The “Truth” About MLK, Jr.: Why We Must Teach Our Children to Think Critically

Posted on January 21, 2013 by zoeweil
Image courtesy of minasi.

Ever since I was a child, I’ve heard the injunction “Don’t believe everything you read.” This has been a warning that’s been difficult for me to heed. By nature I’m very trusting. I expect that others will tell the truth just as I endeavor to tell the truth. But years of study, research, graduate school, and the influence of my scientist husband, who’s the best critical thinker I know, have honed my own critical thinking skills, and I’m pretty good about not believing everything I read.

It’s even more important in today’s world – with “facts” at our fingertips through our various electronic devices – to be vigilant about assessing the truthfulness, accuracy, and bias of the sources to which we are quickly led when we seek information.

Let’s say that you are a high school student asked to do a report on Martin Luther King, Jr. And let’s say that you Google “Martin Luther King,” as I just did. The first URL that came up was Wikipedia. The second was his biography on the Nobel Prize website. The third was http://www.martinlutherking dot org, presumably a non-profit (.orgs are usually not-for-profits) dedicated to King and his work.

If you were a student you’d likely eschew Wikipedia, because you’ve been told to by your teachers, even though Wikipedia is often far more accurate than other sites, crowdsourced as it is. You might skip over the Nobel Prize site because it represents just one award in his life (albeit a great one). And there’s a good chance you’d land at the third site.

It turns out that martinlutherking dot org is a front for a white supremacy group, but you’d have to dig into the site to find this out. Clicking on a link for “The Creativity Movement,” that’s found on a PDF document, (or clicking on the small “Hosted by Stormfront” link at the very bottom) leads you to websites for an explicitly white supremacist movement. It’s likely that many students wouldn’t get that far, instead taking the pop quiz on the home page and “learning” all sorts of things about Martin Luther King, Jr., brought to you by a white supremacist.

It’s always been too easy to be misinformed, manipulated, and misled, but in today’s world it is even easier. Which is why teaching our children how to think critically, to research, to identify sources, to corroborate information, and to be truth-finders, not simply truth-seekers, is paramount. Without these skills, they will too easily be swayed by those sources that tell them what they want to know – of which there will be many.

This is another reason I always tell my students: Don’t believe a word I say.

~ Zoe

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDxConejo talk: “Solutionaries”
My TEDxDirigo talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach“
My TEDxYouth@BFS “Educating for Freedom”

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to our RSS feed.

Filed under: critical thinking, humane education | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Hooray for the Decline in Sexist Language

Posted on November 19, 2012 by zoeweil
Image courtesy Antony Pranata via
Creative Commons.

For thirty years I’ve been committed to both using and promoting nonsexist language in writing and speaking. I was criticized for using “he or she” on my papers in law school in 1984, instead of the accepted “he,” meaning “people.” When my son was in fourth grade and I sat in on a day of classes, I was dismayed that the teacher used “man” instead of humanity or humankind to refer to homo sapiens, but when I spoke to her about considering using nonsexist language she looked at me quizzically, truly perplexed by my comment, unable to comprehend my concerns.

In our graduate programs at the Institute for Humane Education the faculty all point out to students when they are using non-inclusive language, explaining that “he” used to refer to all people perpetuates assumptions in our culture and fosters continued sexist thinking, and sometimes sexist behaviors.

Because the English language doesn’t have a word to describe a male or female in the singular (we have “they” to describe both in the plural), we are constantly faced with the challenges of using language that is not discriminatory. As a writer, I often turn statements about a generalized person in the singular into a statement about generalized persons in the plural simply to avoid “he or she,” which I admit is awkward.

This is particularly challenging when trying to avoid speciesist language as well as sexist language by not referring to an animal as “it.” It can’t be done without resorting to “he or she,” and so I often choose to subvert our assumptions and challenge the default “he” by referring to a wild animal whose gender I don’t know as “she,” simply to shake things up and get us all thinking. Recently, walking with a group of teenagers in the woods we came upon a snake. I chose to refer to the snake as “she,” and one of the students asked how I knew the snake was female. I explained that I didn’t and why I used the female pronoun, but I knew that none of the students would have asked how I knew the snake was male if I’d referred to “him or her” as “he.”

And so I was delighted to read this article in The Atlantic about the decline in sexist language. It’s about time.

~ Zoe

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDxConejo talk: “Solutionaries”
My TEDxDirigo talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach“
My TEDxYouth@BFS “Educating for Freedom”

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to our RSS feed.

Filed under: language, MOGO (Most Good) | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Ethics Without Indoctrination

Posted on June 11, 2012 by zoeweil

Note: Zoe is on vacation, so please enjoy this repost from 12/22/10..

