Education, Defined (Subjectively)

By Adi Sivaraman | Thursday, January 25, 2007

The Tucker Foundation hosted its second four-person panel on the meaning of higher education this year on Thursday, January 12. The panel showcased four different faculty members and their views on the meaning of education in modern America, and the value of a liberal arts education in general.

Acting Dean of the College Dan Nelson, who also served as the moderator of the panel, opened with a few brief words. The purpose of a liberal arts education, according to Nelson, is “the stimulation and development of gifts of intellect” to produce a “more efficient force” that can then serve society. However, the dean failed to articulate specifically which activities count as “stimulation” and which activities are, for whatever reason, intellectually illegitimate. If one is to assume that Dean Nelson sees critical thinking and questioning of established norms as a valuable intellectual exercise, he concluded speaking with an apparent contradiction: in a reference to the anti-free speech protest in front of Dartmouth Hall last term, he commented that Dartmouth saw “both the worst and the best of extracurricular education at Dartmouth” and that this is the context in which the discussion of the panel should be evaluated.

The first panelist to speak was the Muslim student advisor Irfan Aziz. He described knowledge mostly from the Islamic perspective. He spoke at length, at times somewhat disjointedly, about how Islam sees knowledge not as an end, but as a perpetual journey. He emphasized that the Koran commands all pious Muslims to critically evaluate both the holy text and the world in general, and not to take things on blind faith. He finished by emphasizing that the inquisitive life is the basis of being well-educated, thus illuminating a common theme between the Islamic tradition and the Western, Socratic tradition. However, despite staying on topic more than Dean Nelson and choosing not to devolve into petty campus politics, he still left important questions at large. The bulk of the topical discussion, therefore, was left to the last two panelists.

Philosophy and ‘gender studies’ professor Susan Brison opened by describing a near death experience that forced her to reevaluate what knowledge and living a worthwhile life meant to her. Taking a slightly different approach to the topic than the other panelists, she came out openly and said that she didn’t believe that knowledge conferred any kind of tangible power, and that just because the unexamined life is not worth living does not mean that the examined life is necessarily worthwhile. She spoke of the increasing amount of stress that she believes characterize undergraduate life, and categorically stated that she “wouldn’t change places with us for anything.” Though she did not define what being well-educated was in its totality, she did emphasize that a key element was the ability to empathize with others. Empathy is key, according to Professor Brison, because “we are all the recipients of unearned privilege.” Taking a very stereotypically liberal view on justice, she made the argument that our obligation in a free society is not simply to prevent injustice, but to “promote justice.” This view of liberty as a positive burden was further articulated in her belief that the simple fact that individuals have the ability to respond to situations of injustice means that they have a moral obligation to do so. However, she concedes that she has no idea about how to actually go about realizing that paradigm, or even if one exists.

Classics professor Edward Bradley continued the argument forwarded by Professor Brison. He also very strongly emphasized that an individual cannot be considered well-educated unless he is willing to help others. He presented the lives of Augustine of Hippo and Abraham Lincoln as examples. First, he discussed the life of the saint as one in which classical, formal education played a large part, but was eventually useless, as Augustine renounced his academic credentials to pursue his religious convictions. In contrast, Abraham Lincoln had almost no formal education but, according to Professor Bradley, was the finest American who ever lived. Ultimately, Professor Bradley was also unable to explain what constituted a good education, but insisted that in involved reading and reflecting upon books.

This somewhat circular and inconclusive discussion seems to illuminate little regarding the meaning of education. However, there are some consistent themes in the views of all the panelists, and they deserve further comment. There is good ground for skepticism that the views any of the panelists either failed to constitute a coherent framework, or has certain terrifying implications if extended to their respective conclusions. At the end of the event, the opportunity was presented to question Professors Bradley and Brison about the meaning of Truth, the nature of knowledge, and the practical implications of both. Does Truth exist? How does it interact with knowledge? Is everything we know relative, and if so, is cultural relativism justified? Most suspicious was the idea of empathy. If empathy is defined by Merriam Webster’s dictionary as “the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another,” why is it a better personal standard than the lower bar of tolerance, given the existence of contradicting opinions? There is good reason to believe that the sinister implication brewing beneath the banner of empathy is that certain viewpoints, chosen without any objective standard of evaluation, would be disallowed.

