Dispatches from the Creation Wars

1

Hmmmm... it's hard not to empathize with the father, but I would empathize with the mother in your counter-situation. I don't know how to ignore any biases I have against pressing religion on children.

Very tough call by the court. I'm glad they made it, but I can't claim that it is the most fair, objective decision.

Posted by: Jordan G | September 2, 2009 10:41 AM

3

Michael,

I don't have actual data, but I do have some experience with home-schooled students at the college level (including some home-schooled for non-religious reasons). They tend to be able to read and write well, but to be poor at analytical thinking. They tend to be "creative" in their thinking, but in an undisciplined way that undermines real analytical ability. My hypothesis is that this stems from having a "teacher" who lacks depth of knowledge in many fields. The substitution of a "creative" approach for an analytical one always annoys me, as a teacher who tries to emphasize analytical ability.

But:
a) I also get many students from public schools who lack analytical ability, and many of those who do don't even have the weak substitute of "creative" thinking.

b) Students who are interested in learning can overcome that lack of analytical ability quite easily while in college. Those who aren't interested in learning, whatever their background, don't overcome it.

So I think most home-schooled kids will do fine once they have gone to college. Those who never go to college will probably not fare any better than anyone else who doesn't go to college--they're not necessarily worse-educated than other high-school only people, but they're sure as heck no better educated, whatever their parents think.

Posted by: James Hanley | September 2, 2009 11:40 AM

5

I'd love to see some research on their adult outcomes vs. children from public, Catholic, or secular-private schools in the same economic category that either validates or falsifies my notion.

I'd think the valid comparison would be between children home-schooled for religious reasons and children home-schooled for other reasons, not between children home-schooled for religious reasons and children not home-schooled.

. . . they're not necessarily worse-educated than other high-school only people, but they're sure as heck no better educated, whatever their parents think.

I've also had many home-schooled young people in my college classes. I've found that the better/worse comparison depends partly on the quality of the public school available. Some of the public schools in this state are so poor that a moderately well-educated adult would do better by a child to home-school, especially if there are no good affordable private schools nearby either (as, again, is true in parts of this state).

Posted by: JuliaL | September 2, 2009 12:17 PM

7

Even the ADF squirrel finds the occasional nut. This is an outrageous decision based upon faulty premisses. Courts frequently impose restrictions on custody, based upon the best interests of the child. But there has to be a finding of best interest.

The Court could ban smoking around the child if she ere allergic; it could ban drinking alcohol if it ere shown that the custodian had a drinking problem; such orders frequently ban having the child around a third party if it is decided that said party is dangerous. Note that in all of these cases, there is some significant interest of the child involved such as health or safety.

Here, there is no allegation whatsoever that the child is in any danger. We merely have the unsupported conclusion that it is somehow bad for the child to hold her religious beliefs religiously. There is no mention of any examination of the child by etal health professionals, just a feeling from the GAL in the case that dogmatism is "bad."

I hate to be on the side of the ADF crew, but this decision blows.

Michael Heath: The home-school curriculum in this case was approved by the state of NH. If the state has approved it, I'm guessing it doesn't qualify as child abuse.

Posted by: kehrsam | September 2, 2009 12:28 PM

9

kehrsam:

The home-school curriculum in this case was approved by the state of NH. If the state has approved it . . .

I'm more concerned about test results than curriculum. I know of many home-schoolers whose understandings are vastly different than the curriculum and can be directly attributed to the anti-science, historical revisionist, religious beliefs of their parents. I stand by my position this sort of indoctrination is a form of child abuse.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2009 12:50 PM

11

I homeschool my son for non-religious reasons and before that I worked for years with at-risk youth.

Whether or not one homeschools has absolutely nothing to do with one's academic and/or social success. What kind of parents one has and what kind of individual one is has everything to do one's academic and/or social success.

Michael Heath, I'm a devoted secularist and I've worked with abused and neglected kids. Knowing a few fundamentalist homeschoolers, I can assure you that raising kids to be fundamentalists, in and of itself, is nothing at all like abuse. Again, it depends on the parent. The limitations on a fundamentalist child's education are no greater than the limitations of the child whose parents are uninvolved and apathetic towards their education (which, in my experience, describes a lot of parents). I don't think a fundamentalist's kids misunderstand the world and embrace willful ignorance anymore than a very large percentage of the kids who graduate from traditional schools.

Posted by: LJM | September 2, 2009 1:30 PM

13

But I am very uncomfortable with a Court telling anyone how to raise their kids, and especially telling the parent what they can teach their children.

Well, me too...but isn't that what custody cases are pretty much all about? No government official is telling the parents of the Prussian Blue girls that they have to stop instilling them with racist ideas, but if the girls' parents divorced and one parent was all "white power" while the other opposed it, I can imagine which way the custody would go. Even moreso if the instruction in racism came post-divorce.

Of course, I know next to nothing about this issue in general, so my assumptions are probably way off.

Posted by: Gretchen | September 2, 2009 1:43 PM

15

LJM @ 11:

The limitations on a fundamentalist child's education are no greater than the limitations of the child whose parents are uninvolved and apathetic towards their education (which, in my experience, describes a lot of parents). I don't think a fundamentalist's kids misunderstand the world and embrace willful ignorance anymore than a very large percentage of the kids who graduate from traditional schools.

