Indoctrination of Our Young

[Abbey Normal]

Geography is about more than mountains and capitals. And besides, most High Schools offer "social studies" which includes Geography, civics, sociology,etc.

BTW, no need to shout.

acludem

Are you going to claim that Anti-Bush rants belong in English class as well?

And for the record, in my daughter's English class, they are not studying anything remotely related to politics, government, the economy, etc. They are interspersing grammar with reading the classics.

By my daughter's account, these rants are apropos of nothing, and cut into their English discussions. Still think it's appropriate?

 

[Annie]

Are you going to claim that Anti-Bush rants belong in English class as well?

And for the record, in my daughter's English class, they are not studying anything remotely related to politics, government, the economy, etc. They are interspersing grammar with reading the classics.

By my daugther's account, these rants are apropos of nothing, and cut into their English discussions. Still think it's appropriate?

Abbey I've had similar discoveries with my kids' teachers. Seems the moonbats rage in the high schools, and not just in the humanities. My son had a math teacher that would just go nuts over GW in 2000. I find the 'indoctrination' problematic in high school, whether from the left or right.

Perhaps less so in college, though the domination of the left at some campuses gives one pause:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006358.php

February 16, 2006
Does The University Of Minnesota Discriminate Against Conservatives?

According to the president of Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow, the University of Minnesota has decided to starve conservative action groups into non-existence at their Twin Cities campus. Bill Gilles heads CFACT and has worked to maintain a balance on campus politics and give conservative students a voice at the university. Gilles claims that UM has deliberately defunded the few conservative groups that exist while increasing funding to a plethora of liberal groups, a claim that appears to have some merit based on an initial look at the numbers and at the arguments in the subcommittee recommendation.

Gilles compiled a spreadsheet showing the effect of the university's funding decision for student groups in the next term:

Liberal Groups...........This Year..............Next Year
American Indian.......$15,500.00............$14,138.00
Muslims....................$58,000.00............$55,900.00
Africans...................$10,000.00............$20,000.00
Asians......................$53,200.00............$55,200.00
Black Student Union..$53,900.00...........$49,300.00
Atheists.....................$8,500.00..............$6,000.00
Alternative Theatre...........$0.00............$15,000.00
Disabled....................$28,000.00...........$28,000.00
La Raza....................$36,400.00...........$42,600.00
International Students..$59,000.00........$42,700.00
MPIRG...........................$88,000.00.......$80,000.00
Queer Student Center...$29,000.00.......$37,000.00
Voice..............................$5,000.00.........$7,000.00
The Wake (liberal paper)..$91,000.00..$100,000.00
Women's Collective..........$25,000.00....$28,500.00
The Daily...................$497,000.00.......$550,000.00

Liberal total.............$1,057,500.00....$1,131,338.00

Conservative Groups
Family Values................$5,000.00.................$0.00
CFACT.........................$85,000.00.................$0.00
MN Republic (paper).............$0.00........$24,000.00
Conservative Club................$0.00........$15,000.00

Conservative................$85,000.00.......$39,000.00

Liberal Advantage...............12 to 1..............30 to 1

It seems to me that if we have raised strong men and women, by the time they are in the universities, they should be able to argue their points and positions well. They should be able to stand up for themselves against bullying professors.

There are problems though, when university professors will fail those that refuse to buy into their positions. Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz (sp?) have tried to help deal with this.

 

[Adam's Apple]

It seems to me that if we have raised strong men and women, by the time they are in the universities, they should be able to argue their points and positions well. They should be able to stand up for themselves against bullying professors.

That's the problem, Kathianne. We are not raising "strong men and women." They are like sponges, absorbing what those professors are spewing out. Those who disagree are afraid to voice their opposing viewpoints for fear of the professors' lowering their grades or making life miserable for them in the classroom. At least, at our university that is what is happening.

I guess if the students start hearing the "intellectual elites" point of view when they are in elementary school and continue to hear it in high school, then it's not too much of a leap to swallow it hook, line and sinker when they hear it yet again in college.

