Letters to the editor
The Reporter welcomes responses from readers about articles in the magazine or about Trinity-related matters. Please address correspondence to Drew Sanborn, Trinity Reporter, Trinity College, 300 Summit Street, Hartford, CT 06106 or drew.sanborn@trincoll.edu.
The following letters were received in response to the essay “In Defense of Liberal Education” by Associate Professor of Political Science Brigitte Schulz in the fall 2006 issue of the Reporter.
To the Editor:
I agree with much of what Dr. Schulz had to say in her recent “Speak Out” article in the Trinity Reporter, entitled “In Defense of Liberal Education.” But among my several minor disagreements, one point stands out quite sharply.
Dr. Schulz introduced her article with an anecdote about meeting “a lovely woman and her four young children,” the oldest of which is only seven. For some reason Dr. Schulz seems to think that the education of such a young child should be comparable to the curriculum of liberal arts college.
Small children (like this seven-year-old) are not yet ready for the challenges and complexities of life, which a liberal education explores. Rather, children in the primary grades thrive in a world that is small, orderly, and rule-oriented. It is at this age that basic values are instilled. So if we value and strive for a stable society in the next generation, it is imperative that young children receive a solid foundation for the rest of their lives. And in Oregon, and most of the U.S., the public schools no longer perform this essential task adequately.
So while I heartily endorse a liberal education at the high-school and collegiate levels, I most vehemently disagree with Dr Schulz’s negative assessment of this conscientious mother. Rather, she should be commended and encouraged in assuming this challenging task.
Gordon Burkett, ’76
To the Editor:
Ms. Schulz’s essay in the “speak out” section of the fall 2006 issue of the Trinity Reporter prompted me to share these thoughts as a member of the Trinity College Class of ’65.
In her essay, Ms. Schulz has fallen into her own trap. She has proven a bias on her own part that she criticizes and attacks in others. Her bias is the exact bias that many of us out here in the real world fear about the power college and university faculty members wield over the minds, thought processes, and, most importantly, the values of our country’s college students.
Adjectives are powerful words as they reflect bias in the use of the associated noun. Why isn’t Ms. Schulz content to see her role simply as an “educator” as opposed to that which she describes as a “liberal” view of education. In using that powerful adjective she has revealed her own bias.
This is the exact reason that the mother in Arizona whom Ms. Schulz refers to in her essay is home schooling her child. This is also the exact reason many of us fear the likes of faculty members such as Ward Churchill who are not educating their students but rather promoting their own personal and political biases in the college classroom.
If Ms. Schulz, and her faculty colleagues at the college and university level truly saw their “role as an educator being to challenge students to think critically, to expand their horizons by learning new ideas, theories, and concepts” (Ms. Schulz’s exact words) then they would see their role as teaching and promoting the understanding of both “liberal” and “conservative” perspectives on issues.
As an example, faculty members who are true “educators” in science departments would understand and be sharing both the theory of Darwinian evolution as well as the theory of intelligent design and letting the students themselves critically analyze the scientific information supporting each of these theories and allowing and encouraging the students to decide for themselves which theory has a better explanation of the world as we find it.
The problem is that many of the science faculty members themselves, at the elementary school, high school, and college level are “blind” to the theory of “intelligent design”, have rested on their existing biases, have not taken the time to examine or understand this new theory, and are not encouraging their students to even consider the merits of this alternative theory.
In her essay Ms. Schulz states that “teaching young people that there is no simple truth, that ours is a planet full of competing views, cultural norms and ideological perspectives stands at the core of a liberal education.” This statement rejects the concept of an absolute or “simple truth” and implies that everything is relative. This basic concept is the root of the secular view of the world that is permeating today’s culture. I, personally, disagree with that view. By making such a statement and teaching that concept in the classroom, I believe Ms. Schulz and other faculty members who do this are really rejecting a belief in God and the absolutes associated with such a belief. Such an approach is not and should not be the core of a “liberal” education.
