Duck and Cover, Again

Some of us may remember Bert the Turtle, pictured above.  He cheerfully urged students of our schools to "duck and cover" in case of nuclear attack during the early days of the Cold War.  That consisted of diving under desks and covering heads with arms.  Thus, the effects of nuclear explosions were avoided, Bert (and presumably his creators) told us.  Perhaps some of the flying shards of glass and debris which might have resulted would have been blocked by desks and arms, but it's unlikely that incineration would have been avoided in any significant sense, and if anyone survived radiation would have served to eliminate them despite Bert's wise recommendation.  

But perhaps ducking and covering would be more effective against bullets than against ICBMs carrying nuclear warheads.  Clearly, the possibility of students being shot by someone carrying one firearm or another (it seems semi-automatic rifles are the most popular weapons of choice currently) is far greater than was (is?) the possibility of nuclear war.  Perhaps we should bring back the Duck and Cover drills, and it's to be hoped improve on them, this time in an effort to foil people who use guns to kill other people.  Guns, as we know, don't kill people.  But it seems undeniable that some people who have guns do kill others, particularly here and now.  People use guns to kill people.

A Renaissance of Duck and Cover drills or something similar is probably all, and likely more, than can be expected in response to the most recent mass murder.  Fantasies of owning guns to prevent the tyranny of government aren't what inspire objections to gun control or an absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment.  It is, very simply, a question of money.  As long as money can be made manufacturing and selling guns here in our Glorious Union, the so-called gun control debate will continue to be meaningless and unproductive.  That people, even children, are shot has become part of the cost of doing business.

It's possible that technology soon may allow each of use to manufacture our own cheap firearms, in which case profits from making and selling guns will diminish.  Then the politicians who are mere shills for the gun and ammunition industries may be less inclined to do their bidding.  But in that case we'll all have guns, men, women and children, or easy access to them, and control won't be a practical possibility.  

But perhaps that's the goal, ultimately, of those who admit of no restriction to the ownership and possession of firearms.  They look forward to the day all will have guns, or perhaps when all must have guns.

Read No Evil

What could be more satisfying than prohibiting that certain thoughts be thought, words be said, and books be read?  Prohibiting that certain persons be born or live near to us might be more satisfying to some of us, I suppose, but here we don't dream of unlimited power, but consider power that may be exercised by ordinary humans, especially parents.

There have been reports of school districts banning, or being asked to ban, certain books, or perhaps more properly the teaching and reading of certain books in schools.  Perhaps they may not even be mentioned by teachers or be present in school libraries, or their titles displayed; I'm not sure.  Neither am I sure how widespread and significant the bans or demands for banning are at this time.  But given our long history of prohibiting so many things, and destroying them when we're able to do so, the imposition of bans on the written word should raise concerns.

It's said that all parents hope their children will be "better" than they are.  Better in what sense, though?  I think that "better off" is what's hoped for; better in a material sense.  That may mean that children must be better educated in the sense that education may facilitate economic prosperity.  But it doesn't necessarily mean that parents hope their children will be smarter than they are, or "better" than they are in morals or wisdom.  I suspect that most parents think themselves smart enough, wise enough, moral enough to satisfy if not please everyone.  To them, the thought of their children being better than they are in those senses may not even arise. They may not consider it to be a possibility.

The thought of someone else thinking themselves better than they are, and telling that to their children either expressly or by implication, would be horrifying.  It would even be intolerable.  But teachers are in a position to do just that.  Teachers see children more than parents, in some cases.  Teachers have the authority not only to suggest that children read certain books but require them to do so.  

Certain books suggest, or state outright, that parents aren't wise, or moral, or smart.  They may also suggest or expressly state that things parents hold dear or believe to be the case are unworthy, even evil.

So it's not all that surprising that some parents and school districts have taken it upon themselves to ban certain books from school.  I can think of some I'd like to see banned, frankly.  But what I'd like to see banned aren't necessarily those other parents would like to see banned.  Here is the danger in banning.

There was a time when conservatives were leery of government control in general.  Now, it seems, they support government control of what is taught in schools, provided that means that what is taught in schools is that which they believe should be taught, and not what they believe should not be taught.  This isn't necessarily only a conservative concern.  Books like Huckleberry Finn and Of Mice and Men are considered racist or demeaning to the disabled by those who aren't conservatives, politically or socially or culturally.  

I think that banning, as a rule, isn't effective.  Students will find a way to read and see and hear things of all kinds, and will be especially eager to do so when they know their parents will disapprove.  They probably will be eager to accept what their parents don't accept or even hate or fear.  For good or ill, this is a part of growing up.  In any case, eventually, someone should think for themselves.  

And I suggest that should be the goal of schools.  It's obviously necessary that children learn to read and write, know basic math and science.  It's also appropriate that they know something about history.  Beyond that, they should be taught how to think critically.  Knowing how to do so, they're in a position to exercise their own judgment on what to read.  That would be ideal, in my humble or not so humble opinion.  Schools, and parents, shouldn't be in the business of determining or proscribing what students should or should not read.

This wouldn't necessarily be acceptable to parents, however.  It would require that students be taught the basics of logic and rhetoric, learn to analyze claims and opinions, test them to the extent possible.  That may be more frightening to some parents than learning their children are reading about critical race theory.  Personally, I think that learning to think critically would have the result that critical race theory wouldn't be accepted without question in its entirety and its wilder conclusions and inferences questioned.  That would be the case for other theories, conclusions and inferences as well, however.

And as that would be the case there are no doubt parents who would want critical thinking to be banned.  Well, there's a choice to be made.  Presumably most of us want our children to be able to think.  Then it becomes a question of whether they should think well or not.  If there are parents who are against their children being taught how to think logically and clearly, it would seem appropriate to disregard them when it comes to regulating schooling.