for the future; help them
to understand that we are not complete with academic knowledge alone. We
must each strive to fulfill what You require of us all: to do justly, to
love mercy, to walk humbly.
âWe give thanks to You, Lord, for keeping us alive, sustaining us, and
allowing us to reach this special, happy occasion.
AMENâ [63]
A prayer was instituted and freedom was deprioritized. Religion was more
important than education. This is what constituted formal education:
oppression and dogma. There can be nothing more debilitating to the mind
than this one school â a place that holds contempt for freedom of
conscience and freedom of thought. Students are not made independent
They do not make choices for themselves. They are forced into decisions.
They learn only one thing: that others will be living their lives for
them and that they have no real choice at all. The rest of their lives
would be based on this foundation of what schools had taught them. They
would not be active citizens. Schools had not fostered a sense of
independence in them. It did not turn them into creative and intelligent
individuals. It destroyed any sense of wonder they already had. There is
nothing so destructive of a real education as forced dogma in the
curriculum. Mark Twain has said, âIt is by the goodness of God that in
our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of
speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either
of them.â Of education, Henry Stephens Salt has said...
Education, in the largest sense of the term, has always been, and must
always remain, the antecedent and indispensable condition of
humanitarian progress. Very excellent are the words of John Bright on
the subject (let us forget for the once that he was an angler).
âHumanity to animals is a great point. If I were a teacher in school, I
would make it a very important part of my business to impress every boy
and girl with the duty of his or her being kind to all animals. It is
impossible to say how much suffering there is in the world from the
barbarity or unkindness which people show to what we call the inferior
creatures.â
It may be doubted, however, whether the young will ever be specially
impressed with the lesson of humanity as long as the general tone of
their elders and instructors is one of cynical indifference, if not of
absolute hostility, to the recognition of animalsâ rights. It is society
as a whole, and not one class in particular, that needs enlightenment
and remonstrance; in fact, the very conception and scope of what is
known as a âliberal educationâ must be revolutionized and extended. For
if we find fault with the narrow and unscientific spirit of what is
known as âscience,â we must in fairness admit that our academic
âhumanities,â the litera humaniores of college and schools, together
with much of our modern culture and refinement, are scarcely less
deficient in that quickening spirit of sympathetic brotherhood, without
which all the accomplishments that the mind of man can devise are as the
borrowed cloak of an imperfectly realized civilization, assumed by some
barbarous tribe but half emerged from savagery. This divorce of
âhumanismâ from humaneness is one of the subtlest dangers by which
society is beset; for, if we grant that love needs to be tempered and
directed by wisdom, still more needful is it that wisdom should be
informed and vitalized by love.
It is therefore not only our children who need to be educated in the
proper treatment of animals, but our scientists, our religionists, our
moralists, and our men of letters. For in spite of the vast progress of
humanitarian ideas during the present century, it must be confessed that
the popular exponents of western thought are still for the most part
quite unable to appreciate the profound truth of those words of
Rousseau, which should form the basis of an enlightened system of
instruction; âHommes, soyez humains! Câest votre premier devoir. Quelle
sagesse y a-t-il pour vous, hors de lâhumanit [âMen, be human! It is
your first duty. Which wisdom is there for you, out of humanity?â]
But how is this vast educational change to be inaugurated-let alone
accomplished? Like all far-reaching reforms which are promoted by a few
believers in the face of the public indifferentism, it can only be
carried through by the energy and resolution of its supporters. The
efforts which the various humane societies are now making in special
directions, each concentrating its attack on a particular abuse, must be
supplemented and strengthened by a crusade-an intellectual, literary,
and social crusade-against the central cause of oppression, viz. [64]
There is one name that will shake the hearts of Rationalists and
Humanitarians when it comes to freedom in education: Tempest Smith. She
was a twelve year old girl who killed herself. Upon opening and reading
her diary, investigators discovered that she had killed herself due to
students teasing her at school and how teachers and administration
turned a blind eye. This young student, a child of education, a pupil of
life, was tormented relentlessly and without regard for her care at all.
Upon discovery of this ridicule, teachers and principals secretly smile,
and the reasons behind it make it all the more perverse. Tempest Smith
was not a Christian yet all her classmates were. They taunted her,
screaming, âJesus loves you!â Apparently their own god is capable of
more than they are. Night after night, the tortures went on. Tempest
chose the black shroud of death than the horror-filled darkness of life
â she hung herself. Upon her death, it can only be assumed that the
hearts of the brute beasts who ignored her tears were aflame with joy,
or perhaps the administration of the school had realized that ignoring
her pains was a bad choice. A news report explains what happened...
The mother of a 12-year-old girl who committed suicide five months ago
has filed a $10-million lawsuit against the Lincoln Park School
District, claiming school administrators turned a blind eye to students
who teased the girl about her religious beliefs.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court Tuesday, also charges the school
district with religious discrimination.
School district officials could not be reached for comment. Randall
Kite, superintendent of the Lincoln Park School District, did not return
several phone calls.
After Lincoln Park Middle School student Tempest Smith hanged herself
from her bunk bed on Feb. 20, many of the girlâs classmates came to the
funeral expressing guilt for having teased her so relentlessly. Much of
the teasing revolved around Tempestâs belief in Wicca, a pagan religion.
According to Tempestâs journal, found under her bed after the suicide,
her classmates often crowded around her chanting âJesus loves you,â
along with other comments that ridiculed her Wiccan beliefs.
Attorneys for Tempestâs mother, Denessa Smith, claim school employees
violated the girlâs civil rights because they knew about the teasing,
but did nothing to stop it. That indifference contributed to the girlâs
suicide, they claim.
âIf it wouldâve been a Christian kid being teased, you can bet they
wouldâve done something,â said Smithâs attorney, Joel Sklar. âBut the
Lincoln Park School District has historically discriminated against
followers of Wicca.â
Sklar referred to a 1999 case in which high school student Crystal
Seifferly sued the Lincoln Park School District because she was banned
from wearing jewelry depicting the five-pointed star that is the symbol
of pagan faith. In that case, a U.S. district judge ruled that the
districtâs policy violated Seifferlyâs religious rights, and the school
districtâs ban on Wiccan jewelry was overturned.
âTempest Smith had a right to practice her religion without being
taunted in school,â Sklar said. âAnd the school staff had a duty to
respond to that taunting. They didnât. We contend that the school
district has shown a pattern of indifference, and perhaps hostility, to
those students who follow another religion thatâs not Judeo-Christian in
nature.â
Denessa Smith said she told her daughterâs teachers and counselors about
the teasing. âWe had several conversations about what my daughter was
going through,â Smith said. âI was trying to get them to do something
about it. But nobody did anything.â
Smith hopes the lawsuit will force the school district to adopt
anti-teasing measures. âThere should be rules in place, so that children
in the future wonât have to experience what my daughter went through,â
Smith said. [65]
There will always be a flower that whispers her name, as long as those
of us remember her. This is not a question about education. In general,
it is a question about the humaneness of the ruling administration of
schools. The words of all the human languages put together cannot
properly describe how heartless these people are â how entirely careless
they are, to let a student cry and suffer because she does not worship
the same god. The malicious administration which help contempt for
Tempest did not travel the road of education. They traveled the road of
vice. The life of Tempest Smith will not be avenged until every educator
knows in his heart that students deserve rights to expression and
conscience. When students may go to school without fearing ridicule or
intolerance, when schools become a place of learning and not
suppression, then the life of Tempest Smith will be avenged. Until then,
every Humanitarian has an undying duty to work for better schools and
freedom of students.
Judging from the methods by which teachers today impose their rules and
regulations, it is more likely that they have engrossed themselves in
the works of Machiavelli and Stalin than in the works of Ferrer and
Dewey. They are monsters, ignoramuses incapable of grasping or
understanding anything humane or rational, and certainly not capable of
imparting any kind of knowledge. There are some teachers who genuinely
desire to open the minds of inquisitive children and fill them with
knowledge, but they are few and far between. Students have been expelled
for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, and there still
remains animosity from teachers for those who refuse to stand for it.
The schools of our time have segregated the races, forced religion down
the throats of unknowing students, censored books from being read,
unlawfully searched and seized property of students for minor school
offenses, censored school newspapers, inaugurated school prayers,
censored expression, unjustly suspended students, among other cruel
atrocities, including forced school uniforms The school environment is
not a learning one at all. The teachers and principals are blindfolded
and continue to seek education, all the while stepping and crushing the
very basic principles of a real education. Some rights for students have
been won and some have been lost, but as the courts have proven fully,
they believe that students are worth less than the educated, offering
them fewer rights than anyone else.
âUltimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of
every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a
disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious
and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity,
down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies.
Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves
exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves
only the unanimity of the graveyard.â [66]
The phenomenon of giving students rights, or at least a few rights, is
quite new. They may be given the right of passive speech and the right
to a fair hearing before a suspension, but they do lack the right to
Free Speech in school newspapers when granted Free Speech by such
schools and they lack the right not to be searched for the slightest
school offense. Yes, these may be the rights of students in todayâs
world. However, the writ of a barbaric past still is alive among us.
Corporal Punishment is still existent in schools today. Of what value is
the right of Free Speech or the right of equality, when the United
States legislatures grant teachers the right to beat their own students?
