For most anyone paying attention to the public education
system in the last four decades, one has seen a more or less continuous erosion
of the concept of neutrality in social views. From a practical standpoint, this
represents little change. Since the government took over the education of
children, and even before, some viewpoints have been favored over others. What
distinguished the time of the 1960’s was that there was a brief period when
neutrality was publicly agreed upon as an ideal worthy of pursuit.
It was not generally approached using that term. Rather than
neutrality, there were phrases bandied about such as “color-blind,” “equal
opportunity,” and “equal protection under law.” I was in the middle grades during
that time, and my understanding was limited. It certainly sounded like an ideal
that matched up with my concepts of what America “should” strive for.
For all of the high sounding catch-words, the implementation
broke down almost immediately. “Equal opportunity” degraded rapidly into a game
of semantics involving how best to assure different minority groups preferences.
Though giving lip service to respect for all cultures, what had been thought of
as “traditional” in America rapidly was singled out for scorn, derision, and a
new breed of institutionalized discrimination. As the practice broke down
further, it became inevitable that even the thought of government not
supporting some non-traditional group was considered intolerable.
The latest example of this shift was observed recently in
the Minnesota Board of Education. The policy regarding student and teacher
conduct has been changed from one of neutrality, with educators steering clear
of opinions about controversial groups and issues, to one labeled “Respectful
Learning Environment.” At least one reason for the change is legal troubles
resulting in several lawsuits alleging that neutrality has created an
environment where gay students are subject to bullying.
The shift prompts me to consider two very important
questions: First, what was it about the policy of remaining neutral as teachers
that would encourage bullying to any specific group? Surely the school had the
same authority under the past policy to administer discipline against any
students that acted in a bullying fashion? If the message that the school is
trying to send is that all students are worthy of respect, at least with regard
to their physical and emotional well-being, then what could possibly serve
better than a values-neutral protection of every last student?
The second question, to me, is even more relevant to the
issue of bullying: If it has already been observed that there is animosity to
particular groups at the school, how does the school intended to reduce that by
showing favoritism to the group involved? Isn’t that a near-certain recipe for
setting current resentments in concrete, and then setting up an entirely new
layer? Haven’t the people in charge learned anything from how affirmative
action has placed many achievements by women and African-Americans vulnerable
to suspicion?
True neutrality in any system is nearly impossible. I think
most people who spend any time considering the difficulties will agree on that.
However, it’s only by aiming for the impossible, the ideal, that we have any
hope of achieving a moderately equitable reality. By aiming directly at the
imperfect, we take the first step toward achieving the intolerable.
No comments:
Post a Comment