In my last post, I discussed a shift in the dialogue occurring at colleges and universities across the country, or in more specific terms the decline in and avoidance of open dialogue. This is the first in a series of subsequent posts where I attempt to dive deeper in this idea, and my call for a return to open dialogue and an acceptance of diverse thought and opinion. The first step in this journey is an examination of some historical views on the role of education.
The principles underlying modern thought on the role of education in a democratic society can be traced to some of the earliest writing concerning education in America. Scholars such as Walter Feinberg tell us that some of the earliest goals of education were the promotion of a common national identity that reinforced and reproduced existing social structures. However, as cultural diversity grew and civil rights took hold across the country, educational institutions had to adapt to a new social paradigm. The old ideas proved problematic and inequities continued.
In order to promote a sense of shared belonging, James Stillwagon found that schools needed to educate students on 3 tenets: 1) citizenship is shared by members of different cultural groups; 2) citizens are expected to show partiality to their nation and fellow citizens; 3) citizens from different cultural groups are expected to be partial to each other even if they must distance themselves from members of their cultural group from a different nation. But how did we get here?
One of our nation’s founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, believed that it was possible for individuals to improve themselves through education. It was his belief that all people are born with a set of innate abilities and sense of moral values. As such, he recognized the role of institutions of education to help form a person’s character, and therefore believed that only those with extraordinary ability and wisdom should receive the necessary education to do so. Horace Mann extended on Jefferson’s ideas and argued that all should have equality of opportunity in order to promote democracy. Ultimately, Dewey had the largest impact on providing a broad, non-individualistic view through equal opportunity. In addition, he saw education as being the foundation for effective citizenship; more so citizenship in a diverse society, including diversity of belief.
To move to a more contemporary perspective, Amy Guttman based her position largely on Dewey’s ideas and the concept of negative liberty, i.e. free from domination or coercion. This means she perceives the role of education promoting democratic values by promoting and supporting students’ exploration of their own values and to have freedom from ideological repression. Colleges and universities are meant to defend the individual’s rights to free and autonomous self-creation, and in so doing they support a continued free and democratic state.
How is it that colleges and universities accomplish this feat? Sharon Fraser-Burgess posited it can be accomplished by simply allowing the free and open dialogue and using this as an opportunity to educate the citizenry on the skills and virtues of open democratic deliberation; to continually construct the moral substance dictated by the virtues of a moral deliberative democracy. The enforcement of a single ideal through education only subverts contemporary democratic ideals. Educational institutions must be free from constraint if they are to preserve the intellectual and social foundations of a deliberative democracy.
Doctor of Thought 