Do Bigots and Ignoramuses Control US Education?

Posted for Stevenson Prescott
With the rise of President Trump and Betsy Devos, many Americans are rightfully concerned about the state of education, especially public education, in the United States. Given the decidedly anti-intellectual bent of President Trump and DeVos’s apparent lack of expertise about the subject matter she presides over, a great deal of cynicism is to be expected. Nevertheless, it would be ahistorical to assert that this represents a nadir of public education in the United States. As the Scopes trial showcased, the state of education in this nation has never been ideal. Whether educators were vehemently opposed to the theory of evolution or history teachers emphasized a narrative of American exceptionalism at the expense of marginalized groups, education, at least in many places, has long been dominated by those espousing racist, sexist, and/or anti-scientific viewpoints. This is less true with higher education, which tends to be more oriented towards empiricism and critical thought. Nevertheless, to state that this is the nadir of America’s education system is more than a bit hyperbolic and revisionist. The American education system has always been flawed, regardless on whether the President was a Democrat or a Republican.


As an African American, I am acutely aware of racist agendas being promoted through public education, whether consciously or unconsciously. Although learning about the legacies of the Founding Fathers was fascinating and valuable for any American, the stories of African Americans and Native Americans were not given ample attention in the public schools I attended. The stories of non-white Americans are just as imperative as white Americans, but this was not emphasized by most of my history teachers. The same is true of women, whose contributions are often minimized. These silences have a profound effect on marginalized populations and do a disservice to all American kids, who deserve to learn about the contributions and hardships of Americans from all races, religious affiliations, and occupations.

Views of Self-Consciousness

“Not all who wander are lost” wrote J.R.R Tolkien, one of the towering storytellers of the twentieth century. This quote, perhaps more than any other, encapsulates my view on self-consciousness. The theme of being lost is one that has been alluded to by theologians, philosophers, fantasists, and fanatics. For the Abrahamic faiths, being lost has negative implications and ramifications. Those that are lost are spiritually separated from God. For Buddhists, being lost is aspirational as the belief system emphasizes introspection and is relatively comfortable with ambiguity, something that cannot be ascribed to Christianity and Islam. Regardless of one’s opinions on what it means to be lost, the word, in and of itself, is highly instructive. Given someone’s perspective of what it means to be lost, it becomes easier to determine what their views are on self-consciousness, at least to a certain extent. For me, being lost no longer has the negative connotations it once had for me as a result of my upbringing. In fact, it can denote a certain degree of comfort. It can even be liberating to achieve this state, no longer being indebted to antedated ideals or the belief that morality is absolute.

John Keats, one of the leading literary luminaries of the Romantic period, coined the term “negative capability”, which he asserted was the defining trait of the greatest of artists. For Keats, “negative capability” was being able to comfortably exist in a state of uncertainty and ambiguity without attempting to reach resolutions. Although this idea would be scoffed at by some, I would be dishonest if I stated that my views on self-consciousness weren’t influenced by Keats. As a lover of literature, I’ve always been attuned to the rhythm of words and the freedom that writing often affords. I agree with Keats that the greatest artists are able to exist in a state of relative ambiguity, usually adhering less to dogma of any kind while crafting their own credos. Self-consciousness, for me, is less about looking for answers and more about the search. This may be antithetical to scientific thought, but as a writer, it informs my worldview. Another pioneering poet, Lord Alfred Tennyson, summarized my views on self-consciousness nicely in his tour de force Ulysses; I am aiming to explore the physical world and world of ideas for myself without the concern of becoming lost.

Essay 3

The idea of fate is one that many of history’s most brilliant minds have agonized over, arguing for and against it. Theologians and philosophers alike from St Augustine to Sartre have questioned the legitimacy of fatalism, often, but not always approaching it through the prism of faith. Religion tends to be rather teleological in nature, asserting that things happen because they were destined to happen. Marxism is also teleological, asserting that class struggle is inevitable and that communism will supplant the system of capitalism. Even those who are not Marxists or religious have fatalist conceptions, however. The phrase “Everything happens for a reason” has been a cliché, being consciously instilled in people’s psyches from the time they are children. Even many of those who don’t adhere to the idea that a God exists are fatalistic to an extent. I believe that fatalism is a spectrum, more so than a binary choice. There are those who believe that everything, from the smallest details to life altering events, are dictated by destiny. Others believe that only the latter are ordained by fate. Then, there are those who are essentially existentialists who believe that fate is an antiquated idea that has no basis. Railing against determinism, they assert that all events are ultimately subject to various contingencies, none of which can be foreseen. Personally, I see the merit in each of the arguments as well as the problems each with each perspective. I would classify myself as one who generally, but not exclusively, believes that things are not destined, but ruled by contingency. Nevertheless, I would be dishonest if I stated that I don’t believe that there are some things, which I feel, were meant to be. Thus, I am a fatalist, but only to an extent. What I also believe is that fatalism is not a binary choice between fatalists and non-fatalists, but a rather broad spectrum.

