15 ms·

This is the correct move. Students need to learn math, science, history, philosophy, and generally grow in critical thinking. There is instead a lot of indoctri

This is the correct move. Students need to learn math, science, history, philosophy, and generally grow in critical thinking. There is instead a lot of indoctrination being foisted onto their minds, and a lot of it is even anti-American. That is fine for someone to explore on their own time, but institutions of learning becoming centers of indoctrination is a huge no from me.

shadowgovt 3y ago
How does one tell the difference between teaching and indoctrination? Every fundamental hard science started controversial. In some circles, they still are. Do we stop teaching heliocentrism because it's the devil's work? Who decides?
- subtra3t 3y ago
  The topics that you or I consider to be "fundamental hard science" are significantly less controversial than the topics that would normally fall under the category of activism. I'm not saying that controversial ideas should be completely ignored, just that controversy may be an important factor, in the eyes of some, to draw the line between cold hard truths and up-and-coming divisive ideas.
- polski-g 3y ago
  If you start talking about Palestine in your Differential Equations class, that is indoctrination. If you start talking about Jews in your CompSci 102 class, that is indoctrination. There is no reason to talk about anything besides the class, in the class.
  - lapetitejort 3y ago
    Can you point to a curriculum or lecture where that has occurred?
    - polski-g 3y ago
      [dead]
  - itishappy 3y ago
    Can we mention economics in that differential equations class? What about hyperinflation? Specific instances of hyperinflation? Can we mention Einstein in physics 101? His faith and politics is too far, surely, but are they really entirely unrelated to his science? What about Heisenberg? Bohr? Oppenheimer?
    - geodel 3y ago
      Answer is pretty clear. You are bringing them as some sort of trick question. Economics, inflation, hyperinflation calculations can all be related and on topic of differential equations but bringing in *How neoliberal economics is causing hyperinflation does not belong to maths class. One could mention all above physicists and more in Physics class but talking about how Einstein was misogynist would not be topic for Physics class.
      - itishappy 3y ago
        I don't think it's a trick question at all... I think these are standard, everyday, run-of-the-mill questions. Progress is driven entirely by people, and people are often influenced by their messy personal histories. Conflicts, disagreements, and interpersonal relations are deeply entwined with even the hard sciences! Can you imagine the situation in, say, linguistics? Einstein as a misogynist might not be appropriate, but how about as a Jew in Nazi Germany? Is the phrase "God does not play dice with the universe" indoctrination? Can we discuss the Solvay conferences? The first Solvay conference is likely the most important gathering of scientists in modern history. The third? Indoctrination. What about Galileo and the church? I guess my point is that history is messy, and not scientific. Does this mean we should remove dates from science classes?
        sponaugle 3y ago
        It is interesting that you referenced "God does not play dice with the universe". If you were to discuss it, I would suggest discussing what he actually said: "Die Quantenmechanik ist sehr achtung-gebietend. Aber eine innere Stimme sagt mir, daß das doch nicht der wahre Jakob ist. Die Theorie liefert viel, aber dem Geheimnis des Alten bringt sie uns kaum näher. Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der nicht würfelt." There are a number of different translations, but one is: Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice. It is relatively easy to understand both the context and meaning of what Einstein said, especially if you read his numerous other works. The objection to some of the key underpinnings of Quantum Mechanics was something he mentioned a number of times. They key here is that you can explore and understand what Einstein was talking about without digging deep into the meaning of a god, or his view of religion. The concepts of Quantum Mechanics are complicated enough to keep any undergrad or grad student busy for a lifetime.
  - wait_a_minute 3y ago
    100% this. This should not be rocket science. Time to kick out faculty and problematic students that want to make math and comp sci and biology about these types of things. Leave those for politics and philosophy classes where real and meaningful debate can take place.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      There was a time we thought of physics as just a discipline physicists do, detached from the use of the science. Then two cities got wiped off the map in intentional runaway nuclear reactions. A whole generation of physicists learned the hard way that if you don't make hard sciences at least a little like those types of things, you may lack the framework to realize when you're being co-opted into a machine that kills... That "pure" science takes huge moral risks if it believes itself to be detachable from the world it is trying to explore. Credit where credit is due, they responded to the new challenge (https://pugwash.org/ https://pugwash.org/).
