Moral Health

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS stands as one of the greatest wrongs of modernity, where sheer physical violence is not involved. Political correctness masquerades as a deep and abiding measure of respect. In point of fact, however, it is often none other than a horrendous form of condescension or crass hypocrisy. For example, in the name of political correctness it is deemed in appropriate to indicate that a foreign student has an inadequate command of the English language; and it is deemed racist to subject the writing of a minority student to constructive criticism. In both of these cases, one is deemed to somewhat racist.

Now, to be sure, there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to criticize a foreign student or a minority student.  But it is just plain ridiculous to maintain that in criticizing a foreign or minority student that one is automatically racist.  But that is one of the cornerstones of political correctness.

It is also the case that in the name of political correctness, it is deemed inappropriate to talk about Muslim terrorists as if it is equally common that there are Jewish and Christian groups equally committed to performing acts of terrorism.  To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing among Jews and Christians that is equivalent to the Taliban, which is Muslim.  Again, whereas Muslim leaders issue from time to time what is known as a fatwa, whereby this or that harm may be done to this or that group of individuals (such as those who drink alcoholic beverages or certain non-Muslim women) is authorized, there is no analogous practice among either Jews or Christians.

Political correctness is as destructive to truth as heat is to ice.  And no society can flourish if truth is routinely discounted—nay, if telling the truth is automatically seen as some sort of vice.  As I often indicate, one of my favorite biblical passages reads the following: “Unto everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun” (Ecclesiastics 3:1).  To state the obvious, the constructive criticism of a person should typically be done in private rather than in public.

Finally, it would seem that political correctness is inimical to statistical probability based upon the reality of what has transpired over a significant period of time.  Statistical probabilities are a problem only when we are ideologically committed to the statistics being the way they are.

I vividly remember the fact that many Americans, black and white alike, thought that Lisa Stansfield was a black women given the tonality with which she sang her hit song “All Around the World”.  As it happens, she is a white English woman.  Was there any racism or bias here?  Absolutely not.  No one thought to protest that she was white woman who sounded like a black woman singing as she sang the song  All Around the World (MP3)

The deep, deep wrong of political correctness lies in the fact that it typically treats warranted statistical generalizations as if they are none other than biased negative stereotypes.  The mark of a negative stereotype is that in view of all the relevant facts available an unwarranted assessment is nonetheless made.  For example, if all that we know is that for the first time in over 75 years a killing took place at a mall which regularly attracts in rather equal proportions people from every ethnic group and someone immediately supposes that the murderer had to be a person of ethnic group E, then it would seem that a negative stereotype has been invoked.  By contrast, if we learn that late at night someone was killed in the very middle of a black neighborhood, it is more than reasonable to think that it is rather likely that the murderer is black and the victim is black, since it is highly unlikely that a non-black will be in the middle of a black neighborhood late at night.

Whereas stereotypes tend to ignore information that is immediately present, warranted statistical generalizations are very much based upon the available evidence.  My favorite neutral example in this regard is the following: Anyone holding an American passport flying out of a non-English speaking country in Europe will be spoken to in English.  The reason for this is very simple: Given the facts based upon years of experience, it is the extremely rare American, indeed, who can fluently converse in a non-English language about matters of security.

As I have said, political correctness makes the mistake of treating all negative statistical generalizations and certain cultural ones as racist.  Consequently, political correctness entails that the truth in these instances must either be denied or in some way set aside.  Political correctness supposes that doing so is tantamount to ending prejudice.  Alas, there is no evidence whatsoever that such is the case.  Here is a quite interesting observation in that regard.  Political correctness has it that we do not criticize blacks and that we do not criticize Asians.  But guess what?  Asians have very little respect for the intellectual abilities of blacks.  But since neither group can be constructively criticized, it turns out that many, many blacks will continue in the ways that inclines Asians to look down upon blacks.  This is one of the poignant and ever so bitter fruits of political correctness.

