OBEDIENCE, AUTHORITY AND CIVIC VALUES

  The preceding legislation was signed into law by the Governor of California on September 23, 1985. Why are California Politicians concerned abut such lofty sounding subjects as truth, justice, civic values, and morality?

This piece of legislation did not arise from a political vacuum. In an earlier draft of the "ethics and civic values" legislation (AB 69), a "compelling need" was cited as justification. According to the draft, the compelling need was based upon:

1. Public opinion polls, where supposedly over 2/3rd of the American people favor the teaching of ethics in public schools.

2. An unsupported assertion that children and adolescents need to develop an understanding and commitment to a sound set of values and principles, which are consistent with their own and others' well being in the school, the community, the state, the nation and the world.

3. An alleged emphasis on science and technology, which supposedly takes place at the expense of "ethical and civic values ..." which are essential to "a fair and just democratic society."

4. "Mounting evidence" is cited, but not provided, that programs in "ethics and civic values from kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive, can be effective in fostering ethical behavior and civic competence and responsibility."

The teachers will have no trouble with patriotism because it is nothing more to a youngster than an extension of loyalty for the home team. However, the dark side of patriotism is nationalism, which is essential to a government if it is to wage war against other foreign patriotic groups.

It would be amusing to see how the "rights and duties" of American citizenship will be taught by teachers, who are government employees. If by "rights," the politicos mean human rights, then the educators will have to hold hot and cold water in the same cup. If rights are simplified to mean rights to life and property, then governments must rank higher than hurricanes and earthquakes for destruction of property and loss of life.

What dignity is there in citizenship? Are our foreign friends any less dignified for lack of U.S. citizenship? What hogwash. Dignity is found within the person, irregardless of nationality. Besides, what dignity is there in being a mere citizen, American or otherwise? Please don't call me a "citizen;" I am not someone's citizen. I am a man and I belong to myself.

Most interesting and potentially entertaining will be the instruction in "the principles of a free government." Many COMMENTARY readers know there's no such thing as a free lunch, but now children will be told that government is free! What in the world does this mean? Does it mean that government doesn't cost anything? That's not true, government is very costly in terms of money, property, life and limb. Perhaps the meaning is that government agents are free ... not the children, and not you and me. According to the Founding Fathers, government was to be the servant! How far we have come! From the rebellious Declaration of Independence, to civic responsibility in only 200 years. Governments, "free" or otherwise, are the greatest impediment to individual liberty known to man.

The legislators, most of whom I'm sure are graduates of the public school system, are playing fast and loose with words. Notice that an opinion poll showing that parents favored teaching of ethics in the schools somehow became a call for politicians to implement the teaching of "civic values." What is the relationship between civic values and ethics? Perhaps there is none. In fact, it seems to me that a truly ethical person would avoid "civic values" like the plague in order to maintain high ethical standards.

An early draft of AB 69, a companion bill to AB 191, listed the following traits as essential to "basic and shared ethical and civic values:"

A. Human dignity and worth

B. Fairness

C. Honesty, including both truth telling and keeping commitments.

D. Courage

E. Freedom

F. Responsibility

G. The common good

H. Justice

I. Equality of opportunity

J. Respect for oneself and sensitivity to the feelings of others

K. Cooperativeness

L. Concern for, and willingness to, promote the welfare of others

M. Fair-mindedness and conscientiousness

N. Courage to stand by one's reasoned convictions.

And freedom, "E" above, is the most laughable. Freedom is a subject politicians know the least about. Legislators spend enormous amounts of time devising ways to restrict and reduce the freedom of others through regulation of behavior and confiscation of property. If the government schools through some fluke, actually succeed in teaching the principles of personal freedom and individual liberty, the lawmakers would be out of a job. I doubt if that is their intention.

There's no need to examine "F", responsibility, when government has thousands of bureaucracies, ministries, agencies and departments whose sole purpose is to watch over us poor, ignorant, helpless, and irresponsible peasants.

In order for government to justify it's intrusions into the affairs of its "citizens", it is necessary for a large number of people to believe that the intentions of the state are honorable, and only concerned with the welfare of the people. This is the rationale behind "G", the common good. ("L" above, is a repetition of "G"). Since the legislators actually believe they are acting in behalf of everyone, they must appear to promote "goodness" for all. What better way to promote "the common good," than to decree that all children shall be taught reverence for the common good.

The only problem with "the common good," is that this buzz-phrase has been promised by every tyrant in history, including the National Socialist Party of Germany in the 1930s. How could one person possibly begin to work for a "good" that is common to everyone? The best taht could be done in this area is to care for one's immediate family, and perhaps, if finances allow, increase the "good" of family and a small circle of friends.