Although a science major myself at Trinity, I happen to have survived the educational process believing there is a God, an ultimate “Creator” whose existence, if you gain an understanding of it and believe it, explains the entire universe and all the creatures within it. I did this even though I was taught the “theory” of evolution as if it were fact and was never exposed to any alternative theories.
Also, in her essay, Ms. Schulz refers to “teaching from an ‘American’ perspective.” Although not perfect, I happen to believe the United States of America is the greatest country in the world. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t have people flocking to our borders and shores. We wouldn’t be the object of such world envy and jealousy. This nation’s history has some ethical blemishes in its treatment of the native Indians, the blacks, and even women. We cannot correct the past. We can only understand history and learn from it. We can, however, understand and appreciate that the freedoms we enjoy in this country and the opportunities that are available to us are second to none in the world.
So, Ms. Schulz, stop laying a “guilt trip” on your students. Teach them the facts of history, i.e. what happened and why it happened considering the circumstances of the times. And help them understand that they cannot go back and change the history of the past. They can only learn from it, and use their knowledge of the past to build a better future.
When I came to Trinity to take advantage of a “liberal arts” education, I did not come to be conditioned into a “liberal” thought process, a “liberal” political bias or “liberal” values. The word “liberal” meant to me a broad range of subjects in the arts and sciences to study in order to gain a better understanding and appreciation of the world and the opportunity to prepare for my future through this ability to explore and learn.
It is my strong belief that Trinity’s mission, and the role and responsibility of its faculty, is not to train “liberals” or promote “liberal” thinking as Ms. Schulz would have you believe. This is the exact fear that the mother in Arizona was trying to share with Ms. Schulz and why she is home-schooling her children. The schools/college’s role, through its faculty, is to “educate.” Its role is not to determine an individual’s values or biases. The students will do that as a result of the totality of their life experiences.
Sincerely,
Roland R. Carlson ’65
To the Editor:
Professor Brigitte Schultz’s cogent description of the great values of classical liberal arts education and her role therein deserves a better title. There is little, if any, need to defend classical liberal education, as it has stood the test of time and contributed beyond measurement to the advance of civilization around the planet.
Yes, our two major political parties have been captured by extremists on the left and the right who almost universally display their total unwillingness to rationally evaluate all points of view. And they defiantly deny the facts and reason of other views presented by those of us who have had the benefit of a classical liberal arts education and who use rationality and critical thinking in considering and evaluating the ideas of others.
Though the influence of these extremists has grown to levels that negatively affect our society, there remains a broad mainstream of individuals who comprehend, whether they publicly espouse it or not, the importance of critical thinking and of a truly open approach to the ideas of others.
The extremists are the ones that need to offer a defense of their closed minds, and there is none.
Despite these attacks on classical liberal thought, which have gone on for centuries, I have no doubt that the leadership role played by proponents of openness to ideas will continue for many more centuries. Certainly those of us who believe in the value of liberal thought will work relentlessly to ensure that rationality and critical thinking continue to be guiding lights for the advancement of society.
But we must ensure that some of the partisan political biases that have crept into many of our educational institutions are not allowed to make the educations offered there become as one-sided in the opposite direction as they are alleged to have been in the past.
Kerry Fitzpatrick ’61
This letter was received in response to the essay by Professor Mark Silverman in the winter 2006 issue of the Reporter entitled “School boards call for creationism? Well, by Darwin, let ‘em have it!”
To the Editor:
I heartily support the idea that the creation model of origins be taught in the public schools but not for the same reason as put forth by Prof. Mark P. Silverman.
