What is the purpose of education? Is it, as Justice Sonya Sotomayor recently wrote in dissent of Mahmoud v. Taylor, “that children may come together to learn not the teachings of a particular faith, but a range of concepts and views that reflect our entire society”? That is, for the Catholic school-educated, students attend school not to learn truth but to hear diverse viewpoints, not to acquire firm knowledge but to survey the landscape.
The situation that prompted Mahmoud, a suit brought by Christian, Jewish, and Muslim parents against a Maryland school district for prohibiting an opt-out from gender identity and LGBTQ instruction, is a symptom of a deeper issue. The plaintiffs defended themselves against the new gender and sexual orthodoxies with the shield of religious freedom. Yet, before these orthodoxies were established, they entered classrooms across America under the shield of diversity, which asserts that all viewpoints are equal and therefore welcome. To exclude is to discriminate, a grave evil. Diversity is our strength, the mantra goes, so every person and every idea must be included in America.
These new gender and sexual orthodoxies were once labeled differently: they were sins. But because the Secular Magisterium has defined diversity as a chief dogma, they are now not sins but “lifestyle choices.” And they have a purpose beyond simply taking a place as one idea among many: they undermine the Judeo-Christian understanding of humanity and sexuality. Why else would Montgomery County not allow opt-outs from this kind of instruction?
The diversity shield has done more than protect, and eventually mainstream, new manifestations of gender and sexuality. It has been used for decades to allow heterodox ideas into humanities and religion programs. The humanities have endured general advocacy for socialism and communism, along with specific curricula like the 1619 Project and other anti-racist programming. Religion programs, especially Catholic ones, have featured theologians whose writings undermine the faith a school professes. In the name of diversity, titles by Hans Küng, Richard McBrien, Roger Haight, Elizabeth Johnson, Elaine Pagels, and Bart Ehrman have rounded out syllabi across the country.
Can we read these authors, use these curricula, and allow these gender-bending ideas in the name of diversity? Does diversity cover a multitude of sins?
The answer depends on our definition of education. If we accept the classical view of education—to form students in wisdom and virtue by coming to knowledge of the truth—then the answer is, “No, but.” It is a clear “no” in that what is true ought to lead curricula in all subjects and in all schools, religious or not, especially in grammar and high schools, when students possess more limited intellectual capabilities. Students should first encounter the best of what is true, good, and beautiful in every subject and at every level. Only then are they mentally equipped to evaluate challenges to the truth.
The “but” pertains to two points. First, we have to define “diverse.” Is it merely “different,” as, say, Platonic versus Aristotelian metaphysics, or competing interpretations on the appropriateness of the New Deal or the character of Odysseus? Surely there is no problem with “different” takes on a single theme, provided students are advanced enough to comprehend these differences; students certainly will not lose their faith by learning them. Or does “diverse” mean “counter,” such that a certain “diverse perspective” undermines established truth claims, such as there are only two sexes or that the Bible is a trustworthy book?
This leads to the second aspect of “No, but.” In higher levels of education, these “counterclaims” can be evaluated critically in their own right and contrasted with the truth to foster deeper understanding. These perspectives would be of secondary concern: they can be presented as foils, ledes, or rivals to make for compelling lessons. “Counterclaims” do not belong in primary school grade levels, where advocates have been determined to implant them. Case in point: Justice Sotomayor photocopied the entirety of Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, a book that seeks to normalize marriage between men, to prove, in her mind, how harmless it is.
If these counter perspectives are the only kinds listed on a syllabus, then the course will likely elevate heterodoxy over orthodoxy, new age ideologies over the truth. By contrast, schools and teachers committed to the truth would be highly unlikely to honor these perspectives by compelling their students to purchase these books. They deem their sins too grave to be forgiven—or at least to be allowed a prominent place in the classroom.
If, however, we define education as Justice Sotomayor—an encounter with varying concepts and experiences while disavowing transcendent truth—then, in theory, ideological fads and suspect theories have as much claim to syllabi as Aristotle, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Shakespeare.
In theory—for we know that schools that have elevated their diverse perspectives, which are counter perspectives, into the new orthodoxies tolerate no rivals. It’s a cruel irony that only schools that embrace the classical view of education are accused of intolerance and close-mindedness. Not allowing an opt-out to gender and sexuality instruction that directly challenges prominent religions and thousands of years of human experience is rather intolerant.
Put simply, diversity cannot be wielded as a shield to justify heterodoxy. Counter perspectives that undermine truth, especially when it concerns human sexuality and religious faith, counter the very purpose of education classically understood. They can wreak irreparable harm on children who may never come to know the truth as a result.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
“And the Word was made flesh” … to know truth is to know Him!
Wonderful and very necessary article.
Counter perspectives that undermine truth.
That’s it in a nutshell.
I think that the first priority of schools ought to be educating children and teenagers about the basics–reading, writing, arithmetic–they need to know this Big Three before they can learn much about anything else! Round out the curriculum with some natural history (the great outdoors, birds, trees, etc.) and some simple science facts (not theories!); e.g., we need to eat nutritious food that will help our bodies grow, not just junk food, and finally, a little history, especially local history, that is age appropriate (e.g., learning that Pilgrims had a big feast and the Native Americans were invited and came and brought food).