This is the most brutal and cruel of practices. Students may take away
the rights of students by refusing to let them talk about certain
political, philosophical, or religious objectives, or refusing them to
express their opinions, but the moment that a teacher strikes a student,
it is then a state of savagery, cruelty, and brutality. Any school
administration who uses physical force and violence to accomplish their
objective may be legitimately called a BRUTALITARIAN! To use such an
unsophisticated method of meeting a goal, and to do so in an environment
where individuals are learning for the first time their aspirations,
desires, hopes, and values, is to destroy the entire principle of
education. Students need not worry about their right to expression when
their right to life is in critical jeopardy. D.L. Cuddy is a journalist
who believes in this Corporal Punishment, but even he disagrees with the
laws...
âON March 13 the U.S. Supreme Court kept intact a Texas law allowing
corporal punishment, short of deadly force, in public schools. This is
disturbing because an earlier court ruling had held that studentsâ
rights do not end at the schoolhouse gate, and I do not believe anyone
has the right to assault students just short of killing them.â [67]
Even though we do not have the luxury of an effective school today,
imagine that we did have one. Imagine that the students of this great
school learned and studied, that their creativity was promoted and their
critical thought was developed. In this system of learning, who can â
with adequate ability â imply that we ought to use abuse as a method for
teaching? If just one student is beaten for the sake that they did
something unacceptable, it is no longer about being educated. School
then becomes a place of tortures for students, not a place of learning.
Hatred is fostered, anger is nurtured, and all the vices that could
inhibit themselves in humans will be seen. These learning institutions,
if their behavior may merit that name, are cruel and inhumane. Only a
vicious and weak teacher could beat their students. The fist that
destroys education does not belong to a Humanitarian. Beating students
is a product of hate. It is a sign that mankind has not improved at all.
All the technological, literary, artistic, and political works of past
will be wiped off the books. Thomas Paineâs The Rights of Man to
Percival Bysshe Shelleyâs Queen Mab â these works which celebrate
freedom and compassion â will mean nothing. When a disgruntled, careless
teacher smites a student, he may as well be a brute barbarian living in
a cave hundreds of thousands of years ago. He is not a civilized person,
nor an educated person. He is a malicious, heartless monster, unworthy
of walking on school property even. Robert Green Ingersoll has said of
Corporal Punishment...
The Dean of St. Paul protests against the kindness of parents, guardians
and teachers toward children, wards and pupils. He believes in the
gospel of ferule and whips, and has perfect faith in the efficacy of
flogging in homes and schools. He longs for the return of the good old
days when fathers were severe, and children affectionate and obedient.
In America, for many years, even wife-beating has been somewhat
unpopular, and the flogging of children has been considered cruel and
unmanly. Wives with bruised and swollen faces, and children with
lacerated backs, have excited pity for themselves rather than admiration
for savage husbands and brutal fathers. It is also true that the church
has far less power here than in England, and it may be that those who
wander from the orthodox fold grow mindful and respect the rights even
of the weakest.
But whatever the cause may be, the fact is that we, citizens of the
Republic, feel that certain domestic brutalities are the children of
monarchies and despotisms, that they were produced by superstition,
ignorance, and savagery; and that they are not in accord with the free
and superb spirit that founded and preserves the Great Republic.
Of late years, confidence in the power of kindness has greatly
increased, and there is a wide-spread suspicion that cruelty and
violence are not the instrumentalities of civilization.
Physicians no longer regard corporal punishment as a sure cure even for
insanity â and it is generally admitted that the lash irritates rather
than soothes the victim of melancholia.
Civilized men now insist that criminals cannot always be reformed even
by the most ingenious instruments of torture. It is known that some
convicts repay the smallest acts of kindness with the sincerest
gratitude. Some of the best people go so far as to say that kindness is
the sunshine in which the virtues grow. We know that for many ages
governments tried to make men virtuous with dungeon and fagot and
scaffold; that they tried to cure even disease of the mind with
brandings and maimings and lashes on the naked flesh of men and women â
and that kings endeavored to sow the seeds of patriotism â to plant and
nurture them in the hearts of their subjects â with whip and chain.
In England, only a few years ago, there were hundreds of brave soldiers
and daring sailors whose breasts were covered with honorable scars â
witnesses of wounds received at Trafalgar and Balaklava â while on the
backs of these same soldiers and sailors were the marks of English
whips. These shameless cruelties were committed in the name of
discipline, and were upheld by officers, statesmen and clergymen. The
same is true of nearly all civilized nations. These crimes have been
excused for the reason that our ancestors were, at that time, in fact,
barbarians â that they had no idea of justice, no comprehension of
liberty, no conception of the rights of men, women and children.
At that time the church was, in most countries, equal to, or superior
to, the state, and was a firm believer in the civilizing influences of
cruelty and torture. [68]
There are only ten states in the nation of the United States where
âpaddlingâ â American term for school-instituted cruelty â is common:
Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee,
Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. There are thirteen states where
half of the schools have banned paddling: Idaho, Delaware, Wyoming,
Kansas, Kentucky, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Indiana, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Florida. The rest of the twenty-seven
states of the U. S. have banned Corporal Punishment in schools entirely.
[69] Institutions of hate will beat those who attend. Institutions of
education will teach those who attend. Every state which proclaims that
the life of its students are worth no more than lashes on their is a
state of barbaric and brute ethics. The screams and cries of the
tortured do not have an appeal to minds of these cruel teachers, these
vindictive beasts. Their actions are not born of kindness, nor of care.
They are inhumane, barbaric, and unrelenting in their pursuit of
suffering. One individual witnessing the paddling explains what he
saw...
âGentlemen, Iâm going to be nice to you,â said assistant principal J.V.
McFadden, otherwise known as âBig Macâ to students at Adamson High
School in north Oak Cliff. âBecause Iâm in a good mood, youâve got a
choice of either three licks for cutting school, or else you can go home
and get your parents and bring them in here for a meeting.â
Luis and Richard stared at the office walls, where Mr McFadden has taped
cheery expressions and pictures of kittens alongside newspaper articles
about Adamson students getting arrested.
âIâll take the licks,â said Richard, 15, so casual he might have been
ordering French fries.
âThe same,â answered Luis, also 15.
âOh, very good choice,â Mr McFadden said, as he rubbed his hands
together and grinned.
Mr McFadden is a tall, beefy fellow with a wry sense of humor and a
compact, left-handed swing.
He told Luis to place both hands on the office desk. Luis, familiar with
the routine, spread his palms in front of the placard that read
âMcFaddenâ.
The assistant principal walked behind the skinny student and, for
balance, stuck the index finger of his right hand through one of Luisâ
belt loops. Then he picked up his paddle â the same one he has used for
20 years.
âThe Board of Education,â as Mr McFadden calls it, is about 2 feet long
and wrapped in several layers of masking tape. [70]
What was the crime of these two students? They had skipped school. They
decided that they did not want to be in a place that did not foster
education. If they had been there, as their will was about as much as it
was, they would not have learned anything. Mandatory classes â the mere
concept of it is absurd. And in this case, it resulted in unnecessary
suffering and brutality. Were these boys reformed? Had they learned
anything? They learned nothing but the cruelty of their principal, a
monster who laughs as the students writhe in pain. Nothing can be said
of such a monster, be it his ignorance or cruelty which one must
outweigh the other. He lives by the paddle, the âBoard of Education.â He
is quicker to show brutality to his students than affection. Nothing can
be justifiably said of such a cruel being, so immeasurable that children
would dare question his own existence, cataloging him with the goblins
and the orcs of ancient Tolkien! If paddled, the hatred and scorn for
the real world in students will grow by leaps and bounds. They will not
learn to value affection or compassion. They will be the slaves of
vengeance and vice â taught by an accurate paddle and not a gentle
touch. One student decided that it was not at all a system of justice...
A 13-year-old Idabel junior high student hit Principal James Marshall
over the head with a paddle early today, sending the principal to the
McCurtain Memorial Hospital for emergency treatment.
Four stitches were required to close the wound on Marshallâs upper left
forehead.
A school spokesman said the seventh grader hit Marshall so hard that it
broke the paddle, a âdressed downâ 1 by 4 board.
The youth, whose name was withheld because he is a juvenile, was quickly
subdued by Marshall and men teachers at Gray Junior High.
He was turned over to police and taken from the school.
After returning from the hospital and giving a report to Woodrow Holman,
superintendent of schools, Marshall went to the courthouse to file a
complaint against the boy.
Juvenile authorities will investigate, and a hearing probably will be
held by Associate District Judge Tony Benson.
Holman said the youth âis throughâ as far as the Idabel school system is
concerned. He said the school will not tolerate students who attack
teachers or administrators.
Marshall said the boy grabbed up the board and hit him after being given
a paddling. [71]
There are those who may classify this 13 year old student as a young,
misguided ruffian, but he was a true individual. He did what any
rational person would do: he fought back. He did not accept the blows of
a tyrant without caprice. He was not a mindless zombie, under the rule
of a haughty monarch. He was, in one sense, a hero. They may have beaten
his body, but they did not destroy his heart. In his school, he is a
soul that stands out among the rest: resisting savagery, detesting
malevolence, and giving no regard for inhumanity. The administrators who
run this school, men and women of brutality, persecution, and
intolerance are relentless butchers. The great Humanitarians and
Rationalists have never befriended these ogres of torment. Thomas Paine
has once said...
Hath your house been burnt? Hath you property been destroyed before your
face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread
to live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and
yourself the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you
not a judge of those who have. But if you have, and can still shake
hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy the name of husband,
father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in
life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant.
