Passive Acceptance: Beaver's Liberal Ideology

SAM O'REILLY '09

"The progressive school teaches the child to think for himself instead of passively accepting stereotyped ideas. It keeps always in mind that each child is different from every other, and that what makes an educated person useful in his particular walk of life, what makes him interesting, what makes him an individual, is not his resemblance to other people, but his differences."
-John French

It’s the convocation day. I walk into Bradley Hall with a snazzy shirt Mr. Manning let me borrow and a bowtie from Mr. Greenberg’s room. Just before I take my seat in the back row, I say to a teacher, “Above or below five minutes when the word ‘Progressive’ is used for the first time.” She laughs and answers, “Below.” I promptly take my seat next to Clay and have some time to marvel at his beard. Mr. Gow walks on stage. Guess what word was in his first sentence?

I am not saying that the fact that Beaver defines itself as a “progressive” school is a bad thing. In fact, it is something to be proud of. Beaver was one of the first so-called “progressive” schools to be founded. Some people may not realize how revolutionary the progressive education movement was at the time. Traditional education generally followed a script in which the teacher would talk, and the students would listen. This idea of progressive education centered on students thinking as individuals.

The progressive education movement was a success, and Beaver was an innovator in this entirely new field of thought. Progressive education today is immensely popular and helps many young independent thinkers. Progressive education has spread and is now extremely popular all across the country and the world. Much like any revolution, the progressive movement evolves. Such change is necessary for the progressive movement to remain progressive…to progress. Yet, how can Beaver continue to be progressive in a time of increased awareness of progressive values across the nation? In today’s world, what can Beaver do to further facilitate independent thought?

Do not get the ideas of being liberal and being progressive mixed up because they are completely different. Beaver is a particularly liberal school in a politically liberal region of the United States. I find the curriculum in the English and History departments have a very liberal slant. Take History, for example: there is too much history to cover, so the department must choose which parts are important for kids to understand. That’s understandable, but these issues are presented in a biased way. In the 10th grade, I was educated about the huge injustice of Americans driving Native Americans off their land. I could not help but think that the curriculum had an agenda of making students disagree with the expansion. One thing that was not presented to us was what our country would be like if we had not taken that land. Would we be as powerful as we are? We are generally taught to disagree with a capitalist conservative ideology. This is all rather ironic because that same ideology helps to pay for our cars, houses, private school tuitions, and video game systems.

I decided to go to Beaver because I agreed with the basic ideals. My parents did not suggest that I go to Beaver; I took the initiative to say that I wanted to go to this kind of school. Beaver is a very liberal school and there is nothing wrong with that. It is important, however, that we address this reality. I have been at Beaver since the 6th grade. I am currently experiencing my 6th year of Beaver curriculum and culture. When I first came to Beaver, I ate it all up. I ate every bite. I loved the idea of thinking for myself and learning from liberal minded people. Keep in mind I was an intensely opinionated sixth grader, whether I was informed or not. Bush was the devil, and Republicans ruled the world, and Michael Moore was the man.

I evolved over my middle school years. I can’t really pinpoint one moment when everything changed. I do know that it was around 8th grade when I came to the conclusion that the liberal agenda of Beaver was not always a good thing. I became concerned that the liberal mindset was too institutionalized. The ideology of Beaver generally attracts a very liberal staff. Kids do not appreciate how many teachers come to Beaver over potentially higher paying jobs because they agree with the core standards of the school. A generally liberal staff grouped with a generally liberal curriculum has created an institutionalized liberal ideology. The funny thing about it was that I agreed with all of the ideals that the curriculum was teaching. Nonetheless, the widespread passive acceptance of these ideas alarmed me.

I think that Beaver has unintentionally become a place that does not truly harbor independent thought. Throughout my years at the school, I felt as if I was being led in a general direction. Whether teachers realized it or not, they were leading students towards liberal ideals in the way they were presenting information. For example, when I was in the eighth grade, a writer for The Simpson’s spoke at our school. He gave a very interesting and funny speech about his experiences, and just so happened to call something “gay” and referred to Steven Hawkins as a nice “cripple.” I can understand that there would be some controversy after that, although what did people expect from a Simpson’s writer? For the next week, I think we talked about the issue in every class. In English, we even had to write an editorial about what we thought of the issue. All of the teachers were obviously offended and continued bringing up the issue. We were expected to be offended. We were supposed to view his comments as highly offensive. If we did not share the same disgust, then we were ignorant.

