In this debacle surrounding SB54 and CMV, things are quickly reaching a boiling point. Will the UT GOP choose deep change on its own terms, or slow death by an increase in voter apathy and a continued decrease in membership?
A few years ago, I left the Republican Party when the door was open. Now, just when I think I'm ready to come back, I find the door being slammed shut. This makes me sad, not because of a lost opportunity for me, but because I clearly see a lost opportunity for the party. I'm beginning to realize the party is actually closing the door on itself.
Robert E. Quinn, an organizational change expert, in his book Deep Change, stated, "Organizations are coalitional. The dominant coalition in an organization is seldom interested in making deep change. Hence, deep change is often, but not always, driven from the outside."
While Quinn's research in organizational change may inform the party leadership's behavior, this issue is not a dichotomous battle between the party and the state, between the "inside" and the "outside." There are many competing coalitions involved - the state, the voters (no matter their affiliation or ideology), and the party's officers at various levels. In reality, the dominant coalition just has to meet a new and wider set of expectations.
But, without those who vote for Republican candidates (whether in the primary or general election) the party effectively ceases to exist. So, voters demands and wishes ought not to be ignored. But the party need not lose control either.
As long as die-hard Republicans are framing this issue as a one-or-the-other debate, they will prolong the battle and perhaps never reach a favorable resolution. So, which will it be? Change from within? Or a coercive change from the outside? Either way, the process will be painful. So, which one is more likely to help the party maintain its integrity and viability?
Deep change can be painful. It requires us to challenge closely-held assumptions and creates uncertainty. But the choice of deep change over slow death brings more rewarding outcomes and opportunities than can otherwise be anticipated.
I hope the Utah Republican Party chooses wisely.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Monday, October 6, 2014
The Definition(s) of Marriage
The recent Supreme Court decision (or lack thereof) has prompted many to think that the issue is settled once and for all. In reality, only one side of a multi-faceted debate has won a battle, and no one has won the war yet. There are still many issue to be resolved. Its unfortunate that people think the issue is settled only because they now have what they wanted - regardless if a majority is still left with many more unanswered questions than there were before. The issue still has the potential to tear our society to pieces if it is not truly resolved.
We all want equality in marriage. No one is asking for certain marriages to be treated differently than other marriages; such a demand has never been voiced to my knowledge by anyone involved in the public discourse.
The real question is - how do (or should) we define marriage? I don't mean from a religious or moral point of view. I'm talking about a public policy point of view. Why is government involved in marriage in the first place? Should the government be involved in it? All sides of the debate are asking the government to be involved in defining marriage in varying degrees, in various ways, and for various ends. Some want states to decide. Some want the federal government to decide. Some want courts to decide. Others want legislatures to decide.
The root issue is that we as a society can't agree on a definition of marriage, just like we can't agree on a definition for "education" or "freedom" or "security". The roots of this conversation go back much further than the modern gay rights movement.
This is not a matter of choosing between one definition or another. It is narrow- and simple-minded to think that we must choose between only two definitions of marriage; the issue is much more complex than that. There are more than two definitions of marriage being thrown around in this debate. In fact, I suggest there are six competing and overlapping definitions, each supported by different arguments that are emphasized by different camps. Each definition may have virtue in its own right, but each leaves some gaping holes in its implications.
Definition #1: Marriage is a purely romantic/sexual relationship. We should be free to marry who we love.
This definition outright ignores children's role in the marriage relationship, and turns the focus to adult pleasure. It also assumes that government is preventing someone from loving another. Let's not pretend that we need government's permission to love or to publicly state our commitment to another person. Any couple can do that without the state's permission. What advocates of this definition are really looking for is for the government to legitimize their lifestyle, so that they cannot be refused certain services or accommodations.
But, if we accept this definition, then why can someone not love more than one person at a time? Government discriminating against polygamous people is just as bad as government discriminating against homosexual people. We must ask ourselves, why is the government in the love business at all? The vagueness of this definition only shows that there must be more to marriage than love or sexual fulfillment. Lastly, this definition does not even require a sexual relationship - only a mutually-agreed-upon relationship, as these two men in New Zealand demonstrated. Unless we invite the government into our bedrooms (heaven forbid) government cannot control the degree to which marriage is a sexual relationship. Anyone who accepts this definition of marriage must also logically and legally accept the actions of these two men.
Definition #2: Marriage is a partnership between two adults, and is formed strictly as a means to achieve certain economic ends.