© 2013 Laurence Thomas

In the era of yesteryear, young people were taught to respect adults.  Thus, it was once possible for just about any adult to make the following remark to a child about her or his behavior: “Little girl/boy that is not nice thing to do”.  And the child would politely say “Yes ma’am/sir.  I am sorry”.  And during that era, teachers had special standing.  Indeed, the standing of teachers was so great that it would not occur to a child to run home and complain to her or his parents that she had been punished by her or his teacher.  This is because it was quite customary for the parents to side with the teacher.  Indeed, there is a respect in which teachers were considered to be the parents away from home.

In the era of yesteryear, bullying still occurred.  But in that era a teacher could step in and stop the inappropriate behavior that was taking place.  We all remember the story of Karen Huff Klein who was viciously bullied on a bus.  Well, in the area of yesteryear, that kind of bullying of an adult supervisor was simply out of the question.

Since the days of yesteryear, the moral standing of teachers has declined precipitously.  To begin with, teachers are no longer considered to be parents away from home; and from this it automatically follows that there is an important measure of respect that students simply do not owe their teachers.  Needless to say, a classroom climate in which teachers are no longer deemed to be owed a measure of respect akin to respect for parents is enormously fertile soil for bullying.  This is because schools have become akin to a morality free-zone.

To be sure, schools have lots and lots rules against bullying.  What is more, there are lots and lots of zero tolerance policies.  But the backdrop of both these policies and rules is none other than a penalty—and not a moral attitude of deep respect for teachers that both parents and society have.  Indeed, the very point of these policies is that teachers are not to make moral judgments regarding a child’s behavior.  For example, if a 7-year old child’s sandwich looks like a bit like a gun, then the child gets punished.  End of story.  The teacher cannot bring commonsense to the moment.  Not at all.  The same holds if a 7-year old child spontaneously kisses another child.  That child is to be punished for sexual harassment.

In the era of yesteryear, it was expected by parents that teachers would make decent judgments regarding the behavior of the students in their classes.  In effect, what has happened is that parents have declared that teachers should no longer make moral judgments about the behavior of students.  In the name of political correctness, parents have declared schools a morality free zone.  It is not the place of teachers to make moral judgments about their students.  It is against the backdrop of that simple moral reality that bullying in schools has come to be so prevalent among school students.

Now, to be sure, teacher are themselves part of the problem in that they have become far more interested in their pension benefits than the quality of their teaching.  But in contemporary society the attitude of parents and the attitude of teachers go hand-in-hand in creating an environment for students that diminishes the relevance of moral judgments in the classroom.  This is why there has been an increase interest in private schools.  Nowadays, there are lots of non-Catholic parents who have an interest in sending their children to Catholic schools for an education.  This is because in Catholic schools moral attitudes on the part of instructors are held to be an inextricable part of the educational experience of children.

Teaching at its best enables students to understand why they should follow and how they should interpret various moral rules even while education is taking place.  Mere anti-bulling policies simply punish a student for exhibiting a certain kind of behavior all the while making entirely irrelevant the vast moral differences that there might be for engaging in that behavior.

The irony, then, is this: We cannot take people seriously morally if in point of fact we render entirely irrelevant all differences in the motivations for their behavior.  What is more, if we render entirely all differences in the motivations for their behavior, then we cannot instill in children the virtue of taking one another seriously morally.  What makes the Karen Klein so disconcerting is not just that she was so horrendously disrespected, but the reality that if children could so behave towards an adult, then it follows all the more so that they could so behave towards one another.  And indeed they do.

© 2013 Laurence Thomas

Technology can be extremely useful.  No one in her or his right mind can deny that.  Technology has facilitated communication, the exchange of ideas, and obtaining information way beyond anything most full-fledge adults would ever have imagined a mere 15 years ago.  That so is obvious that there is no need to belabor the point.  The question that I should like to consider is whether or not technology tremendously facilitates teaching.

I shall argue that technology is not the asset to teaching that so many seem to suppose that it is.  In particular, technology is not at all the major factor in the matter of enriching the classroom experience as so many individuals nowadays seem to suppose that it is.

Of course, technology can be an asset, as the use of power-point makes abundantly clear.  Unfortunately, there is a respect in which the use of power-point can undermine the richness of teaching, as instructors get too absorbed in their power-point presentation.  In this regard, I jokingly say to students that in so many instances students can take off their clothes have sex and put their clothes back on without the instructor noticing.  I always get a laugh out of that remark.  Of course, I have clearly overstated the case.  But the point I am making is way too clear, namely that in using power-point way too many instructors lose sight of the students in the class.