      - wait_a_minute 3y ago
        Those two cities getting wiped off the map is not an output of people thinking of physics as a discipline. There is no causal relationship between: p1 - treat physics as a discipline p2 - two cities get wiped off the map There are many more variables that are relevant here, and in times of justified war like WW2 things are different. Consider a war scenario where your physicists spent all their undergraduate study time learning about identity politics and writing political preambles on their papers in order to get their papers even looked at.
        selimthegrim 3y ago
        Go read about Orlov, Sakharov and Khalatnikov, (or Abdus Salam as a bonus track) and see if you can exhibit even an ounce of shame that any one of them felt, and hang your head.
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    Reminds me of Oakland, CA schools doing a walkout protest march when their kids already don't get enough teaching, being one of the worst school districts in the country. What message are you even trying to send? The most history-illiterate has a message you should listen to?
  - selimthegrim 3y ago
    I stopped using a Mir textbook in my differential equations class the day Russia invaded Ukraine. Was that too political for you?
- chongli 3y ago
  Teaching is about encouraging students to ask questions. It's hard because the questions sprout like mushrooms on the forest floor and you may not have the answers, the time, or the patience for all of them. Indoctrination is the opposite: providing stock answers and refusing to elaborate. Using social pressure and authority to shame students and block their questions. Its purpose is to instil deference and obedience -- to enlist more soldiers for war -- not to enrich the spirit.
- wait_a_minute 3y ago
  There is a huge amount of understood science, math, history, philosophy, and critical thinking to teach. It is being replaced with a lot of propaganda instead. When students are going to school and leaving with improved skills, life experiences, networks, and more critical thinking...it's teaching. When students leave with a chip on their shoulder to disrupt the United States and attack its institutions and reputation and even cause problems, without any actual skill acquisition or increase in critical thinking, it's indoctrination.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    What about when it's both, because they learned many things about the United States that make a desire for disruption of the current status quo justified? I think we're deluding ourselves if we think we can give people critical thinking and not have them question the consequences of colonialism, or slavery, or the industrial revolution, or manifest destiny, or homeland security, and which of those consequences should be kept and which should be torn down. (There's a pretty good book on this subject, actually: among other things it touches on, The Myth of the Rational Voter [2007, Bryan Caplan] notes the stark difference in voting habits among those with and without a college education. Does that mean all college education includes indoctrination, or does it mean learning critical thinking causes people to think critically to similar conclusions, or perhaps both? And at another level of abstraction: if you're a policymaker and you want people to vote in the way they tend to do when not college educated, aren't there incentives to cast education itself into doubt?)
diggan 3y ago
"anti-American" is such an interesting term for me. It begs the question of what "American" means, which seems to change with each president. How do you decide what's anti-american and pro-american? The Iraq invasion for example, anti or pro-american?
- subtra3t 3y ago
  I agreed with most of GP's comment, but their use of the word "anti-American" did put me off quite a bit.
  - wait_a_minute 3y ago
    Consider to what extent you're steeped in the mire accumulated from being very-online. If you agreed with everything else, then that should give you pause on why you're so hesitant or resistant to that usage.
    - verve_rat 3y ago
      Or maybe they are aware of pre-online history? The red scare didn't need Facebook to get started.
      - wait_a_minute 3y ago
        Agreeing with everything and then being trained like Pavlov's dogs to hate a word is not the red scare.
    - john-radio 3y ago
      It's that the poster didn't give any supporting comment to their claim that a lot of [the idealogy that is being foisted on the minds?] is "even anti-American". Claiming something is un-American is fine. We're (mostly?) red-blooded Americans here. However, pointing at something and saying it's un-American and expecting the crowd to gasp in horror and join you in denouncing it, is a very clear signal of a Fox-news-or-something-deadened brain.
    - 3y ago
mym1990 3y ago
