I’ve come to believe that students should abandon this relativism and instead gather around the ideas of classic thinkers and acquaint ourselves with the institutions that have developed in the West that have, in fact, done amazing things for the “least of these”—with the most important of these institutions being secure property rights (which, of course, are human rights), and the rule of law.

But doesn’t my statement above betray my bias?

Of course it does. And how does it relate to the idea of thinking critically?

Every school says that it promotes something called “critical thinking skills.” This term has become something everyone advocates, like justice, inclusion, or apple pie: who opposes critical thinking skills? Yet, are schools are getting any better at this? And what, exactly, does “critical thinking” mean?

 

Critical thinking is more than the ability to deconstruct ideas. Author Allan Bloom, in his classic The Closing of the American Mind, writes that “there is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.” This relativism permeates our modern culture, including many high schools. Of course, the irony is if one declares “all truth is relative,” they are implying that this is an absolute truth. At the same time, these people argue that any claims to absolute truth display your intolerance.

Perhaps, instead, teachers need add a twist to merely thinking critically, and consider how to  teach students what to think.

 

I can imagine how many people would respond negatively to that, but hear me out.

 

Let’s assume a history teacher is investigating the KKK’s influence in the US in the 1920s, and, for simplicity’s sake, there are two perspectives. One is the KKK’s world view: all races are not created equally, some (or one) should rightfully dominate, and some random acts of violence are acceptable if the inferior race doesn’t accept this vision. The second view: all individuals are endowed by God with rights, which requires us to treat everyone with dignity and respect and to honor the rule of law.

 

To never inject “what to think” would imply that a teacher either ignore any judgment on the KKK’s treatment of minorities, or dispassionately present both of these views. I see two problems with these:

 

1—I doubt that many teachers either explicitly or implicitly do this. I certainly would not.

 

2—Even if my teaching were able to avoid any implicit or explicit judgments on this particular issue—in other words, I present perfectly unbiased accounts of both sides, with only objective words, with no slight eye rolls or skewered eyebrows—my teachings would then imply that either view is acceptable.

 

Neutrality on issues which impact core virtues is probably impossible and unwise. And even if being neutral is possible, we are then teaching students a way of thinking that is presumably preferable; if all views on all issues are implied to be morally equivalent, I am teaching students what to think after all.

 

When people say critical thinking is teaching students only “how to think,” perhaps what they mean is that teachers shouldn’t “indoctrinate.” But what does that mean? Therein lies the rub.

 

Excellent teachers necessarily have passionate views about the world and how to make it better. Their teaching will likely reflect these views. Instead of feigning a dispassionate neutrality, I’ve concluded the following:

 

==I should be honest about my world view, though I don’t always make that obvious at the beginning of a presentation, because I want to encourage honest discussion.

 

==I really try to be open minded (realizing, of course, that a completely open mind is an empty mind!) It is possible to be fair in hearing out alternative, competing world views in class. But “fair” doesn’t mean that a neo-Nazi skinhead’s views are morally acceptable; it may mean, I will allow you to speak, and listen to your view, and your defense of it.

 

But I might have a chat with you after class.

 

==I do think about how far I go in “promoting” my world view. Does a good teacher promote specific policies? Political candidates? I try to avoid partisan views in my classroom, but more importantly, I’m exceptionally careful to introduce competing views, to be open minded about how I present them, and, of course, not to have the grades of students views that contradict mine suffer—which is harder than it sounds. It’s easy to think, “This student isn’t getting my perspective on issue X; she deserves a ‘C.’” I might be right about the misunderstanding, or I might be letting my own prejudices cloud my evaluation of the student’s work.

 

We live in a time in which the world is changing rapidly, in unsettling and even objectionable ways (even that statement reflects my values). Unless I am an amoral robot who cares little about the world or my students, my teaching will reflect my personal values. I’d much rather be open about that, encouraging opposing views, stop saying that I only teach students “how to think,” and focus instead on teaching honestly, modeling civility and teaching students about civility, and approaching all issues with a dose of good humor. Of course, I never do this perfectly; but it’s a good goal.

 

Practically, how might this be accomplished?

 

When we’re discussing an issue, sometimes students will ask me, “Is there a right answer?”

I might say, “Nope. Not if you’re talking about black licorice; I adore black licorice, but hey, I’m Dutch. I get why others might not.”

I might say, “Yes, but I don’t know what the answer is” (perhaps the question is whether sentient life forms exist on other planets).

Other times, I’m more confident: I embrace a truth, but with a loose grip (my view of the efficacy and morality of capital punishment, for example).

There are times, though, when I hold on to a truth with a tight grip (humans are created with the rights to life, liberty, and property). In this case, Truth (with a capital “T”) is out there, and it is my job, in humility, to search it out.

Vacuous debates that conclude without a conclusion, with some sort of listing of pros and cons, don’t really serve students well, and in fact, teach students that there are a variety of equally valid points—each of them opinions—with no hierarchy. When this is true in the larger society, what often happens is that a majority of voters ultimately decide which perspective “wins.” Given this approach of moral equivalence, students could logically hold to the view that some forms of cheating are acceptable, or that advancing a personal benefit at the expense of the public’s welfare is perfectly legitimate.

I also believe that we should teach students to go beyond thinking in a narrow self interest, and view issues from both a moral and utilitarian perspective. For example, when teachers embrace the Western and American philosophical heritage of individual freedom, teach students to think clearly about rights, show them how the Founders defined rights, and teach them to think both logically and critically, my hope (and here’s another of my biases) is that students will go beyond purely utilitarian perspectives that are ungrounded in an aimless ethical system. Arguments nearly always have both a factual and a moral or philosophical basis. For example, a minimum wage law is either a good or a bad idea because of its effects on the working poor, and/or the degree to which it infringes on peoples’ rights. Letting businesses earn as much money as they can is a good idea or a bad idea because of its impact on the standard of living, and/or because of the extent of one’s right to acquire goods in a free society.

Education is too important to teach only “critical thinking.” I would shudder to send my own children off to college if they were taught to think about values instead of virtues, to equate rights with entitlements, or to view truth, goodness, or beauty in solely relativistic terms.

And to the degree that we teachers are successful, perhaps students will model the sort of civility and open-mindedness that each of us thinks is virtuous.