Teaching is not just about disseminating information.  No, teaching at its best is about engaging students to think.  A medical student told that most of his contemporaries do not attend class because the material is posted on blackboard. This observation brings me to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC).

With a MOOC course, thousands of individuals can take the same course from the same professor.  And in some instances that might be just fine.  If folks are interested in acquiring general knowledge about various things such as how to plant flowers or how the universe evolved or the fundamental differences between various species, it is clear that a MOOC course can be quite useful.

It is a grave mistake, however, to confuse a Massive Open Online Course with genuine teaching.  For one thing, with a MOOC there can be no direct student-instructor engagement.  For another, there cannot be the kind of engagement in the classroom that transforms the classroom because everyone in the class can sense that the topic under discussion means far more to everyone than anyone had initially supposed would be the case.  Thirdly, with a MOOC course, a professor cannot intellectually affirm a student in the way that the professor can do in the classroom where she or he can directly interact with the students.

Two semesters ago in my Philosophy 191 at Syracuse University the topic was death.  Well, student in the 400-person Grant Auditorium spoke with extraordinary majesty and grace about having lost both of her parents.  No one saw that remark coming.  The entire class was absolutely riveted and transformed by what she said.  There is simply no way in which a MOOC course could have yielded an analogous experience.  Either no student in a MOOC course would make the remark or, if a student did do so, the remark would not have the impact that it did in Philosophy 191 two semesters ago.

In teaching about parental love, I once read in class a set of remark by a student regarding how much he meant to his parents.  Just about everyone was moved to tears.  In that same class, a student asserted that only Latino people should adopt Latino infants.  Well, for the first time ever, my class backed off of political correctness.  At least 389 individuals held the view that parental love trumps ethnicity.  Our seeing that assessment play itself out in real time was none other than a tremendous moral and intellectual gift for all to witness.

Teaching at its very best is about the experience of intellectual affirmation whilst learning.  Sometimes that affirmation is planned or at least reasonably anticipated.  Alas, there so very many cases when such affirmation is entirely unanticipated.  The right question or comment at the right time can absolutely transform the class, giving students a depth of either inspiration or insight that will serve them well for many years in the future.  MOOC courses are not at all conducive to that kind of affirmation.

Finally, there is the issue of letters of reference.  With MOOC courses, letters of references will simply become obsolete.  It should already be clear as to why that is so, namely there is no interaction between the professor and the student for whom the professor has written the letter.  No institution wants a letter in which the professor says no more about the student that the student earned a grade of “A”.  After all, that information can be learned from merely reading the student’s transcript.  A meaningful letter of reference talks about the student’s ideas: their richness and their depth and their applicability.  A meaningful letter of reference also talks about the student’s character; and insight into a person’s character can be richly obtained from observing her or his non-verbal behavior throughout the semester—something which is impossible with someone who is a student by way of a MOOC course.  Again, an MOOC course will not allow that special insight into a student’s character that only comes about as a result of knowing the student.

The above considerations tell us two things that surely we already know, namely that nothing can replace a human’s genuine affirmation of a person and nothing can replace a human’s observation and appreciation of the excellence that a person exhibits, be that excellence intellectual or moral or both.

I am a big believer in technology; and I make use of it on a regular basis.  But in the spirit of Solomon: “Unto everything there is a season”.  If we reduce teaching to merely transmitting information, as will surely be the case with MOOC courses, then we radically change education for the worse.  There is a respect in which teaching is like the parent-child relationship.  In either case, there is nothing whatsoever that can substitute for direct interpersonal interaction, with all that this implies in terms of the parties involved witnessing and experiencing the non-verbal behavior of the parties interacting with one another.

© 2013 Laurence Thomas

Technology can be extremely useful.  No one in her or his right mind can deny that.  Technology has facilitated communication, the exchange of ideas, and obtaining information way beyond anything most full-fledge adults would ever have imagined a mere 15 years ago.  That so is obvious that there is no need to belabor the point.  The question that I should like to consider is whether or not technology tremendously facilitates teaching.