But one teacher's history is not another teacher's history, and the same for philosophy, and science in some parts of the country/world. Much of the private school system is run by money, and that money comes from people and places that have an interest at heart...it is not just a free giveaway like it may seem sometimes. Take the private funding away, and you have less bias, but now you have underpaid staff. Lose, lose.
- drawkward 3y ago
  >one teacher's history is not another teacher's history, One would think that this is an important point to teach the students. That all histories have bias, even the ones with which you agree.
  - mym1990 3y ago
    Sure, this is a good step in allowing student to explore other teachings and points of view and learning to think for themselves. That is not how most of the education system is built though, it is built to spoon feed a curriculum, no questions asked. This is quite sad because kids and adolescents are naturally very curious.
    - drawkward 3y ago
      In my opinion, drawing on my past experience as a teacher in a very impoverished area, there has to be a sliding scale. Facts are facts; my middle school students were expect to learn long division, but many struggled with addition, some even still counting on their fingers. Phonics, math facts, sentence structure: some of these should be indoctrinated at an early age, so as to enable later on the higher levels of inquiry that represents true intellectual freedom. On the other hand, you have some people trying to sell "woke kindergarten" aaaand...its not going well for the students and their ability to reach academic goals consistent with early primary school.
      - wait_a_minute 3y ago
        [flagged]
bena 3y ago
Describe the indoctrination you think is taking place currently.
- wait_a_minute 3y ago
  An entire generation is being taught to be passive and to ignore threats at the border or abroad. Elite institutions like Harvard are currently ousting some faculty members who foment anti-semitism in this modern age. It is more common to see hot takes against the SCOTUS and Constitution and secure borders from uninformed youth than any realistic takes. They learn these things from someone.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    > Ignore threats at the border or abroad Statistics published by federal agencies show miniscule levels of threats at the border compared to domestic threats. "Threats" abroad is and always has been a dogwhistle for Pentagon funding and expenditure, and that's not even addressing the question of how the US can reasonably expect to have jurisdiction in such cases rather than addressing these things diplomatically. > realistic takes Normative stance with absolutely zero authority. That is, until you make it clear what you consider "realistic". Dollars to donuts it's going to be cribbed directly from institutional (read: tautological) "common sense". This conversation has already happened millions of times before. You're not actually addressing things in a way that moves the conversation forward.
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
      The obvious "threat" at the border is illegal immigration. If you don't think that illegal immigration, in the numbers we're experiencing it, is at least some kind of threat, then at least say so. Address the GP's point, rather than trying to pretend he didn't have one, even if he stated it not absolutely directly.
      - r14c 3y ago
        American leaders have a pattern of creating a crisis and using it to manufacture consent. The immigrants didn't come out of nowhere, you might want to look into the US's history in the region.
prpl 3y ago
Like a similar comment - I don’t know if I believe that an american can ever utter anti-american things - with some small exceptions for flat out treason. Freedom of speech is the first amendment, and even though it is counter intuitive, criticizing america, it’s institutions, and especially capitalism is fundamentally american speech - quite possibly the most american thing you could possibly do in the eyes of the founders. Colleges of sciences and engineering rarely would have lecturers venture down that road anyway, except in courses about society, history, and philosophy embedded in those schools, so I don’t think it’s a problem in any case, and your characterizations are being overblown. Other research areas will be inherently fuzzy on that. That’s almost tautological - the people teaching history, philosophy etc… are going to have an opinion because they wouldn’t even be teaching unless they were passionate about the field.
- wait_a_minute 3y ago
  In one sense you are right. But the spirit of the times at some institutions is not to be an American so you can make a better America. It's to foment violence and division and outrage even levied at the reliability and strength of the highest institutions like the SCOTUS and the Constitution and secure borders. Furthermore, these types of things replace real learning on math and science and history and other things that have volumes of education available sans these ideas.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