Add to that some “physical fitness” time that does not require EVERY student to be trim, slim, strong, limber, and capable of throwing a ball or running fast! I would advocate for more free play, as not everyone likes “games” like dodge ball (it HURTS to get hit with the ball!) and many children are already enrolled in club sports outside of the school. Once the child is in middle school, school sports can be added to the P.E. curriculum, but the child should be able to sign up for elective classes for their P.E. requirement–and they should be able, if they wish, to exempt out of P.E. if they are already involved regularly in a sport outside of school (e.g., our daughters were and still are figure skaters who were at the rink early in the morning and after school as well as on weekends).
Public schools absolutely need to stay away from attempts to proselytize–not only religious proselytizing, but also “current issues” proselytizing (e.g., gender theory–and yes, it’s still a theory!)–until the students are in the upper levels of high school and have developed some little ability to reason and also have a more developed understanding of the religion practiced by their family.
And in all public education, every effort should be made to avoid “leading students” to adopt and hold onto an opinion on issues, especially controversial issues (e.g., religion, controversial political issues, etc.) that are better left for families to discuss rather than teachers who aren’t “family” and generally don’t have a relationship with most children once the child has moved on to a new grade or higher-level school. It hurts and divides a class when a teacher “leads” students to believe in causes that many families are opposed to–it puts the child(ren) in opposition to all the students who go along with the teacher’s insistence that EVERYONE has to believe in the issue and creates a classroom battlefield in which someone will inevitably get “hurt” in some way! Good teachers will recognize and affirm ALL opinions about controversial theories (in the middle and high schools) rather than attempting to turn the dissenters into pariahs.
My husband and I removed our children from public schools after three years of constant conflicts with very strange teachers. One teacher had a list of “allowed” lunch and snack foods which excluded carbohydrates, which anyone knows that children, especially those involved in demanding sports like figure skating, require for energy! When several of the parents challenged this teacher, she got mad and finally said, “OK, let them eat junk then” (but she used a different expletive instead of “junk”.) Shudder!)
Before basic skills comes the need to inspire moral development, a sense of honesty, fairness, and respect for others. There is no such thing as religious proselytizing. Inculcating values that reflect godliness originates with religion, but they can be promoted independent of a religious context.
Yes, teaching manners and how to pray are important. It’s been a few moons but know we said morning prayer, (I believe the Our Father) along with the pledge of allegiance to start the day, blessed the lunch and said an act of contrition just before the last bell.
We had mid morning recess, recess after lunch and mid afternoon recess. Girls and boys should be taught in separate classrooms, if at all possible.
I remember at least 2 recesses a day too. They involved free playtime. Girls skipped rope and the boys climbed a dirt pile. No organized sports.
We had one teacher and 8 grades in one room.
My oldest grandchildren can say that both their grandmas attended one room schoolhouses.
The author’s mantra seems to be “diversity is okay as long as it is in keeping with my views”!
No, he thinks that authentic diversity only exists when truth is paramount. Otherwise, “diversity” simply becomes a matter of fads, passions, and political posturing, with no center or objective measure. Plus, much of “diversity” today is quite narrow and anti-diversity, fueled by agendas aimed to silence those who think differently or prefer truth and tradition over the current Zeitgeist.
About the Classical view of education, two points:
FIRST, Rev. George Rutler tendered this set of connections:
“We might say that the cardinal virtues have their counterparts in the ‘quadrivium’: music and Justice are both sciences of harmony; arithmetic and Prudence are sciences of order; geometry and Temperance are sciences of imagination; astronomy and Fortitude are sciences of transcendence. And the theological virtues comport themselves with the fundamental ‘trivium’: grammar being to discourse what Faith is to supernatural conversation; rhetoric being to grammar what Hope is morally to faith; and dialectic providing a natural analogy of the heavenly discourse of love, just as Love is the highest logic of creation.
“It is an arbitrary scheme, to be sure, but a fair reminder of the community between natural and spiritual sciences” (Fr. George William Rutler, “Beyond Modernity: Reflections of a Post-modern Catholic,” Ignatius 1987; p. 123).
SECOND, there’s still a gap between Classical scientia or knowledge, and what can be grafted-on as entirely new and transcends: sapientia or Christian Wisdom…
About which, the historian Charles Norris Cochrane says that Plato “made the blunder of his career, a blunder which was the more tragic because he had come within a hair’s breadth of stumbling upon the truth.” Plato saw God as the one, the good and the true, but still only as transcendental; he never suspected the immanence of the Incarnation (“Christianity and Classical Culture,” 1940/1974).
And, yet, of His own Creation: “God saw that IT [too] was good” (Gen 1:10, 12, 18, 21,25). And, of, “I am who am,” (Ex. 3:14), St. John Paul II recalls especially St. Augustine who “held that Plato must have known this text [!] because it seemed very close to his ideas” (“Theology of the Body,” Sept. 12, 1979, fn. 3).
SUMMARY: Under the anti-diversity/public(pubic?) ideology of guru Sotomayer, it’s more than Classical education that’s on the chopping block. Almost four decades ago and after a pensive silence, even my (then) seven-year old son announced: “hey, if everything is true, then nothing is true…”
“It’s a cruel irony that only schools that embrace the classical view of education are accused of intolerance and closed-mindedness.”
It is indeed a cruel irony, but it is also entirely predictable – the stench of Saul Alinsky lingers everywhere.