An economic model is a compelling argument. But, then, can a daughter and father marry if they find it economically and mutually beneficial? What about two brothers? Again, this definition ignores the raising of children, especially when it is economically unwise. It also ignores sexuality, which every other definition takes into account. Surely, marriage ought to have a sexual aspect to it, or at least an emotional aspect. In short, we should all know that marriage (and by extension, family) is about more than just money.
Definition #3: Marriage is designed for the creation and rearing of children.
The strongest argument supporting this definition is the fact that only heterosexual couples have the potential to have children (homosexual couples must invoke a third party to produce a child). Yet, it's not a requirement for a married couple to have kids, nor are you required to be married if you happen to have kids. So this argument isn't really about marriage. And while homosexual couples can't exclusively produce children, they can certainly raise them.
So, this definition leaves us squabbling over what kind of sexual relationship - homosexual or heterosexual - is better for raising children. The jurors of sociology, psychology, and family science are still out on this question. Research has not proven the superiority of one over the other. So, should we be leaving government to experiment with children by adopting untested ideas and parading them around as sound public policy? Public policy should be based on sound and time-tested empirical research, not fads or public opinion. Gay marriage is a fad, not in the sense that it is temporary (its definitely here to stay) but that it is untested and new as a government policy.
Religion is also cited when using this definition, But, remember, I'm not talking about religion here. I'm talking about public policy, which certainly has an interest in the raising of children - otherwise, why have public schools, or child protection services? The fact that those who oppose this definition do not consider the welfare of children is more than a little concerning.
Definition #4: Marriage is a government-granted license, like a business license or drivers license, that brings with it certain rights or privileges for the involved parties.
This has been the history of marriage in the last few centuries. As our modern world has become more complex with legal and financial benefits, governments have granted certain privileges to those who are married, supposedly in order to promote replacement population growth and economic stability. But, these rights, such as who receives one's insurance and tax benefits, should naturally belong to everyone and are not inherent in a marriage relationship; they ought not to be granted by government alone. This definition also has the potential to violate religious freedom under the First Amendment. If a church wants to define marriage other than as it is defined by the state, the government would be violating that church's rights. Under this definition, a church cannot issue a marriage license that does not conform to the state's definition.
Definition #5: Marriage is a natural human right that government should protect by granting to everyone, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Again, this places the emphasis on adult rights, instead of responsibilities. And, it is entirely without precedent. Marriage itself has never been an explicit constitutional right (as have free speech, or trial by jury); but instead, governments for centuries have granted certain rights to those who are married (see Definition #4), such as tax benefits. Marriage should certainly be a freedom, but not a right.
Definition #6: Marriage is a religious institution - like baptism - that should be left for religions to determine.
While this libertarian approach seems to address the concerns of Definition #4, it does not address how rights that would traditionally be associated with marriage should be transferred between adults. If marriage is not the mechanism to transfer these rights or benefits, what is that mechanism? It would be left up to legislators and courts to determine this mechanism, leaving a very messing and cumbersome democratic process to fill in the gaps. It also ignores government's responsibility in promoting the interests of children (the future generations) and stable family units, thus undermining the advantages of Definitions #2 and #3. Society would view "marriage" as optional. Many European countries have tried this route in order to preserve religious freedom. But, we've seen dramatic demographic changes in these countries that have a direct impact on economic growth and security.
Conclusion
My purpose in writing this post is not to argue for one definition over another. Rather, I leave some food for thought for the reader to digest. Namely, recognizing these differing definitions begs certain questions:
Does a sovereign state have the right to adopt only one of these definitions, to the exclusion of all others? Or can a state adopt whichever one they want?
Must a definition be adopted by court edict? Or can a people collectively decide which definition they prefer? Perhaps different definitions lend themselves to different means of implementation.
Can the government re-define what it means to be a husband? A father? To be a mother or wife? Conceivably, yes, but we better be careful if we attempt to do so. We are opening a Pandora's Box of socio-economic upheaval if we do so without caution and without regard for future generations.
We all want equality in marriage. No one is asking for certain marriages to be treated differently than other marriages; such a demand has never been voiced to my knowledge by anyone involved in the public discourse.
The real question is - how do (or should) we define marriage? I don't mean from a religious or moral point of view. I'm talking about a public policy point of view. Why is government involved in marriage in the first place? Should the government be involved in it? All sides of the debate are asking the government to be involved in defining marriage in varying degrees, in various ways, and for various ends. Some want states to decide. Some want the federal government to decide. Some want courts to decide. Others want legislatures to decide.