I too speak from personal experience. A bright kid with promise in the sciences at least has a better chance exploiting his talent in this area if his fundie parents send him to public school where at least he'll get some guidance from this teachers, they'll not only receive none if they're home-schooled, their faith community will actively indoctrainate him to reject a "faith" in science. I sadly must admit however even fundies going to public school are frequently deprived of the opportunity to exploit higher education equal to their capabilities given this pressure from home and church often overwhelms the encouragement they get from the schools; this too comes from personal experience.

If you read my previous comments I attempted to carefully parse kids with promise from kids with not so much in certain fields so we're comparing apples to apples in terms of kids' capabilities and home-schooling fundamentalists abuse them. I note this because you appeared to distinguish some kids that have little chance to exceed given their parents apathy - I would argue that is a distinctly separate issue with its own tragic stories. (And one a sibling of mine encounters daily as a elementary school principal).

And I must disagree with you about fundies not possessing equal willful ignorance than public school kids. My observations are the differences are vast when comparing like-kids. I believe this is related to the observations James Hanley, a college prof, noted when discussing his experiences with home-schooled kids @ post 3 (for religious reasons).

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2009 5:32 PM

17

No one has addressed the statement "...because she was too "vigorous" in defense of her Christian faith." What the hell does that mean? Was she disruptive in class? Was she trying to convert the other students?

Posted by: wrpd | September 2, 2009 8:11 PM

19

Not to derail the thread, but:

I was homeschooled for non-religious reasons, for a brief period, before attending a local community college when I turned 16. I'm not sure if it is a statement about public school education, my geographical area, or what, but I found many of my fellow students, sometimes 2-3 years older than me, often quite lacking in basic understanding of science, math, and history; many seem impressed by what I considered pretty simple knowledge

For instance, off the top of my head, I recall some of my classmates being positively amazed that I could identify the basic tenets of Eastern religions and how they differed from Christianity -- even a trivial fact about Hinduism seemed to them to indicate some kind of unbelievable super-knowledge.

Posted by: Sean Micheal | September 2, 2009 8:46 PM

21

wrpd #17... I had the same question. If I had to guess, the court was weighing the strength of the father's claim that his wishes were being ingored. Perhaps the daughter gave a statement to the court which suggested "that she has not had the opportunity to seriously consider any other point of view," contrary to the father's wishes.

Posted by: Grumpy | September 2, 2009 9:21 PM

23

To Michael Heath- where is the evidence to suggest that children homeschooled by fundamentalist parents are at any higher risk of experiencing abuse than children who attend traditional schools?

Almost all of the highly publicized tragedies involving kids allegedly being "homeschooled" were cases where the child was pulled from a government-run school after CPS started investigating the parent(s) for alleged abuse.

Posted by: Crimson Wife | September 3, 2009 1:58 AM

25

Sean @ 22 directed to me:

Has it occurred to you that religious people are looking at the way you raise your children (assuming you have them) and consider YOU to be abusing them because you're denying them a 'relationship with God?'

Fundies think a lot of things that aren't true and project it back onto others. They think if secular schools teach evolution then they're indoctrinating students into the secular humanist religion while failing to provide them an alternative choice - theirs. Your question presents a fallacy of balance inquiry.

I am an atheist, and I do believe keeping children sheltered from the world is pitiful, sad and quite frankly nothing better than brainwashing, but so long as they are not beaten, sexually assaulted, etc., and are allowed on their 18th birthday to freely walk out of the house to pursue their own destiny (with an education that compares at some level with high school) then I do not consider it abuse.

You acknowledge they're being brainwashed and that's OK as long as they gain their freedom at 18? There is no switch an 18 year old suddenly has access to that they can turn off. As someone who was raised fundie, most of my peers never make it out and to those who do, it takes years if not decades to recover. Meanwhile the opportunities one has given their talents are oft-times gone by then. I know dozens of people that would have excelled at science, engineering, or in the medical fields who never got a chance to consider those fields; but were instead taught that the public universities who taught such (and were affordable) were bastions of communists hell-bent on brain-washing their students (projectionism is rife within the fundie community).

I was fortunate to break-out early but many aren't so fortunate. I financed my education 100% because I went to a secular university; I was shunned by nearly the entire community I grew up in to do so. I'd argue you should think through your position a little more carefully, you seem to recognize the abuse, but haven't called it what it is yet. I understand, it took me decades to acknowledge it for what it is as well even though I too was a victim.

Let's take religion out of this for a moment. What if the father had extremely strong and reasonable objections to eating animal-based foods, yet the mother insists on bringing the girl to McDonald's a couple times a week. You could make an argument that she wasn't getting proper nutrition, but if she was getting good levels of exercise and was generally heathy, are the father's objections enough to make a court act? (And, should her "vigorous defense of getting a Happy Meal" bear any weight in the decision?)

I was not commenting on the case Ed blogged about at all. My points were in general.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 3, 2009 8:23 AM

27

Jesus Christ on a Popsicle stick, the majority of you pontificating on homeschooling are criminally ignorant. Seriously, you're as ignorant about the performance and skills of homeschooled kids as Ken Ham is about the age of universe and the Theory of Evolution. And, like Ken Ham, nothing stops you from flapping your gums.

