education


Teaching the Bible (if necessary)

Some school districts now require teaching the Bible. The First Amendment requires not teaching it as religious indoctrination. What approach can a teacher take? Here are some thoughts, covering just the first chapter of Genesis. I’m not a teacher and have no teaching skills, so if you’re a teacher, apply whatever adjustments might be necessary.

The translation I’m using is the New Jerusalem Bible. It seems like a pretty good translation, avoiding the problems of outdated language. Other translations should work, as long as they’re accurate.

These questions should be raised in a spirit of inquiry, not mockery. I may not be a teacher, and I’m going against the spirit of the times, but I’m confident that ridiculing people’s beliefs isn’t an effective way to educate them.

“In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, with a divine wind sweeping over the waters.”

At this point there was no light and no sun. What would the Earth have been like? What does “a formless void” mean? “Waters” are mentioned, but without a star, would they have been solid ice?

“God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. … God called light ‘day’, and darkness he called ‘night’. Evening came and morning came: the first day.”

There was no Sun until the fourth day, so how is this interpreted? Was there another light source? Why does it say he called the light day and the darkness night? Was he coining words for future humans?

“God said, ‘Let there be a vault through the middle of the waters to divide the waters in two.’ And so it was.” God made the vault, and it divided the waters under the vault from the waters above the vault. God called the vault ‘heaven’.”

What waters are being divided here? Perhaps the liquid water and the clouds? Keep in mind there is still no sun, so could water evaporate to form clouds?

“God said, ‘Let the waters under heaven come together into a single mass, and let dry land appear.’ And so it was.”

Same questions. This suggests that the Earth’s land was originally all under water. It also suggests that the water wasn’t solid ice, in spite of the lack of a star to warm the planet.

“God said, ‘Let the earth produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees on earth, bearing fruit with their seed inside, each corresponding to its own species.’ And so it was.”

Again, were plants, including trees, growing without sunlight?

“God said, ‘Let there be lights in the vault of heaven to divide day from night, and let them indicate festivals, days and years. Let them be lights in the vault of heaven to shine on the earth.’ And so it was. God made the two great lights: the greater light to govern the day, the smaller light to govern the night, and the stars.”

Until this point, there were no stars in the universe, and in particular no Sun. The Earth was hurtling through empty, dark space. The existence of light is mentioned, but without identifying its source. The Sun’s stated purpose isn’t to warm the Earth, but to enable a calendar. At this point there are still no people to hold festivals. Why are those purposes mentioned without reference to the Sun’s life-enabling role?

“God said, ‘Let the waters be alive with a swarm of living creatures, and let birds wing their way above the earth across the vault of heaven.’ And so it was.”

Animal life now appears. What is the reason for this sequence? Is it saying sunlight is necessary for animals but not for plants?

“God said, ‘Let us make man in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild animals and all the creatures that creep along the ground. God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.”

What does “in the image of God” mean? Does God have a human-like appearance, or is “likeness” intended in a more abstract sense, such as the ability to think?

“God saw all he had made, and indeed it was very good. Evening came and morning came: the sixth day.”

What are these “days”? Does this chapter mean God literally made everything from the universe to Homo sapiens in a week? What was a “day” before the Sun was created?

Are there alternative readings beyond a literal account that make this narrative more comprehensible? Could it, for example, have been consciously offered as a myth? Some say the Bible is literally true throughout, in which case the account is difficult to understand. If infallibility isn’t assumed, we have to read it in the context of the scientific knowledge of the time. If we read it as mythology, then we have to look at the ancient Hebrew culture rather than science to understand it.

 
Teaching anything resembling this approach will probably get a teacher in a lot of trouble in any district that requires teaching the Bible. In principle, this is a way for teachers to follow the requirements while keeping their integrity. I can’t say whether it’s feasible. Proceed at your own risk.


SUBSCRIBE

Enter your email address to subscribe and get notifications of new posts by email.


Book discussion: Fighting for the Freedom to Learn

The history of what’s known as “school choice” is more convoluted than I had realized. Fighting for the Freedom to Learn, from the Cato Institute, maps out that history in a set of twelve essays by different authors. Together, they add up to a narrative from the colonial era to modern times in the United States. The book is less polemic than its title may sound, providing a lot of information for anyone interested in the history of American education.