shadowgovt 3y ago

How does one tell the difference between teaching and indoctrination? Every fundamental hard science started controversial. In some circles, they still are. Do we stop teaching heliocentrism because it's the devil's work? Who decides?

subtra3t 3y ago
The topics that you or I consider to be "fundamental hard science" are significantly less controversial than the topics that would normally fall under the category of activism. I'm not saying that controversial ideas should be completely ignored, just that controversy may be an important factor, in the eyes of some, to draw the line between cold hard truths and up-and-coming divisive ideas.
polski-g 3y ago
If you start talking about Palestine in your Differential Equations class, that is indoctrination. If you start talking about Jews in your CompSci 102 class, that is indoctrination. There is no reason to talk about anything besides the class, in the class.
- lapetitejort 3y ago
  Can you point to a curriculum or lecture where that has occurred?
  - polski-g 3y ago
    [dead]
- itishappy 3y ago
  Can we mention economics in that differential equations class? What about hyperinflation? Specific instances of hyperinflation? Can we mention Einstein in physics 101? His faith and politics is too far, surely, but are they really entirely unrelated to his science? What about Heisenberg? Bohr? Oppenheimer?
  - geodel 3y ago
    Answer is pretty clear. You are bringing them as some sort of trick question. Economics, inflation, hyperinflation calculations can all be related and on topic of differential equations but bringing in *How neoliberal economics is causing hyperinflation does not belong to maths class. One could mention all above physicists and more in Physics class but talking about how Einstein was misogynist would not be topic for Physics class.
    - itishappy 3y ago
      I don't think it's a trick question at all... I think these are standard, everyday, run-of-the-mill questions. Progress is driven entirely by people, and people are often influenced by their messy personal histories. Conflicts, disagreements, and interpersonal relations are deeply entwined with even the hard sciences! Can you imagine the situation in, say, linguistics? Einstein as a misogynist might not be appropriate, but how about as a Jew in Nazi Germany? Is the phrase "God does not play dice with the universe" indoctrination? Can we discuss the Solvay conferences? The first Solvay conference is likely the most important gathering of scientists in modern history. The third? Indoctrination. What about Galileo and the church? I guess my point is that history is messy, and not scientific. Does this mean we should remove dates from science classes?
      - sponaugle 3y ago
        It is interesting that you referenced "God does not play dice with the universe". If you were to discuss it, I would suggest discussing what he actually said: "Die Quantenmechanik ist sehr achtung-gebietend. Aber eine innere Stimme sagt mir, daß das doch nicht der wahre Jakob ist. Die Theorie liefert viel, aber dem Geheimnis des Alten bringt sie uns kaum näher. Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der nicht würfelt." There are a number of different translations, but one is: Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice. It is relatively easy to understand both the context and meaning of what Einstein said, especially if you read his numerous other works. The objection to some of the key underpinnings of Quantum Mechanics was something he mentioned a number of times. They key here is that you can explore and understand what Einstein was talking about without digging deep into the meaning of a god, or his view of religion. The concepts of Quantum Mechanics are complicated enough to keep any undergrad or grad student busy for a lifetime.
- wait_a_minute 3y ago
  100% this. This should not be rocket science. Time to kick out faculty and problematic students that want to make math and comp sci and biology about these types of things. Leave those for politics and philosophy classes where real and meaningful debate can take place.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    There was a time we thought of physics as just a discipline physicists do, detached from the use of the science. Then two cities got wiped off the map in intentional runaway nuclear reactions. A whole generation of physicists learned the hard way that if you don't make hard sciences at least a little like those types of things, you may lack the framework to realize when you're being co-opted into a machine that kills... That "pure" science takes huge moral risks if it believes itself to be detachable from the world it is trying to explore. Credit where credit is due, they responded to the new challenge (https://pugwash.org/ https://pugwash.org/).
    - wait_a_minute 3y ago
      Those two cities getting wiped off the map is not an output of people thinking of physics as a discipline. There is no causal relationship between: p1 - treat physics as a discipline p2 - two cities get wiped off the map There are many more variables that are relevant here, and in times of justified war like WW2 things are different. Consider a war scenario where your physicists spent all their undergraduate study time learning about identity politics and writing political preambles on their papers in order to get their papers even looked at.
      - selimthegrim 3y ago
        Go read about Orlov, Sakharov and Khalatnikov, (or Abdus Salam as a bonus track) and see if you can exhibit even an ounce of shame that any one of them felt, and hang your head.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  Reminds me of Oakland, CA schools doing a walkout protest march when their kids already don't get enough teaching, being one of the worst school districts in the country. What message are you even trying to send? The most history-illiterate has a message you should listen to?
- selimthegrim 3y ago
  I stopped using a Mir textbook in my differential equations class the day Russia invaded Ukraine. Was that too political for you?
chongli 3y ago
Teaching is about encouraging students to ask questions. It's hard because the questions sprout like mushrooms on the forest floor and you may not have the answers, the time, or the patience for all of them. Indoctrination is the opposite: providing stock answers and refusing to elaborate. Using social pressure and authority to shame students and block their questions. Its purpose is to instil deference and obedience -- to enlist more soldiers for war -- not to enrich the spirit.
wait_a_minute 3y ago
There is a huge amount of understood science, math, history, philosophy, and critical thinking to teach. It is being replaced with a lot of propaganda instead. When students are going to school and leaving with improved skills, life experiences, networks, and more critical thinking...it's teaching. When students leave with a chip on their shoulder to disrupt the United States and attack its institutions and reputation and even cause problems, without any actual skill acquisition or increase in critical thinking, it's indoctrination.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  What about when it's both, because they learned many things about the United States that make a desire for disruption of the current status quo justified? I think we're deluding ourselves if we think we can give people critical thinking and not have them question the consequences of colonialism, or slavery, or the industrial revolution, or manifest destiny, or homeland security, and which of those consequences should be kept and which should be torn down. (There's a pretty good book on this subject, actually: among other things it touches on, The Myth of the Rational Voter [2007, Bryan Caplan] notes the stark difference in voting habits among those with and without a college education. Does that mean all college education includes indoctrination, or does it mean learning critical thinking causes people to think critically to similar conclusions, or perhaps both? And at another level of abstraction: if you're a policymaker and you want people to vote in the way they tend to do when not college educated, aren't there incentives to cast education itself into doubt?)