Homeschoolers, including those taught by fundamentalist brainwashing, semi-literate buffoons outperform the mean by 37%. If we go to just the religious goomba taught by HS educated parents category, it's 30% better than the mean. Which, like it or not, is superior to the performance of the population-at-large. Those who are taught by one-or-more college educated parent finish, on average, in the 90th percentile. In educational sub-categories, homeschoolers achieved the 89th percentile in reading, 84th in language, 84th in math, 86th in science and 84th in social studies.

I could go on... But it'd be like trying to convince Ken Ham that the earth is, in fact, billions of years old and the Theory of Evolution DOES explain speciation.

Also, as far as the "analytical skills" attack. That's another stereotype and I'd suggest you read up on your Piaget. Most children (approximately 65%) never make it through that stage of intellectual development and fossilize, as it were, in the Concrete Operations Stage. An even smaller minority never make it out of the intuitive phase of the pre-operational stage.

Regardless of their parents schooling choices.

If we start talking literacy, homeschool children are far more literate than the general population. Including the fundy kids.

I'm sorry, there are a lot of issues around homeschooling. The excessive religiosity of some very minor sub-sects of the population can lead to some gaps in some subjects. But even the fundy kids get, on average, a much better education.

Posted by: Moses | September 3, 2009 8:53 AM

29

Moses @ 27 - your claims do not address the specific issues that were brought up in this blog thread. If you want to refute those claims; tackle them head on and please provide some stats as well, though with citations so we can validate their legitimacy.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 3, 2009 9:36 AM

31

Damn, someone beat me to it.

Posted by: Juice | September 3, 2009 10:10 AM

33

Michael,

Fundies think a lot of things that aren't true and project it back onto others.

While there are scientifically verifiable truths that fundies are routinely ignorant about, the "fact" that something does or does not constitute abuse simply does not exist. On one extreme, there are people who think punching a kid in the face isn't abuse. Society has decided that it is, so we prosecute (thankfully, IMO) those who do it. On the other hand, some think giving a kid a glass of milk is abhorrent and should be criminalized. Your view of abuse is just that -- a view -- built around your personal history. Supporting a state action of removing a parent/child relationship because YOU had a bad experience is a very serious proposition and to me, starts to approach the realm of legislating by anecdote. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

They think if secular schools teach evolution then they're indoctrinating students into the secular humanist religion while failing to provide them an alternative choice - theirs.

And they have the right to -believe- that, but their real mistake is not understanding what religion actually IS, why the science (such as evolution) they're teaching ISN'T a religion, and why the laws separating government from religion protect them as much as they protect us.

As for the McDonald's comment, it wasn't directed at you... mainly to the group. Sorry I wasn't clear on the change of audience. Now that I'm thinking about it, it probably isn't a very good analogy anyway.

Posted by: Sean L. | September 3, 2009 11:30 AM

35

"including those taught by fundamentalist brainwashing, semi-literate buffoons outperform the mean by 37%. If we go to just the religious goomba taught by HS educated parents category, it's 30% better than the mean. Which, like it or not, is superior to the performance of the population-at-large. Those who are taught by one-or-more college educated parent finish, on average, in the 90th percentile. In educational sub-categories, homeschoolers achieved the 89th percentile in reading, 84th in language, 84th in math, 86th in science and 84th in social studies."

Proof, because that is not what we see in college math classrooms in our area. Students who were homeschooled can do mechanics correctly all day, but they quickly fall behind in problems that require generalizations or using standard procedures in inventive ways. That is the pattern in algebra, calculus, statistics, and especially probability.

Posted by: dean | September 3, 2009 11:34 AM

37

Jeff @ 34:

the problem is that fundie home-schooled kids end up going to places like Liberty, Regent and Patrick Henry. Even Wheaton is considered to be too liberal by many of these families.

I agree with your overall point they're never exposed to an objective worldview. This is a mere quibble:

I would argue only a minority of promising home-schooled kids with talent and aptitude for the sciences and technology even get to go to college, let alone places like Liberty or Regent. And when they do, they're limited to fields that do not allow them to fully exploit their talents and aptitudes.

Given my experience working at large tech firms where we also recruited at colleges (a process I led for my discipline and even beyond, which was operations management); places like the ones you mentioned, or Oral Roberts, Bob Jones U. or even more liberal places like Calvin College were never considered. Given limited resources to recruit at colleges, we went only to those schools who were well-renowned at excelling at certain disciplines.

While that's true in general when going to a smaller university, even private ones, the larger point is that these kids never get to develop a wider array of opportunities that better fit their capabilities and the culture promotes their avoiding the sciences or universities that could get them into the bigger tech companies. They're entire bringing up argues against them going to a Cal-Tech Poly or a University of Michigan or an Ivy League school. (I know people who were offered full ride scholarships to Ivy League schools that instead chose their conservative school's small affiliated colleges - their ability to make their choice objectively was pre-ordained to insure that never happened - 18 years of redundant pounding on the head will do that to most people).