The root issue is that we as a society can't agree on a definition of marriage, just like we can't agree on a definition for "education" or "freedom" or "security". The roots of this conversation go back much further than the modern gay rights movement.
This is not a matter of choosing between one definition or another. It is narrow- and simple-minded to think that we must choose between only two definitions of marriage; the issue is much more complex than that. There are more than two definitions of marriage being thrown around in this debate. In fact, I suggest there are six competing and overlapping definitions, each supported by different arguments that are emphasized by different camps. Each definition may have virtue in its own right, but each leaves some gaping holes in its implications.
Definition #1: Marriage is a purely romantic/sexual relationship. We should be free to marry who we love.
This definition outright ignores children's role in the marriage relationship, and turns the focus to adult pleasure. It also assumes that government is preventing someone from loving another. Let's not pretend that we need government's permission to love or to publicly state our commitment to another person. Any couple can do that without the state's permission. What advocates of this definition are really looking for is for the government to legitimize their lifestyle, so that they cannot be refused certain services or accommodations.
But, if we accept this definition, then why can someone not love more than one person at a time? Government discriminating against polygamous people is just as bad as government discriminating against homosexual people. We must ask ourselves, why is the government in the love business at all? The vagueness of this definition only shows that there must be more to marriage than love or sexual fulfillment. Lastly, this definition does not even require a sexual relationship - only a mutually-agreed-upon relationship, as these two men in New Zealand demonstrated. Unless we invite the government into our bedrooms (heaven forbid) government cannot control the degree to which marriage is a sexual relationship. Anyone who accepts this definition of marriage must also logically and legally accept the actions of these two men.
Definition #2: Marriage is a partnership between two adults, and is formed strictly as a means to achieve certain economic ends.
An economic model is a compelling argument. But, then, can a daughter and father marry if they find it economically and mutually beneficial? What about two brothers? Again, this definition ignores the raising of children, especially when it is economically unwise. It also ignores sexuality, which every other definition takes into account. Surely, marriage ought to have a sexual aspect to it, or at least an emotional aspect. In short, we should all know that marriage (and by extension, family) is about more than just money.
Definition #3: Marriage is designed for the creation and rearing of children.
The strongest argument supporting this definition is the fact that only heterosexual couples have the potential to have children (homosexual couples must invoke a third party to produce a child). Yet, it's not a requirement for a married couple to have kids, nor are you required to be married if you happen to have kids. So this argument isn't really about marriage. And while homosexual couples can't exclusively produce children, they can certainly raise them.
So, this definition leaves us squabbling over what kind of sexual relationship - homosexual or heterosexual - is better for raising children. The jurors of sociology, psychology, and family science are still out on this question. Research has not proven the superiority of one over the other. So, should we be leaving government to experiment with children by adopting untested ideas and parading them around as sound public policy? Public policy should be based on sound and time-tested empirical research, not fads or public opinion. Gay marriage is a fad, not in the sense that it is temporary (its definitely here to stay) but that it is untested and new as a government policy.
Religion is also cited when using this definition, But, remember, I'm not talking about religion here. I'm talking about public policy, which certainly has an interest in the raising of children - otherwise, why have public schools, or child protection services? The fact that those who oppose this definition do not consider the welfare of children is more than a little concerning.
Definition #4: Marriage is a government-granted license, like a business license or drivers license, that brings with it certain rights or privileges for the involved parties.
This has been the history of marriage in the last few centuries. As our modern world has become more complex with legal and financial benefits, governments have granted certain privileges to those who are married, supposedly in order to promote replacement population growth and economic stability. But, these rights, such as who receives one's insurance and tax benefits, should naturally belong to everyone and are not inherent in a marriage relationship; they ought not to be granted by government alone. This definition also has the potential to violate religious freedom under the First Amendment. If a church wants to define marriage other than as it is defined by the state, the government would be violating that church's rights. Under this definition, a church cannot issue a marriage license that does not conform to the state's definition.
Definition #5: Marriage is a natural human right that government should protect by granting to everyone, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Again, this places the emphasis on adult rights, instead of responsibilities. And, it is entirely without precedent. Marriage itself has never been an explicit constitutional right (as have free speech, or trial by jury); but instead, governments for centuries have granted certain rights to those who are married (see Definition #4), such as tax benefits. Marriage should certainly be a freedom, but not a right.
