Liberty, Part One – The Causes Which Impel Them

June 1, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…

Hopefully this sounds vaguely familiar. It’s from the Declaration of Independence – history’s first and most famous combination break-up letter and birth certificate.

If you’ve had a longstanding relationship with someone – whether a lover, parent, spouse, or child – and that someone suddenly bails, you’re well within your rights to expect some sort of explanation. A midday text of “Not wrkng out – CU ltr… or not. Lev my stuff w/ Tori?” simply won’t do. T.J. and the Founders understood this, and explained their break-up in an ‘open letter’ to England and the world.

Your friends are all going to be asking what happened anyway, right? Might as well copy them on the text.

But it’s also a birth certificate in the sense that it describes and proclaims a new nation – a whole new KIND of nation, in fact. Lincoln will refer back to this Declaration in those terms fourscore and seven years later when he speaks of a nation ‘conceived in liberty’ and brought forth by fathers – in this case, ‘Founding’.

Then come the Big Three Rights. They’ll be expanded – or at least clarified – in a subsequent Constitution and its famous First Ten Amendments, but these are the foundation.

The phrasing was presumably borrowed (and modified) from John Locke, who wrote that governments have one job and one job only – the protection of property, defined specifically as life, liberty, and estate. Why T.J. and crew changed the phrasing is subject to discussion, but whatever their motivation, our lil’ nation wasn’t birthed by Locke (as far as we know – although we do have his nose… oh god, what if- ?!). Our legal birth certificate says Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – not ‘estate’. Everything else is commentary.

So… what do they mean?

That’s the catch. We generally agree on the phrases – Democrats and Republicans, Chicks and Dudes, a wide variety of colors, religions, professions, and educational attainments… we pretty much all love those words.

We just don’t agree on what they mean. So… wrinkle!

Crane Britton in Anatomy of a Revolution argued that when taking over an existing government, there’s no need for a new flag – just change what the flag means. No reason for an entirely new government – so long as existing officials are willing to ‘adapt’. The more extant anthems, slogans, and other nationalistic symbols and phrases you can keep, the better – as long as you effectively reshape what they stand for. What they MEAN.

T.J. and the Founders weren’t going for anything so sneaky; they were proclaiming their goals openly, if a bit poetically. But they did give us words and symbols around which to rally, and were then kind enough to establish before the proverbial ink was dry that the difficulty lie in how those words and symbols are defined. The next three decades were defined by arguments over what our Constitution and accompanying documents actually mean – or should mean, at least. Eventually we went to war with ourselves over it, so… here’s to clarity next time, gentlemen.

We hold these truths to be self-evident

This is either seriously profound or a rather evasive way to confess we’re not actually sure why we believe these things. I’m going to go with profound, because… Jefferson.

that all men are created equal

Pretty tricky to reconcile slavery and subsequent treatment of immigrants and Amerindians with this one, isn’t it? It’s one thing to limit ‘men’ to, well… MEN; it’s another to presume this grand claim of the equality was obviously only intended for Anglo-Saxons of a certain income level. A more accurate rendering of the Founders’ general mindset might have read, “far more men are created essentially equal than most of you thought, although let’s not get carried away and think that’s necessarily everyone, or even a majority.”

Imagine reciting THAT on Declaration Day every year in school.

But when given a choice between accuracy and rhetoric, T.J. often chose the latter. I have no doubt he was entirely sincere – like many of us, Jefferson was quite comfortable believing several contradictory things at once. “I think, therefore I am distorting reality to fit my own needs.”

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights

The ‘Creator’ part is also vague enough to mean whatever the reader wished it to mean. Many read ‘God’ without even consciously considering alternatives, while those less dogmatic could easily assume a less specific life force – be it Clockmaker, First Causer, or Nature itself.

As to those ‘unalienable’ rights, well… that’s rather bold! ‘Unalienable’ suggests these rights exist even when they’re being violated, or denied. They exist the same even if we attempt to surrender them voluntarily. They exist even if we’re bad people.

Even after the whole ‘all men’ issue was clarified (thank you, 14th Amendment), this is probably the greatest gap between our rhetoric and our actual beliefs as evidenced by our history. And lest we feel all 21st Century superior to our forebears, read it again and then think ‘Guantanamo Bay’. See the problem?

But for now let’s move to those Big Three highlighted earlier.

that among these are

That’s smart. “We’re going to list three biggies here, but we’re not saying these are the only ones.” A similar clarification will be made in the 9th Amendment after detailing various rights in the first eight. It’s not so different from what we do when making school policies – after skirt length and no guns or drugs or sexual harassment usually comes something like “and pretty much anything else we decide gets in the way of what we’re trying to do here.” That way, when some kid comes up with something you simply didn’t anticipate – like, bringing his Komodo Dragon to school – you don’t have to find a specific rule against that in order to send him and his pet home.

