Hostility

[A.E. Brownstein]

Thanks for your post, Richard.1951 - 1964 covers my public school career. 
By the time my daughter started public school, in 1988, the change in 
public schools was well under way -- although part of that may reflect the 
geographical shift from New York to California.

Alan Brownstein


At 11:08 PM 8/23/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>Alan:
>I agree with most everything you say here, and especially with your 
>identification of some of the root problems which lead to making 
>overwhelming demands on the public school sysytem.  I ask, then, only 
>because I don't know, when you would have been going through the school 
>system that operated in the manner you describe.  The reason I ask is I'd 
>like to see if there is any consensus on the list that schools functioned 
>the way you describe them in your first paragraph.  Would this have 
>begun  in the post-early-60s?  By 1970? 1980?  When do people think other 
>factors began to enter in?
>Richard Dougherty
>
>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>From: "A.E. Brownstein" <aebrownstein at ucdavis.edu>
>Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
>Date:  Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:09:37 -0700
>
> >I appreciate the power of Tom's argument (and his caveat at the end.)
> >
> >I offer three modest responses. First, I recognize that schools taught the
> >"consensus" principles of Christianity for a long time. But there was a
> >period after that consensus unraveled
> >and before schools began to take on a lot of what I view as extraneous
> >programs  -- when public schools, at least in places like the Bronx,
> >operated the way that I have described them. We did have the Regents
> >prayer, but there was very little of anything else regarding religion  --
> >and none of the new stuff. Schools did a very good job on the academics.
> >Parents, houses of worship, after school religious classes and other
> >mediating institutions took care of the many other important aspects of a
> >young person's education.
> >
> >Second, I think the reason the schools have taken on some much more of this
> >non-academic role has less to do with people thinking this is really the
> >proper role for schools (although I recognize that this part of the story)
> >and more to do with social changes that have made it less convenient for
> >families and after school mediating institutions to do their jobs. (e.g.
> >suburban lifestyles, two worker families etc.)  I would like to see us
> >spend more time figuring out how to facilitate the role of families and
> >after school mediating institutions and less on fragmenting the public
> >along religious lines.
> >
> >Third, I do not for a moment discount the deep lack of consensus over
> >highly value-laden issues in our society. But I also think we should not
> >ignore the rich grounding of consensus that does exist. I don't want to
> >understate the difficulty people will have working together. But I do think
> >when people have the chance to see what they have in common, and recognize
> >that some of their feelings about their schools not being sensitive to
> >their beliefs and their children's needs are shared fairly broadly -- but
> >in different ways, then it becomes a bit easier for people to work out ways
> >to reconcile their differences.
> >
> >Alan Brownstein
> >UC Davis
> >
> >
> >
> >At 12:36 PM 8/23/2005 -0500, you wrote:
> >>I agree, Alan, that there was religious teaching in public schools well
> >>before the modern instances of teaching highly value-laden matters in
> >>secular terms (sex education, values clarification etc.).  But that
> >>religious teaching was frequently part of the "limited and traditional"
> >>public school to which you refer.  The conclusion that strikes me 
> powerfully
> >>from this is that public schools have very seldom been, and will very 
> seldom
> >>be, as limited in their aspirations as you suggest they can and should be.
> >>People will always insist that public schools must go well beyond the three
> >>Rs and into normative formation of children.
> >>
> >>For a long time in the past, the normative body of thought that the 
> majority
> >>believed should be taught was the supposed "consensus" principles of
> >>Christianity.  Over time, the argument has become strong that trying to
> >>teach such principles in state schools is inappropriate because there is a
> >>deep lack of consensus (outside Christianity, and inside) over such
> >>principles, with many people rejecting them as a starting point.  But the
> >>lesson of that argument, I'd submit, has not been learned by those 
> today who
> >>(like their religious predecessors) want the public schools to teach
> >>normatively on value-laden issues, but now just want to leave out the
> >>religious perspectives from the normative teaching and teach only the best
> >>and highest secular perspectives relative to the issues.  The same problem
> >>is present:  a deep lack of consensus over highly value-laden issues, this
> >>time with many religious people rejecting the basic starting premise that
> >>the issues can be addressed normatively without explicitly putting 
> religious
> >>principles at the base of the teaching.
> >>
> >>We can argue over whether addressing this through school choice comes 
> at too
> >>high a social price, but it seems to me that to deny there is a problem
> >>reflects just a lack of sympathy with those pervasively religious 
> people, in
> >>the moral philosophy sense of putting oneself in the other person's 
> position
> >>(to be clear, I don't attribute to Alan such a lack of sympathy).
> >>
> >>Tom Berg
> >>University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
> >>
> >>   _____
> >>
> >>From: A.E. Brownstein [mailto:aebrownstein at ucdavis.edu]
> >>Sent: Tue 8/23/2005 10:56 AM
> >>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> >>Subject: RE: Hostility
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Yes. But I think I have been consistent with my comments on the religionlaw
> >>list in arguing for a more limited and traditional role for the public
> >>schools. Public schools should not be the source of all learning.
> >>
> >>But I'm not sure that it is the expansion of what is taught in school (sex
> >>education, values clarification etc) that accounts for efforts bring
> >>religion into the public schools or to fragment the public sector along
> >>religious lines. Religion in the schools (typically Protestant religion)
> >>goes back far before these changes in what public schools teach -- as do
> >>efforts to fund religious schools.
> >>
> >>Alan Brownstein