In an essay entitled “Ethics Without Indoctrination,” from a now 20-year-old issue of Educational Leadership, Richard W. Paul writes:

“If we bring ethics into the curriculum – and we should – we must take pains to ensure that we do so in a morally unobjectionable manner. This requires us to distinguish clearly between espousing the universal, general principles of morality shared by people of good will everywhere, and the very different manner of defending any particular application of these principles to actual life situations as conceived from a particular standpoint (liberal, conservative, radical, theistic, nontheistic, American, Russian, and the like.”

This is such an important point, whether written 1,000 years ago, 20 years ago, or 20 years hence, and it represents such a fine line to walk as an educator. Every one of us has a bias. Even if our bias lands us squarely in the mainstream and is perceived as moderate, it is still a bias. None of us is immune to the culture that shapes us, the opinions we hold dear, and the particular ideologies that embody our values in day to day life. It may appear that we have no bias if we find ourselves in the proverbial middle, but this is false. This is why Richard Paul’s quote above is so well-articulated, and so important for educators in general, and for humane educators who teach about the interconnected issues of human rights, animal protection, and environmental preservation in particular.

The universal principles of morality that Paul mentions would include such values as generosity, kindness, compassion, integrity, honesty, courage, perseverance, and wisdom and would exclude such things as cruelty, corruption, exploitation and abuse of others, deception, and so on. But what one person considers cruel may be different from what another considers cruel; and one person’s perception of exploitation may be another person’s perception of opportunity. How can the humane educator – whose goal it is to explore ethical issues, invite positive change, and encourage innovative ideas for a healthy world – balance her own vision of what that world looks like with what a particular student’s differing vision might be? How can the humane educator teach about ethical issues while painstakingly avoiding indoctrination?

Here are some ideas:

  • Choose one of these two approaches: Either be honest about your biases and explain their origin and your thinking OR choose to remain utterly impartial in discussions and encourage students to think critically, whether they are articulating your own position or one that you do not share. My personal approach is to be up front about my biases. The truth is that I am choosing texts that provide a point of view, and not choosing other texts. I may try to “balance” the reading, but there is a bias in my choices. Invite your students to critique you and your choices.
  • Be stalwart in your commitment to require those who share your views to be vigilant in supporting their perspective. And be open, receptive, and ready to learn from good critical thinking that leads to different positions. Further, be willing to being persuaded. Be as ready to change and grow from what you learn from your students as you hope they will be open to changing and growing because of you.
  • Agree on fundamentals. Invite students to generate a list of humanity’s best qualities and narrow these down until your class is in agreement that these are indeed fundamentals. Bring back all discussions about systems to whether and how they uphold these fundamental values. Be prepared for complexity and apparent contradictions. Remember physicist Niels Bohr’s statement that the opposite of a great truth is often a great truth.

All education has the potential to veer into indoctrination, not simply education about ethics. Be vigilant. Our world needs more critical and creative thinkers, not more believers.

For a humane world,

Zoe Weil, President, Institute for Humane Education
Author of Most Good, Least Harm, Above All, Be Kind, and The Power and Promise of Humane Education
My TEDx talk: “The World Becomes What You Teach“

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.  

Filed under: critical thinking, humane education | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Ethics Without Indoctrination

Posted on December 22, 2010 by zoeweil

In an essay entitled “Ethics Without Indoctrination” in a now 20-year-old issue of Educational Leadership, Richard W. Paul writes:

“If we bring ethics into the curriculum – and we should – we must take pains to ensure that we do so in a morally unobjectionable manner. This requires us to distinguish clearly between espousing the universal, general principles of morality shared by people of good will everywhere, and the very different manner of defending any particular application of these principles to actual life situations as conceived from a particular standpoint (liberal, conservative, radical, theistic, nontheistic, American, Russian, and the like.”

This is such an important point, whether written 1,000 years ago, 20 years ago, or 20 years hence, and it represents such a fine line to walk as an educator. Every one of us has a bias. Even if our bias lands us squarely in the mainstream and is perceived as moderate, it is still a bias. None of us is immune to the culture that shapes us, the opinions we hold dear, and the particular ideologies that embody our values in day to day life. It may appear that we have no bias if we find ourselves in the proverbial middle, but this is false. This is why Richard Paul’s quote above is so well-articulated, and so important for educators in general, and for humane educators who teach about the interconnected issues of human rights, animal protection, and environmental preservation in particular.

The universal principles of morality that Paul mentions would include such values as generosity, kindness, compassion, integrity, honesty, courage, perseverance, and wisdom and would exclude such things as cruelty, corruption, exploitation and abuse of others, deception, and so on. But what one person considers cruel may be different from what another considers cruel; and one person’s perception of exploitation may be another person’s perception of opportunity. How can the humane educator – whose goal it is to explore ethical issues, invite positive change, and encourage innovative ideas for a healthy world – balance her own vision of what that world looks like with what a particular student’s differing vision might be? How can the humane educator teach about ethical issues while painstakingly avoiding indoctrination?

