So, a few paragraphs on this clip of only one minute:
Former Senator of Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum, now seeking to be the Republican rebuttal to Obama's presidency come the election at the end of this year, speaks here about what many of us understand as the "crisis of religious faith" (not Satan's nasty work with a pitchfork; Santorum, like some of the scariest leaders in the Middle East, does talk about "Satan"). This "crisis of religious faith" is a natural consequence of thinking as opposed to believing. (See Matthew Arnold's "Dover Beach." Do you see why that very poem is used in Fahrenheit 451? Who would say that Bradbury's novel is about "religion"? Few people would. It's about "politics," right? Well, it's "about" mind control. If you aren't a reader, a thinker, then we can control you.)
Even many Republicans fear that Santorum is far too radical a conservative, particularly on social issues, to win in a general election, though his positions appeal to the most conservative members of the party who tend to vote in the primaries. (Be sure to check out his opinions on Planned Parenthood, on birth control, on abortion even in the cases of incest and rape. Polls show he is far to the right of most of his fellow Catholics on these issues.)
As my wife said to me over coffee when we first saw this clip of Santorum while watching a TV program of commentary on politics, "Indoctrination is saying 'believe exactly what we've been telling you ever since you were a baby, and do not dare question it.'" She also made this observation: "Talk about 'spin': Santorum is promoting the very kind of indoctrination that he's accusing professors of doing." Santorum can only do this because he sincerely believes he has the ultimate answers to major questions regarding metaphysics. Watch for the disciplined, tough vision of Emily Dickinson; she'll walk right up to the most troubling, difficult issues and then say only what she knows for sure she can say. I admire her for that. Wouldn't Wittgenstein have respected that in her? (Whereof man cannot speak, man must remain silent.) Santorum is not smarter than Dickinson was. He has only chosen to assume certain things she was unwilling to assume; and the way I read Dickinson, this was a matter of integrity on her part, integrity of mind and spirit.
Education is not indoctrination. Education doesn't preach. Education teaches "critical thinking." "Critical thinking" has consequences. On one hand, people watch some ideas, even ideals, fall away as less valuable to them or perhaps even meaningless, perhaps, read the late Christopher Hitchens, even poisonous. Sometimes those people do not necessarily have something of greater value to replace that which lost it status in their minds and hearts (and, yes, this can cause some shaking of the foundations); fortunately, students studying at real colleges, not mere technical schools or religious institutions that can all too easily bully and censor their minds, have mentors--their professors--all around them who have often worked through the same issues, mentors who understand and are willing to help them. I have recommended Mark Edmundson's book Why Read? when speaking about this issue. On the other hand, sometimes people have/see a table of abundant fruit before them and do not miss one nourishing morsel of sustenance as they move from that which they have come to see as poor and thin and weak to that which nourishes them (read: the study of literature, the real thing, real books, not "beach reads," not "escapist literature"). These people can see the ascendancy of other ideas, and, yes, ideals; these new values appear because those who think critically find sufficient reason to embrace them. People who study and grow change their minds about many matters. They are in flux. This, as I read to you from Lionel Trilling in class, is a sign not of their weakness but of their strength. (Remember John Keats and his concept of "negative capability.")
In his first sentence in this clip, Santorum mentions "children who go to college." Last time I checked, there were no children in my university classrooms. Since 1975 there have been no children enrolled in my classrooms as students. But his use of the word "children" certainly makes it seem like some mean-spirited college professors are abusing defenseless "children." Listen up, parents! You want to protect your babies, don't you? Perhaps this abusive adult-to-child structure is on Santorum's mind if he's been reading the never-ending news about his church, not only the actual rapes of children, but then the unpardonable cover-ups which have led to massive amounts of money being given over to the victims. (Go look it up: "massive amounts of money.") And where did that money come from to pay the victims? The Vatican cannot print that money. This money had to have come from many good people who thought they could turn over their trust to authorities and tithe to their church. Perhaps, following Santorum's lead, I should just suggest here that they stop paying into this system until it cleans up its act? Perhaps Santorum should read William Blake's poem "London" (as the adults of all ages in my classes do) and learn about the complicity of the church that led children into chimneys, into injuries and death. That was criminal behavior, and Blake shows us the black soot of those chimneys blackening the very walls of the church.
My wife and I have two adult sons. I realized, listening to Santorum's clip, that I have not referred to my sons as "children" for many, many years in any kind of conversation. I didn't wait to stop calling them "children" until they came back from college with their degrees. I probably abandoned the word at some time for each one when he was in grade school. I have preferred the word "son." A "child" is not an adult and cannot be one. A "son" or a "daughter" can be an adult. It was never my intention as a parent to attempt to force my sons into obeying any "rules" or opinions about matters that could be--and should be--disputed by rational argument. It was always my role, as parent, as teacher, to introduce them to "critical thinking" and to exercise that muscle in them daily. That they had to be critical thinkers in order to become adults was not up for debate; that was a given. Even as children they were free to disagree with me on matters of philosophy or art or religion or politics (they were encouraged to do so!); but like a good math teacher would do, I knew to say, "OK, you've given me your answer, but show me your work. How did you arrive at that answer?" Suffice it to say that even as children they didn't always make it to bed "on time." The result? They're not merely smart; they're also wise. For many years I have sought their counsel on issues far more sophisticated and deep than the usual joke about teenagers explaining technology matters to their parents. This, Senator Santorum, is what college professors want for their students: an adult strength, not a child treated like a prisoner and finally crippled by a parent that cannot or will not do his or her best to propel the young person into a creative life, armed with both a mind and a heart, with a muscular sensibility. (If I recall correctly, "muscular sensibility" is James Dickey's phrase.) Senator Santorum, you do not love your children more than I love mine. You are not a more dedicated parent to your children than I have been and continue to be to mine.
I do not fit the stereotype of the professor who is trying to make "Democrats" out of his or her students. One, "Democrat" means nothing to me when "blue dogs" go by the label of Democrat but are really conservatives. Two, it's not a matter of liberals over conservatives, either. This is an issue concerning quality. I want greater quality from all sides of the political spectrum. Santorum's commentary doesn't pass the smell test. He doesn't understand what he's trying to talk about. And his pandering to the lowest level of his party and his fear of education speak volumes about his dangerous limitations. It's part of my job to say so.
Education, as Bertrand Russell pointed out, is subversive, and he was right; simultaneously, however, education is a subversive act that has an ancient pedigree; it's time-honored; it's traditional. It's the best--even the safest--route I've seen toward any kind of progress that could benefit individual lives as well as society.
prguitarman
annaxmalina
germansingergirl
kianamaiart
titsay
baratheonpilled
2087
