Do you agree with this basic principle for teaching in public schools?

[John Dule]

There are two ways of discussing a point of view in school:

(1) Promoting the viewpoint
(2) Presenting the viewpoint

I believe we should all be able to agree that the latter is superior to the former, and it should be the approach for any school that receives public funding. To this end, I believe all schools should devote some time to discussing controversial viewpoints and ideas-- atheism, Christianity, world religions, Communism/Fascism, other antidemocratic ideologies, pro-choice and pro-life perspectives, gender theory, evolution, eugenics, and even racism.

These are ideas that (like it or not) shape the world we live in. Kids need to understand these viewpoints if they ever hope to present their own arguments for or against them. They need to be aware of how the "other side" views the world, and they need to think critically about their own beliefs using the perspectives mentioned above. At no point should any of these ideologies or ideas be actively promoted by teachers. Teachers should simply present the arguments and facts for each side, and allow kids to think through the reasoning themselves. Kids are smart and are able to do this better than most adults.

I completely understand why people are flipping out lately over what kids are being taught in schools. The idea of children being brainwashed by Marxist losers and Christian nutjobs is completely offensive to me. But consider this: Being exposed to a bad idea in the proper context helps to inoculate children against it (for you red avatars, just think of this as an intellectual vaccine). Understanding the motives behind the Nazis, the commies, and the theocrats will help your kids avoid the ideological traps these groups often set for impressionable people. This is why I, as a well-documented atheist, will be teaching my kids about the Bible as soon as they're able to understand it. There is no better shield against extremism than understanding.

Presenting ideas this way will create a more educated, tolerant, and thoughtful society. I sincerely hope that a sizable majority of Atlas, from all ideological wings, can join together and agree on this simple point.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I generally agree with your principle, but strongly disagree with the inclusion of evolution on that list (and I'm genuinely surprised that you'd put it there). Evolution is, given all current knowledge, our best explanation for the origin of the species we see in the world today. While every scientific theory is by its nature provisional and waiting to be disproven, presenting it as "just a viewpoint" would seriously mislead students about the nature of scientific inquiry. This is not a standard that we hold for any scientific theory, even those that rest on shakier grounds than evolution.

[John Dule]

I generally agree with your principle, but strongly disagree with the inclusion of evolution on that list (and I'm genuinely surprised that you'd put it there). Evolution is, given all current knowledge, our best explanation for the origin of the species we see in the world today. While every scientific theory is by its nature provisional and waiting to be disproven, presenting it as "just a viewpoint" would seriously mislead students about the nature of scientific inquiry. This is not a standard that we hold for any scientific theory, even those that rest on shakier grounds than evolution.

I believe the evidence for evolution (as for many other elements of basic science) is so conclusive that a teacher need not "promote" it as a viewpoint in order for children to become convinced of its validity. Simply going through the logic of it in an unbiased way is, I think, all that's necessary.

[Ferguson97]

What would qualify as "acceptable" viewpoints to present to students? Should teachers present Flat Earth theory, Holocaust denial, or moon landing conspiracies as valid theories? I think most of us would agree that those would be a waste of time, since we have documented proof that all of those viewpoints are verifiably false.

[John Dule]

What would qualify as "acceptable" viewpoints to present to students? Should teachers present Flat Earth theory, Holocaust denial, or moon landing conspiracies as valid theories? I think most of us would agree that those would be a waste of time, since we have documented proof that all of those viewpoints are verifiably false.

If there's no evidence for them, then you won't have to spend much class time on them.

[Ferguson97]

What would qualify as "acceptable" viewpoints to present to students? Should teachers present Flat Earth theory, Holocaust denial, or moon landing conspiracies as valid theories? I think most of us would agree that those would be a waste of time, since we have documented proof that all of those viewpoints are verifiably false.

If there's no evidence for them, then you won't have to spend much class time on them.

Who decides what constitutes appropriate evidence? People who believe in those conspiracy theories would certainly argue that they have piles of evidence.

[John Dule]

The bigger problem at the primary level is that public schools are not reliably teaching the most basic skills.

There is no excuse for wasting time on simplified versions of the latest esoteric political theories to come into vogue when many children can't read or do math at their grade level, to say nothing of growing problems with motor skills, physical fitness, and basic discipline. And, yes, much of this stuff comes across as secularized Sunday School.

I'm not saying this is going to solve all our public education problems. I'm just saying this is the right approach for tackling controversial subjects.

[Schiff for Senate]

There are two ways of discussing a point of view in school:

(1) Promoting the viewpoint
(2) Presenting the viewpoint

I believe we should all be able to agree that the latter is superior to the former, and it should be the approach for any school that receives public funding. To this end, I believe all schools should devote some time to discussing controversial viewpoints and ideas-- atheism, Christianity, world religions, Communism/Fascism, other antidemocratic ideologies, pro-choice and pro-life perspectives, gender theory, evolution, eugenics, and even racism.