Definition #6: Marriage is a religious institution - like baptism - that should be left for religions to determine.
While this libertarian approach seems to address the concerns of Definition #4, it does not address how rights that would traditionally be associated with marriage should be transferred between adults. If marriage is not the mechanism to transfer these rights or benefits, what is that mechanism? It would be left up to legislators and courts to determine this mechanism, leaving a very messing and cumbersome democratic process to fill in the gaps. It also ignores government's responsibility in promoting the interests of children (the future generations) and stable family units, thus undermining the advantages of Definitions #2 and #3. Society would view "marriage" as optional. Many European countries have tried this route in order to preserve religious freedom. But, we've seen dramatic demographic changes in these countries that have a direct impact on economic growth and security.
Conclusion
My purpose in writing this post is not to argue for one definition over another. Rather, I leave some food for thought for the reader to digest. Namely, recognizing these differing definitions begs certain questions:
Does a sovereign state have the right to adopt only one of these definitions, to the exclusion of all others? Or can a state adopt whichever one they want?
Must a definition be adopted by court edict? Or can a people collectively decide which definition they prefer? Perhaps different definitions lend themselves to different means of implementation.
Can the government re-define what it means to be a husband? A father? To be a mother or wife? Conceivably, yes, but we better be careful if we attempt to do so. We are opening a Pandora's Box of socio-economic upheaval if we do so without caution and without regard for future generations.
Monday, January 13, 2014
The Birds and the Bees
I've thought I have had a pretty good understanding of the birds and the bees - in other words, I know where babies come from. Unless things have changed since I was given "the talk", I am worried that a lot of other people don't understand it the way I do. Somehow, our society seems to have lost sight of the facts of that lesson and have replaced them with a few myths. In order to dispel these myths, perhaps our society is collectively over-due for "the talk". Here we go.
Marriage was not created so that adults could have hospital visitation rights or insurance benefits. These are simply benefits that have been arbitrarily attached to marriage by the state. Marriage existed long before these government-granted rights existed. A state should be able to find a way to grant these rights to all individuals under the law, and yet still retain traditional marriage as a privilege for the purpose of perpetuating society and promoting and preserving a healthy economy and healthy future generations. Here's why:
The institution of marriage was not designed for the sole benefit, pleasure, or convenience of adults. In fact, marriage was designed for children. Whether or not traditional marriage has desirable side-effects for adults is still open for debate (tongue-in-cheek). Marriage is - uniquely - an inherently selfless institution. It's sole purpose is to produce and nurture children. A relationship that is not designed to produce and nurture children cannot and should not be equated with a relationship that is designed to do so. It would be unequal to try to equate the two in every aspect imaginable. Now, whether or not that relationship is capable of producing a child is irrelevant, as infertile heterosexual individuals may still marry. All that matters is what that relationship was designed for.
Under no circumstances can a same-sex relationship ever produce a child on its own. This is a scientific fact. Surely homosexuals are aware of this (I know they're not that ignorant). Two men who get married cannot be marrying each other for the purpose of producing a child together (no matter how much they may want a child). They simply can't. A same-sex relationship must involve a third person outside that relationship in order to produce a child, no matter what type of conceptional or gestational method is used. On the other hand, a heterosexual couple (even an infertile couple using IVF, for example) does not need to involve a third person in order to produce a child. The child is produced entirely within that marriage.
These two types of "marriages" are fundamentally different in their purpose and role in society. This difference alone (and it's impact on children) ought to be enough to treat the two differently - instead of trying to make equal what can never be equal. Remember - I'm not discussing rights here; I'm discussing children.
Both types of relationships are just as capable of adopting a child, one might argue. However, a single person is also capable of adopting a child under the law and raising that child successfully. Adoption is praiseworthy and is a much better alternative to abortion, but even a single person cannot produce a child on their own. In any case, the adopted child was already produced by one man and one woman. No child was or could ever be produced in any other way than by using both genders and only one of each gender. Now, only one of these two types of marriages involves only one of each gender. There is simply no other alternative, so why are we attempting to create one under the law?
So, which is superior when it comes to producing children? Should we not strive for the ideal? Traditional marriage is obviously the ideal if we are concerned about perpetuating our society in a healthy way. It's not simply a matter of having 50% of the relationship involve each gender, otherwise two men and two women would also be considered ideal. Nor is it about having at least one of either gender - then polygamy would also be ideal. Neither is it about producing the most number of children possible - polygamy would again be an ideal relationship for that goal.