Here are some ideas:

  • Choose one of these two approaches: Either be honest about your biases and explain their origin and your thinking OR choose to remain utterly impartial in discussions and encourage students to think critically, whether they are articulating your own position or one that you do not share. My personal approach is to be up front about my biases. The truth is that I am choosing texts that provide a point of view, and not choosing other texts. I may try to “balance” the reading, but there is a bias in my choices. Invite your students to critique you and your choices.
  • Be stalwart in your commitment to require those who share your views to be vigilant in supporting their perspective. And be open, receptive, and ready to learn from good critical thinking that leads to different positions. Further, be willing to being persuaded. Be as ready to change and grow from what you learn from your students as you hope they will be open to changing and growing because of you.
  • Agree on fundamentals. Invite students to generate a list of humanity’s best qualities and narrow these down until your class is in agreement that these are indeed fundamentals. Bring back all discussions about systems to whether and how they uphold these fundamental values. Be prepared for complexity and apparent contradictions. Remember physicist Niels Bohr’s statement that the opposite of a great truth is often a great truth.

All education has the potential to veer into indoctrination, not simply education about ethics. Be vigilant. Our world needs more critical and creative thinkers, not more believers.

Zoe Weil, President of the Institute for Humane Education and author of The Power and Promise of Humane Education and Most Good, Least Harm

Like my blog? Please share it with others, comment, and/or subscribe to the RSS feed.

Filed under: accurate information, critical thinking, education, humane education, integrity, positive choices, propaganda, values | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

“Let’s Visit a Research Lab” – Another Example of Propaganda from the U.S Dept. of Health & Human Services

Posted on February 9, 2009 by zoeweil

In my last post on The Lucky Puppy coloring workbook produced by a U.S. government affiliate to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), I described the recent propaganda piece promoting animal experimentation directed at young children. I’ve been thinking about this disturbing behavior in the scientific establishment all day, and felt compelled to share another government, taxpayer-produced piece of pro-vivisection propaganda created for young children.

This time it’s a poster, titled “Let’s Visit a Research Laboratory.” Made for elementary school classrooms, and provided free of charge, the poster displays a lab like a doll house, with all the rooms open to the viewer, labeled, and with details about each room on the bottom. There are only two species of animals at this lab – monkeys and mice. The mice live in “rodent housing,” and each smiling mouse has a name on his or her cage (Lola, Eddie, Lana, Elf, Fuzzy, and Sam among others). The monkeys live together in spacious indoor/outdoor cages, play on tire swings and with brightly colored beach balls. In the “testing lab” one finds a smiling monkey happily playing on a computer. There’s one sad monkey, representing the only unhappy animal in the poster. This monkey is in the “treatment room,” and if you read the description you learn, “Most laboratories have a room just like a doctor’s office to care for animals if they become ill or get injured. Just like kids, monkeys can play rough and sometimes bite one another. They need treatment for cuts and scrapes.”

So what do little children learn from this free educational poster provided to their schools with our tax dollars? They learn:

  • That laboratories name their animal friends who enjoy their happy lab life, when in fact animals are numbered, called “subjects,” and are killed at the end of the experiments.
  • That “testing” is game playing, rather than being force fed drugs, cosmetics, household products and other chemicals.
  • That monkeys are spaciously housed together and provided with lots of toys and enrichment, when most are in small, isolated indoor cages, with little or nothing to play with.
  • That the only reason to “treat” an animal is because she or he has been hurt by other animals, rather than burned, shocked, cut open, or drugged by those who conduct research on them.

This particular poster is long out of print, but I still use it to train humane educators and as a critical thinking tool in schools. I had hoped that our tax dollars were no longer being spent on this absurd level of propaganda, but The Lucky Puppy, just published this past fall, proved me wrong. So, lest you think that The Lucky Puppy is an aberration, now you know that it follows a long trend of child-directed propaganda.

It’s crucial that humane education spread; that teachers bring critical thinking to students in age-appropriate ways; that we engage in citizenship to reject the cynical and manipulative use of our tax dollars; and that we commit to educating for a humane and sustainable world.

I consider these pro-vivisection propaganda publications as opportunities to engage in vigorous debate and even more rigorous humane education. I hope you do too.

~ Zoe

Filed under: accurate information, critical thinking, humane education, propaganda | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off

The Lucky Puppy Coloring Workbook: Propaganda Instead of Humane Education

Posted on February 6, 2009 by zoeweil

A graduate from our Humane Education Certificate Program just emailed me the link to a new coloring book produced by the North Carolina Association for Biomedical Research. It’s called The Lucky Puppy, and it’s not simply a coloring book: it’s simple propaganda. Coming from a supposed scientific organization, it is also egregious.