Possibly, the most noble sounding trait is "N," where one gains the courage to stand by one's convictions. The legislators only intend this in a very narrow sense. What they really mean is that it is desirable to stand by one's convictions except when those convictions conflict with state law. If your convictions lead you to refuse to register for war preparation, then your convictions are in conflict with the common good, civic values, and good citizenship.

It is interesting to note what was deleted from the bill in its early stages: a provision that funds to pay for truth and morality instruction would be "funded" by the California State Gambling ... oh, excuse me, I mean the "California State Lottery Act of 1984." It's no wonder that state monopolized gambling was deleted as a source of funding for teaching morality. After all, the state has long condemned gambling, and gamblers as immoral and undesirable.

Among the reference sources used for justification of civic values education is the book "It Comes with the Territory," by David Purpel and Kevin Ryan. Purpel and Ryan's book sets forth the "major assumption" that public schools are already heavily involved in "moral education." But the authors complain of a lack of "systematic, precise data as to how much and in what ways moral issues are presented in the schools." Nevertheless, they proceed to argue for moral education, offering a hodge-podge of fragmented observations to support their views.

For example, in career education, the authors ask "Should one work for a career that pays well or one that pays not so well but involves considerable opportunities for public service?" A diverse selection of literature is used to ask "moral" questions ... "Bible readings (when used) can illuminate a variety of subjects, including the Devine bases of authority ..., and 'The Man Without a Country' finds that to reject one's nation is to invite despair and emptiness." Further, the authors state that "Robin Hood shot holes through the notion that stealing is categorically wrong." The little Dutch boy who saved his community by plugging a hole in the dike demonstrates the importance of "social responsibility."

Notice how narrow the author's vision of career possibilities is. It is suggested that one can either pursue work that pays well, or work that serves the public, but pays not so well.

The implication is glaring. Either you can make lots of money, for your own selfish satisfaction, or, if you are conscious of civic values, you could pursue a career where your energies and resources would be thrown down the black hole of "public service."

I say there's more. What if an entrepreneurial person wants to make lots of money? In the pursuit of profits, there are only two basic choices; the entrepreneur can chose to manipulate political power, and get fat off the labors of honest workers (witness senate and congressional salaries), or, if ethics and morality play a role in the decision, then the only right choice is to serve others un-coercively in the marketplace. Campbell's Soup Company does more "public service" good than all the armies of career bureaucrats could ever hope to accomplish. Public servants could increase their "common good" quota by going fishing instead of "serving the public."

"The Man Without a Country" was mediocre fiction, and grade-B movie material. Even so, to claim that a man who rejects a country invites despair and emptiness, is blatant propaganda.

In the novel, a man rejected a government, not his country. In retaliation, a government judge condemned him to life imprisonment aboard a ship that sailed between Europe and the new world, to spend his life in eternal transit, never again to set foot on shore.

Worst of all is the author's bold and forthright attempt to introduce "situational ethics", a dangerous philosophy where right and wrong can only be determined within the context of an act. Is robbery wrong? It depends ... Did a hungry man steal bread from a wealthy man? Did the murderer act in the interests of the common good?

If we can only determine right and wrong by examination of the circumstances after an aggression has occurred, then how would it be possible to establish any moral standards to promote moral behavior and avoid aggressions beforehand? Situational ethics opens a snake pit of unsavory possibilities. Moral behavior involves respect for the life and property of others. If there are exceptions to this, then there are no moral principles to be discovered and lived by, and the legislature is wasting everyone's time and money attempting to define, not to mention provide, moral education.

MORAL EDUCATION: Where Sages Fear To Tread.

Purpel and Ryan appear to be the most quoted authors in the legislature's political efforts to promote "moral education," and co-incidently, "civic and ethical values" in the public school system. In another article Purpel and Ryan readily admit to the philosophical dangers of moral indoctrination. They say:

While surely not satisfying everyone, our definition for moral education is a fairly straightforward one. 'Moral education' is direct and indirect intervention of the school which affects both moral behavior and the capacity to think about issues of right and wrong. Our definition is broad in two directions. First, we wish to encompass not only the direct, overt efforts of the school to help the child become a more moral individual, but also the indirect, covert, or hidden efforts which influence the student as a moral being.