This isn’t an area where I have much knowledge, so I can’t say confidently how accurate it is. I can say that it presents an informational tone, has lots of end notes, and doesn’t say anything that looks obviously suspicious.

Most people today look at advocacy of school choice as an exclusively right-wing issue. (Everything today is a right-wing or left-wing issue.) In the past, though, it’s been complicated. Today we think of public schools as secular institutions, but for much of our history they were tools of nativist Protestant hegemony. I’m old enough to remember being told in school to pray to “Our Father.” In the first half of the nineteenth century,

A crucial factor of the development of the state role in education was an expansion of the concept of the citizen. With increased discussion of alternative forms of political authority, there was a renewed appreciation of Aristotle’s argument that citizens should be shaped by state-directed education to match the form of government under which they would live.

The concern increased along with the growth in Irish immigration, which was mostly Catholic. Senator James Blaine promoted state constitutional amendments, as well as unsuccessfully urging a national one, barring the granting of government funds to religious schools, while insisting that they could “not be construed to prohibit the reading of the Bible in any school or Institution.” By “the Bible,” he meant the King James Bible. The target of the amendments was Catholic schools.

The authors acknowledge that following the Supreme Court’s Brown decision and the Civil Rights Act, many segregationists saw private schools as a way to maintain racial purity, but they insist this is far from the whole story. Public schools with predominantly black student bodies often got a bad deal (and sometimes still do).

Throughout American history, people from all walks of life have sought educational options for a variety of pressing reasons, most of them rooted in freedom. The roots on the left are deep and fascinating. They are found in the centuries-old struggle for educational opportunity in the black experience, in the liberal academics who saw vouchers as a tool in the War on Poverty, in the counterculture dissidents who sparked the “free schools” and homeschooling movements, and even, for 20 years, in the Democratic Party’s national platform.

There’s a lot to learn from this book. I recommend it to people interested in American educational history.


Gaggle: Censorware for the 21st century

For many years, schools have used “censorware” to suppress dirty words, threats, and other undesirable communication on their data networks. The results have sometimes been comical and usually bad. In some versions it’s known as the “Scunthorpe problem,” referring to software that finds dirty words in substrings of harmless ones, such as “Matsushita” and “cockle.”

As technology advances, these tools don’t get better, only more intrusive. A lawsuit filed by students in Lawrence, Kansas has brought one of them to public attention. It’s called “Gaggle,” perhaps a portmanteau word for “gag Google.” An attorney representing the students says, “Students’ journalism drafts were intercepted before publication, mental health emails to trusted teachers disappeared, and original artwork was seized from school accounts without warning or explanation.”
(more…)


Equating harassment with protest, and denying due process

The situation with harassment of Jewish students and the Trump administration’s actions is a mess where serious wrongs turn up on all sides. It’s vital, and difficult, to evaluate actions on principles rather than on tribal criteria. On the one hand, there is harassment and intimidation that hides under the innocent name of “protest.” On the other, there’s the improper invocation of laws and denial of due process against people accused of doing that.

Governmental overreach is the bigger concern, especially when the current executive branch is aggressively expanding its power. At the same time, intimidation on campus is a serious concern, and downplaying it as mere “protest” only gives the administration’s actions a facade of credibility. An example is a Washington Post article with the headline “New Trump demand to colleges: Name protesters — and their nationalities.”
(more…)


Why America is dying

In just over a month since Trump took office, America has begun a clear descent into strongman rule, with few signs it will be stopped. He’s gotten rid of qualified people in high positions, replacing them with loyal followers. He has enacted heavy taxes without Congressional action. He has tried to amend the Constitution’s birthright citizenship clause by decree. He’s loosed the ICE on cities; “border czar” Tom Homan has threatened, “I’m coming to Boston and I’m bringing hell with me.” Trump’s and Musk’s DOGE is a phantom entity, not an administrative unit authorized by any law, and it has scooped up sensitive information from government agencies with no accountability.

There’s outrage, to be sure, and more meaningless talk of “resistance” like what we heard during Trump’s first term, but not nearly enough solid opposition to Trump’s moves toward autocracy. The Republican Party has totally abandoned any limited-government positions it once held. The Democrats offer only a timid voice. The far left is worse than the Trumpist right. The Libertarian Party has ceased to be libertarian. I can only expect things to keep getting worse.
(more…)