Life

This one should be easy, right? And in some ways it is. It does get messy when we’re talking about anything involving a ‘right to die’ for the elderly or seriously damaged. Things get especially tricky when addressing reproduction – especially when it comes to ending existing pregnancies. Even the ‘do some heroin and have sex with your dog’ Libertarians are split over abortion, since this ‘right to life’ is so fundamental in the most original of American documents.

Very few of the folks chanting for choice are against ‘life’. It’s that definition thing again – what do we mean by ‘life’? When, exactly, does it begin – and what does that even mean? Who decides?

So maybe that first one isn’t so easy after all.

and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Yeah, yeah – I skipped one, I know. And I’m not sure what this one means, other than sounding much more positive than ‘estate’, or ‘stuff’. Perhaps it promotes the value of seeking personal fulfillment over simply meeting one’s obligations to community or country. Maybe ‘pursuit of happiness’ is drawn up in contrast to ‘serving one’s king.’ But I’m speculating.

Liberty

Liberty. Yeah… that one’s going to take a while.

The Power of Persuasion (To Prove or To Move?)

May 2, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 1 Comment

I came across an amusing piece the other day which I’d seen before, enjoyed, then forgotten. I’ll excerpt a bit so you can get the idea even if you don’t read the full thing right this minute.

Announcement Regarding the Bureau of Caucasian Affairs – BCA
United Native Americans (UNA) is proud to announce that it has bought the state of California from the whites and is throwing it open to Indian settlement. UNA bought California from three winos found wandering in San Francisco. UNA decided the winos were the spokesmen for the white people of California. These winos promptly signed the treaty, which was written in Sioux, and sold California for three bottles of wine, one bottle of gin, and four cases of beer…
Of course, whites will be allowed to sell trades and handicrafts at stands by the highway. Each white will be provided annually with one blanket, one pair of tennis shoes, a supply of Spam, and a copy of The Life of Crazy Horse…
All courses will be taught in Indian languages, and there will be demerits for anyone caught speaking English. All students arriving at the school will immediately be given IQ tests to determine their understanding of Indian Language and hunting skills… Each hospital will have a staff of two part-time doctors and a part-time chiropractor who have all passed first aid tests. And each hospital will be equipped with a scalpel, a jack knife, a saw, a modern tourniquet, and a large bottle of aspirin.
Certain barbaric white customs will, of course, not be allowed. Whites will not be allowed to practice their heathen religions, and will be required to attend Indian ceremonies. Missionaries will be sent from each tribe to convert the whites on the reservations. White churches will either be made into amusement parks or museums or will be torn down and the bricks and ornaments sold as souvenirs and curiosities…

It’s effective satire. It bites enough to hurt, but it’s still funny. It’s what John Stewart does when he’s at his best – throwing out a little red meat to those who already agree, and sharply prodding those who don’t, moderated somewhat by humor.

But sarcasm and hyperbole are risky if you’re serious about changing minds (as opposed to being funny or venting a tiny bit of rage). If they work, they really really work – but if they don’t, they alienate and offend. Risk big, win big – or, you know, fail.

Sometimes we have to consciously decide whether we’d rather be right or be effective. Standing our ground on moral absolutes is all well and good – and sometimes the only acceptable choice if we’re to live with ourselves. But are there pathways to positive change that don’t require either the complete submission of our adversaries or sacrifice of our own foundational values?

In 1851, a largely unknown former slave going by the name ‘Sojourner Truth’ took the stage at a women’s rights convention in Akron, OH. There are several versions of her exact words, but something pretty close to this segment shows up in all of them:

I have heard much about the sexes being equal; I can carry as much as any man, and can eat as much too, if I can get it. I am as strong as any man that is now.
As for intellect, all I can say is, if woman have a pint and a man a quart — why can’t she have her little pint full? You need not be afraid to give us our rights for fear we will take too much — for we won’t take more than our pint will hold.
The poor men seem to be all in confusion and don’t know what to do. Why children, if you have woman’s rights give it to her and you will feel better. You will have your own rights, and there won’t be so much trouble.

There are two things about this argument which I really like and from which I hope to learn.

First, Truth doesn’t pick fights she doesn’t need to or take on battles she probably can’t win. She works as much as most men? That’s easily verifiable. But intellect… that’s trickier. How would you even measure that? They didn’t have Common Core back then, or IQ tests, or even those ‘Which Failed 1970’s Sitcom Are You?’ quizzes.

Truth doesn’t bother arguing what she cannot prove. IF a woman has a pint only, while you men have quarts – fine. Why not let us fill up our little pints?

That’s much more difficult to refute. She gives her detractors little to kick against, while still claiming the rights for which she’s orating.

Second, Truth frames what she wants in terms compatible with her opponents’ needs – “the poor men… don’t know what to do.” Let the ladies have their little rights and you’ll feel better. They’re not wanting so very much. You need not sacrifice much to appease us. Things can get back to normal.