Prof. Silverman calls creationism “pseudoscience” and claims that evolution is “real science.” In reality, evolution and creation are simply models which seek to explain the origin of the universe. Scientific method requires observation. But origin involves the unobservable past. No man is capable of observing the past. Without being able to actually observe the past processes, all a scientist can do is to extrapolate backwards into the past. Such conjectural extrapolations can only result in models, not scientifically proven facts. Evolution is a model based on extrapolations which in turn are based on presuppositions such as the uniformitarian hypothesis which makes the unscientific (because unobserved) assumption that all natural processes in the past have always occurred in the same rate as observed in the present. Therefore, evolution vs. creation is not a matter of real science vs. pseudoscience. Evolution itself is pseudoscience as it is not based on empirical evidence.
Prof. Silverman calls creationism a “faith-based hypothesis” and claims that “evolution is a fact.” In reality, evolution itself is nothing more than a faith-based hypothesis, and a poor one at that. Consider some of the beliefs of its adherents. Evolutionists by faith believe that physical matter/energy has eternally existed (I would rather believe that an intelligent Creator existed eternally who in turn created matter/energy). Evolutionists by faith believe that matter turned into living organisms via random processes. In order to allow for such natural impossibility (for no one has ever observed life coming from non-life), evolution invokes the omnipotent “god” of time and chance (I would rather believe that the omnipotent Creator formed all living organisms with a plan and purpose).
Finally, in sharing his concern that man’s “carelessness, greed, and stupidity” would put to extinction the human race, Prof. Silverman proposes his remedy that evolution be rigorously taught in schools! This is strange. Firstly, evolution is about greed (the survival of the fittest). Secondly, it was when evolution was practiced by Adolph Hitler that six million Jews were exterminated (he considered them a not well-developed race in the evolutionary ladder). Thirdly, since evolution involves no plan or purpose of an intelligent and benevolent Creator, is it reasonable to expect any good to come out of indoctrinating young people in the theory of evolution which in itself is both careless and mindless? By the way, if evolution were true, what difference would extinction of the human race make anyway? It appears that Prof. Silverman cannot shake off the reality that there is a purpose (intelligence) behind the universe, otherwise why be concerned about “humanity’s future”?
I was one of Prof. Silverman’s students during the fall semester of 1986 when he lectured on General Physics III, Physics 221. I clearly recall two interesting moments during the course of his lectures which are relevant to our discussion. First, on the very first day of class, while introducing himself, he made the following remarkable confession: “Science is my religion.” Second, some time later in the course, in presenting Coulomb’s inverse-square law, he paused and remarked, obviously amazed himself, that the exponent of 2 in the equation was not, for example, 2.000001 or 1.999999, but precisely 2 measured, so far as scientific measurement had been capable of, to the precision of some 16 decimal places! Such elegant equations abound in science. And my professor’s amazement probably implied the following unexpressed question: why are impersonal physical laws (without a lawgiver, according to evolution) actually observed to exist in such elegant relationships? This observed fact is exactly what one would expect in a universe governed by an all-intelligent Creator.
I, for one, find the infinite Creator to have made intelligent communication to finite man on planet earth 1) by giving him ample evidence of His eternal power and Godhead by displaying His glory in the universe He has created; 2) by verbally communicating to man in His written word, the Bible, the purpose of His creation; 3) and by sending to the earth His co-equal eternal Son Jesus Christ to become incarnated and to selflessly die for every human being’s sin of rebellion against the Creator in order to reconcile them to Himself. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Dear reader, believe and live!
Pradesh Shrestha ’88
Kathmandu, Nepal
pradesh@inmail24.com
Professor Silverman responds:
There are numerous erroneous assumptions and assertions in Mr. Shrestha’s letter, but I will leave it to Trinity biologists to correct those regarding evolution. One assertion, however, I will address myself. Although 1986 is a long time ago and I do not pretend to remember everything I may have said in class, it has always been my policy as a teacher scrupulously to avoid personal remarks in class, even in jest, that are likely to engender misunderstandings. Therefore I cannot imagine ever having said in class that “Science is my religion,” and I am inclined to believe that the respondent has either remembered incorrectly or confused me with some other professor.