[72]
Given the nature of Paineâs strong words and strong emotions, it can
only be said that he would refuse to shake the hands of these cutthroats
who call themselves principals and teachers. He would look at them with
little more than repugnance and disgust. The nature of these beasts who
beat the bloody backs of their students can be explained in one word:
heartless. If a man wishes to conquer the spirit of others, that he may
destroy it, it takes nothing else than a heartless individual; one who
cares not how much others suffer, as long as their own objectives are
met. To this destructive nature of corporal punishment, Robert Green
Ingersoll has said...
IN my judgment, no human being was ever made better, nobler, by being
whipped or clubbed.
Mr. Brockway, according to his own testimony, is simply a savage. He
belongs to the Dark Ages â to the Inquisition, to the torture-chamber,
and he needs reforming more than any prisoner under his control. To put
any man within his power is in itself a crime. Mr. Brockway is a
believer in cruelty â an apostle of brutality. He beats and bruises
flesh to satisfy his conscience â his sense of duty. He wields the club
himself because he enjoys the agony he inflicts.
When a poor wretch, having reached the limit of endurance, submits or
becomes unconscious, he is regarded as reformed. During the remainder of
his term he trembles and obeys. But he is not reformed. In his heart is
the flame of hatred, the desire for revenge; and he returns to society
far worse than when he entered the prison.
Mr. Brockway should either be removed or locked up, and the Elmira
Reformatory should be superintended by some civilized man â some man
with brain enough to know, and heart enough to feel.
I do not believe that one brute, by whipping, beating and lacerating the
flesh of another, can reform him. The lash will neither develop the
brain nor cultivate the heart. There should be no bruising, no scarring
of the body in families, in schools, in reformatories, or prisons. A
civilized man does not believe in the methods of savagery. Brutality has
been tried for thousands of years and through all these years it has
been a failure.
Criminals have been flogged, mutilated and maimed, tortured in a
thousand ways, and the only effect was to demoralize, harden and degrade
society and increase the number of crimes. In the army and navy,
soldiers and sailors were flogged to death, and everywhere by church and
state the torture of the helpless was practiced and upheld. [73]
This is no way to raise a student, especially a fledgling child. He will
view all authorities as inhumane daemons if beaten for the slightest
offense. The idea that children can be civilized in this repulsive
environment is horrendous â absolutely absurd, born of the cowardice and
ignorance of legislatives and their failure to recognize any sort of
humanity. The children of our schools are treated not as the future
generation, but as a generation that are undeserving of affection.
Robert Green Ingersoll sums up their situation...
...what shall I say of children; of the little children in alleys and
sub-cellars; the little children who turn pale when they hear their
fatherâs footsteps; little children who run away when they only hear
their names called by the lips of a mother; little children â the
children of poverty, the children of crime, the children of brutality,
wherever they are â flotsam and jetsam upon the wild, mad sea of life â
my heart goes out to them, one and all. [74]
Those who beat children are colder than any icicle bred by the worldâs
winter. They are the unseen monsters belonging to the darkness of a
night that is terror. So brutal and unforgiving that they are more
likely to promote hate than love. They are the salt covered thorn,
piercing the flesh of education. Among civilization, with all of our
inventors and scientists composing thousands of inventions, these brutal
men who beat students are the least productive of all. They spread fear
into the eyes of students. Children sent to school with aspiration to
learn will come home with tears to show what they have learned: absolute
obedience. They will not become productive individuals, nor will they be
happy at all. The school is a prison, a place of torments and tortures.
The hallways are not adorned with bright faces, eager to learn. They are
not full of happy, star-lit eyes, desiring to be educated. They are full
of dim and dreary faces, tired and exhausted, unwilling to learn and
unwilling to produce a smile. These children have been transformed from
baskets wishing to be filled with the fruits of knowledge to uncaring,
apathetic forms that wander aimlessly. Their life has been one of toil
and abuse, their weak and shriveled hearts telling the tale. The
principal will raise his paddle in defiance of all that is humane and
ethical, but there will always be a Humanitarian who knows better. The
principal shows brutality, but the Humanitarian shows affection. Robert
Green Ingersoll has said...
When one of your children tells a lie, be honest with him; tell him that
you have told hundreds of them yourself. Tell him it is not the best
way; that you have tried it. Tell him as the man did in Maine when his
boy left home: âJohn, honesty is the best policy; I have tried both.â Be
honest with him. Suppose a man as much larger than you as you are larger
than a child five years old, should come at you with a liberty pole in
his hand, and in a voice of thunder shout, âWho broke that plate?â There
is not a solitary one of you who would not swear you never saw it, or
that it was cracked when you got it. Why not be honest with these
children? Just imagine a man who deals in stocks whipping his boy for
putting false rumors afloat! Think of a lawyer beating his own flesh and
blood for evading the truth when he makes half of his own living that
way! Think of a minister punishing his child for not telling all he
thinks! Just think of it!
When your child commits a wrong, take it in your arms; let it feel your
heart beat against its heart; let the child know that you really and
truly and sincerely love it. Yet some Christians, good Christians, when
a child commits a fault, drive it from the door and say: âNever do you
darken this house again.â Think of that! And then these same people will
get down on their knees and ask God to take care of the child they have
driven from home. I will never ask God to take care of my children
unless I am doing my level best in that same direction.
But I will tell you what I say to my children: âGo where you will,
commit what crime you may; fall to what depth of degradation you may;
you can never commit any crime that will shut my door, my arms, or my
heart to you. As long as I live you shall have one sincere friend.â
Do you know that I have seen some people who acted as though they
thought that when the Savior said âSuffer little children to come unto
me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven,â he had a raw-hide under his
mantle, and made that remark simply to get the children within striking
distance?
I do not believe in the government of the lash. If any one of you ever
expects to whip your children again, I want you to have a photograph
taken of yourself when you are in the act, with your face red with
vulgar anger, and the face of the little child, with eyes swimming in
tears and the little chin dimpled with fear, like a piece of water
struck by a sudden cold wind. Have the picture taken. If that little
child should die, I cannot think of a sweeter way to spend an autumn
afternoon than to go out to the cemetery, when the maples are clad in
tender gold, and little scarlet runners are coming, like poems of
regret, from the sad heart of the earth â and sit down upon the grave
and look at that photograph, and think of the flesh now dust that you
beat. I tell you it is wrong; it is no way to raise children! Make your
home happy. Be honest with them. Divide fairly with them in everything.
Give them a little liberty and love, and you can not drive them out of
your house. They will want to stay there....
[...]
Let us have liberty â Just a little. Call me infidel, call me atheist,
call me what you will, I intend so to treat my children, that they can
come to my grave and truthfully say: âHe who sleeps here never gave us a
moment of pain. From his lips, now dust, never came to us an unkind
word.â
People justify all kinds of tyranny toward children upon the ground that
they are totally depraved. At the bottom of ages of cruelty lies this
infamous doctrine of total depravity. Religion contemplates a child as a
living crime â heir to an infinite curse â doomed to eternal fire.
In the olden time, they thought some days were too good for a child to
enjoy himself. When I was a boy Sunday was considered altogether too
holy to be happy in. Sunday used to commence then when the sun went down
on Saturday night. We commenced at that time for the purpose of getting
a good ready, and when the sun fell below the horizon on Saturday
evening, there was a darkness fell upon the house ten thousand times
deeper than that of night. Nobody said a pleasant word; nobody laughed;
nobody smiled; the child that looked the sickest was regarded as the
most pious. That night you could not even crack hickory nuts. If you
were caught chewing gum it was only another evidence of the total
depravity of the human heart. It was an exceedingly solemn night.
Dyspepsia was in the very air you breathed. Everybody looked sad and
mournful. I have noticed all my life that many people think they have
religion when they are troubled with dyspepsia. If there could be found
an absolute specific for that disease, it would be the hardest blow the
church has ever received.
[...]
Sabbaths used to be prisons. Every Sunday was a Bastille. Every
Christian was a kind of turnkey, and every child was a prisoner, â a
convict. In that dungeon, a smile was a crime.
[...]
Do not treat your children like orthodox posts to be set in a row. Treat
them like trees that need light and sun and air. Be fair and honest with
them; give them a chance. Recollect that their rights are equal to
yours. Do not have it in your mind that you must govern them; that they
must obey. Throw away forever the idea of master and slave.
In old times they used to make the children go to bed when they were not
sleepy, and get up when they were. I say let them go to bed when they
are sleepy, and get up when they are not sleepy.
But you say, this doctrine will do for the rich but not for the poor.
Well, if the poor have to waken their children early in the morning it
is as easy to wake them with a kiss as with a blow. Give your children
freedom; let them preserve their individuality. Let your children eat
what they desire, and commence at the end of a dinner they like. That is
their business and not yours. They know what they wish to eat. [75]
It does not take a genius psychologist to know how a child should be
raised. Rather, it only takes humane and empathetic knowledge. If an
individual can understand a child, which is just another conscious being
with different circumstances, and if this individual acts humane and
kindly, then they are fully capable of raising a child. If an individual
is brutal, uncaring, and unthoughtful, they are likely to choose the
method of Corporal Punishment. Once the method of Corporal Punishment is
in use, it is not for the benefit of the child. A student does not
become educated through means of brutality. They may learn the cruelty
of vice and the terror of fear â yes, they will learn â but no knowledge
will be imparted onto their minds which will prove fruitful. Education
is the navigation of an individual. If it is founded on the unspeakable
brutality of school teachers, then the individual will be forever lost.