Ann Coulter was at our local university one night this past week--it was a free event, so townspeople showed up as well as students--but did she ever get heckled while she was trying to speak. Very little respect was shown to her, although she had been invited to speak. I will say for her, though, that she gave as good as she got. You could tell she was used to dealing with this kind of treatment, and she came well prepared to meet it head on.

 

[Annie]

That's the problem, Kathianne. We are not raising "strong men and women." They are like sponges, absorbing what those professors are spewing out. Those who disagree are afraid to voice their opposing viewpoints for fear of the professors' lowering their grades or making life miserable for them in the classroom. At least, at our university that is what is happening.

I guess if the students start hearing the "intellectual elites" point of view when they are in elementary school and continue to hear it in high school, then it's not too much of a leap to swallow it hook, line and sinker when they hear it yet again in college.

Ann Coulter was at our local university one night this past week--it was a free event, so townspeople showed up as well as students--but did she ever get heckled while she was trying to speak. Very little respect was shown to her, although she had been invited to speak. I will say for her, though, that she gave as good as she got. You could tell she was used to dealing with this kind of treatment, and she came well prepared to meet it head on.

Actually, until your kid packs the bag and leaves the driveway, parents are the most influential source of their child's thinking. Problem is, most of us are 'too busy' to speak of values to our kids, leaving them defenseless against alternative values.

 

[Abbey Normal]

The moral of the story is if you don't start young telling your kids your political and moral views, liberal professors will be more than happy to fill the vacuum.

 

[Annie]

The moral of the story is if you don't start young telling your kids your political and moral views, liberal professors will be more than happy to fill the vacuum.

Exactly. Kids thirst for knowledge of 'current events.' Their starting points are very 'empathetic' in that they tend to be for the underdog, whatever the case may be. They will easily buy into 'victim scenarios', so one must not dis their pov.

Help them make the connections between responsibility and achievement. Be willing to stand up for what is right and just, encouraging them to do the same.

This happens at dinner, in car rides, at the breakfast table, at religious services, and while watching programs together.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Exactly. Kids thirst for knowledge of 'current events.' Their starting points are very 'empathetic' in that they tend to be for the underdog, whatever the case may be. They will easily buy into 'victim scenarios', so one must not dis their pov.

Help them make the connections between responsibility and achievement. Be willing to stand up for what is right and just, encouraging them to do the same.

This happens at dinner, in car rides, at the breakfast table, at religious services, and while watching programs together.

Yes, that is true. Kids listen like little sponges, especially in the back seat of the car when they think the adults are just talking to each other. We have always discussed politics and morals in front of our daughter.

if you asked our daughter at a younger age, she would have told you that "liberal" was a dirty word.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Actually, until your kid packs the bag and leaves the driveway, parents are the most influential source of their child's thinking. Problem is, most of us are 'too busy' to speak of values to our kids, leaving them defenseless against alternative values.

Actually, I respectfully disagree with your viewpoint. I think until they reach the teen years, you are correct--parents are the most influential source. But after the teen years kick in, peers become the most influential source. Kids do not want to stand out as being different from other kids and will accept their peers "style" rather than their parents. Also, the entertainment world (TV, music and movies) has had an enormous effect on what our young have come to accept.

Hopefully, once they leave the college scene and enter the working world, they will revert back to and accept as their own the influences they had in their homes, but I am not seeing that happen among the "uppies" in this community. And the young people in my own extended family are "teetering", trying to assess what is being taught them by their teachers against what is being taught them by parents, church, etc. There are too many influences acting upon our young people today that are lessening the influence that parents have.

 

[Annie]

Actually, I respectfully disagree with your viewpoint. I think until they reach the teen years, you are correct--parents are the most influential source. But after the teen years kick in, peers become the most influential source. Kids do not want to stand out as being different from other kids and will accept their peers "style" rather than their parents. Also, the entertainment world (TV, music and movies) has had an enormous effect on what our young have come to accept.

