| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Neutrality in Schools: Ending the Pretense
Monday, February 20, 2012 22:00
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.
For most anyone paying attention to the public educationsystem in the last four decades, one has seen a more or less continuous erosionof the concept of neutrality in social views. From a practical standpoint, thisrepresents little change. Since the government took over the education ofchildren, and even before, some viewpoints have been favored over others. Whatdistinguished the time of the 1960’s was that there was a brief period whenneutrality was publicly agreed upon as an ideal worthy of pursuit.
It was not generally approached using that term. Rather thanneutrality, there were phrases bandied about such as “color-blind,” “equalopportunity,” and “equal protection under law.” I was in the middle grades duringthat time, and my understanding was limited. It certainly sounded like an idealthat matched up with my concepts of what America “should” strive for.
For all of the high sounding catch-words, the implementationbroke down almost immediately. “Equal opportunity” degraded rapidly into a gameof semantics involving how best to assure different minority groups preferences.Though giving lip service to respect for all cultures, what had been thought ofas “traditional” in America rapidly was singled out for scorn, derision, and anew breed of institutionalized discrimination. As the practice broke downfurther, it became inevitable that even the thought of government notsupporting some non-traditional group was considered intolerable.
The latest example of this shift was observed recently inthe Minnesota Board of Education. The policy regarding student and teacherconduct has been changed from one of neutrality, with educators steering clearof opinions about controversial groups and issues, to one labeled “RespectfulLearning Environment.” At least one reason for the change is legal troublesresulting in several lawsuits alleging that neutrality has created anenvironment where gay students are subject to bullying.
The shift prompts me to consider two very importantquestions: First, what was it about the policy of remaining neutral as teachersthat would encourage bullying to any specific group? Surely the school had thesame authority under the past policy to administer discipline against anystudents that acted in a bullying fashion? If the message that the school istrying to send is that all students are worthy of respect, at least with regardto their physical and emotional well-being, then what could possibly servebetter than a values-neutral protection of every last student?
The second question, to me, is even more relevant to theissue of bullying: If it has already been observed that there is animosity toparticular groups at the school, how does the school intended to reduce that byshowing favoritism to the group involved? Isn’t that a near-certain recipe forsetting current resentments in concrete, and then setting up an entirely newlayer? Haven’t the people in charge learned anything from how affirmativeaction has placed many achievements by women and African-Americans vulnerableto suspicion?
True neutrality in any system is nearly impossible. I thinkmost people who spend any time considering the difficulties will agree on that.However, it’s only by aiming for the impossible, the ideal, that we have anyhope of achieving a moderately equitable reality. By aiming directly at theimperfect, we take the first step toward achieving the intolerable.
Read more at Education Watch International
Source:
