By Selwyn Duke
Mr. Duke:
Thanks for your essay, "The war on boys: Where feminists and men’s
rights activists go wrong" and for drawing attention to this issue.
I’m writing to say that, in my opinion, you’re off base in saying
that schools lack discipline and are all about "feel-good schemes."
My two older children at a normal, well-regarded middle school have a
police officer present at all times in their school, including
lunchtimes when I often eat with them. There is no lack of discipline
in this typical school. When I was in middle school. we had no police
officers on campus, by the way.As far as ignoring instruction in favor of "self-esteem nonsense,"
again you are misinformed. In Texas, as in many other states today,
schools emphasize standardized testing in math and language. Kids are
drilled repetitively, often over the protests of teachers and others
who prefer a more free-form approach to education, in fundamental
skills. If their test scores don’t measure up the schools are closed
— it happened to a low-achieving high school this year in my town.You and I agree that schools have failed boys. I don’t claim to know
how to fix it. But I don’t think your assessment of modern education
is quite accurate.Thanks again. I hope you’re well. Call or write with questions.
MARK HENRICKS
Freelance Journalist
Accurate, Informative and Entertaining
Articles, Books and Columns
Dear Mr. Henricks,
Thank you for writing. On an emotional level, I find it staggering that someone could adopt your position. Intellectually, however, I understand the phenomenon: It is the result of modernism, the spirit of our age.
First, conditions in one school, your children’s, in no way serve as a refutation of a characterization of education in general. I must say that I find it trying when people use the specific (anomalies, usually) to try to discredit fairly obvious statements about the general. I’m well aware of the fact that, as with all things, there is variation among educational institutions. For instance, in my area — a relatively wealthy neighborhood — there is more discipline in the schools and academic standards are higher than average. This is because the children come from better homes than average and because parents of means demand a more rigorous educational environment. However, this does not indicate that discipline and learning are what they could or should be, or what they once were. Now let’s gain some perspective.
I don’t believe conditions in your children’s school are what they should be, either; what I do suspect is that they simply seem acceptable from the perspective of the modern man. As to this, you cite the presence of a police officer as evidence that there is discipline in the institution. Well, law enforcement officers are present in prisons as well. Does this mean they’re all Devil’s Island? Does it even mean that a structured environment exists within penitentiaries? (I hope I don’t have to tell you what goes on inside modern penal systems.) Police officers simply enforce standards as expressed through laws; they do not devise them. Having the police enforce a lax standard only ensures nothing worse then its prescribed laxity.
Moreover, like you, there was no police officer present in school when I attended. Why was this? The fact that we have law enforcement in schools nowadays is not a reflection of better discipline, but of its lack. It’s the same as in society in general: A civilized people doesn’t need a policeman on every corner, but barbarians can only be controlled by a police state.
This phenomenon is a result of two related factors. First, school teachers and administrators lack the ability, will and wisdom to enforce rules themselves (they’re also afraid of lawsuits), so they outsource the responsibility. Second, behavior has broken down to a point where student transgressions are sometimes egregious enough to be legally actionable. In other words, if you take care of the little things, the big things take care of themselves. If minor violations aren’t tolerated and are rare, major ones will rarely even be contemplated. This is the Broken Window Theory, which is actually a fact. It’s a principle of man’s nature.
As to this, the main behavior problems in school in the 1950s were running in the hallways and chewing gum. Ask yourself how we’ve degenerated to our current state. Did it happen overnight? Or, do you think maybe, just perhaps, it was a progression?
Speaking of the 50s and police, think about something. People of that era would have found the notion of having police officers in schools unfathomable. Now, were they ridiculous to have such a mentality or are we so for fancying the intolerable normal? Really, the idea that we have police — police — in schools speaks volumes. And if you can’t think outside our very modern, very bizarre box and understand that, I don’t know what to tell you.
Next, you scoffed at my bemoaning the existence of feel-good schemes. Do you think I made this up out of whole cloth? Have you not heard of self-esteem training? You do know they teach self-esteem theory in education schools, don’t you? Have you not heard about the exercise wherein students are instructed to stand in front of their class and tell everyone what makes them "great"? Do you not realize that curricula have been completely redesigned with self-esteem (especially that of girls — study the devolution of the SAT) as a guiding principle? Yes, sure, schools are now drilling children in some traditional skills in an effort to comply with state standards, but why?
It is much as with having police in schools: It’s a reaction to rapidly declining standards. Many years ago we didn’t need such oversight because schools upheld proper standards as a matter of course. And, yes, it’s a move back toward a measure of discipline, with the state imposing the structure some schools won’t. But the underlying problem — the permissiveness that is a by-product of moral relativism, of our drift from tradition — remains.
Lastly, even when there is that move to re-impose discipline, it’s a mere shadow of what it should be. Only, the modern man doesn’t thus view it because he’s so disconnected from the past. It’s much as when I used to work with children and a certain parent marveled at my self-control. I explained that if you run a tight ship, there is no misbehavior, there are no "battles," and, therefore, you never become agitated in the first place. Well, he looked at me unbelievingly, as if the idea of kids being obedient was a fanciful concept. That, sir, is a modernist.
As for your children’s school, do the students sit in class quietly and follow the rules? Are they unflinchingly obedient to and respectful of the teachers? If not, discipline is not what it should be, although it may seem so to veiled modern eyes.
I know, I’ve heard it before — I sound like an anachronism and want to resurrect the 19th century. To be more accurate, though, I only want to put the Truth in action in all things, and I don’t really care if in one case it dictates a standard of the past and in another one of the present. I only care that it’s correct.
Of course, civility, propriety and charity are also becoming outdated. So maybe not all anachronisms are bad after all.
Protected by Copyright
selwynduke.com 
Leave a reply to W. Tieff Cancel reply