Sometimes it’s a bit more layered…

In 1830, a “Workingman’s Committee” was assembled in Philadelphia to “ascertain the state of public instruction in Pennsylvania” and propose improvements. Whatever their official status, their report reads like blue collar fathers wanting better for their children:

It is true the state is not without its colleges and universities, several of which have been fostered with liberal supplies from the public purse. Let it be observed, however, that the funds so applied, have been appropriated exclusively for the benefit of the wealthy, who are thereby enabled to procure a liberal education for their children, upon lower terms than it could otherwise be afforded them.

And you thought vouchers were a brand new scheme.

The Committee could argue for better funding so their kids would have more opportunity, lead richer lives, get better jobs. They could even bust out terms like “college and career ready.” But I suspect they knew those with political and economic power cared little for such things, whatever lip service may have been paid. They had to find something their targets DID care about – a common cause which could still nudge along their specific hopes:

Funds thus expended, may serve to engender an aristocracy of talent, and place knowledge, the chief element of power, in the hands of the privileged few; but can never secure the common prosperity of a nation nor confer intellectual as well as political equality on a people.

Whoa there, cowboy – an aristocracy of what?!

The original element of despotism is a MONOPOLY OF TALENT, which consigns the multitude to comparative ignorance, and secures the balance of knowledge on the side of the rich and the rulers. If… the healthy existence of a free government be… rooted in the WILL of the American people, it follows… that this monopoly should be broken up, and that the means of equal knowledge, (the only security for equal liberty) should be rendered, by legal provision, the common property of all classes.

They called on shared ideals. Who was going to argue against “of-the-by-the-for-the”?

This is a common tactic used still today, although often much less convincingly. Every time a politician or business leader speechifies that “what Americans want is _______” or proudly proclaim they “BELIEVE in buzzword, patriotic catchphrase, and congruent parallel third item!” they’re trying to use shared values to persuade. They just do it so badly it makes us hate them.

But this committee did it beautifully.

In a republic, the people constitute the government, and by wielding its powers in accordance with the dictates, either of their intelligence or their ignorance; of their judgment or their caprices, are the makers and the rulers of their own good or evil destiny…
It appears, therefore, to the committees that there can be no real liberty without a wide diffusion of real intelligence; that the members of a republic, should all be alike instructed in the nature and character of their equal rights and duties, as human beings, and as citizens; and that education, instead of being limited as in our public poor schools, to a simple acquaintance with words and cyphers, should tend, as far as possible, to the production of a just disposition, virtuous habits, and a rational self-governing character…

Like I said before, I’m all for standing unashamed on your convictions. There are times when budging one more inch is simply unacceptable! Immoral! When we’d rather fail with flair than move forward in shame and the ignominy of “compromise”!

On the other hand, if your goal is to change something, we may need to set aside such glories for a bit. The Committee at some point had to decide whether they cared more about venting their true spleen regarding inequity and the power structure of the society around them, or improving education in a meaningful way for their kids.

Sound familiar?

Listen to those whose cooperation you require. What’s important to them? What common ground do you share? At the very least, what argument will they find hardest to deny or refute?

“In a republic, the people constitute the government” may or may not be entirely true in practice, but it’s a hell of an argument, and one no good ‘Merican is likely to openly oppose. “We don’t want dumb people ruining things for everyone else” is particularly savvy if your target audience is made up of the rich and powerful who tend to be tired of, well… dumb people ruining things for everyone else.

Remember “island-hopping” in WWII? We don’t always need to win every part of every battle. Why sacrifice actual progress for idealistic – er… for letting ourselves end up in – well…

Is there a culturally appropriate term for ‘Chinese finger traps’?

Sometimes the best arguments are made by taking an existing idea or text and substituting, like the Declaration of Sentiments did for women’s rights, but it’s not a particularly entertaining read. And sometimes a little outrage and passion can grab hearts and minds, circa William Lloyd Garrison.

But honesty can still be subtle. Persuasion can be intelligently coy, surely.

Your assignment for next time: an excerpt from Harriet Jacobs, an escaped slave who wrote of her experiences and published them in 1861. What does she want? How does she use vocabulary and shared ideals to convey her feelings and nudge a variety of readers towards her worldview? In what ways does this excerpt demonstrate the importance of HOW we write as much as WHAT we write about?

It’s serious stuff, on a subject worthy of outrage. I respectfully suggest she gives us something better – effectiveness.

I’ll expect your analysis typed and double-spaced, on my desk by morning – or NO STICKER FOR YOU.

