An Empire of Idiots

Like is so often the case when I'm reading work by Orson Scott Card, I find him writing exactly the thoughts that I'm so often mulling over but unable to express properly. I could do commentary on quotes from his work forever--I just read the short stories collection First Meetings in Ender's Universe, and there was some excellent material in that--but what I find to be most interesting at the moment is a quote from one of his more recent books, Empire, which I just started today after my AP Stats final.

The main character, at least as far as I've gotten, Reuben Malich, comments that Princeton University suffers from exactly the same problem that I personally think our whole education system suffers from--"In class after class, seminar after seminar, he learned that far too many students were determined to remain ignorant of any real-world data that didn't fit their preconceived notions." In my opinion, educators don't help matters either.

No matter how many times you hear teachers tell you that their class will be different, that they'll teach you to defy conventional thought, enrich your mind, prepare you for the mental rigor of college and adult life--the truth will always remain that they are still force-feeding you the same tired thoughts and ideaologies that American school children have been learning for generations. Sometimes the facts or materials might change slightly, but the points and lessons are nearly always the same.

Think about it--for how many years have students sat in the same kind of desk, in the same kind of row, looking at the same kind of notes on the same kind of chalkboard. The only REAL difference is that now the learning is based entirely on standardized testing, and as far as developments go--that was a bad one.

One great example in the school has to be the fact that high school English students continue to read almost exclusively the "classics"--books which we often rever for their deft handling of ideas that were radical hundreds of years ago, but have seeped deep enough into society to mold our common thoughts and preconceptions. Not that some of these texts shouldn't be read--of course they should, they remain some of the best WRITING ever--but why don't contemporary students ever read some of the brilliant contemporary literature available that deals with modern issues? Is it that the students aren't mentally "ready" for these complex thoughts, or that teachers haven't adequately prepared us?

Think about it--unless you've actively sought out classes that deal with contemporary issues (at DGN classes like Poli Sci and Issues in World Cultural Geography come to mind) than you probably haven't been confronted with all that much modern radical thinking. In fact, it seems pretty likely that the history of the civil war has stayed somewhat the same over the past 100 years, not to mention over the course of the 3 or 4 times students have been taught about it. Classes, particularly gen. ed. and overarching subjects like "world cultures," "(insert type here) history," and "English Literature," often deal with modern world issues little or not at all.

Why is that? If school is supposed to be preparing students to step into the real world and be enlightened, effective thinkers, shouldn't it make sense to verse them in what is important in the world that they live in? In this case, I think schools can be considered partially responsible for contributing to the modern trend of ignorance that then breeds hatred and intolerance. For instance--if students aren't taught WHY other countries hate us, what's to stop them from getting caught up with misguided patriotic revelry? If we are meant to question our leaders and actually participate in our democracy, shouldn't we know what is applicable now, rather than the literal text of the constitution, which was written over 200 years ago and is now liberally interpreted--even by Republicans? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

Even though Orson Scott Card's Empire thusfar deals with a character who is coming down on what he not-so-gracefully refers to as "crazy leftists," there is a valid point to be made. In my personal opinion, ANYONE who considers themself specifically "republican" or "democrat" is bordering a line of ignorance and sheer stupidity. The point that Card makes, whether you're more of a liberal or conservative thinker, is valid. Whatever you identify yourself as is probably based primarily on the teachings of your parents, older siblings, adult church and activity leaders, and yes--teachers. While they may make valid points, how can you ever say that they are infallible and most certainly right? Don't take their beliefs as preconceived notions. Throw out the political labels that lead to such childish infighting and disagreement. What does "democrat" or "republican" mean besides narrowminded? Consider the fact that sometimes, in fact quite often, NEITHER side has it all figured out.