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 3, 2009 12:20 PM

39

Molly @ 38 - I wouldn't merely include those home-schooled kids 'taught' at home because of their parents' fundie beliefs. The public school I attended was controlled by a fundie school board who was very effective at ensuring we were not properly taught science, social science, or history. This school complemented the local fundie churches efforts, it certainly didn't falsify them. (My Baptist pastor was president of the school board during my high school years).

In addition, I know of public schools who do an outstanding job of teaching their students how to think and are excellent at giving them an education in all areas except ignoring evolution, cosmology, and history or current events that point to the damage religion plays in society. These kids are able to quickly get up to speed in stellar universities in spite of these holes in their education; however, many of these best and brightest don't make it to our best universities because the lower schools don't teach the items that show how dishonest their church and family's indoctrination efforts truly are, so their only perspective is that they can get an adequate education at their church college since they've never been exposed to the fact their parents and church have been continuously lying to them.

This is where state testing fails all our kids, not just those being home-schooled or in private conservative religious schools. It needs to be less abstract and test those items we know kids are being indoctrinated into falsely believing.

My own personal experience was one of shock when I discovered at Michigan State University how stringent and high a standard was used to seek and understand knowledge in both science and academics. I was also shocked at how much our culture understood about history and current reality and the overwhelming evidence supporting these understandings that was obviously purposefully suppressed from me and my fellow classmates. When history and evolution were even discussed in my pre-college years, they were framed as mere arguments from ignorance intent on merely persuading kids to be communists by destroying a literal understanding of the Bible which everyone knew was the absolute truth.

I also want to throw an atta boy at one Catholic school. My small town's Catholic school, which is in a poor, working-class town, consistently tests out as one of the best schools in the state of Michigan. Like U. of Brown biologist and biology textbook publisher Ken Miller, they've been able to reconcile their faith to reality. Many of their kids go off to our country's best schools and excel at the sciences or in the tech industry, a far cry from the results of fundie home-schooled or our private conservative-Christian school kids.

In summary, while acknowledging parents' right to choose how to educate their kids, I could give a rat's ass about their rights relative to the far superior rights for kids to get properly educated that are suppressed far more often than parents' rights on this matter. When kids' rights to an optimal education are adequately defended and they can freely exercise those rights, than I'll be more sympathetic to parents' rights.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 3, 2009 2:19 PM

41

In summary, while acknowledging parents' right to choose how to educate their kids, I could give a rat's ass about their rights relative to the far superior rights for kids to get properly educated that are suppressed far more often than parents' rights on this matter. When kids' rights to an optimal education are adequately defended and they can freely exercise those rights, than I'll be more sympathetic to parents' rights.

I would argue that children have no right to get an education, but rather they have a right to not be prevented from getting the kind education they want. As a teacher, I honestly think that there is no way to objectively define what an "optimal education" is, as it depends entirely on the individual.

Posted by: LJM | September 3, 2009 2:33 PM

43

The funny thing about this discussion is that none of the people running off at the mouth seem to BE home-schoolers, nor do any of them suggest asking one.

I am a 29 year old graduate of a major state university. I was accepted to places like Vanderbilt and so on, but couldn't afford it without massive debt (even WITH scholarships, since I was "too rich" to get any need-based aid). I went to the state school because they were very generous to National Merit Finalists. I graduated summa cum laude and am a member of Phi Beta Kappa.

I was also home-schooled for two years by my Southern Baptist mother. My two younger siblings were home-schooled from 3rd grade on. My brother has a MA in Music now. My sister is a senior at another state university, studying animal science and journalism.

We are all three Christian and largely politically conservative, though hardly copies of our parents. I-for example--think my mother's radio pundits are often pretty over the top, and cannot abide the Southern Baptist attitude toward the "place" of woman.

Would you like to know where I really ran into indoctrination? When I was working on my first MA degree, professors and fellows students alike routinely said to me things like "Christians have no business in higher education," "I had no idea people like you even existed anymore," and "Christians are incapable of analytical thought." One English professor was baffled by a paraphrase from Shakespeare ("It is the god of our idolatry") because she said, "I don't know anything about God." After one teacher quoted the book "Arming America" to his freshman class (one I had to sit it on for another class), I approached him privately to tell him that Michael Bellesiles had been completely discredited. At the time I was sure he simply didn't know this, would be appalled, and would want to correct things with his class. Ah, the naivete of that time. Instead, he went around telling the rest of the department that I was a "neo-conservative gun-hugger."

While I do have concerns about it, I can hardly blame Christians and conservatives for preferring institutions that share their values. I know too well what it's like to try to live and work in the rabidly hostile and dismissive environment that seems to be the norm in "mainstream" universities.

And--to Michael Heath--while I have seen a few examples of children deprived of their potential among my siblings' home-schooled friends, I have seen far MORE children in that situation among my public school and university classmates and especially among the students I taught as a TA.

As for evolution (which seems to be the big issue here), my situation is actually the opposite of LJM's. I "believed" in the evolution I was taught in public high school completely. It wasn't until I was majoring in Anthropology and sat through hours and hours of lectures on the "evidence" for Evolutionary Theory that my BS meter went off the scale. I'm not a strict Creationist either. I don't think the dinosaurs are a hoax or wore saddles. And I think Intelligent Design is a watered-down get-along compromise. I don't know HOW it all fits together. I haven't yet made up my mind. Maybe someday, as I keep analyzing the evidence (something both sides seem to have quit doing years ago) I'll reach a conclusion.