I shall argue that technology is not the asset to teaching that so many seem to suppose that it is.  In particular, technology is not at all the major factor in the matter of enriching the classroom experience as so many individuals nowadays seem to suppose that it is.

Of course, technology can be an asset, as the use of power-point makes abundantly clear.  Unfortunately, there is a respect in which the use of power-point can undermine the richness of teaching, as instructors get too absorbed in their power-point presentation.  In this regard, I jokingly say to students that in so many instances students can take off their clothes have sex and put their clothes back on without the instructor noticing.  I always get a laugh out of that remark.  Of course, I have clearly overstated the case.  But the point I am making is way too clear, namely that in using power-point way too many instructors lose sight of the students in the class.

Teaching is not just about disseminating information.  No, teaching at its best is about engaging students to think.  A medical student told that most of his contemporaries do not attend class because the material is posted on blackboard. This observation brings me to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC).

With a MOOC course, thousands of individuals can take the same course from the same professor.  And in some instances that might be just fine.  If folks are interested in acquiring general knowledge about various things such as how to plant flowers or how the universe evolved or the fundamental differences between various species, it is clear that a MOOC course can be quite useful.

It is a grave mistake, however, to confuse a Massive Open Online Course with genuine teaching.  For one thing, with a MOOC there can be no direct student-instructor engagement.  For another, there cannot be the kind of engagement in the classroom that transforms the classroom because everyone in the class can sense that the topic under discussion means far more to everyone than anyone had initially supposed would be the case.  Thirdly, with a MOOC course, a professor cannot intellectually affirm a student in the way that the professor can do in the classroom where she or he can directly interact with the students.

Two semesters ago in my Philosophy 191 at Syracuse University the topic was death.  Well, student in the 400-person Grant Auditorium spoke with extraordinary majesty and grace about having lost both of her parents.  No one saw that remark coming.  The entire class was absolutely riveted and transformed by what she said.  There is simply no way in which a MOOC course could have yielded an analogous experience.  Either no student in a MOOC course would make the remark or, if a student did do so, the remark would not have the impact that it did in Philosophy 191 two semesters ago.

In teaching about parental love, I once read in class a set of remark by a student regarding how much he meant to his parents.  Just about everyone was moved to tears.  In that same class, a student asserted that only Latino people should adopt Latino infants.  Well, for the first time ever, my class backed off of political correctness.  At least 389 individuals held the view that parental love trumps ethnicity.  Our seeing that assessment play itself out in real time was none other than a tremendous moral and intellectual gift for all to witness.

Teaching at its very best is about the experience of intellectual affirmation whilst learning.  Sometimes that affirmation is planned or at least reasonably anticipated.  Alas, there so very many cases when such affirmation is entirely unanticipated.  The right question or comment at the right time can absolutely transform the class, giving students a depth of either inspiration or insight that will serve them well for many years in the future.  MOOC courses are not at all conducive to that kind of affirmation.

Finally, there is the issue of letters of reference.  With MOOC courses, letters of references will simply become obsolete.  It should already be clear as to why that is so, namely there is no interaction between the professor and the student for whom the professor has written the letter.  No institution wants a letter in which the professor says no more about the student that the student earned a grade of “A”.  After all, that information can be learned from merely reading the student’s transcript.  A meaningful letter of reference talks about the student’s ideas: their richness and their depth and their applicability.  A meaningful letter of reference also talks about the student’s character; and insight into a person’s character can be richly obtained from observing her or his non-verbal behavior throughout the semester—something which is impossible with someone who is a student by way of a MOOC course.  Again, an MOOC course will not allow that special insight into a student’s character that only comes about as a result of knowing the student.

The above considerations tell us two things that surely we already know, namely that nothing can replace a human’s genuine affirmation of a person and nothing can replace a human’s observation and appreciation of the excellence that a person exhibits, be that excellence intellectual or moral or both.

