Diversity, Professional Disposition, And Mental Hygiene

All too often schools of education behave more like re-education centers to indoctrinate future teachers than laboratories of learning. This sad truth is nicely revealed in an absolutely fascinating article by Laurie Moses Hines of Kent State University in the Hoover Institution journal Education Next. Everyone should read it. (I was point to it by a good discussion of it in today’s Chronicle of Higher Education by Jason Breslow.)

Prof. Hines introduces her article by referring to the case of Ed Swan, a Washington State University graduate student in education who was threatened with expulsion because his conservative views conflicted with the Education School’s “disposition” assessment.

The school’s “professional disposition evaluation” required that students demonstrate, along with a professional demeanor, written communication, and problem-solving and critical-thinking skills, an “understanding of the complexities of race, power, gender, class, sexual orientation and privilege in American society.”

Refusing to consent to the underlying ideology, Swan failed repeatedly. The college threatened to expel him from the teacher training program unless he signed a contract agreeing to undergo diversity training and accept extra scrutiny of his student teaching.

The Foundation For Individual Rights in Education intervened on Swan’s behalf, and eventually WSU backed down and agreed to change its “dispositions” evaluation form. (See F.I.R.E.’s collection of documents here.) Prof. Hines suggests, however, that WSU’s change may have been more apparent than real. “We’ve changed the format and clarified the words,” Dean of Education Judy Mitchell explained, “but we haven’t changed the standards.”

Whatever changed, or didn’t, at Washington State, Prof. Hines makes clear that enforcing ideological conformity is rampant in schools of education across the country:

… web site after web site shows schools of education that list among their teacher-education program goals the inculcation of political views alongside intellectual curiosity and such work habits as punctuality. The University of Alabama’s College of Education is “committed to preparing individuals to promote social justice, to be change agents, and to recognize individual and institutional racism, sexism, homophobia, and classism.…” In the teacher education program at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, students are asked to “act as leaders and agents for organizational change in their classrooms, schools, and society…continually examine their own identities, biases, and social locations, seeking knowledge of students’ cultures and communities, and pursuing a complex understanding of societal inequities as mediated through classism, heterosexism, racism, and other systems of advantage.” Some program descriptions explain that requiring awareness of these issues and a commitment to addressing them ensures teachers will teach all children. In an October 2006 letter defending the conceptual framework of Teachers College, Columbia University, against accusations of political screening, President Susan H. Furhman wrote, “We believe that responsiveness to the diversity of students’ backgrounds and previous experiences are [sic] essential for effective teaching”

Indeed, I’m sure it are. Subject–verb agreement, on the other hand, appears to be an unessential luxury.

What makes Prof. Hines’ article so interesting, however, is not her demonstration that many education schools are laboratories for political indoctrination but her historical argument that today’s “disposition assessment” is in many respects yesterday’s “mental hygiene” dressed up in the language of “diversity.”

Society has long been concerned with the behavior, both inside and outside of the classroom, and the character of public school teachers. A century ago, local school boards carefully selected school teachers they deemed “fit to teach,” whose behavior comported with community values. They could not smoke or drink. Female teachers could not socialize with men while unchaperoned. They could not marry. They were not to display or engage in behaviors considered deviant, such as lesbianism. They were to dress conservatively and attend church. Violation could cost a teacher her job.

School officials and boards also scrutinized teachers’ political views. During World War I, the superintendent of the Cleveland public schools suggested firing those teachers sympathetic to Germany, and anti-war teachers did lose their jobs in New York City. In the 1920s and 1930s, more than a dozen states, typically those in which there were anti-communist crusades, required teachers to take loyalty oaths.

In public-school classrooms, as educational progressivism steadily gained influence during the first half of the 20th century, the focus in classrooms gradually shifted from rigorous academic study and discipline to children’s personality development and mental health. Education historian Sol Cohen describes the “medicalization” of education as the “infiltration of psychiatric norms, concepts and categories of discourse” into American education. Cohen reports that by 1950, there was “a national consensus on the role of personality development in American education” and that this included the view that “the school is basically an institution to develop children’s personality and that personality development of children should take priority over any other school objective.”

Attention turned as well toward the “mental hygiene” of the teacher, whose actions and attitudes would no doubt influence the children in her charge….

The history of teacher screening reveals how deeply rooted such practices are in American teacher education. Whether the standard is mental hygiene or possessing the proper political and ideological disposition, the elimination of candidates who do not pass muster gives teacher educators the power to determine who gains access to a classroom based on the values the teacher educators prefer. While the courts have permitted certifying agencies to require “good moral character” of teacher applicants, as legal scholars Martha McCarthy and Nelda Cambron-McCabe note, they “will intervene … if statutory or constitutional rights are abridged.” Thus, while pledging loyalty to federal and state constitutions is a permissible condition for obtaining a teacher license, swearing an oath to progressivism is not.