We need to confront the questions of which issues to present to students. Original sin? The moral dimensions of the Vietnam war? The petty thievery in Miss Grundy's third-grade classroom? We also need to reflect on how students should deal with moral issues. With cold, hard logic? Empirically? Using intuition? With feelings? Most important, we have to face the issue of developing a set or sets of moral guidelines. Should they be situational? Developmental? Marxist? Judeo-Christian? Pragmatic? Or relativist??

Notice the author's poorly hidden bias against logical processes as a method of determining what is moral. They don't list logic as one possible route, they list "cold, hard logic," as an option. Without exception, every tyrant in history has gained power and slaughtered millions with illogical ideology. What Hitler a rational, logical man?

Purpel and Ryan, in summing up their arguments, imply that moral education is not only unavoidable, but is a professional duty.

We must deal with our commitment to both our own personal moral behavior and our role as moral educators ... As professionals we can combine our own moral development with our task of involving students in a mutual quest for moral insight.

LET'S NOT FORGET CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

In an article in the National School Boards Association's in-house newsletter, Brenda Z. Greene provides more ammunition for political leadership in moral education. Green quotes a Carnegie Foundation report:

Civics used to be a mainstay in the high school: recently it has declined. Civic illiteracy is spreading, and unless we find better ways to educate ourselves as citizens, we run the risk of drifting unwittingly into a new kind of Dark Age -- a time when, increasingly, specialists will control knowledge and the decision-making process.

The dark ages described here is a time when bureaucrats will have less information about what resourceful, productive and inventive people are doing, and will thereby suffer a subsequent loss of control over these people. However, to the creative and productive people, it will be an age of enlightenment.

Green, after using Webster's Dictionary to define "civics" as "a social science dealing with the rights and duties of citizens," raises numerous questions as to how citizenship will be taught.

In essence, will students learn citizenship by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, memorizing the Bill of Rights, paying attention to the electoral process every four years, and completing a U.S. government course in high school? Or is something more needed if students are to learn how to exercise their rights and duties as citizens responsibly?

1. Authority

2. Privacy

3. Responsibility

4. Justice

5. Freedom

6. Property

7. Diversity

8. Participation

In a press release, accompanied with much fanfare, California Superintendent of Schools, Bill Honig declared his absolute support for "ethics and civic values education." He cited the usual opinion polls that suggested that parents wanted more instruction in ethics in the schools (again, no mention of parents wanting more civic values instruction), and then, he let the cat out of the bag.

Honig cited data on voting patterns showing low voter participation in elections. "I am convinced that the success of our democratic society depends upon our doing a better job of teaching civic values ..."

Or, in the words of Senator Robert Presley, a co-sponsor of civic values legislation, civic values education is necessary because of ... "Low voter participation and disinterest in government among the young."

The long and painful evolution of political philosophy has lead from people being ruled by kings with Devine sanction, to our modern "new age", where we are still ruled, but now we are allowed to chose our rulers through various democratic systems. What is never explained is the inherent contradiction in democracy; if individuals aren't capable of ruling themselves, how could they be capable of making proper choices when selecting their rulers through democratic systems?

Democracy depends upon voters, so politicians like a good turnout on election day. They feel loved, needed, and above all, legitimate. The less votes cast, the thinner the ice upon which they build their whole premise of populist authority. There is an undercurrent of dis-ease, a nagging fear among the ruling elite that "representative government" will be exposed as little more than a fancy version of mob rule. This will become increasingly apparent as more voters ignore the candidates.

The following appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle under the title TRENDNOTES, by John Naisbitt.

It's official now. The voter turnout in the 1984 presidential election was the lowest of any country in the world with free elections. We used to be second lowest to Botswana, but the 52.4 percent turnout made us the new world champion at staying away from the polls. Some people no doubt will think this is scandalous, calling for get-the-vote-out drives. It's really very good news in a sense. In some countries, who is elected leader is a life-or-death matter. In the U.S., who is elected president does not directly affect our personal lives very much. We can expect most voters to shun the polls and for the U.S. to retain its title.

In a news article on low voter turnout, Dan Dougherty of Kentfield California, pointed out that of the nations of the world, the U.S. and Switzerland have consistently had the lowest voter participation. However, Dougherty noted, these two countries also rank highest in their commitment to the rights of the individual. He said "It is our loyalty to the principles of the Declaration of Independence which safeguards our freedom, not the promise of 'strong new leadership' in a voters handbook."

If the politicos in California have their way with SB 191, the public schools will increase the indoctrination of young people in the divisive art of "civic values", at the expense of true ethical and moral values. SB 191 is a desperate attempt to keep the myth alive -- the myth that the American people are their own government. Of course this propaganda campaign will be financed by its own victims, the American taxpayer.