Surveys show that paddling is ineffective and destructive of the nature
of students. A student goes to a school so that they may learn, develop,
and so that their education may flourish. They do not go to school to
worry about their life or their own body â or at least they should not.
One survey noted...
A PADDLE MAY be the oldest instrument of discipline in American public
schools, but the big board is not considered the least bit old-fashioned
in Indiana, a new survey shows.
At least 10,962 Indiana junior and senior high school students were
physically punished for disciplinary offenses in 1976, according to
research by an Indiana University professor.
Offenses ranged from chewing gum to assaulting teachers, and the most
common form of punishment was the time-honored swat on the behind.
A PADDLE WAS used 92 per cent of the time, but hands, yardsticks,
rulers, and at least one tennis shoe also were employed.
In some schools, corporal punishment was administered to as many as 10
per cent of the students.
Dr. William T. Elrod, the secondary education professor who conducted
the survey, said researchers have not determined whether the use of
corporal punishment is increasing or decreasing, but he thinks it is
being used too much today.
âWe are continuing to rely upon traditional methods of punishment where
the problems are no longer traditional,â he said.
A WHACK WITH a paddle â while it might cause short-term discomfort â is
not the solution for youths with discipline problems stemming from
broken homes, child abuse, or the use of alcohol and drugs, Elrod said.
Data for the study were taken from questionnaires sent to all of
Indianaâs junior and senior high school principals. Eighty per cent â -
or about 400 â replied.
Elrod found that corporal punishment was used in 83 per cent of the
schools â 97 per cent of rural schools where parents are more likely to
approve, and 70 per cent of suburban schools. Urban schools fell in the
middle.
Ninety-eight per cent of junior high schools used physical punishment,
compared with 76 per cent of the high schools.
âTHE THING THAT bothers me the most,â Elrod said, âwas that theyâre
using that much [corporal punishment] at the high school level, where
you are dealing with young adults.
âItâs a degrading kind of experience for someone 16 or 17 years old.
Youâre talking about a mature young lady or a strapping young man.â
He said generally, however, that âgirls get off easyâ. He estimated that
less than 10 per cent of the paddlings are administered to females.
Womenâs liberation notwithstanding, he said school administrators still
feel girls may be physically harmed more easily than boys, particularly
during menstrual periods.
The study also reveals that 45 law suits resulted from discipline or
corporal punishment cases in 1976. Elrod said he did not know the
verdict in those cases but the most common complaints were that
punishment had been excessive or harmed the student in some way.
ONLY A FEW suits were filed on the philosophical grounds that corporal
punishment itself was inappropriate.
The total number of corporal punishment cases recorded in the study â
10,962 â probably is much lower than the actual number, Elrod said. That
figure represents only first offenders. Repeat offenders, which account
for 50 to 75 per cent of all discipline cases, were counted only once.
[Six to 10 per cent of all students received corporal punishment at
least once.]
The 10,962 figure also includes only those spankings administered in the
office of the principal or vice principal. While such punishment most
often takes place there, many other paddlings are carried out by
teachers in the hallways, Elrod said.
The study showed that a witness was required in 93 per cent of the
junior high schools but in only 55 per cent of the high schools.
THE MOST COMMON causes of discipline problems, according to the study,
were lack of interest in school work, lack of involvement in school
activities, problems at home, and disaffection with community values.
Some schools reported using corporal punishment for all 19 offenses
listed on the questionnaire. Among them were chewing gum, talking in
class, tardiness, vandalism, using drugs, and assaulting a teacher. [76]
The amelioration of the rights of students â their rights to freedom of
conscience, expression, and the right to their own body â are most
common in our schools today. Upon the breaking of a rule in the
classroom, the student can be subjected to unlawful search and seizures
as well as paddling and beating. There can be nothing so inhumane, so
degrading, and so harmful than to send an aspiring student to one of
these schools. Free investigation is arrested and curiosity is
relinquished. Oh, what an abomination this school is! It beats, abuses,
and destroys the students aspirations, dashing them to pieces and
plundering any zest for learning!
Our society has developed based on its education. From its education, we
can see that individuals are uninformed and lacking in knowledge of even
the simplest ideas. Certain education specialists, especially those who
are involved in the schools, will state that the best way to improve
education is to make students do more work, both in difficulty and
quantity. The reasoning here is that education is equated to the amounts
of reports written and the amounts of homework assignments completed.
The more a student does in school work, it is stipulated, the more that
student will learn. However, this is not quite so true. An individual
can do work without learning and an individual can learn without doing
work. If someone listens to a lecture, they may learn a vast amount of
knowledge and they may think and question norms. However, if someone
fills out two or three worksheets of questions where they are already
proficient, they may learn little to nothing. To increase the amount of
education students get, the best strategy is not to reinforce an already
failing system, but to diversify the current system by making it more
intriguing and interesting.
One reason of mandatory tests in school is to regulate how much
knowledge students are retaining. When we can measure the information of
students through grades, it is believed that we can then help them
improve, or at least we can know where they stand in regards to
education. Tests, however, prove largely ineffective in determining
education, and grades themselves are by far inadequate when determining
someoneâs knowledge. Grades in our modern educational institutions are
not based on intelligence, but they are often based on how much work the
student has done: either by class participation, homework, school
assignments, quizzes, and tests. When people speak of grades, they often
refer to it in regards to intelligence: the higher the grade, the more
intelligent the person. However, the system of modern âeducationâ is
based on quite the opposite. One can obviously deduct from the system
that, the higher the grade, the more work the person has done. There are
those who contend that work means intellectual development, but that is
not quite so true at all. One teacher remarked, âMost homework is âbusy
workâ rather than something that makes you think,â [77] and another
teacher said, âItâs easier to memorize than to think. Kids have to be
taught to think.â [78] The only purpose of schoolwork, tests, and
quizzes should be to help educate those who are not doing well in
education. The purpose of measuring education is a fruitless one â
despite the fact that millions of people have passed the educational
requirements of high schools, they have managed to forget some of the
very basic facts of science, such as the ones discussed in chapter 1.
The tests and quizzes used in schools have little value when it comes to
the actual education of a student. It does not develop their minds, but
tests them. Students will not learn to be creative, but their creativity
will be measured. Francisco Ferrer has said of the grading system...
RATIONAL education is, above all things, a means of defence against
error and ignorance. To ignore truth and accept absurdities is,
unhappily, a common feature in our social order; to that we owe the
distinction of classes and the persistent antagonism of interests.
Having admitted and practiced the co-education of boys and girls, of
rich and poor--having, that is to say, started from the principle of
solidarity and equality-we are not prepared to create a new inequality.
Hence in the Modern School there will be no rewards and no punishments;
there will be no examinations to puff up some children with the
flattering title of âexcellent,â to give others the vulgar title of
âgood,â and make others unhappy with a consciousness of incapacity and
failure. [79]
If anything, mandatory quizzes and tests are destructive of the
principles of a real education. I do agree that there must be a form of
work available to those who feel that they are not proficient enough,
such as homework, work sheets, voluntary take-home quizzes, and
voluntary take-home tests. School time should be used entirely for
education. The classroom should be a diverse representation of
knowledge, portrayed in the various forms of media. In such a classroom,
there will be both entertainment and education. The modern schools of
our time have put a lacerating chain on the legs of education. A real
education today cannot go far, because it is within the confines of how
schools allow education to flourish â they simply do not allow it to
flourish. Education is held under the thumb, forced into unnatural molds
and destructive grips. School is dominated with the worry of quizzes and
tests; it is not a center of learning.
The efforts of teachers are often directed at quizzes and tests. So much
time and effort is wasted in the pursuit of this beast called grades.
There will be those individuals who protest and declare that students
will not be working as hard if there are no tests or quizzes Schools are
not supposed to be about work â they are supposed to be about education.
When students are not hindered by mandatory requirements for classes,
they may spend as much time as they need in each particular topic of the
class to understand it. One thing can be rest assured in the minds of
both laymen and professional when it comes to the development of the
minds of the young: individual students progress and advance at
different levels. We should not force any student to go through a lesson
any more than they have to. Students should be given the freedom to go
through topics at their will. When a student is forced to learn
something, forced to repeat something for memorization, it destroys the
principle of education, and desensitizes the student. If someone is
forced to do anything â learn, work, or anything â they will grow a
loathing for it. When the classroom environment is free, it promotes the
values of what a real education is. By giving the students the choice of
whether they wish to take the quizzes or tests, it gives them another
lesson: independence. They will develop well mentally, learning that
they are who they are, and the choices that they make will define them
as a person. To force something so natural as education onto a student
is immensely unnatural. To borrow the incomparable intelligence of
Ferrer again...
Briefly, we are inexorably opposed to holding public examinations. In
our school everything must be done for the advantage of the pupil.
Everything that does not conduce to this end must be recognised as
opposed to the natural spirit of positive education. Examinations do no
good, and they do much harm to the child. Besides the illness of which
we have already spoken, the nervous system of the child suffers, and a
kind of temporary paralysis is inflicted on its conscience by the
immoral features of the examination: the vanity provoked in those who
are placed highest, envy and humiliation, grave obstacles to sound
growth, in those who have failed, and in all of them the germs of most
of the sentiments which go to the making of egoism.
In a later number of the Bulletin I found it necessary to return to the
subject:--
We frequently receive letters from Workersâ Educational Societies and
Republican Fraternities asking that the teachers shall chastise the
children in our schools. We ourselves have been disgusted, during our
brief excursions, to find material proofs of the fact which is at the
base of this request; we have seen children on their knees, or in other
attitudes of punishment.