diggan 3y ago

"anti-American" is such an interesting term for me. It begs the question of what "American" means, which seems to change with each president. How do you decide what's anti-american and pro-american? The Iraq invasion for example, anti or pro-american?

subtra3t 3y ago
I agreed with most of GP's comment, but their use of the word "anti-American" did put me off quite a bit.
- wait_a_minute 3y ago
  Consider to what extent you're steeped in the mire accumulated from being very-online. If you agreed with everything else, then that should give you pause on why you're so hesitant or resistant to that usage.
  - verve_rat 3y ago
    Or maybe they are aware of pre-online history? The red scare didn't need Facebook to get started.
    - wait_a_minute 3y ago
      Agreeing with everything and then being trained like Pavlov's dogs to hate a word is not the red scare.
  - john-radio 3y ago
    It's that the poster didn't give any supporting comment to their claim that a lot of [the idealogy that is being foisted on the minds?] is "even anti-American". Claiming something is un-American is fine. We're (mostly?) red-blooded Americans here. However, pointing at something and saying it's un-American and expecting the crowd to gasp in horror and join you in denouncing it, is a very clear signal of a Fox-news-or-something-deadened brain.
  - 3y ago

mym1990 3y ago

But one teacher's history is not another teacher's history, and the same for philosophy, and science in some parts of the country/world. Much of the private school system is run by money, and that money comes from people and places that have an interest at heart...it is not just a free giveaway like it may seem sometimes. Take the private funding away, and you have less bias, but now you have underpaid staff. Lose, lose.

