It’s sobering to think of all the parents who work hard to provide a college education for their children so that activist professors like this can deliberately brainwash them.
Funny how these are the people who always claim to find proselytizing “offensive” (at least when Christians do it), and yet they have absolutely no problem imposing their faith on other people’s children:
The late American philosopher Richard Rorty (d. 2007) in describing his assessment of the role of university professor wrote:
â€œWhen we American college teachers encounter religious fundamentalists, we do not consider the possibility of reformulating our own practices of justification so as to give more weight to the authority of the Christian scriptures.Â Instead, we do our best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization.â€
The re-education imperative is one that he,
â€œ…like most Americans who teach humanities or social science in colleges and universities, invoke when we try to arrange things so that students who enter as bigoted, homophobic, religious fundamentalists will leave college with views more like our own.â€
Rorty explains to the â€œfundamentalistâ€ parents of his students:
â€œwe are going to go right on trying to discredit you in the eyes of your children, trying to strip your fundamentalist religious community of dignity, trying to make your views seem silly rather than discussable.â€
He helpfully explains that
â€œI think those students are lucky to find themselves under the benevolent Herrschaft [domination] of people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents.â€
The sociologist Alvin Gouldner in his book The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class set forthÂ a number of the historical developments that were decisive in the formation of the revolutionary intellectual class.Â Among the factors is the process of secularization which de-sacralizes authority and enables challenges to theological traditions. Â Another factor was the extension of non-church public schooling.Â The colleges and universities in particular generate â€œdissent, deviance, and the cultivation of an authority-subverting culture of critical discourse.â€Â And the school teachers at all levels conceive and fulfill their tasks as representatives of (the abstract) society as a whole (whatever that is), thus distanced from and with no allegiance or obligation to the values of the parents of their students.Â A related factor is the structure of the new educational system:Â â€œincreasingly insulated from the family system,â€ thereby situated to serve as â€œan important source of values among students divergent from those of their families.â€ In both form and content (which are not so neatly divisible, by the way) the state educational enterprise has been leveraged to missionary ends, further undermining parental authority and replacingÂ its formative function.
Law Professor Samuel Levinson has with welcome candor revealed that it is not due to his sympathy for certain religious students that he prefers that public grade schools grant limited exemptions to those students with conscientious objections to portions of the curriculum.Â Rather, such measures are calculated to mollify those religious students, thereby keeping them in the secularizing environment of the government school where they are likely to have their views transformed.Â With just enough solicitude for such studentsâ€™ interests, they may be convinced to stay put, and thus be â€œlured away from the viewsâ€”some of them only foolish, others, alas, quite perniciousâ€”of their parents.â€
To push these [Christian] students from the public schools . . . will assure that they will in fact be educated within institutions that are, from my perspective at least, far more limited, and indeed, â€œtotalitarianâ€ than anything likely to be found within a decent public school.Â My desire to â€œlureâ€ religious parents back to the public schools thus has at least a trace of the spiderâ€™s web about it.
And thereâ€™s more than a trace of irony in his assigning â€œtotalitarianâ€ levels as he plots means to manipulate the worldviews of children by coaxing them to remain in institutions designed for that very purpose.Â Spiderâ€™s web, indeed.
The proselytizing purpose and effect of herding the kids into secular formative venues to ensure they donâ€™t turn out like their parents is celebrated by Stephen Macedo.Â â€œ[W]e should accommodate dissenters when doing so helps draw them into the public moral order. . . .Â Will the refusal to accommodate religious complaints about public schooling drive religious families out of public schools and into Christian schools?â€Â If that would be the result, â€œthen we have a powerful pragmatic argument for accommodation.â€Â Macedo is refreshingly forthcoming about â€œthe transformative ambitions of liberalism.â€Â Acknowledging that the children of â€œFundamentalistsâ€ are future participatory citizens, he sees the importance of exercising leverage over their moral and intellectual development to deliver them from family influence and impose a new outlook.