A Home-schooled Adult

Disclaimer: My sister has just informed me that having only been home-schooled for two years, I'm not really qualified to write this post. But she's not interested in arguing with any of you, she has articles to write.

Posted by: A Home-schooled Adult | September 3, 2009 5:16 PM

45

LJM - Thanks for taking the time and energy to put this forward. I did consider your points and you make some good ones.

However, I think your defining abuse more narrowly than I am and your argument about teaching kids what they want to learn about both avoids and makes my argument (a paradox? ;) My point was and remains that I know many kids who had an aptitude for science whose parents and their church did everything in their power to insure those kids never considered a career in science. The fact they were denied the opportunity to consider educational and career opportunities because of their parents', churches', and school's acts is a form of abuse.

Your argument about getting kids to focus on what interests them is a good argument, but the reality is that I know many kids, including myself and my brothers, who were denied the very opportunity you argue on behalf of because of the fact they were either home-schooled, in a private conservative school, or in a public school ruled by a Board dominated by fundies. All three of us scored in the 97th to 99th percentile in math and science on our SATs or ACTs, yet we knew little about the science that our parents and the church warned us was liberal propaganda and would cause us to be expelled from our faith community if we pursued both what interested us and what we excelled at.

I got my scores back in my junior year; from that point forward the pressure became immense that I consider completely avoiding college, exactly the opposite of how rational people would respond - but we're not talking about rationalists, we're talking fundies here. (I finally fought through the BS and attended on my own dime starting when I was 25 though I had to take a more practical path since I had a family I also had to support by then).

So again, there is abuse I've lived it, seen it happen to others, and see it happening to others now. The more interesting question is how many and why we allow this form of abuse to exist. We all love to claim we love our children, yet their rights are frequently overlooked far more than the uber-strident nut who protests the loudest. I would argue in fundie land, the faith is defended far more than their kids rights.

I've also read the home-schooling motivation survey results and my reading of the last poll left me skeptical on its legitimacy. They should have drilled in to a deeper level to capture and filter out the parents claiming they were merely looking to educate their children beyond the capabilities of their local school, a worthy goal, when in reality their real motivation was religious - which they preferred not to divulge. Such motivations can be discovered by fleshing out the survey with a multitude of drill-down questions covering a diverse set of sub-reasons, which the last survey I read failed to do.

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 3, 2009 8:53 PM

47

As Richard Carrier argues in "Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism", while he is a staunch defender of human rights and individual freedom, he also believes that "the importance of education to a successful free society can not be overstated".

This is part of his chapter on politics:

The importance of education to a successful free society can not be overstated. We need a national education system that allows some local flexibility and control, but requires schools to adhere to standards established by a national bureau, one that engages in a perpetual review of school successes and failures, of effective and ineffective textbooks and teaching styles and curricula — basically, all the evidence pertaining to education, including scientific studies of what works in what area, and what doesn't. Only then can we learn how to improve our educational system and actually improve it. We can even learn by studying the school systems of other nations. And teachers' unions, the main stumbling block for all attempts at school reform, would not oppose any of this if you sated them with a single reform, one they would give all else up for, and that teachers already deserve anyway: outstanding pay and benefits for educators.

A national educational system should aim at three goals: producing citizens who (1) have a high economic value, who (2) have a strong command of the issues and concepts necessary for participating knowledgeably and effectively in the process of law and government, and who (3) are capable of making their own informed choices in matters of morality and faith. All three aims are equally important.

The first is a pragmatic benefit: a more competent and reliable workforce boosts the economy, and everyone gains from this — the government earns more revenue, communities get richer and more livable, and more people succeed, strengthening the middle class. And any political scientist will tell you a large middle class is the most important component of any democratic society — for that is the one group that knows what it means to work hard for what you have, yet still has something to lose. They are the foremost self-interested defenders of an honest free market — whereas the rich would benefit from a dishonest market, while the poor would benefit from getting rid of free markets altogether. Thus, we need to boost the knowledge, intelligence, and practical skills of all citizens. That will always be an unqualified good.

The second is a necessary benefit: an ignorant and uncritical public is a powder keg that will destroy any democracy in time. And until it does it will cause a great deal of chaos and misery as the mob is easily manipulated by factions and demagogues, resulting in power being gained and used irrationally, or to improper ends. An ignorant and uncritical public will also readily demonize and oppress minority groups, eventually bringing about their own downfall when the tide turns and they get as good as they gave. In short, this is a recipe for social strife. A democracy is only as clever as its people. If you want facts and truth to prevail, if you want people to cooperate and listen to reasonable arguments, and act upon what is genuinely the wisest course, what is genuinely demonstrated by real facts, if you want people to see through lies and fallacies and obfuscations, if you want people to act and vote wisely, and accept the flaws in the political system while peacefully working to correct them, you must educate them. There is no other way.

Finally, the third goal is one that is both practical and necessary: people who are educated well enough that they can actually make their own informed, intelligent decisions about what to believe and how to live their lives, will become better people. For reason and knowledge will lead them to see for themselves that the path to happiness lies in heroism, not villainy, in kindness and integrity, not cruelty or indifference. This will also reduce crime and increase widespread happiness, and is far superior to indoctrination in a belief or creed. For in the latter case people will have no clear idea why it is true or right, and will simply take it as rote, and not actually live it, not understanding it, and at best will adhere out of fear or fickleness, but at worst will reject it altogether and be left with nothing but self serving apathy.