I now entered on my fifteenth year–a sad epoch in the life of a slave girl. My master began to whisper foul words in my ear. Young as I was, I could not remain ignorant of their import… I turned from him with disgust and hatred. But he was my master. I was compelled to live under the same roof with him–where I saw a man forty years my senior daily violating the most sacred commandments of nature. He told me I was his property; that I must be subject to his will in all things. My soul revolted against the mean tyranny.
But where could I turn for protection? No matter whether the slave girl be as black as ebony or as fair as her mistress. In either case, there is no shadow of law to protect her from insult, from violence, or even from death; all these are inflicted by fiends who bear the shape of men. The mistress, who ought to protect the helpless victim, has no other feelings towards her but those of jealousy and rage.
The degradation, the wrongs, the vices, that grow out of slavery, are more than I can describe. They are greater than you would willingly believe. Surely, if you credited one half the truths that are told you concerning the helpless millions suffering in this cruel bondage, you at the north would not help to tighten the yoke. You surely would refuse to do for the master, on your own soil, the mean and cruel work which trained bloodhounds and the lowest class of whites do for him at the south.

Oh – #11FF BCE Coffee Cup if you really submit something (email or comment below) before I follow up with mine. They are rare and coveted – and the next one could be yours.

RELATED POST: By Any Means Necessary

“Experiencing These Effects And Sinking Under Them” (Edu-vice from 1850)

April 28, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 2 Comments

What follows are excerpts from Popular Education: For The Use Of Parents And Teachers, And For Young Persons Of Both Sexes. Prepared and Published in Accordance with a Resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Michigan, by By Ira Mayhew, A.M. – Superintendent of Public Instruction (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 82 Cliff Street. 1850)

Say what you like about old books, they sure titled their titles.

And 1850? Let’s get a little perspective on that date…

The very concept of taxpayer-funded public schooling was less than a generation old, and all but non-existent in many areas – including most of the South. Millard Fillmore was President. California became the 31st State of the Union. Slavery was still entrenched in half the nation, and Harriet Tubman was beginning her work as a ‘conductor’ on the ‘Underground Railroad’ in defiance thereof. P.T. Barnum was screwing people out of their nickels and dimes – a much less romantic pursuit than we seem to have made of it postmortem. Electricity wasn’t really a thing yet, nor was recorded music, radio, etc. Fancy travel meant your wagon was covered, or in rare cases you rode on a train. Internet was still dial-up.

It was a long #$%@ing time ago is what I’m saying.

And Supt. Mayhew was commissioned – by an act of the State Legislature, no less – to write a book on learnin’. Which he did.

He breaks down a proper education into three critical elements – the physical (health and body), the intellectual (brain stuff), and the moral (used interchangeably with spiritual). Other than the anachronisms associated with his constant reference to scripture and man’s soul, it’s fairly dry reading – until I got to this part. I ‘bout spilt my coffee in recognition of the issues confronting Supt. Mayhew and his teachers in 1850.

Excerpt from Chapter V: The Nature of Intellectual and Moral Education
It is generally known that the eye, when tasked beyond its strength, becomes insensible to light, and ceases to convey impressions to the mind. The brain, in like manner, when much exhausted, becomes incapable of thought, and consciousness is well-nigh lost in a feeling of utter confusion. At any time in life, excessive and continued mental exertion is hurtful; but in infancy and early youth, when the structure of the brain is still immature and delicate, permanent injury is more easily produced by injudicious treatment than at any subsequent period…

I don’t actually know how physiologically true this is, but experientially I at least get the ‘tired brain’ part. I do know enough about early childhood development (hey, I had to take those classes in teacher school same as you) to know there are certain things kids just can’t do at some stages, and that it’s generally harmful to over-try.

It’s interesting to me how similar this language was to arguments explaining why girls shouldn’t be given complicated toys, like puzzles, or be allowed to over-exert themselves physically by doing things like swimming for more than eight seconds at a time – they might be damaged, you see. I bring this up despite it detracting from the case I’m about to make, partly because I’m SO intellectually honest, but mostly because – like so many things – it’s all about best guesses on sliding scales. Balance in a changing world.

In this respect, the analogy is complete between the brain and the other parts of the body, as we have already seen exemplified in the injurious effects of premature exercise of the bones and muscles. Scrofulous and rickety children are the most usual sufferers in this way. They are generally remarkable for large heads, great precocity of understanding, and small, delicate bodies.

OK, I mostly just kept this part because I’m amused by the phrase “scrofulous and rickety children” and picturing their big ol’ heads. Yes, you may add that to the list of reasons I’m probably going to teacher hell.

But in such instances, the great size of the brain, and the acuteness of the mind, are the results of morbid growth, and even with the best management, the child passes the first years of its life constantly on the brink of active disease. Instead, however, of trying to repress its mental activity, as they should, the fond parents, misled by the promise of genius, too often excite it still further by unceasing cultivation and the never-failing stimulus of praise; and finding its progress, for a time, equal to their warmest wishes, they look forward with ecstasy to the day when its talents will break forth and shed a luster on their name.