These irrational and atavistic practices must disappear. Modern pedagogy
entirely discredits them. The teachers who offer their services to the
Modern School, or ask our recommendation to teach in similar schools,
must refrain from any moral or material punishment, under penalty of
being disqualified permanently. Scolding, impatience, and anger ought to
disappear with the ancient title of âmaster.â. In free schools all
should be peace, gladness, and fraternity. We trust that this will
suffice to put an end to these practices, which are most improper in
people whose sole ideal is the training of a generation fitted to
establish a really fraternal, harmonious, and just state of society.
[80]
As far as testing goes, it is a good method for helping students
remember the previous lesson, but it should not be mandatory, nor should
it be a large part of the curriculum. The only time an examination may
be necessary is when it comes to seeing if a student qualifies in a
particular subject. There should be an exam for each subject that allows
the student to prove their own efficiency in such a subject. It can be
used as a form of credit or proof of knowledge. However, such an exam
would absolutely be voluntary. To help demonstrate the fact that schools
are not at all about testing and quizzes, it would be effective if the
exam was not even taken at the school, but at a government building.
Thereby making the school a purely educational institute. Students have
to be mesmerized in a classroom by their subject. When they learn and
become educated, they cannot point to a test grade or a quiz grade for
being responsible. It was the curriculum which had honed their
education. It is for this reason that there should be no mandatory
quizzes, tests, or schoolwork within the frame of a real education.
History class, often described by students and teachers alike as the
most useless class, [81] is the class where education could bloom but is
strangled in the hands of vice. This wondrous subject has been turned
into sterile dates and locations, memorization of capitols, and how to
correctly spell the names of individuals who have held important titles:
conquerer, statesman, musician, artist, author, scientist, etc., etc..
When a class of students today is taught history, they are taught about
history. They do not experience the past for themselves, but they have
modern writers describe the past for them. It is so much more of a rich
and dynamic atmosphere when people learn history when they are taught
through history and not about history. For example, consider the great
development and progression of the Womenâs Suffrage Movement. One may
speak gloriously of such fighters, of such Womenâs Rights champions, but
to do so in a history class would only do a fraction of justice to the
topic. What a class of students would learn in a half hour from talking
about such Suffragists would not equate to how much they would learn
from reading the speeches themselves. Consider the great and unleveled
eloquence of Elizabeth Cady Stanton...
But we are assembled to protest against a form of government existing
without the consent of the governed â to declare our right to be free as
man is free, to be represented in the government which we are taxed to
support, to have such disgraceful laws as give man the power to chastise
and imprison his wife, to take the wages which she earns, the property
which she inherits, and, in case of separation, the children of her
love; laws which make her the mere dependent on his bounty. It is to
protest against such unjust laws as these that we are assembled today,
and to have them, if possible, forever erased from our statute books,
deeming them a shame and a disgrace to a Christian republic in the
nineteenth century. [82]
Even though some may agree with how Stanton describes the United States
as a Christian republic â she would later state, âthe Bible and the
Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of womenâs
emancipation,â [83] â the usage of such a direct and powerful speech
will make undeniable pardons to the emotions of every student. In this
way, students will learn history by understanding what exactly it was
that was in the past. Our textbooks can speak of Communism, of the
spread of ideas by Marx and Engels, of the rise and fall of Lenin,
Stalin, and Mao, or it can be described with the words of the famous
Communist theorists. Consider the most famous political document, The
Communist Manifesto...
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master
and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant
opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now
open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary
reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the
contending classes.
In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a
complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold
gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights,
plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals,
guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these
classes, again, subordinate gradations.
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal
society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established
new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in
place of the old ones. [84]
From reading only a few excerpts from such a brilliant document, it will
fill the students will awe and inspiration. This class which studies
cultures is not at all about siding with one culture against another; it
is based on presenting fairly the ideas of thinkers, not subjecting them
to cruel or unfair prejudices. The works of Adam Smith and Ayn Rand will
be presented with equal justice to those of Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels. The Crusades have always been a topic in almost any history
class. There is no better way to describe the horrors spread by such a
holy war than by quoting an eyewitness...
Many fled to the roof of the temple of Solomon, and were shot with
arrows, so that they fell to the ground dead. In this temple almost ten
thousand were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen
our feet colored to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what
more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor
children were spared.
[...]
This may seem strange to you. Our squires and poorer footmen discovered
a trick of the Muslims, for they learned that they could find a gold
coin in the stomachs and intestines of the dead Muslims, who had
swallowed them. Thus, after several days they burned a great heap of
dead bodies, that they might more easily get the precious metal from the
ashes. [85]
The only way to teach students a valuable history is to teach them
actual history instead of about history. The various ideas that we find
circulating certain cultures can fascinate and mesmerize the developing
minds of students. We must present these ideas as they have come
throughout history. The only aspects of a history textbook that ought to
talk about history are those which are too erroneous to need a quote
concerning it, such as the date something happened, the date someone
traveled somewhere, military campaigns, etc., etc.. Students should be
immersed in the societies and cultures that they study, learning about
the life of the average person in those societies and learning about the
abstract works in their lives that may have affected them. Often,
however, history is degraded by the historians. As many have put it,
victors write the history of their enemies. It is so that way with many
of our school text books and society in general. It is most prominent
with those who are Atheistic. To quote Carl Sagan...
Except for the first week of introductory philosophy courses, though,
the names and notions of the early Ionians are almost never mentioned in
our society. Those who dismiss the gods tend to be forgotten. We are not
anxious to preserve the memory of such skeptics, much less their ideas.
Heroes who try to explain the world in terms of matter and energy may
have arisen many times in many cultures, only to be obliterated by the
priests and philosophers in charge of the conventional wisdom â as the
Ionian approach was almost wholly lost after the time of Plato and
Aristotle. [86]
To a large degree, Sagan is right. Rarely do high school history books
discuss the 250 books of Joseph McCabe, nor his 3,000 speeches. The
innumerable works of Robert Green Ingersoll are forever lost, doomed to
those who search for what the history books missed. Charles Bradlaugh
and his efforts for secularism will not be mentioned between the pages
of any school history book. There is no comment upon how the Roman
Catholic Church brutally burned Giordano Bruno at the stake. The
textbooks do not reveal how the works of Hobbes, Paine, Diderot, Huxley,
Nietzsche, and of Twain speak against Christianity. There is no
reference to the contempt for Christianity held by many of the founding
fathers, and the disbelief of it held by all of the founding fathers.
The worst crime has been committed against the greatest people. Robert
Green Ingersoll detested slavery immensely and fought as a colonel in
the Civil War yet he was denied the right to run for office because of
his infidelity. Itâs amusing that one particular US History textbook is
entitled, âHistory of a Free Nation.â [87] When individuals in the late
1800âs were seeking to exclude the Chinese from the United States
citizenry, Ingersoll gave the following speech...
The average American, like the average man of any country, has but
little imagination. People who speak a different language, or worship
some other god, or wear clothing unlike his own, are beyond the horizon
of his sympathy. He cares but little or nothing for the sufferings or
misfortunes of those who are of a different complexion or of another
race. His imagination is not powerful enough to recognize the human
being, in spite of peculiarities. Instead of this he looks upon every
difference as an evidence of inferiority, and for the inferior he has
but little if any feeling. If these âinferior peopleâ claim equal rights
be feels insulted, and for the purpose of establishing his own
superiority tramples on the rights of the so-called, inferior. [88]
Every historian has known that to show favoritism, prejudice, or
discrimination is not a very historical manner at all. Cicero has
written, âThe first law is that the historian shall never dare to set
down what is false; the second, that he shall never dare to conceal the
truth; the third, that there shall be no suspicion in his work of either
favoritism or prejudice.â [89] Lucian of Samosata, in his work How
History Should Be Written, has written, âThe historian should be
fearless and incorruptible; a man of independence, loving frankness and
truth.â [90] It is obvious that the writers of our school textbooks have
failed to meet these very reasonable conditions. Just as the history of
Atheism and infidelity seems to be left entirely out of our school
textbooks, there are monstrously large lies spread of the great
infidels. To quite one school book...
âFrom her Quaker upbringing, Susan B. Anthony learned that men and women
were equal before God. She spent most of her 86 years trying to convince
others of that equality.â [91]
The school book describes Susan B. Anthony as a religious figure, trying
to demonstrate to people that everyone is equal before the eyes of god.
Just a little studying of Susan B. Anthonyâs character would reveal that
she did not believe in god at all. She considered the Bible a ââHe-bookâ
from beginning to end. It has a He-God, a He-Christ, He-angels. Woman
has no glory anywhere in the pages of the Bible.â [92] She held that the
Bible â the foundation of Christianity â was not at all helpful to the
cause of womenâs suffrage. However, the school textbook reports that
Anthony tried to prove to individuals that men and women were equal
before god. If this text book was written with an iota of integrity and
historical accuracy, it would have read, âSusan B. Anthony learned that
the Bible was oppressive and cruel as it hindered the efforts of Womenâs
Suffrage.â The prime objective of school textbooks is not at all to show
an honest look at history. It is rather based on guessing what happened,
making many invalid assumptions, and swaying all of history so that it
is slanted.
This can be most obvious with the history of the Communist movement in
the United States. Among the textbooks in schools, we can read an
insurmountable amount of stories of the murders done by Communists.