I am a big believer in technology; and I make use of it on a regular basis.  But in the spirit of Solomon: “Unto everything there is a season”.  If we reduce teaching to merely transmitting information, as will surely be the case with MOOC courses, then we radically change education for the worse.  There is a respect in which teaching is like the parent-child relationship.  In either case, there is nothing whatsoever that can substitute for direct interpersonal interaction, with all that this implies in terms of the parties involved witnessing and experiencing the non-verbal behavior of the parties interacting with one another.

© 2013 Laurence Thomas

Technology can be extremely useful.  No one in her or his right mind can deny that.  Technology has facilitated communication, the exchange of ideas, and obtaining information way beyond anything most full-fledge adults would ever have imagined a mere 15 years ago.  That so is obvious that there is no need to belabor the point.  The question that I should like to consider is whether or not technology tremendously facilitates teaching.

I shall argue that technology is not the asset to teaching that so many seem to suppose that it is.  In particular, technology is not at all the major factor in the matter of enriching the classroom experience as so many individuals nowadays seem to suppose that it is.

Of course, technology can be an asset, as the use of power-point makes abundantly clear.  Unfortunately, there is a respect in which the use of power-point can undermine the richness of teaching, as instructors get too absorbed in their power-point presentation.  In this regard, I jokingly say to students that in so many instances students can take off their clothes have sex and put their clothes back on without the instructor noticing.  I always get a laugh out of that remark.  Of course, I have clearly overstated the case.  But the point I am making is way too clear, namely that in using power-point way too many instructors lose sight of the students in the class.

Teaching is not just about disseminating information.  No, teaching at its best is about engaging students to think.  A medical student told that most of his contemporaries do not attend class because the material is posted on blackboard. This observation brings me to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC).

With a MOOC course, thousands of individuals can take the same course from the same professor.  And in some instances that might be just fine.  If folks are interested in acquiring general knowledge about various things such as how to plant flowers or how the universe evolved or the fundamental differences between various species, it is clear that a MOOC course can be quite useful.

It is a grave mistake, however, to confuse a Massive Open Online Course with genuine teaching.  For one thing, with a MOOC there can be no direct student-instructor engagement.  For another, there cannot be the kind of engagement in the classroom that transforms the classroom because everyone in the class can sense that the topic under discussion means far more to everyone than anyone had initially supposed would be the case.  Thirdly, with a MOOC course, a professor cannot intellectually affirm a student in the way that the professor can do in the classroom where she or he can directly interact with the students.

Two semesters ago in my Philosophy 191 at Syracuse University the topic was death.  Well, student in the 400-person Grant Auditorium spoke with extraordinary majesty and grace about having lost both of her parents.  No one saw that remark coming.  The entire class was absolutely riveted and transformed by what she said.  There is simply no way in which a MOOC course could have yielded an analogous experience.  Either no student in a MOOC course would make the remark or, if a student did do so, the remark would not have the impact that it did in Philosophy 191 two semesters ago.

In teaching about parental love, I once read in class a set of remark by a student regarding how much he meant to his parents.  Just about everyone was moved to tears.  In that same class, a student asserted that only Latino people should adopt Latino infants.  Well, for the first time ever, my class backed off of political correctness.  At least 389 individuals held the view that parental love trumps ethnicity.  Our seeing that assessment play itself out in real time was none other than a tremendous moral and intellectual gift for all to witness.

Teaching at its very best is about the experience of intellectual affirmation whilst learning.  Sometimes that affirmation is planned or at least reasonably anticipated.  Alas, there so very many cases when such affirmation is entirely unanticipated.  The right question or comment at the right time can absolutely transform the class, giving students a depth of either inspiration or insight that will serve them well for many years in the future.  MOOC courses are not at all conducive to that kind of affirmation.

Finally, there is the issue of letters of reference.  With MOOC courses, letters of references will simply become obsolete.  It should already be clear as to why that is so, namely there is no interaction between the professor and the student for whom the professor has written the letter.  No institution wants a letter in which the professor says no more about the student that the student earned a grade of “A”.  After all, that information can be learned from merely reading the student’s transcript.  A meaningful letter of reference talks about the student’s ideas: their richness and their depth and their applicability.  A meaningful letter of reference also talks about the student’s character; and insight into a person’s character can be richly obtained from observing her or his non-verbal behavior throughout the semester—something which is impossible with someone who is a student by way of a MOOC course.  Again, an MOOC course will not allow that special insight into a student’s character that only comes about as a result of knowing the student.