Read the whole thing.

Say What? (27)

  1. Hull April 19, 2007 at 4:22 pm | | Reply

    Framing:

    In media studies, sociology and psychology, framing, is a process of selective control over the individual’s perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. Framing defines how an element of rhetoric is packaged so as to allow certain interpretations and rule out others. Media frames can be created by the mass media or by specific political or social movements or organizations.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(communication_theory)

    In the case of this post, John shows how framing can be used to portray teaching right from wrong as some pernicious form of indoctrination. Indeed, if you frame this anecdote of the WSU situation to suit conservative purposes, you could argue that teaching students that racism and sexism are wrong is a form of indoctrination.

    I don’t accept that frame.

    Similarly you could argue that keeping murderers off the street flies in the face of diversity because if we truly want to have a diverse society murderers should be represented.

    No. Encouraging future teachers to not be racist or sexist is not indoctrination any more than teaching your kids the dominant mores of our society “enforces ideological conformity.”

    You are framing this situation to suit your purposes instead of presenting the facts plainly.

  2. mikem April 20, 2007 at 5:49 am | | Reply

    “No. Encouraging future teachers to not be racist or sexist is not indoctrination…”

    Great!

    So you would have no problem with degree or employment requirements that the student/applicant agree to support the obviously right statement that ALL forms of racial or gender discrimination are wrong, especially when wielded by authorities, including affirmative action efforts that target, or intend to target, one or more races.

    I give the propagandists credit though. They are quick on the draw and not easily embarrassed.

  3. Hull April 20, 2007 at 8:53 am | | Reply

    No, Mikem, I do not have a problem with a student/applicant agreeing to support the obviously right statement that ALL forms of racial or gender discrimination are wrong.

    However, as with any rule there are exceptions that come about when applying the rule.

    As I’ve pointed out before, while the 1st amendment bans all restrictions on free speech, we all recognize that not all speech is legal or allowed.

    Similarly, a ban on all forms of racial or gender discrimination would have to allow exceptions so that it could be applied reasonably. Some such exceptions include affirmative action.

    That’s not so hard to understand is it?

  4. FreeMan April 20, 2007 at 9:13 am | | Reply

    Dear Mikem – How do you define “Wrong”? It is immoral to exist in a Sexist/Racist society like the US & expect Women & People of Color that have been discriminated against in the past & present because of sexism & racism to expect them to achieve at the same level despite historic & current sexism & racism

    A person can morally support Affirmative Action & be against Sexism & Racism because of social justice & the historic & current sexism & racism

    A person is moral if they recognize the social injustice against Women & People of Color & strive to make society make up for its discrimination against Women & People of Color & treat Women & People of Color equally in the present

  5. John Rosenberg April 20, 2007 at 9:51 am | | Reply

    Similarly, a ban on all forms of racial or gender discrimination would have to allow exceptions so that it could be applied reasonably. Some such exceptions include affirmative action.

    That’s not so hard to understand is it?

    Actually, it is. You keep throwing out the red herring of “no absolutes!” but no one, as I’ve pointed out just about each time you throw the fish, is talking about absolutes. But to repeat: Yes, saying the state cannot discriminate against or grant preferences to any person based on race or ethnicity would not prevent police from assigning a black undercover officer to a black gang.

    But you have turned a slippery slope into a vertical free fall by letting the “exceptions” obliterate the prohibition. In fact, as you state here, you’d have no problem requiring ed students sign a loyalty oath-like affirmation that they believe the state can discriminate against or grant preferences to … because, in your interpretation, the state would remain perfectly free to grant preferences to when thought it had a good reason.

  6. Shouting Thomas April 20, 2007 at 10:02 am | | Reply

    Hull and FreeMan, you are indeed arguing for political indoctrination.

    The focus on “racism and sexism” is politicial indoctrination.

    What you call “racism” serves both good and bad ends. The recognition that one belongs to a racial clan, and the need for self-defense against other racial clans is innate to human nature. Only a fool with no regard for his or her own well-being would think otherwise. In your daily lives, you observe and practice identification with your racial clan. Or else, you would be dead. Your refusal to acknowledge this is just gross hypocrisy and moral preening.

    I’ve lived in black communities in Chicago, San Francisco and Brooklyn. Any white person who does not remain aware of the reality of racial identification will not survive long in these communities.