> >>UC Davis
> >>
> >>
> >>At 11:54 PM 8/22/2005 -0500, you wrote:
> >> >Alan, would you concede that the message that "not all important 
> things are
> >>
> >> >taught at school" is at least weakened when schools go beyond academic
> >> >subjects and into highly-values-sensitive (even if important) 
> subjects like
> >>
> >> >sex education, tolerance, values clarification, and so on -- as so 
> many now
> >>
> >> >do?
> >> >
> >> >Tom Berg
> >> >University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota)
> >> >
> >> >   _____
> >> >
> >> >From: A.E. Brownstein [mailto:aebrownstein at ucdavis.edu
> >><mailto:aebrownstein at ucdavis.edu> ]
> >> >Sent: Mon 8/22/2005 11:42 AM
> >> >To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> >> >Subject: Re: Hostility
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >But the tensions created by pluralism are not limited to schools. They
> >> >extend throughout society. And the movement toward "going our separate
> >> >ways" isn't limited to schools, it extends to many other public programs
> >> >(see, e.g. charitable choice). In theory, it could apply to almost the
> >> >entire public sector.
> >> >
> >> >Moreover, while we avoid confronting our differences by separating
> >> >ourselves, we also lose the opportunity to appreciate all the things that
> >> >we have in common and the values that we do share, and the experience of
> >> >learning how to work out our differences at the local level of the
> >> >neighborhood school.
> >> >
> >> >During his recent visit to a Synagogue in Germany, Pope Benedict XVI
> >> >condemned religious bigotry and spoke of the need to get to know each 
> other
> >>
> >> >much better. How do we do that if we increasingly fragment society along
> >> >religious lines?
> >> >
> >> >As to Mike McConnell's comment, most of what I learned that is 
> important to
> >>
> >> >me, I learned outside of school. That's true for my children as 
> well.  What
> >>
> >> >children learn when important things are not taught in school is that not
> >> >everything that is important "in the real world of intellectual inquiry,"
> >> >and the rest of the real world as well, is taught in school. Why is 
> that a
> >> >problem?
> >> >
> >> >Alan Brownstein
> >> >UC Davis
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >At 07:49 AM 8/22/2005 -0700, you wrote:
> >> > >You know, I think the bottom line is our society is too pluralistic 
> for a
> >>
> >> > >one-size-fits-all curriculum at the government school monopoly.
> >> > >
> >> > >I empathize with Sandy when he expresses concern about students being
> >> > >taught ID (and teachers being required to teach ID) in the public
> >>schools.
> >> > >Many others feel the same way about sex ed, gay pride week, and
> >> > >evolutio-as-fact in the government schools.
> >> > >
> >> > >I still think Mike McConnell said it best when he said: "A secular 
> school
> >>
> >> > >does not necessarily produce atheists, but it produces young adults who
> >> > >inevitably think of religion as extraneous to the real world of
> >> > >intellectual inquiry, if they think of religion at all." The public
> >> > >schools are designed to inculcate and assimilate and mold 
> impressionable
> >> > >children--many believers simply don't like the mold designed (or did it
> >> > >evolve) by those who control the public school curriculum.
> >> > >
> >> > >So many of the issues that cause deep friction among us concern who 
> gets
> >> > >to control what our children are taught in the public schools. I 
> wish we
> >> > >could agree to disagree, and go our separate ways to schools of our own
> >> > >choosing.
> >> > >
> >> > > From my perspective, one of the advantages of teaching ID in the 
> public
> >> > > schools is that it would allow liberal secularists to appreciate the
> >> > > value of opt-outs (parental excusals from objectionable 
> curriculum), of
> >> > > academic freedom for teachers (as Sandy put it, of teachers 
> required to
> >> > > teach things they disdain), and school choice (being allowed to exit
> >> > > without penalty).
> >> > >
> >> > >Cheers, Rick Duncan
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >University of Nebraska College of Law
> >> > >Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
> >> > >
> >> > >"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or
> >> > >Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle
> >> > >
> >> > >"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or
> >> > >numbered." --The Prisoner
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> >> >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> >> >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> >><http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw>
> >> ><http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw>><http://l 
> ists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw> >
> >> >
> >> >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> >> >private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> >> >posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can 
> (rightly or
> >> >wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >_______________________________________________
> >> >To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> >> >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> >> >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> >><http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw>
> >> >
> >> >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> >> >private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> >> >posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can 
> (rightly or
> >> >wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> >>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> >>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> >><http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw>
> >>
> >>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> >>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> >>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> >>wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> >>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> >>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> >>
> >>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> >>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> >>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
> >>wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> >
> >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
> private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly 
> or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.