However, none of the oppression on Communists is ever recorded in our
history books. It always seems to be blotted out. Ever since the rise of
McCarthy and the anti-Communists in the 50âs and 60âs, there have been
numerous incidents where Communists were oppressed, but not one word of
this leaks into the pages of our history. Instead, we hear of the
oppression of other races and the liberation of all men and women,
despite skin color or gender. Rarely, however, do we find our text books
glorifying the liberation of mind â the right for any individual to
delve into books of any subject and educate themselves. Of many
emancipations will we hear of and discuss when it is the body chained to
the will of another. In no way do I degrade such emancipations, but
mental freedom is not in any way praised, and rarely is it ever
discussed. Rarely do we hear about the equality of gender in Communist
nations â something held to be absolutely imperative in Communist
nations. When women were just attaining the right to vote in the United
States, they had full equality in Soviet Russia. In a speech dedicating
a day to the International Working Woman, Vladimir Lenin proclaimed...
But even in the matter of formal equality (equality before the law, the
âequalityâ of the well-fed and the hungry, of the man of property and
the propertyless), capitalism cannot be consistent. And one of the most
glaring manifestations of this inconsistency is the inequality of women.
Complete equality has not been granted even by the most progressive
republican, and democratic bourgeois states.
The Soviet Republic of Russia, on the other hand, at once swept away all
legislative traces of the inequality of women without exception, and
immediately ensured their complete equality before the law.
It is said that the best criterion of the cultural level is the legal
status of women. This aphorism contains a grain of profound truth. From
this standpoint only the dictatorship of the proletariat, only the
socialist state could attain, as it has attained, the highest cultural
level. The new, mighty and unparalleled stimulus given to the working
womenâs movement is therefore inevitably associated with the foundation
(and consolidation) of the first Soviet Republic--and, in addition to
and in connection with this, with the Communist International.
[...]
It is the chief task of the working womenâs movement to fight for
economic and social equality, and not only formal equality, for women.
The chief thing is to get women to take part in socially productive
labour, to liberate them from âdomestic slaveryâ, to free them from
their stupefying and humiliating subjugation to the eternal drudgery of
the kitchen and the nursery. [93]
In 1950, the United States government passed the Internal Security Act,
prohibiting association with groups which wish to violently overthrow
the government. In 1954, this was changed to the Communist Control Act,
making it illegal to join the Communist Party. In 1956, Dr. Kalman
Berenyi was denied citizenship to the United States because he was a
member of the Communist Party. There were many attempts to deport other
Communists: Rowoldt, Niukkanen, Kleindienst, among others. In 1957,
Barenblatt was fined and imprisoned for refusing to answer whether or
not he was a member of the Communist Party. The Committee on Un-American
Activities thoroughly persecuted many individuals. Deutch was persecuted
for refusing to name other Communists. In 1913, at age ten Nowak was
admitted to the United States from Poland, but in 1952, the United
States said that such documents were forced and attempted to deport him
because of the belief that he was a Communist. Dennis, the General
Secretary of the Communist Party, was convicted for refusing to appear
before the Committee on Un-American Activities. After being a citizen of
the United States for twelve years, Schneiderman was denied his
citizenship by the United State government because he was a Communist.
What makes each of these incidents important is that they all reached
the Supreme Court â the systematic oppression of Communism and Freedom
of Thought. Yet rarely do the textbooks of our schools discuss such
cases. The Supreme Court ruled in one particular case...
We are directly concerned only with the rights of this petitioner and
the circumstances surrounding his naturalization, but we should not
overlook the fact that we are a heterogeneous people. In some of our
larger cities a majority of the school children are the offspring of
parents only one generation, if that far, removed from the steerage of
the immigrant ship, children of those who sought refuge in the new world
from the cruelty and oppression of the old, where men have been burned
at the stake, imprisoned, and driven into exile in countless numbers for
their political and religious beliefs. Here they have hoped to achieve a
political status as citizens in a free world in which men are privileged
to think and act and speak according to their convictions, without fear
of punishment or further exile so long as they keep the peace and obey
the law. [94]
The rules that historians have put down were intelligent and made for
the sake of truth. As for our history textbooks, they ought to abide by
the same principles. The history in the school textbooks should be
written with objectivity and without prejudice. Significant facts in
history concerning all groups and cultures should not be suppressed.
Consider another quote from a history book...
âMany experts on childhood concluded that Spockâs permissive methods led
to a generation of young people in the next decade who were used to
getting their own way.â [95]
This is perhaps one of the most swayed views of history yet. It states
the father of modern baby care and his methods led to obnoxious young
people. This is a wildly uneducated statement. Prior to the developments
and research of Dr. Spock, it was a common urban myth that you were not
supposed to touch infants or babies, not even to hold or show affection
towards them. Such ignorance and cruelty arose from and out of these
myths. Physicians concurred with these methods, but Dr. Spock was a
beacon of intelligence among a barbaric collective. Before Dr. Spock,
there was Dr. John b. Watson. âNever, never kiss your child. Never hold
it in your lap. Never rock its carriage.â [96] These are the words of
the unfeeling doctor. Spock took a radically different position, âYou
know more than you think you do... What good mothers and fathers
instinctively feel like doing for their babies is usually best.â [97] It
is true that the gross slander of this genius is absolutely uncalled for
and perhaps one of the most uneducated statements of all history. Yet it
is exactly what is taught to the students of the United States.
Beyond the simplicity of a history class teaching about the past as far
as cultural, political, and religious aspects go, history should be
something that is much more than just facts concerning the past. History
class should be a center of culture and an examination of values,
trends, beliefs, and creeds. In history class, students should be
engrossed in ancient and contemporary societies, learning about the
various aspects of civilization, the mainstream and the underground.
Students should learn about the literature, the music, the instruments,
the food, the arts, the politics, the religion, and the other aspects of
ancient cultures. Students cannot simply just learn about these topics
by just reading about them, either. All forms of media must be available
to them so that they learn exactly what these things are, as well as to
inform and educate them of these particular topics. In regards to the
arts, they should be able to hear the instruments of times past, they
should be able to read the literature of fallen authors, they should be
able to watch the plays and films that captivated audiences all over the
world. By providing students with this luxurious presentation of the
arts â paintings, pottery, sculptures, music, dance, literature, poetry
â so that the students will be given the opportunities to expand their
creativity.
The other classes in the curriculum of school will help to serve this
purpose: exploring and developing the creativity of students. There
should be a class where students can construct the various forms of
pottery from the Etruscans to the Egyptians as well as a class where
students would be allowed to play instruments from the drums to the
digeridoo. A class that examines the poetry of Shakespeare to Shelley to
Frost as well as a literature class that examines the works of Tolstoy
to Wells to Orwell would provide fascinating insights to the curious
students. Classes of every genre and every area should be provided to
students so that they may learn their passions, and it should be
provided to them in a dynamic atmosphere to promote learning. Of
monotonous teaching and failing in literacy, Carl Sagan has said, âIf
the quality of education available to you is inadequate, if youâre
taught rote memorization rather than how to think, if the content of
what youâre first given to read comes from a nearly alien culture,
literacy can be a rocky road.â [98] In this new school, where classes
are voluntary and learning is not a thing of hate and pain, education
will truly bloom. Information provided through various outlets of media
will stream into the minds of the students. The eagerness of the student
will be enhanced by allowing them to attend any class that they desire.
The dark cloud which has covered formal education for all these years
will disappear. The sunlight will reach the withered flower of
education, giving it life and vitality.
In this wonderful atmosphere of creativity and learning, one part will
serve as a center to it all: a library. In this invaluable center, the
students who are intrigued by Epicurus and Descartes can examine
philosophy and the students who are fascinated by Frank Loyd Wright and
James Hoban can study architecture. The purpose of a library is to
provide information to those desire it. A library should provide all
sorts of paper information: literature, poetry, paintings, how-to
manuals, science journals, magazines, newsletters, etc., etc.. A library
will the serve the purpose of away-from-class activities, when students
feel that they wish to do independent studying and learning. In such an
atmosphere, they will be able to excel exceptionally. Iâm very
optimistic about the recent developments of technology and computers
when it comes to education. There are many websites on the internet
which host ancient texts that are not available in most libraries or
bookstores. Aside from the available ancient texts, there are many
websites which are useful in helping students perform better in school.
Francisco Ferrer has said...
IN setting out to establish a rational school for the purpose of
preparing children for their entry into free solidarity of humanity, the
first problem that confronted us was the selection of books. The whole
educational luggage of the ancient system was an incoherent mixture of
science and faith, reason and unreason, good and evil, human experience
and revelation, truth and error; in a word, totally unsuited to meet the
new needs that arose with the formation of a new school.
If the school has been from remote antiquity equipped not for teaching
in the broad sense of communicating to the rising generation the gist of
the knowledge of previous generations, but for teaching on the basis of
authority and the convenience of the ruling classes, for the purpose of
making children humble and submissive, it is clear that none of the
books hitherto used would suit us. [99]
It is within this modern, rational school where education should be
allowed to bloom. If learning is forced upon the mind, we will learn
only one thing: to detest learning. That by which is loved and cherished
by us is only that by which we love sincerely and genuinely. If the
faculties of the student are unrestrained, unrelinquished, then they may
be given the opportunity to freely prosper, develop, grow, and flourish.