I saw some of my peers molded into a uniform liberal teenager. Perhaps they all would have come to this conclusion about the world in due time. I began to see people agree with everything that I generally agree with. The majority of my class hated Bush, but could not give a good reason why. Many people supported gay marriage, but had not stopped to consider the opinions and concerns of many other religious Americans. When I was assigned to put together a debate together for science about abortion, every member of my class supported it. About 57% of Americans share the same sentiment. This is just one example of how students have become products of their environment. I support abortion as well, but I am alarmed by the conformity of opinions.

I am not the only one who is aware of the institutionalized liberalism. It is hard to disagree with uniformly accepted liberal ideas. I know lots of kids that accept these ideas, but do not care about them. Many students do not actually believe in an opinion unless they are genuinely allowed to come to it own their own. I feel like so many people at Beaver have given up trying to oppose the common opinion. These liberal ideas, righteous as they may be, are such constants in our lives that they don’t matter anymore.

I know a handful of kids at Beaver who do not agree with some very liberal ideas. They do not argue for them however because it is difficult to defend such an opinion. It is much easier to argue for gay marriage rather than against it because the “correct” opinions have already been implied to us through every class diversity day we have ever attended. It is logical to write a liberal minded paper because the ideas have already been laid out to us. Liberal thought used to challenge the general consensus, but now it is institutionalized.

Beaver is an environment where it is just much easier and much more rewarding to agree with liberal ideals. Although some teachers try to keep their opinions secret, it does not take a genius to deduct which side he or she is on. A friend once commented to me after a class, “Beaver does not teach you to think, it teaches you to reiterate ideals in an attempt to mold your personality.” Unlike other schools, Beaver does not emphasize the memorization of facts and dates. However, it does focus on the memorization and reiteration of ideals. Such uniformity in core ideas can be very dangerous.

Beaver needs to be a more self-reflective institution. It needs to take a hard look at itself and judge if it is a progressive institution in today’s world. I personally believe that the school would do itself a great service in attempting to eliminate passive acceptance of liberal idealism. Even if a student disagrees with the war in Iraq, along with the teacher and the rest of the students, it is the job of everybody to ask the question, “why?” It is the responsibility for every teacher, student, and administrator to challenge the common belief. Those of us that consider ourselves liberals must challenge our core ideals on a daily basis to remind ourselves of why they are our ideals. I believe that it is our responsibility, as students and citizens of the world, to guard against this habit of passive acceptance. If we cannot do this, then we can never expect to progress.

“Passive acceptance of the teacher's wisdom is easy to most boys and girls. It involves no effort of independent thought, and seems rational because the teacher knows more than his pupils; it is moreover the way to win the favour of the teacher unless he is a very exceptional man. Yet the habit of passive acceptance is a disastrous one in later life. It causes man to seek and to accept a leader, and to accept as a leader whoever is established in that position.”
-Bertrand Russell

CORRECTION 5/Apr/08: Mr. Gow's Cum Laude speech, read every year, does not mention progressive anything. His convocation day speech, though, does "proudly connect Beaver's heritage to the extraordinary work of the early Progressive Education movement." We are very sorry for the mistake.

Image from: http://www.bcdschool.org/
Read more!

When the Pen Fails

SAM O’REILLY '09

It is an almost universally accepted truth that the pen is mightier than the sword. Ideas are stronger catalysts for change than violent acts. Logic is generally more effective in persuading people than violence. These ideals are embodied in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, in which everybody is given the right to protest, petition, and speak freely. America is a place where the pen is mightier than the sword, because the right to use the pen is unfettered, and one piece of writing can change the opinion of the people. But what about when the pen fails? What if a person is convinced fully that what he has to say is true, but those with power refuse to listen? If that person has no doubt in his mind that he is correct, and if the pen genuinely does fail, is he justified in using the sword as a last resort?