This is when I first began to recognize tendencies not unfamiliar today – although the over-achieving parent stereotype is fading a bit as we’ve begun to recall there being more to life than GPA and college prep in kindergarten. But as a culture of ‘reform’ and ‘high standards’, we are certainly still enthralled by the potential of over-farming young soil.

But in exact proportion as the picture becomes brighter to their fancy, the probability of its becoming realized becomes less; for the brain, worn out by premature exertion, either becomes diseased or loses its tone, leaving the mental powers feeble and depressed for the remainder of life. The expected prodigy is thus, in the end, easily outstripped in the social race by many whose dull outset promised him an easy victory.

Again I must question the physiology of this statement, while supporting its spirit. Whether or not the young brain becomes ‘diseased’ or ‘loses its tone’ through excessive intellectual demands in early development, the young brain-owner may certainly become disconnected, and lose his or her connection to the wonders of learning in those early years (when they still liked us and wanted to know stuff – secondary people forget this was ever a thing). When we beat our young pegs so incessantly into pre-shaped holes, we may get some of them wedged in, but we lose them in all the important ways.

We lose them for a long, long time – sometimes for life.

Those allowed to develop at a more flexible pace, nurtured but not machine-tilled, often not only catch up but sail right on past the rest. Not always, but enough that those high stakes 3rd grade tests look pretty stupid in retrospect.

One of my favorite stories from a former state superintendent was her account during a TV interview of her own son, who struggled to learn as a kid and had all sorts of trouble in school. He was never ‘held back’, but instead was surrounded by dedicated teachers who supported and encouraged him until, one year, he suddenly started to ‘get it’. By high school he was on level and above in every area and is now a happy, employed, successful citizen. That’s how it works sometimes.

(This story was told as evidence we should hold kids back in an eternal 3rd grade loop of shame and disparagement, which I didn’t really understand – but then, she was an odd duck like that.)

I’m going to skip ahead a bit. It’s a history thing – we pick and choose the bits of evidence that make our case and ignore the rest. We learned it from our friends who teach science.

There can be little doubt but that ignorance on the part of parents and teachers is the principal cause that leads to the too early and excessive cultivation of the minds of children, and especially of such as are precocious and delicate. Hence the necessity of imparting instruction on this subject to both parents and teachers, and to all persons who are in any way charged with the care and education of the young.

As in, state legislators?

This necessity becomes the more imperative from the fact that the cupidity of authors and publishers has led to the preparation of “children’s books,” many of which are announced as purposely prepared “for children from two to three years old!” I might instance advertisements of “Infant Manuals” of Botany, Geometry, and Astronomy!

He was kidding. Imagine him visiting The Learning Tree today!

There’s also a Common Core joke just waiting to be made here, but it just seems like piling on at this point – like making fun of Nixon, or a good ‘Ozzy Osbourne’ joke.

In not a few isolated families, but in many neighborhoods, villages, and cities, in various parts of the country, children under three years of age are not only required to commit to memory many verses, texts of Scripture, and stories, but are frequently sent to school for six hours a day. Few children are kept back later than the age of four, unless they reside a great distance from school, and some not even then.

Imagine what it took in a big city in 1850 to seem like you were being TOO HARD on young people. We’re not that far past Dickens or much ahead of Newsies here – these were not years of pampered youth. Send them to the factories and coal mines if you must, but DON’T BE SO CRUEL AS TO OVERDO THE TEST PREP at such a young age!

Perspective, much?

At home, too, they are induced by all sorts of excitement to learn additional tasks, or peruse juvenile books and magazines, till the nervous system becomes enfeebled and the health broken. “I have myself,” says Dr. Brigham, “seen many children who are supposed to possess almost miraculous mental powers, experiencing these effects and sinking under them.

What a powerful phrase – “experiencing these effects and sinking under them.” Take a moment and mourn over that.

Some of them died early, when but six or eight years of age… Their minds, like some of the fairest flowers, were ‘no sooner blown than blasted;’ others have grown up to manhood, but with feeble bodies and disordered nervous system, which subjected them to hypochondriasis, dyspepsy, and all the Protean forms of nervous disease; others of the class of early prodigies exhibit in manhood but small mental powers, and are the mere passive instruments of those who in early life were accounted far their inferiors.”

Imagine a society in which that early cult of accomplishment led to stressed out high schoolers trying to make it into the right stressed out colleges to get the stressed out jobs where they must accomplish pass do prove make achieve… what? What’s the end goal? What’s the point of any of it? What test is the last one before you ‘win’?

Good thing we headed that off in 1850. Close call, that.

Jumping ahead again…

In youth, too, much mischief is done by the long daily periods of attendance at school, and the continued application of mind which the ordinary system of education requires.

I realize letting your kid play outside results in visits from the police and DHS these days, but it’s still a pretty good idea.