    The belief that traditional sexual roles are valid, useful and better than those proposed by feminist propaganda is what you term “sexism.” Traditional religious and moral views have as much validity as your views. The educational system has no right to indoctrinate students in feminist ideology.

    What each of you has argued is that your views are sainted and cannot be opposed. We are all well aware that this Stalinist philosophy has captured the academy. The bull headed insistence with which you insist that you cannot be opposed is the evidence that you were subjected to a ham fisted political indoctrination. You must be defeated.

  7. Hull April 20, 2007 at 11:34 am | | Reply

    “In fact, as you state here, you’d have no problem requiring ed students sign a loyalty oath-like affirmation that they believe the state can discriminate against or grant preferences”

    And this is why I began by referring to framing. You call the WSU “professional disposition evaluation” a “loyalty-oath like affirmation” when in fact:

    “The school’s “professional disposition evaluation” required that students demonstrate, along with a professional demeanor, written communication, and problem-solving and critical-thinking skills, an “understanding of the complexities of race, power, gender, class, sexual orientation and privilege in American society.””

    Your description of the situation is a leap to say the least. I’m not really sure how you could convince an objective reader that the “professional disposition evaluation” as described is the equivalent of “a loyalty oath-like affirmation that they believe the state can discriminate against or grant preferences.”

    In other words, it is difficult to even begin to debate the issue when your opponents mischaracterize the factual situation.

    Shouting Thomas, I’d like to respond, but I don’t see much to respond to: You are arguing that racism and sexism are not wrong. I don’t feel any need to debate that.

  8. Anita April 20, 2007 at 11:36 am | | Reply

    Freeman,

    the entire world is racist/sexist. the US is less so than any other place. that is why black people come here and stay here and why black americans do not move away when we could. you are not discussing the evil of the US, you are discussing the evil of human beings.

    teachers should just treat everyone fairly and kindly and not make any exceptions for anyone based on race or sex. that is the best way to “indoctrinate” children. I have come to believe that the kind of teaching schools go for now is counter productive and causes more harm than good. I honestly think schools should ignore the issue unless something happens that requires attention, like if someone is mistreated. school should be the zone of we must all learn the same and do the same and be judged the same.

  9. Brad April 20, 2007 at 12:04 pm | | Reply

    Hull,

    “…teaching students that racism and sexism are wrong…”

    That is not the substance of the issue, despite the fact that the proponents of these policies (and you) “frame” it that way. These are college students (and faculty), not 3rd graders; they know that racism is wrong. Read the Hines article and the articles she links. This is about a very specific, and pernicious, political ideology being foisted on the students in order to further an un- or anti-democratic (Gramscian) agenda. “[T]o promote social justice” is not the benign process of “…teaching students that racism and sexism are wrong…” It is actively promoting very specific programs and disseminating partisan political concepts, and it has no place in an institute of higher learning (or a grade school). No matter how you “frame” the issue, the fact is that those who disagree with you are not in need of re-education.

  10. FreeMan April 20, 2007 at 12:18 pm | | Reply

    Shouting Thomas – US is a Sexist/Racist Nation – this is not political indoctrination – it is truth- Look at the US Constitution Black Afrikans Slaves are defined as 3/5 persons – White European Slaves are defined as Whole Persons

    Women were not allowed to vote until 1920s – Black Afrikan Women were not Allowed to vote until 1965!

    The life of Women in the US is under continued Sexism Women work the same job as Men & comprise the Majority Population & still receive less $ then men in 2007 – Sexism

    The life of People of Color in the US is under continued Racism

    Sexism is the discriminatory treatment of Women because they are women

    Racism does not have a positive benefit because it is immoral & false

    Racial Identification is not Racism

    Racism is the discriminatory treatment of People of Color because they are NonWhite NonEuropean which is based upon White European Racial Supremacy

    Why must I defeated because I stand against the Sexism/Racism in this Nation?

  11. John Rosenberg April 20, 2007 at 12:19 pm | | Reply

    I apologize: I was in a hurry, and my comment had more than the usual number of typos.

    As I hope and suspect readers figured out on their own, what I meant to write was “you’d have no problem requiring ed students TO sign a loyalty oath-like affirmation that they believe the state CAN’T discriminate against or grant preferences to ….”

    Now that the record has been corrected, I’ll add only one point here: If you really believe that any education school that requires degree candidates to demonstrate an “understanding of the complexities of race, power, gender, class, sexual orientation and privilege in American society” is not, in fact, requiring demonstrated loyalty to the canon of political correctness, then I have some nice, well-irrigated land in south Florida to sell you.