Imagine being a devout Muslim leader in the Middle East. You have dedicated your entire life to a cause that you believe in to its very core. No matter how hard you try to demonstrate the righteous virtues and love that Islam teaches, the world continues to view your religion as that of an extremist. You want to change the world through love, but the American media does not pay attention to anything good happening in or coming from Muslim countries in the Middle East. The people of some nations may have a fair opinion of Islam, but the average American citizen does not fall under this category. The average American citizen knows little about the core reasons for modern religious conflict. The average American knows that Muslims blow stuff up as a way to create change, but rarely consider what was so drastically in need of change that a human being felt it necessary to resort to violent action. Then again, would Americans pay any attention to the struggle of Muslims if their own lives were not in danger? How many people could really point out Afghanistan on a map or knew who the heck Osama Bin Laden was before September 11, 2001? It is becoming more and more apparent that the only message that America will bother to pay attention to is that of a violent nature.

Islam in The American Media

Do the American people really have that terrible a view of the Muslim world? It is hard to understand the viewpoint of an entire populace unless one were to go to some non-partisan voice of the people…Bill O’Reilly! Yes, Bill O’Reilly has an hour-long show every day, has published numerous books, and has a daily talk show as well. The words of Bill O’Reilly must resonate with some large group of people for him to be able to express his opinions in such a vast arena. One could rely on the words of Bill O’Reilly to judge the nature of a populace. When Bill O’Reilly said on national television, “"I don't have any respect by and large for the Iraqi people at all. I have no respect for them. I think that they're a prehistoric group that is. The big lesson is that we cannot intervene using ground troops in the Muslim world ever again. What we can do, is bomb the living daylights out of them, just like we did in the Balkans. Bomb the living daylights out of them. But no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds; ain't going to work. They're just people who are primitive." One cannot make the sweeping generalization that Bill O’Reilly embodies the opinion of the everyday America. One can and should however be alarmed that such a violent and ignorant message is part of mainstream American culture.

What kind of message is America sending the Muslim population by having radicals such as Bill O’Reilly on the air? What kind of message is America sending to the Muslim population when the bad guy on 24 is always Arab? America is not sending the message that it legitimately is concerned about or is willing to listen to the problems concerning Muslims throughout the world. The American people sub-consciously promote the stereotype that all Muslims are terrorists through passive acceptance of such typecasting in the media. The American media does little to report on and consider the ideals of moderate republics, but has a heyday whenever some radical blows something up.

Religious Wars

Religious wars have changed over the years. The root of many historic conflicts lies in religion and religious ideals. Unlike modern religious conflict, many historical wars consisted of unified nations facing off on battlefields. Today, conflict over religion is as wide spread and intense as ever. Innovations in communication during the 20th century have changed the nature of religious conflict and given power to terrorists. The people who are victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks never intended to fight a war. They were just shopping or going to work and in the process became casualties of a war that knows no borders. Terrorists brought the war to the streets of New York City and to the doorstep of capitalism. Civilians were the targets and civilians were the casualties. September 11 destroyed two towers, killed 3,000 in a country of 300,000,000, but most importantly, instilled a sense of fear in the American people. Terrorists could never possibly stand up to the might of the American army, and therefore resort to fear as a tactic. Religious war is no longer fought on identifiable battlefields, but on the streets of every city in the world. It is a media battle over which side can make their people despise the enemy more than the other. It is an intimidation battle over who can make the other feel more threatened. Which side can make a man genuinely scared for his life and that of his family? That is the real battle. It is a guerilla war that neither side can genuinely win.

It is not a war that can be won because it is impossible to fully wipe out either side. Even if terrorists miraculously destroyed America, some other similar power would arise. There will always be some kind of imperial power, weather it be Rome, Great Britain, or America. This empire, almost by definition, will have people that hate it so much that they will go to extremes to hurt it. Yet even if the new empire that arose after America was not as strong or oppressive, some group of radicals would find a way to blame everything on that country. Radical energy will be directed towards the most powerful nation, regardless of its nature. The nature of the war in itself makes it impossible for either side to win.