The choice will be in the hands of the student. Once they are provided
with an open and free environment, where they are not restricted to use
their liberty to full degree, then a real education can begin. With the
vast amount of choices and options open to the student, a school based
on a real education would teach the students independence and give them
valuable skills. It would teach them the arts so that they may be
creative and so that they may explore. In this modern school where a
real education is promoted and independence is given to the students,
learning would be insurmountable.
In science class, students will learn the fundamental principles of the
origin and mechanics of the natural Universe. Of the distant cosmos and
of the vibrant, native life of Earth, there will be many topics abound
in the science classroom that will intrigue and interest the students.
Science is a fundamentally important classroom, and by far the most
progressive subject that there can be. Every citizen should be informed
about science yet in our nation, citizens remain incredibly ignorant of
science and its progression. No society can thrive when its general
population cannot comprehend the basic elements that govern our world.
It is true that every student should be given the full independence of
choosing the classes in which they wish to partake, however, personally
I highly recommend science as being an imperative and vastly important
subject. To quote Carl Sagan...
Itâs perilous and foolhardy for the average citizen to remain ignorant
about global warming, say, or ozone depletion, air pollution, toxic and
radioactive wastes, acid rain, topsoil erosion, tropical deforestation,
exponential population growth. Jobs and wages depend on science and
technology. [100]
Science is perhaps the most wondrous of all subjects. To understand the
principles which govern the flow of life, of the spawning of new
generations, of the change of species and the evolution of cells, is
perhaps the most inspirational knowledge acquirable by the mind. To know
that we are see the light of stars that have already lived and died at
the night sky, to know that animal mothers have an instinctive
affectionate bond with their children, to know that light is connected
to magnetism and electricity, to know these things is the most
illuminating and thought-provoking information. When we understand the
nature of animals, of stars, of planets, of eco-systems, of germs and
cells, of chemical reactions, of life, and of everything which comprises
our Universe, we are filled with a fire for education and a
distinguished zest for learning. Today, however, science has been
downplayed. In our class rooms, they teach theories, not evidences.
Students become bent on understanding the theories of science â the
conclusions rather than the methodology. They do not develop critical,
analytical, or progressive minds. Their minds are chained forever to
something they cannot comprehend nor do they wish to. As years wear on
the information is dropped, forcefully fed to them and carelessly
forgotten. To quote Carl Sagan...
If we teach only the findings and products of science--no matter how
useful and even inspiring they may be--without communicating its
critical method, how can the average person possibly distinguish science
from pseudoscience? Both are presented as unsupported assertion.
[...]
The method of science, as stodgy and grumpy as it may seem, is far more
important than the findings of science. [101]
In science class, it is absolutely necessary that students are informed
of the scientific method. Exercises in such methods would be benefiting,
as well. Students must be allowed to explore and study science, to
observe and record their observations. It is the freedom and liberty of
investigation which makes it so rewarding. If students are not given
that freedom and liberty, then for what end is their investigation other
than to appease the unavailing guidelines of formal âeducationâ? The
significance of science in our society has not yet been realized. If,
however, individuals in our society do not soon grasp hold of science
quickly, then trouble may be in store for their future. To quote Carl
Sagan...
Science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I
have a foreboding of an America in my childrenâs or grand childrenâs
time â when the United States is a service and information economy; when
nearly all the key manufacturing industries have slipped away to other
countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very
few, and when no one representing the public interest can even grasp the
issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas
or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our
crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties
in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and whatâs
true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and
darkness. [102]
The question of dissection and vivisection have often come into play
concerning science class. In the science classroom, should students be
promoted to the killing, the merciless torture of their fellow
creatures, for the sake of being able to observe pain? If any educator
who believed in freedom of learning proposed this, then the students of
that science class would only learn the cruelties forced onto other
animals. Compassion and affection would not be the sentiments embedded
in the minds of these young children. They would be forced to torture,
their every movement not for the sake of learning but for the sake of
causing pain. As Giordano Bruno said, for that foot, for that shoe, for
that smile, for that window-widow, a science class today that
centralized on vivisection would be composed of, for that scream, for
that agony, for that pain, for that torture. Schools are supposed to be
modern centers of education, equipping students with the tools to choose
to be creative, productive, and merciful. Can anyone honestly be
pictured as creative, productive, and merciful when they induce pains of
endless extent to defenseless creatures? As Henry Stephens Salt has
said...
GREAT is the change when we turn from the easy thoughtless
indifferentism of the sportsman or the milliner to the more determined
and deliberately chosen attitude of the scientist-so great, indeed, that
by many people, even among professed champions of animalsâ rights, it is
held impossible to trace such dissimilar lines of action to one and the
same source. Yet it can be shown, I think, that in this instance, as in
those already examined, the prime cause of manâs injustice is to the
lower animals is the belief that they are mere automata, devoid alike of
spirit, character, and individuality; only, while the ignorant sportsman
expresses this contempt through the medium of the battle, and the
milliner through that of the bonnet, the more seriously-minded
physiologist works his work in the âexperimental tortureâ of the
laboratory. The difference lies in the temperament of the men, and in
the tone of their profession; but in their denial of the most elementary
rights of the lower races, they are all inspired and instigated by one
common prejudice. [103]
The importance of a science class is to teach students the value of
critical thought, to give them the tools to decipher real science from
pseudoscience. To quote Francisco Ferrer...
Rational education is lifted above these illiberal forms. It has, in the
first place, no regard to religious education, because science has shown
that the story of creation is a myth and the gods legendary; and
therefore religious education takes advantage of the credulity of the
parents and the ignorance of the children, maintaining the belief in a
supernatural being to whom people may address all kinds of prayers. This
ancient belief, still unfortunately widespread, has done a great deal of
harm, and will continue to do so as long as it persists. The mission of
education is to show the child, by purely scientific methods, that the
more knowledge we have of natural products, their qualities, and the way
to use them, the more industrial, scientific, and artistic commodities
we shall have for the support and comfort of life, and men and women
will issue in larger numbers from our schools with a determination to
cultivate every branch of knowledge and action, under the guidance of
reason and the inspiration of science and art, which will adorn life and
reform society. [104]
The primary purpose of education, as I have stated before, is
independence: to make students independent so that they may pursue their
creativity, productivity, and happiness at their own degree. To this
end, a real education is to provide students in an atmosphere where they
have freedom. Firstly, they must be given the freedom of expression.
Secondly, they must be given the freedom of conscience. Most
imperatively, it is necessary that the teachers and administration
respect the rights of students when it comes to freedom of speech. In
this new school of modern education, students must be given entire
responsibility of their choices in learning. They must not be forced to
take any classes. To force a student to listen to useless, monotonous
droning that they find unattractive is the opposite of education: it
evicts the natural zest for learning inhibited in every mind. In the
school, the curriculum must consist of a science class which promotes
methodology as well as products of science. The history class can act as
a center to the development of the arts in various cultures. In other
classes, students may express and explore their creative sides, in
classes based on poetry, painting, literature, music, dance, drawing,
among other creative fields. Beyond the ordinary history class is the
library, the prime place for written information: with works by all the
major philosophers, politicians, and authors. In this setting, in an
atmosphere that promotes independence and learning, it is here that a
real education can be attained by the public.
[1] Concerning information about lacking knowledge in Americans:
Catherine S. Manegold, âU.S. Schools Misuse Time, Study Asserts,â The
New York Times, May 5, 1994, p. A21.; Concerning belief in astrology: R.
B. Culver and P. A. Ianna, The Gemini Syndrome: A Scientific Explanation
of Astrology (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1984.); Concerning slaves and
reading: Max Purtz, Is Science Necessary?: Essays on Science and
Scientists (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991).
[2] The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl
Sagan, page 376, published by Ballantine Books.
[3] The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl
Sagan, pages 339â340, published by Ballantine Books.
[4] The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl
Sagan, pages 321â322, published by Ballantine Books.
[5] Mark Twainâs Autobiography, edited by Charles Neider, pages.
348â349.
[6] The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl
Sagan, pages 341, published by Ballantine Books.
[7] The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl
Sagan, pages 325, published by Ballantine Books.
[8] 1999-AUG: ABCNEWS.com quoted The Gallup Organizationâs most recent
results relating to public opinion about the teaching of creationism in
public schools.
[9] The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl
Sagan, page 325â326, published by Ballantine Books. The percents used in
this quote were gathered from the 1999 August Gallup Organizationâs
polls.
[10] Quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001), and
The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan.
[11] On the eve of the Hitler takeover in Germany.
[12] Mein Kampf.
[13] April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to
the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933, quoted from the Freedom From
Religion Foundation quiz, âWhat Do You Know About The Separation of
State and Church?â
[14] Pat Buchanan, campaign address at an anti-gay rally in Des Moines,
Iowa, February 11, 1996.
[15] Rev. Romaine F. Bateman, New York Herald Tribune, Feb. 18, 1932, on
the occasion of his refusal to permit citizens of the community to hold
a celebration in honor of George Washington. Mr. Bateman also remarked
that Washingtonâs service to his country was âmerely incidental compared
with his un-Christianity.â Quoted by Joseph Lewis in The Ten
Commandments p. 563.
[16] William Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge between Science and
Theology (1999), p. 298, quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science
Found God? (draft: 2001).
[17] Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength.
[18] Bill Keith, address, Monroe, LA, 1986, quoted from Albert J.
Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom.
[19] Reverend Walter Lang, founder of the Bible-Science Association.