  12. Shouting Thomas April 20, 2007 at 12:38 pm | | Reply

    “Shouting Thomas, I’d like to respond, but I don’t see much to respond to: You are arguing that racism and sexism are not wrong. I don’t feel any need to debate that.”

    Try reading again. Apparently you have difficulty with plain English.

    Once again your language reveals the problem. You’ve been indoctrinated by the school system to believe that this prattling about “racism and sexism” is unchallengeable.

    You are making the mistake of believing that because you feel so sainted about your beliefs that nobody can challenge them.

    Yes, traditional beliefs about race and sex are as valid as your own. No, the primary purpose of schools is not indoctrination in your leftist values.

    Now, just for a moment, let your minds be free of the sledge hammer indoctrination to which you’ve been subjected. Hull, Freeman, you are Exhibits A and B in an abusive pedagogy. I don’t know which is worse. You’re addiction to mindless, meaningless sloganeering is obvious. And, Freeman, what in the world is all this capitalization about? I gather that each group you’ve capitalized is sacred and beyond reproach.

  13. Hull April 20, 2007 at 1:35 pm | | Reply

    Unfortunately, Brad, I did take the time to read Hines’ poorly conceived article and I’ll never get that 10 minutes back. Oh well.

    Aside from WSU’s voluntary decision to change its dispositions form, do you have any evidence to support your contention that this scenario, “is actively promoting very specific programs and disseminating partisan political concepts.”

    Were these students locked away in some basement and waterboarded (I know your political affiliates favor such behavior) or had their eyelids forced open a la Clockwork Orange to re-educate them into that evil ideology, political correctness?

    I didn’t realize that encouraging teachers not to be racist or sexist was partisan, but perhaps that’s where the bad rap against Republicans comes from.

    This is framing. You and your cohorts have a thesis that so-called political correctness (what most of us refer to as respect for others) is some kind of communist subversion. You attempt to shoe-horn anecdotes into your thesis and this is yet another example of that bad-faith argument.

  14. FreeMan April 20, 2007 at 6:59 pm | | Reply

    Shouting Thomas – I got censored again here’s an edited version- The US is a Sexist/Racist nation – look at the US Constitution – that is truth not political indoctrination –

    Sexism is the discriminatory treatment of Women because they are Women

    Racism doesn’t have positive benefit because it is false & immoral

    Racial Identification is not racism

    Racism is the discriminatory treatment of People of Color because they are NonWhite NonEuropean which is based on White European Racial Supremacy

    Why must I be defeated because I stand against Sexism/Racism in this nation?

  15. FreeMan April 20, 2007 at 7:02 pm | | Reply

    Anita – female students & students of Color are damaged everyday – the curriculum is sexist & racist – Social Justice requires Affirmative Action in light of the Sexist/Racist history & current sexism against Women & racism against People of Color

  16. Shouting Thomas April 21, 2007 at 12:43 pm | | Reply

    What you can’t seem to fathom, FreeMan, is that these ultimatums you issue are just your opinions. Repeat after me. These mindless slogans are just your opinions. Other people have opinions that differ from yours. The opinions of people who disagree with you are just as important as your opinions. Really.

    Frankly, I think that your opinions are nonsense. Blacks are responsible for their own problems. Women too. Most women want to live the old fashioned life of religion and family. The solution to most of the ills of the black community is Christian morality, attendance at Sunday services, the return of black men to the role of head of family, etc. If you want to fight for social justice, whatever that is, you do it on your own time and money via political action. You don’t expect the taxpayers to support your opinions. To do that would be for the government to endorse one side over another, which is unconstitutional.

    Using the schools for this purpose is bullying and indoctrination. You are a very dangerous person in your assurance that you alone have the answer and that you have the right to impose it on other people. The term to describe what you want to do is “Stalinism.” It’s already been tried. We know where it leads.

    Once again, what’s with all the capitalization?

  17. FreeMan April 21, 2007 at 1:47 pm | | Reply

    Shouting Thomas – Are you denying that the US Society discriminated against Women through Sexism as demonstrated by the US Constitution & discriminated against People of Color through Racism as demonstrated by the US Constitution?

    If it is TRUE – then shouldn’t our schools teach those students these truths & hire teachers that promote equality of all students & respect their cultures because the government is supposed to treat all people equally?

  18. Shouting Thomas April 23, 2007 at 8:20 am | | Reply

    No, I don’t agree with anything you’ve said.

    All racial and ethnic groups have suffered. The suffering of one ethnic group should not be promoted over another. No, the government cannot be allowed to use its agencies for racial revenge.

    And, no, women have not been discriminated against. This is and was a fabricated grievance.