The above considerations tell us two things that surely we already know, namely that nothing can replace a human’s genuine affirmation of a person and nothing can replace a human’s observation and appreciation of the excellence that a person exhibits, be that excellence intellectual or moral or both.

I am a big believer in technology; and I make use of it on a regular basis.  But in the spirit of Solomon: “Unto everything there is a season”.  If we reduce teaching to merely transmitting information, as will surely be the case with MOOC courses, then we radically change education for the worse.  There is a respect in which teaching is like the parent-child relationship.  In either case, there is nothing whatsoever that can substitute for direct interpersonal interaction, with all that this implies in terms of the parties involved witnessing and experiencing the non-verbal behavior of the parties interacting with one another.

© 2013 Laurence Thomas

Technology can be extremely useful.  No one in her or his right mind can deny that.  Technology has facilitated communication, the exchange of ideas, and obtaining information way beyond anything most full-fledge adults would ever have imagined a mere 15 years ago.  That so is obvious that there is no need to belabor the point.  The question that I should like to consider is whether or not technology tremendously facilitates teaching.

I shall argue that technology is not the asset to teaching that so many seem to suppose that it is.  In particular, technology is not at all the major factor in the matter of enriching the classroom experience as so many individuals nowadays seem to suppose that it is.

Of course, technology can be an asset, as the use of power-point makes abundantly clear.  Unfortunately, there is a respect in which the use of power-point can undermine the richness of teaching, as instructors get too absorbed in their power-point presentation.  In this regard, I jokingly say to students that in so many instances students can take off their clothes have sex and put their clothes back on without the instructor noticing.  I always get a laugh out of that remark.  Of course, I have clearly overstated the case.  But the point I am making is way too clear, namely that in using power-point way too many instructors lose sight of the students in the class.

Teaching is not just about disseminating information.  No, teaching at its best is about engaging students to think.  A medical student told that most of his contemporaries do not attend class because the material is posted on blackboard. This observation brings me to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC).

With a MOOC course, thousands of individuals can take the same course from the same professor.  And in some instances that might be just fine.  If folks are interested in acquiring general knowledge about various things such as how to plant flowers or how the universe evolved or the fundamental differences between various species, it is clear that a MOOC course can be quite useful.

It is a grave mistake, however, to confuse a Massive Open Online Course with genuine teaching.  For one thing, with a MOOC there can be no direct student-instructor engagement.  For another, there cannot be the kind of engagement in the classroom that transforms the classroom because everyone in the class can sense that the topic under discussion means far more to everyone than anyone had initially supposed would be the case.  Thirdly, with a MOOC course, a professor cannot intellectually affirm a student in the way that the professor can do in the classroom where she or he can directly interact with the students.

Two semesters ago in my Philosophy 191 at Syracuse University the topic was death.  Well, student in the 400-person Grant Auditorium spoke with extraordinary majesty and grace about having lost both of her parents.  No one saw that remark coming.  The entire class was absolutely riveted and transformed by what she said.  There is simply no way in which a MOOC course could have yielded an analogous experience.  Either no student in a MOOC course would make the remark or, if a student did do so, the remark would not have the impact that it did in Philosophy 191 two semesters ago.

In teaching about parental love, I once read in class a set of remark by a student regarding how much he meant to his parents.  Just about everyone was moved to tears.  In that same class, a student asserted that only Latino people should adopt Latino infants.  Well, for the first time ever, my class backed off of political correctness.  At least 389 individuals held the view that parental love trumps ethnicity.  Our seeing that assessment play itself out in real time was none other than a tremendous moral and intellectual gift for all to witness.

Teaching at its very best is about the experience of intellectual affirmation whilst learning.  Sometimes that affirmation is planned or at least reasonably anticipated.  Alas, there so very many cases when such affirmation is entirely unanticipated.  The right question or comment at the right time can absolutely transform the class, giving students a depth of either inspiration or insight that will serve them well for many years in the future.  MOOC courses are not at all conducive to that kind of affirmation.