So if you want people to become genuinely good, you must show them why a certain creed will serve their happiness and why abandoning it will serve their misery, and you must do this with evidence and sound argument. But above all, you must be honest with them, and teach them how to find all this out on their own: for there is nothing more persuasive than self discovery. This means that you must give them the facts and the tools, teach them how to use them, and let them come to their own conclusions.

In line with these three goals, any complete education program would emphasize throughout every student's academic career the fields of philosophy, logic and rhetoric, the methods — not just the findings — of science, and the contemporary real-world application of other vital fields, such as mathematics (learning how to understand and evaluate statistical arguments, for example, is far more important than trigonometry), economics (understanding capitalist principles of debt and investment, for instance, is crucial), and law (understanding what the law is, how it is interpreted, and why — a basic toolkit every citizen should have) Though not a comparable priority, the arts should have a place, too, as they teach us about humankind, how to find more beauty in the world, and learn new ways of expressing ourselves and our own creativity, all profound sources of personal happiness.

The reason that I have included this is because it mirrors my own opinion on the matter — as well as, I'll hazard a guess, Michael Heath's — and that is why we must take an active interest in the education of all children.

Posted by: Damian | September 3, 2009 9:53 PM

49

Which form of abuse do you think will be rectified by society first?

How is it abusive for someone to question an unevidenced belief? Admittedly, if you were harassed, that would be a problem, but I'll admit that I'm skeptical. America is one of the most religious countries in the western world. That means that it is likely that the vast majority of people that you were at university with were Christians. If anything, non-believers are, statistically, far more likely to suffer from abuse.

The people that said those things to you were probably out of line (if it happened as you say, and without any context, I can't know for sure). However, it hardly qualifies as abuse, and it is ridiculous (and offensive) to call it indoctrination. Clearly, you have very little idea what real indoctrination is. Were you prevented from going to church, from reading the bible in your own time, or from praying? I very much doubt it. But that is what indoctrination requires. It requires that a guardian, or a person of trust, teach only their own beliefs — and often beliefs that are completely without merit — and to actively discourage or prevent a child (or even sometimes an adult) from being influenced by the outside world.

Effectively, what you have described was something that would barely even qualify as inappropriate. As I've said, without knowing the full story I can't say for sure. But even if what you say is true, you could have complained, or told them that you didn't want to talk about, or even explained to them that what you believe is perfectly rational (that is, assuming that you know how to argue for your beliefs, of course).

As for you BS meter going off after learning about the evidence for evolution, again, I'm skeptical. One thing that I will say is that you should perhaps get a new BS meter. Did you learn about the molecular evidence, for instance? In an anthropology class? I'd be surprised. If not, or even if you did, how would you explain the fact that humans share thousands of inactive retroviral markers with the chimpanzee, all in exactly the same place? As retroviruses attach pretty much at random, the odds of the same retroviruses attaching at the exact same points in both humans and chimpanzee's is absolutely staggering. In other words, there is only one logical answer — common ancestry. And that is just one example.

Posted by: Damian | September 3, 2009 10:40 PM

51

Damien--I said nothing about anyone questioning my beliefs, unevidenced or otherwise. I said I was repeatedly harassed and told I had no business even being in a graduate school environment regardless of my personal achievements because I was a Christian and a conservative.

The vast majority of the underclassmen at the university probably WERE Christians. Virtually none of the professors and graduate students were.

As for "proving" my experiences, I could provide you with a very large file of emails from that graduate-student mailing list, if I thought it would do any good. Unfortunately, that was before I learned to carry a voice recorder with me to every class. Rest assured, I do so now. At least whenever I'm able. One of my current professors bans such technology from his presence on pain of failing the course.

And what makes you think I didn't complain? Repeatedly, until I learned that it did no good.

Also, I didn't say they were trying to indoctrinate ME. I thought it was clear that I felt the people harassing me were the ones who had been indoctrinated. If that offends you, it probably should.

But you've clearly already decided no to believe anything I say. What possible reason I'd have for making it up in this situation escapes me, however.

Michael Heath--I fail to see why your anecdotal, unsubstantiated accounts of the "abuse" of children by fundamentalists are supposed to carry your entire argument, while my equally anecdotal and, I admit, equally unsubstantiated experience doesn't suffice to refute or contradict yours at least a little?

I will certainly take your suggestion for reading material into account next time I'm reading in that subject area.

A Home-schooled Adult

Posted by: A Home-schooled Adult | September 3, 2009 11:29 PM

53

I confess I had no chance to read more than the first few comments, but if it hasn't been mentioned, the Judge appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the child independent of the wishes of the mother or father. In this case he found that in addition to the isolation of home schooling, the social and peer environment was highly restricted to like minded Christians as well. He agreed with the father that the girl would benefit more from the wider exposure that the public school option and the more varied peer and social experiences this environment would provide.

After careful consideration of the guardian ad litem's recommendations, the judge decided that the public education the father preferred would be best for the girl.