Hopefully, once they leave the college scene and enter the working world, they will revert back to and accept as their own the influences they had in their homes, but I am not seeing that happen among the "uppies" in this community. And the young people in my own extended family are "teetering", trying to assess what is being taught them by their teachers against what is being taught them by parents, church, etc. There are too many influences acting upon our young people today that are lessening the influence that parents have.

I hear you. I guess I'm just used to the idea of substance over style. Truth is, most normal young adults need to strike out on their 'own', calling it 'thinking for themselves'. World of diffence between what they believe and spout to your face. If you were a fly on the wall of their lecture halls or dorms, you might be surprised. It 'starts' in jr. high.

 

[liberalogic]

I agree that parents are very influential in the lives of kids, but at the same time I don't think parents should be indoctrinating their children as conservatives or liberals at an early age.

"if you asked our daughter at a younger age, she would have told you that "liberal" was a dirty word."

While I do find that funny, I think that it's self-defeating for the child. Parents are entitled to their own political beliefs (I'm not speaking of morality), but they should challenge their children to think and rationalize these beliefs, not just accept them because mom and dad did. I've met many people who say, "Well, I'm conservative (or liberal) because that's how my parents were." I do not respect someone with this attitude because they lack backbone and have allowed themselves to be indoctrinated instead of asserting their individuality.

When I was much younger, I remember my dad yelling "Those liberal bastards" quite often. I also thought the word "******" was acceptable until I saw its powerful and disgusting meaning. My point is that I grew up hearing a lot of this stuff, but I was able to become my own person as I got older. I think it's better for parents to raise questions about politics rather than use propaganda to influence their children to go to the right or the left.

 

[Abbey Normal]

I agree that parents are very influential in the lives of kids, but at the same time I don't think parents should be indoctrinating their children as conservatives or liberals at an early age.

"if you asked our daughter at a younger age, she would have told you that "liberal" was a dirty word."

While I do find that funny, I think that it's self-defeating for the child. Parents are entitled to their own political beliefs (I'm not speaking of morality), but they should challenge their children to think and rationalize these beliefs, not just accept them because mom and dad did. I've met many people who say, "Well, I'm conservative (or liberal) because that's how my parents were." I do not respect someone with this attitude because they lack backbone and have allowed themselves to be indoctrinated instead of asserting their individuality.

When I was much younger, I remember my dad yelling "Those liberal bastards" quite often. I also thought the word "******" was acceptable until I saw its powerful and disgusting meaning. My point is that I grew up hearing a lot of this stuff, but I was able to become my own person as I got older. I think it's better for parents to raise questions about politics rather than use propaganda to influence their children to go to the right or the left.

The two bolded statements are contradictory. Either it's "self-defeating", or a child is able to grow up to "become their own person".

What you are really expressing here in the guise of child-rearing is the quintessential 60's liberal philosophy, the old "your values are not my values" mantra. It is sad for me to think that anyone would raise a child with no answers, no guidelines on important issues, just a lot of questions. Anyone who raises a teen knows that there is plenty of time later for children to ask questions, but there is precious little time to give them answers that your life experience has shown you to be true while they are still happily listening. What you term indoctrination, I term guidance and a strong moral footing from which to spring into the world.

But then again, I suppose if I had the MSM and most teachers to give the type of instruction I like, as liberals do, I might not worry so much about it either.

(Btw, we do not use words like the two you mentioned your parents using in our home. We prefer to explain what is wrong with liberalism without them).

 

[acludem]

Conservative parents nowadays don't need to indoctrinate their children, just sit 'em down in front of the Fox News Channel and let them do it for you.

acludem

 

[Adam's Apple]

Conservative parents nowadays don't need to indoctrinate their children, just sit 'em down in front of the Fox News Channel and let them do it for you.

Good idea. Conservative parents and their children need all the help they can get.

 

[Nienna]

Parents not only have the right, but the DUTY to teach their children their own POV. Kids need a place to start. If you teach them nothing, they will learn NOTHING.

acludem, it sounds like your parents went to an extreme with not only disagreeing with liberals, but actually hating them. It's certainly wrong to teach hatred, whatever the object. But don't denude all parents of their authority simply bc some parents screw up.