Finally, there is the issue of letters of reference.  With MOOC courses, letters of references will simply become obsolete.  It should already be clear as to why that is so, namely there is no interaction between the professor and the student for whom the professor has written the letter.  No institution wants a letter in which the professor says no more about the student that the student earned a grade of “A”.  After all, that information can be learned from merely reading the student’s transcript.  A meaningful letter of reference talks about the student’s ideas: their richness and their depth and their applicability.  A meaningful letter of reference also talks about the student’s character; and insight into a person’s character can be richly obtained from observing her or his non-verbal behavior throughout the semester—something which is impossible with someone who is a student by way of a MOOC course.  Again, an MOOC course will not allow that special insight into a student’s character that only comes about as a result of knowing the student.

The above considerations tell us two things that surely we already know, namely that nothing can replace a human’s genuine affirmation of a person and nothing can replace a human’s observation and appreciation of the excellence that a person exhibits, be that excellence intellectual or moral or both.

I am a big believer in technology; and I make use of it on a regular basis.  But in the spirit of Solomon: “Unto everything there is a season”.  If we reduce teaching to merely transmitting information, as will surely be the case with MOOC courses, then we radically change education for the worse.  There is a respect in which teaching is like the parent-child relationship.  In either case, there is nothing whatsoever that can substitute for direct interpersonal interaction, with all that this implies in terms of the parties involved witnessing and experiencing the non-verbal behavior of the parties interacting with one another.

© 2013 Laurence Thomas

Freedom is an Extraordinary Good.  Freedom without responsibility, however, is an absolute disaster.  The problem with modern democracies is that the emphasis is emplaced almost entirely upon freedom and people utterly lose sight of the importance of responsibility.  Indeed, blaming people has become such a routine practice that we commonly see an individual blaming others for the utterly stupid mistake that she or he made.  It is certainly common for people to blame their ridiculous behavior on none other than the fact that everyone else was so behaving.

If one looks at American politics, for example, the extent to which the parties on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, engage in blaming one another is utterly stupefying.  Indeed, if politicians were as creative in their work as they are in blaming one another, then surely a considerable amount of work would actually get done.

Another striking example of blame having reached ridiculous heights is with education in the public schools.  On the one hand, the power of teachers to correct and chastise students has been all but taken away from them.  On the other, teachers are blamed for the failure to educate children adequately.  No one seems to notice the obvious fact that excellence in instruction goes hand-in-hand with a considerable measure of discipline in the classroom.

According to Nathaniel J. Fast and Larissa Z. Tiedens of Stanford University, blaming others is contagious in that individuals are more likely to blame others if they are around individuals who blame others.  This should not be too surprising if only because it is perhaps natural for individuals to want to avoid being any worse-off than others.  And blaming others is a way of minimizing the extent to one which is judge to be worse off than others.

An interesting downside, though, is that a world in which we can so readily blame others is also a world in which we must push ourselves so much harder in order in order to succeed.  This is precisely because the critical scrutiny that once was commonplace is no longer there.  And while there are indeed some individuals who are so self-motivated that they would be excellent although they should find themselves alone on a dessert island, the truth of the matter is that most individuals need a little nudging from others.  And one such source of nudging used to be none other than the fact that the person would be subjected to the critical eye of others, it being understood that blaming others afforded her or him little, if any, refuge.

The preceding remark brings us back to freedom.  We all know the famous line from in the “A Few Good Men” that Jack Nicholson uttered “You want the truth?  You can’t handle the truth”.  In a like manner, while everyone wants freedom, the reality is that most of us cannot really handle freedom.  That is, upon being given complete freedom, the ever so poignant truth is that most of us will not be ever so committed to the pursuit of excellence.  It is this reality that modern democracy cannot handle.

The simple truth of the matter is that there is no positive and formal correlation between freedom and responsibility.  And owing to the fact that nowadays blaming others has become so acceptable, the divide between freedom and responsibility has grown so very much wider.  Indeed, people have become far more creative in blaming others for their failures and shortcomings than they have become in being responsible for their lives.