July 11

   Throughout history, those dedicated to advancing the truth have been subject to ridicule, scorn, and even hatred from others. Telling unpopular truths takes a great amount of courage, but many stray from doing so to avoid various repercussions. These range from being excommunicated from their social circles to having their lives literally whisked away from them. Those who have defended the truth in times of opposition include heroes such Galileo Galilei, John Scopes, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, and even reporters who refuse to allow President Trump’s vitriolic rhetoric to dissuade them from investigating the truth. The first of these, one of the greatest scientists in history, incurred the wrath of the Roman Catholic Church for asserting that the earth, rather than the sun, was the epicenter of the universe. John Scopes had to contend with conservative creationists who opposed the fact that he taught the theory of evolution, despite the substantial amount of evidence there is supporting it. Both of these men of science held on to their convictions and channeled the very spirit of science by discovering and sharing the truth regardless of the rancor they received.   

Scientists have been some of truth’s boldest defenders, but they are not its only defenders. Arguably the greatest orator of the twentieth century and inarguably a Civil Rights icon, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., also preached the truth when it dangerous to do so. Exposing the hypocrisy of Christians and others who maintained that blacks were inferior beings, he stayed true to Christ’s message of love in the Bible. From a religious and moral perspective, King was undeniably a defender of truth who rightfully indicted hypocrites for their crimes against humanity. The belief that those of different races are unequal was, and is, an insidious falsehood that destroyed the lives of millions. King dared to speak truth to power by imploring Americans to jettison its racist beliefs about black Americans. This would cost him his life, but his messages secured his legacy as one of history’s relentless truth tellers.

==

8.10.18

Francis Collins’s, “Language of the Gods” was a text that fit well within the framework of evolution and the Scope’s trial. I found the author’s premise to be fairly plausible, but perhaps the most notable feature of the book was the author’s background. The book begins with a brief biography that reveals the author’s roots, and how he was reared with three (3) brothers in a non-religious household by two Yale educated parents. He earned a Ph.D. from Yale University and a M.D. degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. As a scientist, he led the human genome project and currently leads the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta. The author’s background is of major significance because of his beliefs on faith and the existence of a higher power.
The author takes the reader through the scientific minutiae explaining Darwinism and his evolutionary theories. He agrees with many of his fellow scientists about there being ample evidence to support evolution. Collins also describes various warring ideologies ranging from Fundamentalism to Atheism to the Big Bang Theory to Intelligent Design. He disagrees with most of the fringe opinions that attempt to reconcile both evolution and spirituality in a manner that offends neither. The author decries the efforts of what he calls the “Gap Theology”, which is the supernatural explanation for anything not yet proven by science. He then introduces concepts of Biologos and Moral Law. These are the basis for his general position, which is that science should be utilized to discover the natural world, but that science cannot answer spiritual questions of the metaphysical world. He acknowledges C.S. Lewis and his seminal work “Mere Christianity” as integral to his transformation from an atheist to believer. The author completes the book by giving a non-biased explanation and a neutral stance on stem cell research.

I enjoyed the book, but I expected scientific evidence. Ironically, I believe that Dr. Collins advances the very type of “gap theology” which he bemoans.
This is a balanced, non-confrontational work that gives adequate explanation for complex scientific concepts and succeeds in offending no one. I was a bit disappointed because by implication, title, and cover art, a potential book purchaser is led to believe that this modern-day genius has concrete proof for God’s existence, despite his scientific background. What the book reveals; however, is a recitation of the competing ideologies, a cursory description of genetics, Darwinism, theology, and a mini biography, which explains the author’s path, and eventual acceptance of spirituality. “Language of the Gods” is a thorough work that provides comfortable conclusions for atheists and believers. It offends no one. This same noble fact may be the reason why one could hardly regard Collin’s book as one that provides actual evidence for belief. In actuality, this work makes a case for belief based on faith. Not evidence. While this fact does not change the book’s clear and concise manner or it’s scientific worth, it does deceive potential readers.