Education VS Indoctrination Yonatan Shemmer What is the

Education VS Indoctrination Yonatan Shemmer

What is the difference between education and indoctrination? We want a definition/understanding of both that explains the difference and that also matches our intuitive categorization of particular cases.

The demarcation problem: It is hard to find definitions that satisfy our desiderata.

The plan for today: Describe a general ideal that will guide us in our attempt to solve the demarcation problem. Present the Keegstra case as a test case for attempts to solve the demarcation problem. Try to develop a definition of non-indoctrinating education by testing various suggestions and amending them in light of counterexamples and in particular in light of the Keegstra case.

The Kantian Ideal To indoctrinate is to teach in a way that disregards, circumvents and tricks the rational faculties of the student. To educate is to help the student develop as a rational/thinking person, in part by avoiding indoctrination. {e. g. indoctrination involves lying, hiding facts, emotionally manipulating, not giving reasons}

Jim Keegstra Content: International Jewry is conspiring to control the world. The holocaust never occurred. The diaries of the elders of Zion exist. International media is suppressing any attempt to reveal the conspiracy. Method: explained his view; said it was only one of many positions; said it was the minority view; mentioned alternative views; didn't present convincing arguments in support of alternative views; encouraged students who adopted the view and encouraged expression of anger and hatred towards the conspirators (Jews).

Two accusations 1. Keegstra did not educate, he indoctrinated 2. Keegstra promoted hatred. - we will focus on the first accusation

Preliminary discussion: Freedom of Speech Should freedom of speech and the protection from censorship apply equally to teachers in classrooms? Answer: No! Teachers ought to educate, not merely to promote their own views. So we can limit teachers who express their views but do not aim to thereby educate. This however: a. leaves un-solved the demarcation problem. b. to the extent that teachers educate (and in particular don’t indoctrinate) we do want them to express their own views, even in favor of controversial positions.

Teacher is NI (not indoctrinating) iff: She teaches the truth! (A) Counterarguments: No-one knows what the truth is. Most good educators of past centuries did not teach the truth.

Teacher is NI iff: He works hard preparing lessons, he cares about student learning, he maintains discipline in the classroom! (B) Counterargument: Indoctrinators might satisfy all these conditions. So, 'not sufficient'.

Teacher is NI iff: B + The teacher is honest (C)! Counterargument: Indoctrinators might satisfy all these conditions. So, 'not sufficient'. Also, B+C have little to do with the Kantian ideal.

Teacher is NI iff: B, C + She says she might be wrong and/or she says that the view she prefers is only one among many views (D). Counterargument: Indoctrinators might satisfy all these conditions. So, 'not sufficient'.

Teacher is NI iff: B-D + The theory he prefers is presented as falsifiable (E). Counterargument: Indoctrinators might satisfy all these conditions. So, 'not sufficient'.

Teacher is NI iff: B-E + She presents all the alternative views (F). Counterargument: It’s impractical to present all the alternative views. So, 'not necessary'.

Consider first the fact that F is not necessary. Let's try some different formulations: F* some alternative views? Not sufficient! F** the expert's views? Who are they? How about the north Korean experts? F is problematic and we don't know how to formulate it, but for the sake of argument lets assume we have a good formulation and call it F***. New problem: What about someone who just presents the views specified by F***?

Teacher is NI (not indoctrinating) iff: B-F*** + he presents the arguments for the alternative views (G). Counterargument: Indoctrinators might satisfy all these conditions. So, 'not sufficient'.

Teacher is NI iff: B-G + she presents the arguments for the alternative views in a convincing way (H). Counterargument: We don't want teachers to present in a convincing way the arguments for - Creationism - Flat earth theory - Nazism So, 'not necessary'.

We need a different approach. Teacher is NI iff: B-G + the school ensures that students are equipped with critical thinking skills and are encouraged to apply them (I). But what does 'I' consist of? Not clear! Isn’t the best way to teach critical thinking to opt for education over indoctrination? ? ? Do we have a non-circular analysis?

We have just scratched the surface of the debate over indoctrination. Here are other directions we have not explored: Ideals different than the Kantian one (see for example Simon's article: “Empowerment as the Pedagogy of Possibility”). Other ways of characterizing the content of education beside it's truth of falsity. The differences between moral education and scientific education. Solving the demarcation problem by looking at the resulting student. Exploring the notion of an autonomous person (see Yafee's article).