Philosophical Interpretation of Contemporary Educational Issues
Recently religious schools have come under scrutiny for refusing entry to students who don’t conform with their views. Using the concept of democracy and education as a frame of reference critically evaluate this contemporary issue.
Nietzsche suggested in the late 17th century that god was dead, and that appears to be by and large true in today’s society yet religious teaching is still the opiate of the people, with admissions to religious schools as strong as ever. We praise some of the virtues that religion instils yet vehemently reject others. As social constructionists attempt to impose their theory of identity the fundamentalists are trying to hold onto their tradition. Is it possible to find a middle ground between absolute order and absolute chaos? This essay will suggest that these differences are not irreconcilable, but it requires a reflection on the purpose of education, an articulation of ideological overreach and a bulwark against radical post-modern neo Marxism.
In Australia and the rest of the democratic world, there is a prohibition on discrimination with few exceptions to this rule. One such exception is for discrimination ‘conducted in accordance with religious doctrines, beliefs or principles.’ The rise of Neo-Marxism and political correctness has raised issues of students being refused entry on the basis of religious expression, prompting a renewal of the purpose of education. Basic human rights legislation dictates that there is no hierarchy of rights and that every individual is sovereign until that sovereignty conflicts with the expression of sovereignty by another person. Here exists a tension between the fundamental rights of religion and the rights of equality and non-discrimination. As a society we accept, or even advance the spiritual elements of the religious teachings but condemn the dogmatic elements. Education, however, is much deeper than a simple struggle between the rights of religious groups and minorities and we must revisit the purpose of education to understand if such differences even matter.
The concept of democratic education emancipated by John Dewey and advanced by Amy Gutmann suggests that education should be designed to create individuals who are able to take care of themselves and contribute to society. Dewey proposes that education should be seen as an ends in itself rather than means to an end. By this Dewey is suggesting that education should not be seen as hoop to jump through in order to get a job, which is contrary to the commercialisation of universities and the significance placed on tests such as NAPLAN or Higher School Certificate. A core component of a democratic education is an insistence on social diversity that attempts to cultivate appreciation and choice. Prima facie, democratic education stands in opposition to the religious schools which are notorious for their exclusivity and have been permitted to discriminate in particular situations. This paper will first examine potential justifications for the religious schools and then secondly examine the reasons against with particular reference to notions of democratic education.
1 The case for discrimination on religious grounds
Discrimination perpetuated by religious schools has come in two forms. First, they refuse entry to students on the basis of religion, whereby schools accept enrolments only or give preferential treatment to those of the same religion. Secondly discrimination comes in the form of sexuality, where students are refused entry on the basis of their sexual proclivity, namely homosexual or lesbian.
1.1 Religious freedom
From a legal perspective the right to freedom of religion has been enriched in many legislative instruments including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is defined as both an individual and collective right and religious schools are certainly an expression of religious continuation, immersing children in the traditions and practices of a particular religion. But just because something is legal doesn’t necessarily mean it is right, as slavery was at one stage permitted. However, why should the religious integrity of a whole school be changed simply for the interest of a select few? There are many alternatives to religious schools and the distinctive feature of these particular schools is in their grounding in religious tradition and values. Requesting them to go against this is asking them to become what the alternative already provides. This is not rationale and setting the precedent that individual rights trump the collective religious right is dangerous.
The West is founded on Judo-Christian values and the rise of science has seen a decay in religious beliefs. While it is true that religious truth and scientific truth are not the same, this does not necessarily mean that one is wrong, and one is right, rather they are not playing on the same field. While science tells you what something is, religion tells you how you should act. It is an assimilation of experience in the form of a map on how to comport in life. The concept of god is a transcendent reality, not meant to be understood in literal sense but rather as an overarching guiding principle. It is certainty dangerous to dispense with religion altogether and if you do you end up with pathological mode of being such as that in Russia or Mao’s China. If we dismiss the metaphysical foundations of culture and ignore the overarching narrative of purpose a pluralistic society cannot survive. It is the negotiated structure itself that is the bulwark against absolute chaos.
1.2 Protection of minorities
Protection of minorities is an important consideration when analysis whether schools should be allowed to express their religious views. Religious schools give these minorities the opportunity to freely express their religious identity in a place that is safe, without fear of persecution. At the same time, there is a high likelihood if a person does not align with the specific religion in a way that would lead them to being refused in the first instance or they have a sexual preference that is considered incompatible with a religion this will lead to bullying. This will likely result in the student viewing the values and traditions of the religion as harmful and reject them. If sending your child to religious school over a state school is for the purposes of the particular traditions and values taught and they are far more likely to view these principles as negative this defeats the purpose altogether.
1.3 Diversity and choice
A principle of democratic education is that the state and the parents have an interest in the child’s education. It is for this reason that the state still has base curriculum requirements that all schools must comply with, but the difference between public schools and religious schools comes in the way in which these are taught. This is where the democratic concept of a shared interest arises and allows parents the exercise some control over how they wish their children to be taught. While they do not have control over the content that is being taught, they can rest assured in the fact that it will be taught in a manner consistent with their own fundamental values if they send them to a religious school. While the democratic principles suggest that ‘all educable children must be educated,’ this does not necessarily mean that they have to be educated in a religious way. Liberalism dictates that these private institutions can ‘determine their own rules, even if these are discriminatory.’ It is this very freedom that gives the religious groups autonomy ‘to experiment with and live out different values.’ There is some credence in the theory that diversity in religious schools inculcates different values which is a characteristic of a democratic society. The religious schools play an important role in bringing up kids with a diverse range of societal and political views, which is better than the reverse of only having a state-run monopolistic system. Creating a more diverse educational system ‘mirrors the diversity of a large democracy, giving people more religious, educational, charitable and other choices.’ Thus for the existence of a true pluralistic democratic society, there must be a diversity in educational approaches and this requires religious freedom – a departure from the totalitarian inclusivity mandate in the radical constructionist claim.