 

[acludem]

Quite the opposite actually, my parents were and are very open-minded people. My dad is very politically involved and is a moderate. My mother is interested especially in environmental and peace issues, and is active through her religious group in these issues. My siblings and I were allowed to come to our own conclusions. We were encouraged to read the newspaper and taught to look at everything we read and watch with critical eyes. My older brother is a Republican, my two sisters and I are all Democrats, though I'm by far the most active.

My Fox News line was a clearly bad attempt at humor. :duh3:

acludem

 

[Adam's Apple]

My Fox News line was a clearly bad attempt at humor. :duh3:

That was recognized; that's why I responded to you the way I did. But rather than calling it "a bad attempt at humor", I would call it "smart mouthing".

Personally, I'd rather have Fox News brainwashing our young people than the MSM. Since you say you were encouraged to read the MSM newspapers by your parents--which, of course, never gave any viewpoints other than leftist, liberal, secular--I can understand how you turned out to be a liberal. You never had much of an opportunity to exercise the "critical eyes" bit.

 

[acludem]

I grew up in Kansas City so I read (and still read) the Kansas City Star everyday - actually I read three newspapers a day as well news on several internet sites. There is no liberal media, that's a bullshit myth, the only partisan media in this country that lies about being partisan is the Fox News Channel, also known as GOP-TV. Don't believe me? Watch a film called "Outfoxed". The film uses internal Fox News memos, former Fox News employees and contributers, and footage from Fox News. It's fascinating.

acludem

 

[Gunny]

I grew up in Kansas City so I read (and still read) the Kansas City Star everyday - actually I read three newspapers a day as well news on several internet sites. There is no liberal media, that's a bullshit myth, the only partisan media in this country that lies about being partisan is the Fox News Channel, also known as GOP-TV. Don't believe me? Watch a film called "Outfoxed". The film uses internal Fox News memos, former Fox News employees and contributers, and footage from Fox News. It's fascinating.

acludem

You are a perfect example of the indocrinated. No liberal media, but Fox News is biased?

Unfortunately for you, the facts don't support your cock-n-bull statement.

 

[acludem]

Fox News is biased. It is a right-wing propaganda machine. Don't believe me? The other day on Cavuto they were trying to argue that all-out civil war in Iraq, which we are rapidly approaching, would be a good thing. If you watch "Outfoxed" you will see how their memos work and how certain phrases are repeated over and over again through the day by every host on the network. The so-called liberals on the network are forced to gush over the conservative hosts (i.e. Susan Estrich constantly telling Sean Hannity how much she loves him) in order to stay on the air. If you don't toe the FNC line, they simply fire you.

Newspapers and other TV networks at least attempt to practice real journalism, Fox hates real journalism, they are far more interested in furthering Rupert Murdoch's right wing political views.

As for using Fox News to indoctrinate your children, that's Rupert Murdoch's biggest dream.

acludem

 

[Hobbit]

Fox News is biased. It is a right-wing propaganda machine. Don't believe me? The other day on Cavuto they were trying to argue that all-out civil war in Iraq, which we are rapidly approaching, would be a good thing. If you watch "Outfoxed" you will see how their memos work and how certain phrases are repeated over and over again through the day by every host on the network. The so-called liberals on the network are forced to gush over the conservative hosts (i.e. Susan Estrich constantly telling Sean Hannity how much she loves him) in order to stay on the air. If you don't toe the FNC line, they simply fire you.

Newspapers and other TV networks at least attempt to practice real journalism, Fox hates real journalism, they are far more interested in furthering Rupert Murdoch's right wing political views.

As for using Fox News to indoctrinate your children, that's Rupert Murdoch's biggest dream.

acludem

If by Fox, you meant CBS, ABS, NBS, MSNBS, CNN, CNN:HN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and if by 'conservative,' you meant 'liberal,' then yes, you would be correct.