The law of exercise already more than once repeated, that long-sustained action exhausts the vital powers of an organ, applies as well to the brain as to the muscles. Hence the necessity of varying the occupations of the young, and allowing frequent intervals of active exercise in the open air, instead of enforcing the continued confinement now so common. This exclusive attention to mental culture fails, as might be expected, even in its essential object; for all experience shows that, with a rational distribution of employment and exercise, a child will make greater progress in a given period than in double the time employed in continuous mental exertion.

If a long-dead superintendent from 1850 understood the value of a varied, balanced life – not only for personal happiness, but because it MAKES YOU A BETTER STUDENT – why are we so stubbornly ignorant of this 165 years later?

Tell your kids – your own, personal kids – to skip their homework tonight and go play outside, or ride their bikes, or exercise. Not video games or even books – although both are yay – but go DO something. Take fewer AP classes so they can stay in Drama or Soccer. Be happy with that state university so they have time to hang out with friends from church or volunteer at the animal shelter.

Chill the f#$% out. It’s better for them. Ira said so:

It is worse than folly to shut our eyes to the truth, and to act as if we could, by denying it, alter the constitution of nature, and thereby escape the consequences of our own misconduct… Such persons might be saved to themselves and to society by early instruction in the nature and laws of the animal economy. They mean well, but err from ignorance more than from headstrong zeal.

Classroom Management, 1920’s Style (Part Two)

April 24, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal ~ 2 Comments

I’ve been revisiting the chapter on “Classroom Control” from Vol. I of the 12-volume The Class Room Teacher (1927-28). We were introduced last time to a very listy list of possible methods:

(1) No control, wherein the children all do as they please.
(2) Teacher control, wherein rules are made and enforced by the teacher.
(3) Group control, wherein rules are made and enforced by the group working together for a common purpose.
(4) Unselfish self-control, wherein each person considers the good of the whole.

Has much changed in 90 years?

NO CONTROL – Example:
The teacher is attempting to carry on a class recitation with one group of children while the others are supposed to be studying. Two or three large boys are lying on the floor with their feet propped against the stove. They are reading fiction which does not contribute in any way to their assignment. They later show a lack of knowledge as to the lesson content. Several girls are holding an animated conversation about the ways of securing pictures of the favorite “movie” actresses.

This passage is golden.

The chaos meant to be implied by those ‘large boys’ with the feet on the stove would be a dream come true in many classrooms today. And ‘reading fiction which does not contribute in any way to their assignment’ is almost an oxymoron in 2015 – ANY reading is cause for cupcakes and stickers. But don’t sue me when you burn your feet.

And aren’t you curious about what sundry, presumably devious means might have been utilized to secure those pictures? Can you even imagine a time you weren’t inundated with celebrity photo spreads every time you had to pick up a few things at the grocery store? Or when girls worried about illicit pics meant b&w head shots of actresses? Monday, Tuesday, Happy Days…

The children who are trying to study have to dodge continual volleys of chalk, paper-wads, and even an eraser now and then. A note of unsavory character is passed about among the older children who laugh heartily at its contents.

In case we’re not sufficiently horrified by the stove thing, here comes a barrage of projectiles and dirty notes. I KNEW we should never have allowed pens and paper in the classroom – such technology has no place in school without careful controls in place! It’s too distracting!

The room is in an uproar; the recitation is a complete failure; but the teacher smilingly assures the visitor that she believes in “freedom.”

Oh god, I know those teachers. I thought they were products of the 1970’s – I didn’t know they existed almost two generations before.

Discussion:
The result of no control is always chaos; children are denied the right to feel happiness in real achievement; habits and attitudes are formed during these years in the school room which may tend to make of them, in later life, unreasoning, selfish, and lawless citizens.

This is a point which could stand to be made more often and more loudly today – the deepest happiness, the most meaningful learning, real character comes from actually accomplishing something. Guide them, yes; encourage them, definitely; but unless they’re allowed actual risk – a real opportunity to fail – they’re being deprived of a legitimate opportunity to succeed.

Why is this so easy to understand with our football teams and debate competitions, but so controversial in reference to academics?

Perhaps it might be well to state that true freedom would not allow such an infringement upon the rights and liberties of others.

There’s a year’s worth of socio-political debate for you.

[[{“type”:”media”,”view_mode”:”media_small”,”fid”:”879″,”attributes”:{“alt”:””,”class”:”media-image”,”typeof”:”foaf:Image”}}]]

True freedom is something which should be earned and bestowed only upon those who can use it wisely. All teachers should be very careful to distinguish between real freedom and merely allowing children to do as they please. Real freedom leads toward right and true happiness; while allowing children to do as they please leads toward wrong and toward future sorrow.

“True freedom is something which should be earned and bestowed only upon those who can use it wisely.”

Today I believe that would qualify as a ‘controversial statement’. Keep in mind that the 1920’s were still enmeshed in Progressivism – regulating the sausage factories and establishing national parks and such. It was also the age of more direct control of all levels of government by the ‘common man’, in hopes this would prove, um… purifying.