In the story, two children are sad because their puppy, Lucky, is sick. Mom and children take the puppy to a veterinarian who gives him the appropriate medicine. The curious children wonder how the vet knew what medicine to give Lucky, and the vet explains:

“A long time ago, a research scientist found the medicine I gave Lucky. I’ll tell you how. She did research in a lab. A lab is a place where scientists work, and it is short for laboratory. She had mice in her lab. They lived in nice, clean cages. They were fed good food. But they were sick with the same disease Lucky had. She gave the mice many different medicines. At first, none of the medicine she tried made the mice better. But she kept trying. Then one day she tried a new medicine that helped the mice. So, she did more research using that medicine. She tried a little of it on one group of mice. But that was too little. They stayed sick. She tried a lot of it on the second group, but that was too much! They got even sicker. At last, she tried just the right amount of medicine on a third group. They all got better! It turned out the the medicine not only was good for sick mice. It also was good for sick puppies, like Lucky….”

By the end of the story, the little boy wants to be a veterinarian to help animals, but, clearly even better, the little girl wants to be a research scientist because, as she says, “Then I can help animals and people!”

What is so terribly galling about this propaganda is that it is promoting science through lies, distortion, and manipulation – the opposite of what science is. Science is meant to be rigorous, factual, and truthful. Scientists are supposed to be honest and committed to accuracy.

The Lucky Puppy would have children believe that mice happen to get sick with diseases, and that helpful scientists work diligently to cure them, helping those suffering animals, as well as people, at the same time. The Lucky Puppy omits the part about actually giving mice –- or the many other animals used in labs, including apes and monkeys, dogs, pigs, ferrets, cats, etc. — diseases, as well as starving them; burning them; practicing surgery on them; addicting them to drugs and alcohol; testing cosmetics, cleaning products, and industrial chemicals on their abraded skin, and force-feeding them huge quantities of the same in order to determine the fatal dose; using them in military research to test chemical weapons and explosives; and ultimately killing each and every one of them (with the exception of some chimpanzees, a few of whom have been allowed to live out the remainder of their lives in sanctuaries).

You may believe that it is ethical to experiment on animals no matter how much suffering it may cause them. Or you may believe that some animal experimentation is justified while others is not. Or you may be opposed to animal experimentation entirely. This issue is contentious and controversial and deserves to be debated honestly by adolescents (not young children) and adults. There are important ethical and scientific issues involved in vivisection that should be considered carefully, honestly, and deeply. So when a pro-animal research lobby turns what should be an issue in education into pure indoctrination, we should all be outraged.

This is why we need humane education, taught age-appropriately with a commitment to the 3 Cs: fostering curiosity, creativity, and critical thinking. That a pro-science organization would choose blatant manipulation of little children over critical thinking is appalling. But I will use The Lucky Puppy in humane education programs, nonetheless; I’ll use it to turn help youth and adults become better critical thinkers and engaged citizens.

~ Zoe

Filed under: accurate information, animal protection, critical thinking, humane education, propaganda | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Humane Education Isn’t Controversial, It’s Patriotic

Posted on November 10, 2008 by zoeweil

The title of a recent online article in Education Week (free registration required) gave me pause: “Election renews controversy over social-justice teaching.” Social justice education is often perceived as “left wing” and biased, as if the content of our public school humanities curriculum has no bias. As if the United States wasn’t built upon the Constitution, a document detailing within its pages … social justice. As if each amendment to that Constitution over the years wasn’t an effort to better fulfill the vision of equality and freedom that lie at its core.

Humane education encompasses social justice (along with environmental ethics, animal protection and analysis of cultural issues), and like social justice, occasionally raises controversy. But I believe that this controversy is false, and that we must clearly and forcefully reject it. This does not mean that the issues that humane education addresses aren’t controversial; many of them are. But, humane education as a field of study and approach to learning ought to be embraced by all as education at its best. Humane education asks students to identify and embody their deepest values in order to address the realities of persistent injustices, oppressions, and destruction in the world. Ultimately, this enables them to help create not only a more perfect union, but also a more perfect world. There should be nothing controversial in this.

But humane educators, like all educators, need to take care to make sure that their particular biases on specific issues do not subtly deter their students from questioning and thinking independently. Such influence is neither good education, nor humane education. We should be delighted when our students disagree with us and articulate their own perspectives. Perhaps to some, this is controversial. If so, let’s debate that, not the importance of discussing the most pressing challenges of our time.

~ Zoe

Image courtesy of jackietam.

Filed under: humane education | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Comments Off

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 437 other followers