drawkward 3y ago
>one teacher's history is not another teacher's history, One would think that this is an important point to teach the students. That all histories have bias, even the ones with which you agree.
- mym1990 3y ago
  Sure, this is a good step in allowing student to explore other teachings and points of view and learning to think for themselves. That is not how most of the education system is built though, it is built to spoon feed a curriculum, no questions asked. This is quite sad because kids and adolescents are naturally very curious.
  - drawkward 3y ago
    In my opinion, drawing on my past experience as a teacher in a very impoverished area, there has to be a sliding scale. Facts are facts; my middle school students were expect to learn long division, but many struggled with addition, some even still counting on their fingers. Phonics, math facts, sentence structure: some of these should be indoctrinated at an early age, so as to enable later on the higher levels of inquiry that represents true intellectual freedom. On the other hand, you have some people trying to sell "woke kindergarten" aaaand...its not going well for the students and their ability to reach academic goals consistent with early primary school.
    - wait_a_minute 3y ago
      [flagged]

bena 3y ago

Describe the indoctrination you think is taking place currently.

wait_a_minute 3y ago
An entire generation is being taught to be passive and to ignore threats at the border or abroad. Elite institutions like Harvard are currently ousting some faculty members who foment anti-semitism in this modern age. It is more common to see hot takes against the SCOTUS and Constitution and secure borders from uninformed youth than any realistic takes. They learn these things from someone.
- uoaei 3y ago
  > Ignore threats at the border or abroad Statistics published by federal agencies show miniscule levels of threats at the border compared to domestic threats. "Threats" abroad is and always has been a dogwhistle for Pentagon funding and expenditure, and that's not even addressing the question of how the US can reasonably expect to have jurisdiction in such cases rather than addressing these things diplomatically. > realistic takes Normative stance with absolutely zero authority. That is, until you make it clear what you consider "realistic". Dollars to donuts it's going to be cribbed directly from institutional (read: tautological) "common sense". This conversation has already happened millions of times before. You're not actually addressing things in a way that moves the conversation forward.
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    The obvious "threat" at the border is illegal immigration. If you don't think that illegal immigration, in the numbers we're experiencing it, is at least some kind of threat, then at least say so. Address the GP's point, rather than trying to pretend he didn't have one, even if he stated it not absolutely directly.
    - r14c 3y ago
      American leaders have a pattern of creating a crisis and using it to manufacture consent. The immigrants didn't come out of nowhere, you might want to look into the US's history in the region.

prpl 3y ago

Like a similar comment - I don’t know if I believe that an american can ever utter anti-american things - with some small exceptions for flat out treason. Freedom of speech is the first amendment, and even though it is counter intuitive, criticizing america, it’s institutions, and especially capitalism is fundamentally american speech - quite possibly the most american thing you could possibly do in the eyes of the founders. Colleges of sciences and engineering rarely would have lecturers venture down that road anyway, except in courses about society, history, and philosophy embedded in those schools, so I don’t think it’s a problem in any case, and your characterizations are being overblown. Other research areas will be inherently fuzzy on that. That’s almost tautological - the people teaching history, philosophy etc… are going to have an opinion because they wouldn’t even be teaching unless they were passionate about the field.

wait_a_minute 3y ago
In one sense you are right. But the spirit of the times at some institutions is not to be an American so you can make a better America. It's to foment violence and division and outrage even levied at the reliability and strength of the highest institutions like the SCOTUS and the Constitution and secure borders. Furthermore, these types of things replace real learning on math and science and history and other things that have volumes of education available sans these ideas.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]