With this increased role of government in solving society’s problems came efforts to prevent recurrence of those same ills. Why bandage the wound but leave the sharp edge exposed? Why support a humidifier and a dehumidifier in the same room? It seemed only reasonable, for example, to require sterilization of those unable to provide for themselves or their offspring.

If it’s cruel to allow stray animals to continuously breed (thus perpetuating their collective misery), why allow those among our own species who’ve clearly demonstrated an inability to care for themselves to make increasingly destructive choices about procreation? “If you want me to take care of you, there are conditions. If you want to make your own choices, you’ll need to learn to take care of yourself.”

It seems so reasonable in regards to student management. As long as we don’t let what we’re doing in school impact real life…

ABSOLUTE TEACHER CONTROL – Example: When the class assembles on the first day of school, the teacher firmly informs the children that they are there for business and she is there to see that they attend to this business of learning. In order to accomplish this, certain tasks must be finished each day before they leave school. Anything which interferes with the work of school, such as talking without permission, whispering, giggling, or writing notes to one another will be carefully noted and punished by the teacher.

Ah… so it’s a math class!

Ever after the children study the lessons assigned by the teacher, answer her questions, and accept the punishment she doles out for misdemeanors and errors. They usually do no more than they are asked, and frequently they misbehave when the teacher is not looking.
The teacher’s life is one of constant watchfulness. Her profession is not teaching; it is policing. She must be continually alert to catch the law-breakers, fair enough to pronounce just punishment, and persevering enough to see that punishment once pronounced is executed.

And a charter school at that! (Erin – I’m kidding! I’m kidding!)

Discussion:
Such a method is far preferable to the preceding no-control type and should be used, especially by the inexperienced teacher, until she can determine the type best suited to her class of children. If used by a teacher who is always just and fair, the class achievement is usually good and the children rather happy. If, perchance, the teacher is a benign tyrant, the children will often vote this type of control the best of all, because, like many adults, some children dislike sharing responsibility and making choices.

Whoah, there, Sherriff – I was with you until that last little bit.

As colorful a term as ‘benign tyrant’ may be, it’s a bit too loaded with connotation for my taste. One of the things too easily overlooked in our kneejerking any time those high-structure charters are discussed is that some students, in fact, do very well with so much structure.

There’s absolutely a problem when it’s abusive, and the racial issues inherent in some of these schools bother me, too – but let’s not write off the idea that there’s some security in knowing your day will be organized and methodical, your teacher tough but fair, and that the rules apply pretty much the same way to everyone, every day. Especially if you don’t have this in any other part of your world.

As to “sharing responsibility and making choices,” recall that only a few lines before, freedom had to be earned. I know all you ex-hippies out there with your ponytails and elbow patches want your lil’ charges to discover the universe in their own special and wildly individualized ways, but there’s a name for that kind of freedom – “chaos.” Or, if you want to be more social-political-science-historical about it, “life in a state of nature.”

Feel free to look it up.

Under this system the children usually do the right thing, not because they know it is the right or why it is the right, but because they are trained to obey blindly. The great danger here lies in the fact that they may form habits of following blindly, and later may unthinkingly follow unworthy leaders.

Wouldn’t THAT be a shame?

No teacher should be content to use this type continually unless she is handling groups, who, because of limited capacities, will always be obliged to “follow a leader.”

Ah, she means (insert whatever political party you don’t belong to), doesn’t she?

As soon as possible each group of children should be given a share of the responsibility for its own mental and moral achievement. The teacher should covet the position of guide and advisor rather than one of policeman.

Therein lies the rub. How do we transition students appropriately from compliant to independently responsible? I don’t know about the feet-on-the-stove issue, but THIS one resonates a century later. All too well, actually.

Next Time – “The Ideal Solution,” in which it is revealed that…

Daise was sobbing too much to talk, but the indignant lad and a dozen others could tell. John had given Daise a branch of Japanese cherry blossoms to bribe her not to report him. Before the investigation was over it developed that eight-year-old Daise had become richer by a box of raisins, two candied cherries, and a chocolate bar – all for not doing her duty.

Dear god – it’s pure madness in there. And ladies, never trust a boy bearing Japanese cherry blossoms.

RELATED POST: Classroom Management, 1920’s Style (Part Three)

Classroom Management, 1920’s Style (Part One)

April 22, 2015June 4, 2023 ~ Blue Cereal

1927-28 saw the publication of a full 12 volumes of The Class Room Teacher by Corinne A. Seeds, A.M., Principal of the Training School, Assistant Supervisor of Training, University of California at Los Angeles, with the cooperation of Milo B. Hillegas, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University.

What a mouthful.