2 The case against discrimination
2.1 Diversity
Democratic education suggests that children must be exposed to a variety of ways of life, so they have the capacity to make a meaningful choice about the way they wish to live. If parents impose their own conception, they are depriving their children of ‘the intellectual skills necessary to evaluate ways of life.’ Children must be free to evaluate different ways of life and come to a decision on their own merit to avoid an ‘uncritical acceptance of any particular ways of life.’ This is the principle of nonrepression where groups should not ‘restrict rational deliberation of competing conceptions of the good life and the good society.’ A democratic education requires that children are ‘exposed to ways of life different from their parents.’ This will ensure that they are expanding their understanding and respect, preparing them for the reality of social diversity in a democratic state. Moreover, for conscious social reproduction, citizens must have the freedom of self-reflection. When a child is enrolled into a religious school that is a representation of the parents view of life, they become educationally deficient, far from the democratic ideal. As it currently stands, our society ‘is a congeries of loosely associated societies, rather than an inclusive a permeating community of action and thought.’ The division between religious schools and state schools is a fundamental reason for this lack of inclusivity and the sanctioned discrimination only furthers the divide.
2.2 Tolerance and understanding
As noted by Dewey we must identify the ‘desirable traits’ of a particular community ‘to criticize undesirable features and suggest improvement.’ In reality allowing homosexual and lesbian students is a reflection of societies collective imagination in becoming more tolerant and understanding of differing ways of life. The level of interference with religious beliefs required to allow diverse sexual proclivities is minimal. It does not ‘seriously jeopardise the continuing functioning of the relevant religion.’ Pragmatic truth requires the dissolution of false presuppositions and the birth of new knowledge in a process of redemption that articulates the traditional deficiencies. The religious schools are entrenched in an isolated position that ‘makes for rigidity and formal institutionalising of life.’
2.3 Upholding standards
Religious schools are setting a dangerous precedent though their refusal to accept students that do not conform with their views, whether that be in the form of religious beliefs or sexual proclivity. They are decaying the tenants of democracy by condemning diversity which does little to prepare their students for the realities of a pluralistic society. Inevitably, ‘a society which rests upon the supremacy of some factor over another irrespective of its rational or proportionate claims, inevitably leads thought astray.’ It must inculcate an appreciation for other ways of life rather than a subjugation. This divisiveness does little to advance society and in fact, the political rhetoric is reaching a boiling point where the middle ground is being eroded and we are retreating to our individual corners of absolute chaos or absolute order. We must work towards the middle ground, which involves concession at both ends and that means religious fundamentalist appreciating diversity and post-modern neo Marxists acknowledging the importance of religion. It is impossible for society to advance without both corners critically evaluating their own principles.
2.4 Harm
Radical ideology is a parasite on religion and adhering strictly to the written text of a religion has the potential to manifest in catastrophe. This is most prominently seen in Islamic extremists who destroy in the name Allah. If the tradition of a religion becomes too intense people become institutionalised clones. This goes against the concept of democracy of education that promotes critical thought of diverse ways of life. Dewey suggested that ‘the first step in freeing men from eternal chains was to emancipate them from the internal chains of false beliefs and ideals.’ What this means is evaluating the dogmatic elements of religion through the redemptive process to grow and foster the collective and democratic understanding. Tradition is dead insofar it cannot respond to the demands of the present, this is a process that must be undertaken on an individual and collective level. The deities of all religions are praised for their perceptive abilities and similarly the individual and collective must be receptive because the traditional texts cannot speak for themselves.
3 Conclusion
While it is difficult to find the ying and yang it is possible if we can reflect on the purpose of education, properly articulate what constitutes ideological overreach and have a check on post-modern neo Marxism. What this essentially comes down to is a juxtaposition between the right to freedom of thought and freedom from discrimination. By not allowing individuals to express their religious belief the constructivists are saying that their concept of the world is more justified. It is dangerous to allow one group to determine what thoughts are considered legal. We must have a check on this power and this requires a reformulation of the middle ground. Moreover, we need an overarching narrative of purpose or else, as history has told us, society will descend into chaos. Similarly, we must also acknowledge when radical ideology is pervading and change accordingly. Religion is a malleable experience, it changed multiple times throughout history, so it is irrational to believe that it must stay static now. We need to avoid pathological modes of being, but at the same time recognise the limits of constructivist thinking, so as to keep the plurality of democratic society. This is not to say that religious schools do not have a purpose in society, rather it is that there must be a reflective element on tradition as it cannot speak for itself. We have retreated to our respective political corners and are defending them vehemently, without having a look at our own positions. The erosion of the middle ground has led to civil wars before and if we continue down this line, it is not too far to suggest that it may happen again. Concessions and appreciation are warranted on both sides of the isle. Education should be striving to produce diversity, understanding and appreciation rather than isolation and contempt. Parents must contemplate why they are choosing to send their child to a religious school because average ATAR is not an adequate measure of a school’s suitability. They must avoid inculcating their children in a way that only reflects one way of life because this will lead to an intellectual deficiency. Democracy requires the freedom to choose and the religious trap is in an overbearing reliance on tradition. At the same time religious schools need to keep their distinctive character or they run the risk of becoming what the alternatives already provide. In terms of allowing students who are homosexual, or lesbian does not fundamentally jeopardise their teaching and as such they should make this concession. This change however should not come in an authoritarian state mandate but rather must be consensual between the institution and individual.