Americans view terrorists as people too indoctrinated with a backwards ideology that they cannot even be reasoned with. This, incidentally, is how many terrorist leaders would describe Americans. They would say that America is too set in its views and too content with ignoring the rights of Muslim people. These people may be from such countries as Iraq and Afghanistan, but they are identified with their religion. Many Americans clump the entire Middle East into a religious group, and furthermore identify that entire group with violence. The most alarming aspect of the stance of the everyday American is the lack of initiative to learn about Muslim culture and the expectation that Muslims should stop using violence and realize that the American way is the correct one. No wonder these alarming circumstances go both ways. Even if Americans may not view the war in Iraq as a holy crusade, many Muslims do.

Many believe that the religious world conflict is past the point of negotiation. It is an endless cycle because the American government has proved incapable of being realistic with Muslim leaders. This causes some Muslims to use violence, which in turn hardens the stance of American leaders. The cycle continues, resulting in more deaths each day. Both sides expect the other to one day smarten up or just give in, without even considering the possibility that they themselves could be wrong. America tries to represent itself as the side with morals, and hides its own terrorist tendencies.

The Nature of Terrorism

“Terrorists use fear and intimidation to usher in change.”

If one were to accept this statement as fact, then America would be categorized as the biggest terrorist in the world. America holds a nuclear arsenal that, if employed, will destroy military targets and civilians alike. The nuclear arms that America can launch at the drop of the dime are too powerful and not accurate enough to physically spare civilian lives. Over 180,000 lives were lost when America dropped the first two atomic bombs on Japan, but the general consensus in our society is that these losses were acceptable in a time of war. America scares much of the world. At any given point of time, America has the capability to level every square inch of any nation. It is as if a permanent gun is held to the head of every individual in the world. If America does not intend to use such weapons ever again, then why have they not been deactivated? Why has America led a movement to put down these weapons for the safety of humanity? The reason that America does no such thing is that its nuclear capabilities give it a higher standing in the world. America is logically more powerful with nuclear weapons. Other countries are less inclined to stand up to the United States because of fear. Doesn’t all of this sounds like terrorism and intimidation on a very large scale?

Americans fail to see that their country has taken a path that is viewed by many outside their country as similar to that of terrorist groups. For instance, the imprisonment of people that may or may not be terrorists in Guantanamo Bay violates the Constitution. According to the organization “Iraq Body Count,” the war in Iraq has taken over 75,000 civilian casualties.[1] Despite these indisputable violations of human rights, Americans act proud and frown down upon Muslims as if they are ignorant. Americans view their nation as a righteous one, and struggle to see why anybody could hate them.

The biggest problem is the inaction of the American people and politicians by making little attempt to understand the root of the conflict. It is as if this war between America and Islam started so long ago that nobody bothers to ask when and why it started. It is rare that an America leader proposes trying to understand why so many people hate America with such a passion. America must study its own actions in trying to understand the conflict.

The war in Iraq has taken far more innocent lives than terrorist attacks ever have. Do American politicians believe that killing more innocent people will stop all of the violence? Do they genuinely believe that turning a deaf ear to logical Muslim leaders and only focusing on killing the radicals will fix anything? Unfortunately, violence seems to be the only way that Muslim leaders can get the attention of American politicians and citizens alike. The cultural and political ramifications of terrorist attacks are much greater than the physical damage, for they can be seen across the country. America only seems to pay attention when something blows up or somebody dies. Nobody wants to hear about trying to understand Muslim culture as a means of pursuing peace. Terrorist organizations can only get their point across with violence. There are many different groups to blame when a terrorist attack happens. Although the American people are not entirely at fault, they should study their own nature as a means of understanding and in turn preventing attacks.

Conclusion

So what about the original question? If the pen fails because those with power refuse to listen, must one make them listen? Must one sacrifice the lives of the innocent people to amplify the message that one knows is right and knows will ultimately make the world better? Both Americans and people from the Middle East “know” as a fact that the other side is simply ignorant. The other side simply won’t listen to logic. Perhaps the mightiest weapon isn’t the pen. Perhaps it is the ability to read what the pen has to say. Maybe it is the ability to listen to others and learn from them. But until people on both sides learn to stop talking and actually listen, the sword will be seen as the only way. Until humans learn to listen, neither side will put the sword down, because each side believes it is holding the sword of god.

[1] Iraq Body Count. 2007. Iraq Body Count. Nov 4, 2007. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Read more!