I am not aware that either of these individuals has a blog of their own, and as the series was published almost a century ago, chances are good both have gone to that great Teachers’ Lounge in the sky to mimeograph with the angels, as it were.

The following excerpts are from the first volume, in a chapter titled (dryly enough) “Classroom Control: Methods of Control.” While we often chuckle at antiquated teacher requirements or student behavior issues from days gone by, there are parts of this I find fascinating.

The problem of classroom control is most vital and of outstanding, far-reaching importance. The future welfare of our country depends largely upon the methods of control used upon its future citizens. By these very methods teachers can produce anything from slaves who obey their masters explicitly without thinking, to freemen who make their choices only after careful deliberation and discussion. Thus it is of the utmost importance that teachers should know what types of control are best for the future welfare of a democracy.

Melodramatic much, Corinne?

Note the assumptions in this introduction to what we’d today call ‘classroom management’ (the change in terminology itself suggests a very different mindset). First, that teachers actually have this much power over their students or anything else – so much so that we’re literally determining the future of democracy. Second, that young people must be molded and trained like pets, or a good horse, to function effectively in the world.

The idea that the young require careful grooming in order to be useful was not unique to public education; it was more or less ubiquitous until the late 1950’s, when the concept of ‘teenager’ was born. This whole ‘discover their own way’ and ‘follow your dreams’ stuff is relatively new. You may blame or credit the 1960’s as you see fit.

Once they were robots – useful, but stifled. Then they were butterflies, free, but useless. What today?

Our democracy is composed of a conglomerate mass of individuals at all stages of ethical development, from those who obey the laws made by the group for the welfare of all only when they are forced to do so to those unselfish souls who realize that their highest development and happiness are reached only as they consider all and act according to the best interests of the whole group. Midway between these two extremes we find those who obey only because they have been trained to do so, some who conform because of fear of the disapproval of their fellow men, and still others who act in accord because they long for approbation.

Hmmm… does she use all those big words because she longs for conglomerated approbation?

Either way, this essentially holds true today – some follow the rules only when forced, others as long as they believe those rules to be ‘right’. Most are somewhere in between, adjusting with circumstances and personal issues.

It would be folly to assume that one method of control, even the ideal, would prove sufficient to promote the best interests of the group. There should be as many types of control as there are attitudes toward it. While it is necessary at times to use the lower forms of control, yet it should be the hope of the democracy that in the dim distant future, through our methods of education, the ideal can be truly reached – “a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

Such single-mindedness regarding the preparation of our young to become useful citizens! How very ‘spirit of the times’ – post WWI, pre-Depression and pre-WWII. Pretty patriotic for the ‘Roaring Twenties’, you little red, white and blue ‘flapper,’ you!

Here’s my favorite part, though:

The problem of control which the classroom teacher must meet is a miniature of the greater problem which confronts the democracy. It is not easy for the teacher to know how to manage Mexican Pedro, whose father digs in the street, Isadore, the son of the Rabbi, Mary Evelyn, whose mother is president of the philosophical society, and forty others who differ more or less in native and acquired characteristics, so that they may live richly and cooperatively together in their school community and grow into better, happier boys and girls. Like the democracy she should be cognizant of the fact that the highest control is that which comes from within as a result of reason, and she should strive toward that as her ideal. But she should not be utterly crushed if at times she has to resort to coercion in order to promote the greatest good for the greatest number.

Ha! OK, let’s set aside for a moment our 21st century ‘racism-alert’ and our commensurate ‘be-offended-by-everything’ genes. This is an effort to acknowledge diversity, circa 1920’s, and to encourage teachers to recognize the balance between preparing students from very different backgrounds to maintain their individuality while at the same time learning to function in as part of a community.

I mean, in its own way it’s rather enlightened. Add the emphasis on reason and it’s rather Enlightened as well.

It’s interesting that she omitted Langston the clichéd Negro, whose father does something manual labor-ish or whatever. Is that a product of the segregation common in many cities at the time, or a choice based on other realities?

In order to meet the control problems found in the typical American classrooms, teachers use methods based upon the following general types or combinations of two or more types:
(1) No control, wherein the children all do as they please.
(2) Teacher control, wherein rules are made and enforced by the teacher.
(3) Group control, wherein rules are made and enforced by the group working together for a common purpose.
(4) Unselfish self-control, wherein each person considers the good of the whole.

This ultra-listy super-scientific-sounding approach to pedagogy and classroom management is what makes so many teacher books onerous even today. It’s partly leftover from the categorization-happy Enlightenment and the love the philosophes had for lists. Today it’s an immediate sign of too much time in teacher school and too much research.

Seriously, when do your kids or anything you try to do in class fit neatly into such categories? Ever?

Next time, we’ll explore true atrocities in the classroom – dangerous projectiles, inappropriate uses of technology, and boys with their feet ON THE STOVE. It’s madness!

RELATED POST: Classroom Management, 1920’s Style (Part Three)