Posted by: Bill Ware | September 4, 2009 12:00 AM

55

A Home-Schooled Adult:

Of course I am questioning your honesty (well, not exactly, as I'll explain below)! Is that not what we should all be doing, and in particular to those that we do not know and have no way of verifying whether what they are saying is true? But let me rephrase it so that it doesn't elicit the quite understandable reaction that it has, and so that it better reflects my own feelings, rather than your interpretation of them. What I am talking about is skepticism, and I make no apology for it. You took that as questioning your honesty, which is understandable, I suppose. But it really should not be seen as insulting. Of course, if you endeavor to frame skepticism as a presumption of dishonesty — using that term and all that generally entails — then of course you are likely to feel insulted. If that is the case, I apologize, because it certainly wasn't my intention.

Anyway, let's return to your first post. You said:

Would you like to know where I really ran into indoctrination? When I was working on my first MA degree, professors and fellows students alike routinely said to me things like "Christians have no business in higher education," "I had no idea people like you even existed anymore," and "Christians are incapable of analytical thought."

I read that as meaning that they were attempting to change your mind (i.e. indoctrinate you). So I apologize for reading it wrongly, but you weren't entirely clear.

And again, I specifically said that if you were harassed — another thing that wasn't entirely obvious from your first post — then that is unacceptable, and it is. If I had any way of helping you to make a complaint about it — either then or now — please understand that I would do so. Nobody should have to suffer harassment of any kind.

But let us be clear. You attempted to make a moral equivalency between harassment (of yourself) and the indoctrination of young children by fundamentalist parents (as evidenced by your contention that your experience should "refute or contradict [Michael Heath's] at least a little"). Firstly, I completely reject the insinuation that, what, all of the secular students and professors at the university that harassed you were "indoctrinated"? In to what? And how could you tell? And does that not suggest that all people that harass are indoctrinated? Why just them?

You see, this is my problem. You appear to have been annoyed at the discussion about homeschooling and indoctrination, and so you decided to effectively introduce a "well, you're no better than we are", type of argument in to the discussion.

But then the question becomes: is it true — are the cases being talked about morally equivalent? We'll never know, because we don't know enough to make an informed judgment. But I'd still reject the idea that the people that you suffered at the hands of were "indoctrinated". They appear to have simply been rather obnoxious.

I can lay out in quite exquisite detail many of the practices — whether conscious or unconscious, intentional or unintentional — that we know that fundamentalist parents go through to inculcate their children with their own narrow brand of sectarianism.

Is that ever true for secular parents? Probably, but it is likely very, very rare. And we have no idea if all of people that harassed you even had secular parents. Indoctrination, as I've already said, largely requires the parents beliefs to contradict reality. Otherwise, why not allow them to learn for themselves by experiencing said reality? You simply don't need to indoctrinate children with science.

I'm sorry if I appear to be less than understanding, but just as you were riled up — wrongly, as it turns out — by thinking that I was questioning your honesty, as opposed to simply being skeptical, which should be the default position, I too get riled up by bad arguments and attempts to make false equivalencies, particularly when the subject is one that is so serious.

Posted by: Damian | September 4, 2009 1:25 AM

57

LJM - From '89 to '92 I lived in the Bay Area as well. My son went to Jr. High through his sophomore year there. He attended the Fremont Public Schools.

That area is a true melting pot. His Jr. High teachers averaged about 33 kids in their classroom and an outrageous number of first languages; IIRC it is was around 8 - 13. Those years were wonderful for him, he got a great education and learned to socialize with a diverse crowd of kids. Given that most of these kids' parents were highly educated there was few behavorial problems at the school; perfectly correlating to Damian's post at 47 in spite of the ethnic diversity.

Our next posting had us in a one-race (white) farming community, right at the edge of Michigan's militia country (which is mostly in the thumb area of Michigan and where Timothy McVeigh's supporters resided). There he was exposed to the bigotry and hatred we've come to experience out of the Religious Right. Our adjacent neighbor even flew a Confederate Flag. While there also were a lot of great folks there, the area's culture was dominated by red necks and their attendant qualities. What a change from the California Bay Area. (My job had us moving from that MI posting after four years.)

Posted by: Michael Heath | September 4, 2009 8:01 AM

59

Damien--

Again, you are misreading me. I introduced myself and my siblings as a counter-example to Michael Heath's miserable and abused children of home-schooling.

On the other hand, my experiences in grad school were originally meant to offer something of an explanation for why home-schoolers might avoid "mainstream" universities. Heath had earlier argued that that avoidance was a sign of fundamentalist abuse. My point was that it was just as likely an avoidance of liberal, secular abuse. I never argued that abuse of a powerless child by its parents and abuse of a young adult by other adults is necessarily equivalent. I DO however argue that they are both abuse, and terribly harmful.

I'll admit that my original statement about indoctrination was not the best choice of words. Though I do believe that many of those students and professors could be called "indoctrinated," not by their parents but by the university system and years of professors attempting to insinuate their personal beliefs into their academic lectures. A professor's job is to teach HOW to think, not WHAT to think. But that is a different problem.