While living in a society that was anything but democratic, Plato mightily grasped what most of us living in a democratic society cannot grasp, namely that democracy, taken all by itself, does not naturally veer towards individual excellence.  We need only to look around us in order to see that Plato is absolutely and unequivocally right.

© 2013 Laurence Thomas

Evil People Commit Egregious acts of wrongdoing.  There is no one skin color that has a monopoly on morally good behavior.  There is no one skin color that has a monopoly on evil.  In Upstate New York, a white male killed a white woman, Ms. Lori Bresnahan, and raped the woman’s 10-year old daughter who is also white.  In Georgia, two black teenagers, one of whom is identified as De’Marquise Elkins, killed an 11-month old infant.  In either case, we have a truly tremendous wrong that was done.  Most importantly, the gravity of the wrong does not increase or decrease if we change the ethnic make-up of either the wrongdoers or the victims or both.

What is surprising, though, is how often folks want make race a factor, as if one ethnic group is indeed more evil than the other.  In reading comments upon the story about the toddler killed in Georgia, it is striking how often someone leaves comments about blacks being moral buffoons.  In the other direction, there is, of course, the infamous scenario of Treyvon Martin being shot to death by George Zimmerman, with countless many blacks taking it as an indisputable given that Zimmerman was motivated by racism.

From the truth that racism still exists in the American society, it is a serious mistake to take as a case of racism every encounter between members of two different races as an instance of racism if the person of one person kills or seriously harms the person of the other race. That line of thought would be plausible if members of the same race never killed or wronged one another.  But it is an incontrovertible truth that members of the same race wrong one another all the time.  Whites kill whites.  Blacks kill blacks.  And so on.

To be sure, it is certainly possible that we have an instance of racism in the case where a person of one race kills a person of another.  But I am merely pointing out the truth that it is plainly indefensible to suppose that automatically we have a case of racism in such an instance.  Plain and unequivocal evil is quite often an ever so sufficient explanation for why a person of one race kills a person of a different race, where the motivation for the killing has much more to do with crass moral callousness than it does with race.

In a recent blog, I noted the case of a father in France who sexually abused his two daughters.  Between that case in France and the case of David Renz sexually abusing a 10-year old child, I cannot even begin to imagine how anyone would make the case that one is the greater evil.  I say this even as I fully understand that in the case of the father there is some important respect in which we have a greater degree of moral reprehensibility towards the father.  Just so, there is nothing at all even remotely excusable about the David Renz case.  Adding racial differences would not make matters worse.

Speaking of excusableness, the killing of the infant in Georgia does not become more or excusable or comprehensible if we replace the white infant who was killed by the two black teenagers with a black infant who was killed by them.

Are there folks of ethnicity Y who so hate folks of ethnicity Z that the ethnicity Y folks are committed to killing off the folks of ethnicity Z and only the folks of ethnicity Z?  No doubt there are.  And, course, there are the despicable moral individuals who would never kill anyone but who delight in members of this or that ethnic group being killed.  But there black people like and white people like that.  And so on.  Thus, there is no reason to think that there exists some kind of moral inferiority with respect to this or that ethnic group.

The simple reality is that by and large evil is color blind but yet ever so opportunistic.  It often turns out that the very people who claim to have been the victims of vicious racism or evil practices can turn around and do what is utterly vicious either to the members of their ethnic group or to the members of another ethnic group.  Perhaps a most poignant example of this is the practice known as “corrective rape”.  This is when a person who prefers sex with a member of the same sex is raped in order to render the person heterosexual.  Corrective rape is rather common on the part of black males in South Africa, of all places.  One would have thought that the wrong of Apartheid would have been more than sufficient reason for blacks—black males, in particular—to resist such despicable behavior.  Not so, however.  Black-on-black crime is another instance of evil being quite opportunistic.

Alas, what is most disturbing is that acts of evil committed by one individual acting alone against another individual seem to be increasing at an exponential rate.  And that cries out for an explanation.  My thought is that, owing to radical individualism, society no longer serves to reinforce or underwrite the moral consciousness of individuals in the way that it once did.

© 2013 Laurence Thomas