Quoted in various articles, including American Atheists, âFrom the
Mouths of Creationists.â
[20] Dr. Kent Hovindâs Online Creation Seminar, Part 1.
[21] Henry Morris, as quoted in Brian J. Alters, âA Content Analysis of
the Institute for Creation Researchâs Institute on Scientific
Creationism,â Creation/Evolution 15, no. 2 (1995): 1â15., quoted from
Victor J. Stenger, âHas Science Found God?â (draft: 2001).
[22] Website of Creation Research Society. Statement of Faith.
[23] Rev. W. D. Lewis, quoted from E. Haldeman-Julius, âThe Meaning Of
Atheism.â
[24] William Jennings Bryan, quoted from David Milsted, The Cassell
Dictionary of Regrettable Quotations (1999).
[25] Statute of the State of Tennessee, 1925 (not repealed until 1967),
quoted from David Milsted, The Cassell Dictionary of Regrettable
Quotations (1999).
[26] The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl
Sagan, pages 263, published by Ballantine Books.
[27] Francisco Ferrer, Origin and Ideals of the Modern School, chapter
2, published 1913.
[28] âOur Schools,â by Robert Green Ingersoll.
[29] This has happened to myself as well as several of my colleagues at
our High School.
[30] Supreme Court: WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE,
319 U.S. 624 (1943), 319 U.S. 624. Argued March 11, 1943. Decided June
14, 1943.
[31] Adopted January 9, 1942. Quoted from the West Virginia State Board
of Education v. Barnette.
[32] 1851(1), West Virginia Code (1941 Supp). Quoted from the West
Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.
[33] Francisco Ferrer, Origin and Ideals of the Modern School, chapter
5â6, published 1913.
[34] Discourses, Epictetus, Roman philosopher.
[35] Wash. Rev. Code 9.81.010 (5). Quoted from Supreme Court case of
Baggett v. Bullitt, 1964.
[36] Supreme Court: BAGGETT v. BULLITT, 377 U.S. 360 (1964), 377 U.S.
360. Argued March 24, 1964. Decided June 1, 1964.
[37] Ibidem, Oath Form A, in Foote note 3.
[38] U.S. Supreme Court: GREEN v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 391 U.S. 430
(1968), 391 U.S. 430. Argued April 3, 1968. Decided May 27, 1968.
[39] U.S. Supreme Court: TINKER v. DES MOINES SCHOOL DIST., 393 U.S. 503
(1969), 393 U.S. 503. Argued November 12, 1968. Decided February 24,
1969.
[40] Ibidem.
[41] Ibidem.
[42] Initiated Act No. 1, Ark. Acts 1929; Ark. Stat. Ann. 80â1627,
80â1628 (1960 Repl. Vol.) Quoted from U.S. Supreme Court: EPPERSON v.
ARKANSAS, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), 393 U.S. 97. Argued October 16, 1968.
Decided November 12, 1968.
[43] Homo Neanderthalensis, by H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun,
June 29, 1925.
[44] U.S. Supreme Court: EPPERSON v. ARKANSAS, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), 393
U.S. 97. Argued October 16, 1968. Decided November 12, 1968.
[45] Scientific American, July 2000, page 83.
[46] U.S. Supreme Court: GOSS v. LOPEZ, 419 U.S. 565 (1975), 419 U.S.
565. Argued October 16, 1974. Decided January 22, 1975.
[47] Ibidem.
[48] Animalsâ Rights, by Henry Stephens Salt and Albert Leffingwell,
part II, chapter 2, 1891.
[49] American Library Association website.
[50] The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl
Sagan, pages 261, published by Ballantine Books.
[51] American Library Association website, The Anarchist Cookbook by
William Powell ranked #57 in the list of most challenged books.
[52] Following the Equator; Puddânhead Wilsonâs New Calendar
[53] American Library Association website.
[54] U.S. Supreme Court: BOARD OF EDUCATION v. PICO, 457 U.S. 853
(1982), 457 U.S. 853. Argued March 2, 1982. Decided June 25, 1982.
[55] NEW JERSEY v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), 469 U.S. 325. Argued
March 28, 1984 Reargued October 2, 1984. Decided January 15, 1985.
[56] Ibidem.
[57] Ibidem.
[58] U.S. Supreme Court: HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT v. KUHLMEIER, 484
U.S. 260 (1988), 484 U.S. 260. Argued October 13, 1987. Decided January
13, 1988.
[59] Ibidem, Footnote 9.
[60] U.S. Supreme Court: ABINGTON SCHOOL DIST. v. SCHEMPP, 374 U.S. 203
(1963), 374 U.S. 203. Argued February 27â28, 1963. Decided June 17,
1963.
[61] Ibidem.
[62] U.S. Supreme Court: LEE v. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), 505 U.S.
577. Argued November 6, 1991. Decided June 24, 1992.
[63] Ibidem.
[64] Animalsâ Rights, by Henry Stephens Salt and Albert Leffingwell,
part I, chapter 8, 1891.
[65] âTeasing sparks $10 million lawsuit,â Lincoln Park district accused
of religious bias in girlâs suicide, By George Hunter / The Detroit
News.
[66] Supreme Court: WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. BARNETTE,
319 U.S. 624 (1943), 319 U.S. 624. Argued March 11, 1943. Decided June
14, 1943.
[67] Orlando Sentinel, FL, 24 August 1989, âCorporal punishment should
not be banned,â By D.L. Cuddy, Special to the Sentinel.
[68] âIs Corporal Punishment Degrading?â by Robert Green Ingersoll,
1891.
[69] The Washington Post, 1999, September 14.
[70] Dallas Morning News, Texas, 6 October 1991, â2 students choose the
paddle over parent conference,â By Jonathan Eig, Staff Writer of The
Dallas Morning News.
[71] Daily Gazette, Idabel, Oklahoma, 15 February 1979, Student Hits
Idabel Principal.
[72] Common Sense, by Thomas Paine.
[73] âCruelty in the Elmira Reformatory,â by Robert Green Ingersoll.
[74] The Liberty of All, by Robert Green Ingersoll, 1877.
[75] Ibidem
[76] Chicago Tribune, 11 February 1979, âPaddle swats are common; Spare
the rod? Not in Indiana,â (extract), By Mary Elson.
[77] The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl
Sagan, pages 342, published by Ballantine Books.
[78] The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl
Sagan, pages 343, published by Ballantine Books.
[79] Francisco Ferrer, Origin and Ideals of the Modern School, chapter
10, published 1913.
[80] Ibidem.
[81] There will be those who assert, âThose who do not know the past are
doomed to repeat it,â but I doubt the history of 3000 years will teach
all the lessons. Simple knowledge of history is not all that is needed
for such a belief, as well. One may be able to identify the mishaps of
Hitler waging war against Russia and England simultaneously, and losing
just as Napoleon had lost. However, even though that mishap is
identified, others are not, such as how religion can be traced back to
every evil throughout history. Frederick Douglass, the runaway slave,
believed that slavery was of god, but that motto â âSlavery is of God,â
â was also the motto of many Christian churches.
[82] ADDRESS:FIRST WOMENâS-RIGHTS CONVENTION, delivered by Elizabeth
Cady Stanton, on July 19, 1848.
[83] Free Thought magazine, September 1896.
[84] The Manifesto of the Communist Party, by Karl Mark and Friedrich
Engels, 1848.
[85] The Capture of Jerusalem, 1099, by Fulk of Chartres, chapter 27â28.
Edited for clarity. (âByzantâ changed to âgold coinâ and âSaracenâ
changed to âMuslim.â)
[86] The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl
Sagan, pages 310, published by Ballantine Books.
[87] History of a Free Nation, by Henry W. Bragdon, Samuel P. McCutchen,
and Donald A. Ritchie, Glencoe, McGraw-Hill.
[88] The Chinese Exclusion, by Robert Green Ingersoll, 1898.
[89] Quoted from The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the
Dark, by Carl Sagan, pages 341, published by Ballantine Books.
[90] How History Should Be Written, by Lucian of Samosata, 170.
[91] History of a Free Nation, by Henry W. Bragdon, Samuel P. McCutchen,
and Donald A. Ritchie, page 553, Glencoe, McGraw-Hill.
[92] Whoâs Who In Hell, by Warren Allen Smith, entry for âAnthony, Susan
Brownwell.â
[93] International Working Womenâs Nation, March 4, 1920; found in:
Pravda, March 8, 1920 (special issue), Signed: N. Lenin.
[94] U.S. Supreme Court: SCHNEIDERMAN v. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118
(1943), 320 U.S. 118. Reargued March 12, 1943. Decided June 21, 1943.
[95] History of a Free Nation, by Henry W. Bragdon, Samuel P. McCutchen,
and Donald A. Ritchie, page 875, Glencoe, McGraw-Hill.
[96] Psychological Care of Infant and Child, by Dr. John B. Watson,
1928.
[97] The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care, by Dr. Spock, 1946.
[98] The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl
Sagan, pages 358, published by Ballantine Books.
[99] Francisco Ferrer, Origin and Ideals of the Modern School, chapter
11, published 1913.
[100] The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl
Sagan, page 7, published by Ballantine Books.
[101] The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl
Sagan, pages 21â22, published by Ballantine Books.
[102] The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl
Sagan, page 26, published by Ballantine Books.
[103] Animalsâ Rights, by Henry Stephens Salt and Albert Leffingwell,
part I, chapter 7, 1891.
[104] Francisco Ferrer, Origin and Ideals of the Modern School, chapter
11, published 1913.