These are ideas that (like it or not) shape the world we live in. Kids need to understand these viewpoints if they ever hope to present their own arguments for or against them. They need to be aware of how the "other side" views the world, and they need to think critically about their own beliefs using the perspectives mentioned above. At no point should any of these ideologies or ideas be actively promoted by teachers. Teachers should simply present the arguments and facts for each side, and allow kids to think through the reasoning themselves. Kids are smart and are able to do this better than most adults.

I completely understand why people are flipping out lately over what kids are being taught in schools. The idea of children being brainwashed by Marxist losers and Christian nutjobs is completely offensive to me. But consider this: Being exposed to a bad idea in the proper context helps to inoculate children against it (for you red avatars, just think of this as an intellectual vaccine). Understanding the motives behind the Nazis, the commies, and the theocrats will help your kids avoid the ideological traps these groups often set for impressionable people. This is why I, as a well-documented atheist, will be teaching my kids about the Bible as soon as they're able to understand it. There is no better shield against extremism than understanding.

Presenting ideas this way will create a more educated, tolerant, and thoughtful society. I sincerely hope that a sizable majority of Atlas, from all ideological wings, can join together and agree on this simple point.

I don't see why the bolded needs to be taught in schools. Invariably it'll lead to controversy and for no clear reason.

[John Dule]

I'm not saying this is going to solve all our public education problems. I'm just saying this is the right approach for tackling controversial subjects.

I don't think I agree.

First, I want the school to which I am compelled to send my children to respect my values, whether they are controversial with others or not. This is why I support the role of local school boards in public education. Whatever their flaws, they are an important path for allowing parents to have their say.

This is how the anti-CRT protesters and Christian theocrats feel too. I do not want them to have any voice in how my kids are educated, and the best way to deny them that line of attack is to make schools less responsive to the whiny demands of parents. And in any case, the approach I'm proposing would indeed respect your values-- as well as the values of others. I fail to see what rights I'm denying you by simply exposing your kids to competing belief systems. Any decent parent who wants to give their kid a firm moral foundation can do so at home, rather than expecting teachers to conform their lesson plans to their worldview.

Second, I don't agree that exposure to bad ideas from a value-neutral perspective is the best defense against becoming susceptible to them. My experience is that the adage about brains falling out of a mind left too open is more accurate. For many people, the experience is comparable to taking hard drugs: Some will learn something from the experience, especially with guidance, but most people just damage themselves.

My belief is that people whose values lack a strong intellectual grounding are best kept insulated from dangerous ideas, and that even those who are more prepared to deal with them should limit their exposure to particular contexts in which they have plenty of support. A significant social problem for us right now is that technology has disrupted the rituals that once protected many of us from this information hazard.

Besides, many of the contested ideological narratives that we're talking about are just elaborate justifications for self-serving and abusive behavior. They should be a call to arms, not to argument.

I think this post completely misses why "dangerous ideas" become so popular among youth counterculture movements like the alt-right and the radical left. Young people seek to be controversial and iconoclastic. They enjoy irreverent humor and mocking sacred cows. The solution to this tendency is to not make these ideas seem edgy and hip by refusing to even acknowledge their existence in a classroom setting. Kids are going to question what they hear in school regardless of whether their teachers offer them a space in which to do so. And when they do, they start to wonder why they'd never heard of these "dangerous ideas" before-- and in an effort to rebel, they embrace them. Bringing ideas like fascism and racism to the surface, publicly discussing them, and evaluating their effects on society in an open setting is a far better way of combatting them than your approach-- which is apparently to confine them to marginalized internet spaces where the echo chamber effect only reinforces them.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The issue with Averroes's perspective, to which I'm otherwise sympathetic, is that the social media gun really can't be unfired. Even if we want to--which we should--the grey-t-shirted Ivy League dropouts who currently occupy the commanding heights of industry won't allow it to happen, and from the current political climate it's difficult to see how we get to a political climate where our elected leaders can make them allow it. That being the case, as Principal Skinner might have said, the kids are going to learn about The Turner Diaries sooner or later, and it's almost certainly better for them to first encounter it in an environment in which some degree of intellectual and interpersonal structure is being imposed than in an environment in which none is.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Presenting different viewpoints is good.

At my Christian high school, at one point my science teacher presented one day as if he were a young earth creationist, one day as an old earth creationist (which he was in reality), and one day as a theistic evolutionist.  The goal was to offer the best demonstration for each.

 But if your goal is to inoculate against an idea, the tendency will be that you present it in a different way than a true believer would. With a religious text especially this is true, as the text takes on a certain meanings in its use within the community. You have to be open to experience value in it before you can understand the message. 

No functional institution can be value neutral, esp. when they involves children or education. Children need support to their moral and social development. They need to have some foundation to stand on or point to when conflict arises: 

A reason why we treat each other a certain way. A reason why we bother with school. A reason why we carry on even when things get tough.  A reason why we find value in ourselves, other people, the natural world.  A source of meaning.  This will be expressed in truth propositions, narratives, and the social life of the school/community.

A strong foundation allows a person to actually engage with and understand what was attractive in Nazism or Bolshevism, without risking that they will be easy prey for it.