Did I mention the day that I was almost forced to get a substitute for one of my classes, because most of the graduate students had agreed to wear black armbands in protest of George W. Bush's inauguration? Either to wear a band or to not wear a band was to declare a position and I refused to parade my political views in front of my students. It was my job to teach English, not who to vote for. My request for someone to take my class, along with my reasons, resulted in the typically immature decision that instead everyone who protested should "wear clean underwear." I suspect you think that's hilarious.

As for your questioning of my honesty, there's a difference between being skeptical and repeatedly implying that I am lying and/or exaggerating to serve my own ends.

A Home-schooled Adult.

Posted by: A Home-Schooled Adult | September 4, 2009 10:40 AM

61

Michael--

The class would have been covered, one way or another. I was responsible to and for my students. The armband plan wasn't individual free speech, it was an attempt to organize all the graduate students in the entire department (most of whom were TAs teaching classes, not merely students), using a mailing list run by the department. (And yes, this was a state university.) My point was to force that crowd to realize that not everyone in the department was gung-ho for their little plan, and that I refused to be forced into being visibly and publicly set apart for my beliefs in front of my students.

A Home-schooled Adult

Posted by: A Home-Schooled Adult | September 4, 2009 3:51 PM

63

Again, you are misreading me. I introduced myself and my siblings as a counter-example to Michael Heath's miserable and abused children of home-schooling.

On the other hand, my experiences in grad school were originally meant to offer something of an explanation for why home-schoolers might avoid "mainstream" universities. Heath had earlier argued that that avoidance was a sign of fundamentalist abuse. My point was that it was just as likely an avoidance of liberal, secular abuse. I never argued that abuse of a powerless child by its parents and abuse of a young adult by other adults is necessarily equivalent. I DO however argue that they are both abuse, and terribly harmful.

Again, I apologize, and perhaps others understood you perfectly from the beginning, but I can honestly say that this last post is the first time that I have properly understood what you were saying. But it doesn't matter now, because we got there in the end.

I'm glad that you introduced yourself and your siblings as a counter example, as it can never do any harm, and often does provide balance and context, although it's important to note that it was never a question whether all religious parents that home-school their children are in the business of indoctrination. In fact, it's difficult to know how many actually are.

And again, it's important to repeat what I said earlier: I don't believe that parents who leave themselves open to accusations of indoctrination do so with nefarious intent. It is my belief that the consequences can be much worse than nefarious (for the child), but it's fairly clear that the overwhelming majority of parents believe that what they are doing is what is best for their children. That is what makes the cases so sad, so difficult to discuss, and almost impossible to do anything about. And it elicits a strong reaction precisely because they are innocent children.

I have no doubt that the vast majority of home-schooled children either benefit from the experience, or that there is little or no difference. I still believe that they should be closely monitored and that they should have to learn specific, mostly secular (as opposed to purely religious) disciplines, but that may be asking too much.

You could highlight millions of positive cases of home-schooling, but as I'm sure that you would agree, that could never excuse or make up for the relative few (percentage wise, "few" could easily run in to the thousands, if not tens of thousands) that are psychologically damaged, sometimes very seriously, by the experience. Of course, that can happen in any family, and in a wide variety of circumstances, so I certainly don't want to give the impression that this is solely a religious problem. That just happens to be what we are discussing at this moment in time.

And I must say that I'm still not really buying your other point, that "home-schoolers might avoid "mainstream" universities...[because of] secular abuse". It's a possibility, of course, but I've seen little evidence that the problem is widespread, and as I said in an earlier post, the number just don't add up. For instance, there are thousands of documented cases form all walks of life of non-believers either avoiding letting on who they really are (and all of the psychological trauma that comes with that), or being harassed, and at times punished, for their lack of belief. I would need to see some hard evidence above and beyond your own experience before I could be convinced that it is a real problem in reverse. As it is, Michael Heath's theory, at least intuitively — which I admit might be due to my own bias — appears to be far more plausible at this point.

Though I do believe that many of those students and professors could be called "indoctrinated," not by their parents but by the university system and years of professors attempting to insinuate their personal beliefs into their academic lectures. A professor's job is to teach HOW to think, not WHAT to think. But that is a different problem.

Again, I'd need to see some real evidence to take that too seriously. No doubt it does happen, but how widespread it is, I really don't know. Indoctrination has a specific meaning, and just as "communist" and "fascist" have virtually lost all of their explanatory power over the last few months due to people that don't have the first idea what those titles actually mean, we're in danger of doing the same sort of thing with an already well defined and understood concept, here. Words matter, and they often have a specific meaning that correlates to a specific set of actions, and we shouldn't simply apply them to any situation where we see fit, if it doesn't accurately describe what is happening. I'm afraid that we will have to agree to disagree on that one until further evidence comes to light. But I am open to changing my mind.

As for your questioning of my honesty, there's a difference between being skeptical and repeatedly implying that I am lying and/or exaggerating to serve my own ends.

Again, I wasn't. I was expressing skepticism about the exact circumstances that you described in your first couple of posts. And I'm just going to come out and say it: I'm willing to take my share of the blame for that, but I'm also fairly sure that you didn't express yourself very clearly, which added to the confusion. Now that I am clear on what you meant, you can see that my skepticism only remains where there is insufficient empirical evidence to settle a specific issue.

Posted by: Damian | September 4, 2009 7:20 PM