    And, no matter how many capital letters you use, your favored groups are of no more importance than any other group.

    This world is not ideal. I think that you are too young to understand how dangerous absolute ideals can be. The absolute ideals you are persuing lead inexorably to an endless war of revenge.

  19. FreeMan April 23, 2007 at 11:07 am | | Reply

    Shouting Thomas – You can choose to remain in your ignorance – But the Truth is the US denied White European-American Women the Right to Vote until 1920 – Black Afrikan Women were not allowed to vote until 1965

    In 1791 the US defined Black Afrikan Slaves as 3/5 persons & White European Slaves as Whole persons

    Someone that is not willing to consider the truth is willfully ignorant

    Those discriminations in the past -today continue to have discriminatory effects on Women & People of Color today

  20. Dom April 23, 2007 at 5:22 pm | | Reply

    FreeMan, why do you keep using the phrase “people of color”? Affirmative Action is designed to keep asians (among others) out of our universities. In states with a large asian population, the rules of AA are specifically designed to hurt Asians.

    Also (I think this is the point that Anita makes) if you use words like “racist” and “sexist” to describe America, then what words do you use to describe Sudan, or most Moslem countries, or North Korea?

  21. FreeMan April 23, 2007 at 7:13 pm | | Reply

    Affirmative Action is not used to keep Asians out of the US society – The issue is reducing White European-American Male Racial Supremacy – Believe it or not – Asians are considered Racially inferior to White European-Americans too

    People of Color refers to Non White NonEuropean people

    I am not a resident in those countries – I am instructed to clean up my own country 1st before I attempt to clean other countries

  22. Shouting Thomas April 23, 2007 at 11:57 pm | | Reply

    You still haven’t told me, Freeman, how you think that your opinions become holy writ as the result of all this capitalization. Who “instructed” you to “clean up [this] country”?

    The American people, given the right to vote, seem to regard your position as ignorant and indefensible. You are losing wherever free elections allow people to vote on this issue. If given the opportunity, I’ll vote to defeat you.

    I don’t care about your desire for revenge, nor will I be swayed by your recitation of racial and sexual complaints. My family gets the same treatment as any other family. If not, I’ll fight you tooth and nail.

    It is your position that is racist and morally indefensible.

  23. FreeMan April 24, 2007 at 8:18 am | | Reply

    Shouting Thomas – Morality is based upon TRUTH! You will not consider TRUTH!

    Right to vote based upon Voter Fraud in Washington State & MI

    Racial Voter Intimidation in MI

    Failure of State & Federal Courts to follow law by allowing Petition with Voter Fraud on Ballot

    Accepted Open Support of Ku Klux Klan by Black Afrikan Wardell Connerly for Affirmative Action Ban

    Ku Klux Klan is not morally defensible with its history of Racial Hate Crimes against Jews & People of Color

    Failure to State Affirmative Action Ban will discriminate against the Nation’s Majority Population Women!

  24. Dom April 24, 2007 at 10:10 am | | Reply

    Well, the numbers speak for themselves. Where AA is established the number of Asians in universities shrinks noticable. When AA is removed, the number increases. Sorry, but AA is designed — one might think specifically designed — to keep Asians out of universities.

    No one thinks Asians are racially inferior to whites, certainly not whites. Virtually all studies of IQ performed by white authors will place Asians above whites. There is no great animosity between whites and Asians, usually it is between blacks and Asians.

  25. FreeMan April 24, 2007 at 12:44 pm | | Reply

    Dom – Affirmative Action affects public contracts too – how many public contracts go to Asian run firms? –

    Remember the fear of Chinese US Port control last year?

    Didn’t the US put Asians in concentration camps during World War 2 & it didn’t put White Europeans Italians & Germans? Hmm

  26. Dom April 24, 2007 at 2:18 pm | | Reply

    Italians and Germans were indeed detained in internment camps during WW2. This is well-documented. The stated reasons for detainment is the same as that for the Japanese — they were thought to be collaborating.

    Chinese port control? You got me there. Were these Chinese-Americans, or was this just a foreign policy issue?

    I can’t answer the question about Asian-run firms, and you can’t either, because I don’t know the number to begin with. I’m sure they are not being denied contracts. They have a reputation for hard work.

    Throughout this country, an application for a university is being reviewed and, at some point, a university official says, “She has great talent, but we can’t accept her because she is Asian. Her race is over-represented.” That’s affirmative action.

  27. FreeMan April 24, 2007 at 10:28 pm | | Reply

    Dom – There were not mass concentration camps for Italians & Germans US Citizens like the people of Asian descent US Citizens in the US during World War 2 – you are not being truthful

Say What?