Professor Brison was skeptical about the existence of a stable, objective truth and suggested that perhaps truth was relative. However, this seemed inconsistent with her belief that certain beliefs are simply wrong. More interesting still, was an evaluation of certain basic principles of liberty. Should we, as individuals, empathize with each other and seek to promote each others’ interests, or should we simply be held to the standard of tolerance and allow others to do as they please? Professor Brison advocated empathy almost unequivocally, until presented with the question of what we should do with people who hold deep, hateful prejudices. Here, she doubled back once again and said that she believed those points of view were wrong. But those beliefs are wrong only be the political standard of our day; today, someone who hates gays is wrong (and rightly so), but just a few centuries ago, the socio-political norm dictated that homosexuals were deviants, worthy of persecution and even execution. What is to say that having a liberal arts education is supposedly always right and wrong will not return to haunt us in the future? Professor Brison admitted that she did not have an answer.

Professor Bradley fared a little better. When asked if Truth exists, he answered in the affirmative without hesitation. He said that his religious faith helped him come to that conclusion, and, though he recognizes that some of his colleagues’ espousal of cultural relativism is not wholly without merit, as an individual he knows his own ethical grounding. When asked if, as an academic exercise, we imagine a world in that what is ethical is not true (in other words, if we find the truth and it is ugly), would he rather choose to be ethical or true, he answered that he would rather be ethical without reservation. However, he clarified that in his view, the most ethical action is also the action that is true.

Perhaps my conception of what it means to have a well-operated society is deeply flawed, but I have always been under the impression that the role of policymakers in making a good government, or the role of pedagogs in producing good citizens, is not to create any one specific result, but to simply lay a basic groundwork upon which society can build. It is not just enough to pass good laws and have good leaders, because future generations could repeal those laws and replace them with bad ones, while replacing the current leaders with morons and despots. The key is to have a system that does not allow itself to be abused.

If this is reasonable, then it seems as though a system of “empathy” is a precarious solution at best, and a train wreck at worst. On an individual level, if we are all told that our job is to empathize with others, how do we deal with those who disagree with the majority? If someone holds a belief that is so offensive to me and the majority of my society that empathy and understanding is impossible (and this is something that can very easily happen), do I choose sides and empathize with one group and hate the other? Any Dartmouth student who remembers several months ago can easily conceptualize a scenario where a desire to empathize with one’s peers results in the inevitable marginalization and desire to eliminate certain segments of society. On a governmental level (whether that be the government of a state or of a collegiate institution), the eventual implication of “empathy” is clear: there is a strict official ideology that must be followed, and if you disagree with it, then the powers that be are free to deal with you as they choose. It doesn’t matter if the vast majority of the populace agrees with the official ideology. It’s just not good government.

Here’s an example. Take Orwell’s Animal Farm. In a paradigm of tolerance, there exist authoritarians, and there exist those of other political affiliations; there exist the pigs and then there are the other animals. Though they may disagree profoundly, the state doesn’t take an official position on who is right and who is wrong, and all are able to voice their opinions. In a world of empathy, or more accurately, positive liberty, the state picks a side in what should be an intellectual dispute left up to individuals to resolve. I think we all know the end of this story.

The simple fact that, for the most part, our governing institutions pick the side that we agree with does not make this precedent any less dangerous. It is not whether or the exercise of this power is abused that matters; rather, it’s the potential to abuse it that should be regarded as so terrifying. Thus we should reject the notion that we as individuals should embrace empathy with others as our primary concern, or that it should be the foundation of a liberal arts education. It’s a very good intention, and I’ll be sure to give it due notice when I see it on my way to hell.

Education, Defined (Subjectively)

Article Tools

Related Articles