Marriage is about maintaining a healthy replacement-level birthrate and providing a physically, emotionally, and mentally healthy environment for those children to be raised in - in which the two parents chose to conceive the child within that relationship and are committed to raising it within that relationship. It's one man and one woman coming into a relationship together and being committed to the purpose of producing and raising children within that relationship. This is the ideal situation for children to be raised in.
Marriage was not created so that adults could have hospital visitation rights or insurance benefits. These are simply benefits that have been arbitrarily attached to marriage by the state. Marriage existed long before these government-granted rights existed. A state should be able to find a way to grant these rights to all individuals under the law, and yet still retain traditional marriage as a privilege for the purpose of perpetuating society and promoting and preserving a healthy economy and healthy future generations. Here's why:
The institution of marriage was not designed for the sole benefit, pleasure, or convenience of adults. In fact, marriage was designed for children. Whether or not traditional marriage has desirable side-effects for adults is still open for debate (tongue-in-cheek). Marriage is - uniquely - an inherently selfless institution. It's sole purpose is to produce and nurture children. A relationship that is not designed to produce and nurture children cannot and should not be equated with a relationship that is designed to do so. It would be unequal to try to equate the two in every aspect imaginable. Now, whether or not that relationship is capable of producing a child is irrelevant, as infertile heterosexual individuals may still marry. All that matters is what that relationship was designed for.
Under no circumstances can a same-sex relationship ever produce a child on its own. This is a scientific fact. Surely homosexuals are aware of this (I know they're not that ignorant). Two men who get married cannot be marrying each other for the purpose of producing a child together (no matter how much they may want a child). They simply can't. A same-sex relationship must involve a third person outside that relationship in order to produce a child, no matter what type of conceptional or gestational method is used. On the other hand, a heterosexual couple (even an infertile couple using IVF, for example) does not need to involve a third person in order to produce a child. The child is produced entirely within that marriage.
These two types of "marriages" are fundamentally different in their purpose and role in society. This difference alone (and it's impact on children) ought to be enough to treat the two differently - instead of trying to make equal what can never be equal. Remember - I'm not discussing rights here; I'm discussing children.
Both types of relationships are just as capable of adopting a child, one might argue. However, a single person is also capable of adopting a child under the law and raising that child successfully. Adoption is praiseworthy and is a much better alternative to abortion, but even a single person cannot produce a child on their own. In any case, the adopted child was already produced by one man and one woman. No child was or could ever be produced in any other way than by using both genders and only one of each gender. Now, only one of these two types of marriages involves only one of each gender. There is simply no other alternative, so why are we attempting to create one under the law?
So, which is superior when it comes to producing children? Should we not strive for the ideal? Traditional marriage is obviously the ideal if we are concerned about perpetuating our society in a healthy way. It's not simply a matter of having 50% of the relationship involve each gender, otherwise two men and two women would also be considered ideal. Nor is it about having at least one of either gender - then polygamy would also be ideal. Neither is it about producing the most number of children possible - polygamy would again be an ideal relationship for that goal.
Marriage is about maintaining a healthy replacement-level birthrate and providing a physically, emotionally, and mentally healthy environment for those children to be raised in - in which the two parents chose to conceive the child within that relationship and are committed to raising it within that relationship. It's one man and one woman coming into a relationship together and being committed to the purpose of producing and raising children within that relationship. This is the ideal situation for children to be raised in.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
A New Approach to Teaching History
The assumptions we make about the nature of history naturally lead to our beliefs in how history should be taught. If we think that history is nothing but dates, names, and places, then we will teach students to memorize facts and then locate them on a multiple-choice test. If we think history is much more than this, then integrity demands that we re-think the way we teach history in our schools. In other words - is history static and unchanging, or is it a more dynamic subject that demands the use of critical thinking skills?
Each unit of the course is connected to current events in the world, the nation, and the community. This allows students to connect historical principles to real life situations by creating tomorrow's history today. This is best done when using a thematic sequence instead of a chronological one.
Thematic approach - This is one viable alternative to teaching chronological history. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages that need to be weighed. A thematic approach includes big, overarching themes (several weeks) and sub-themes (few days or a week) instead of units and chapters. It allows students to see the patterns and principles of history in more contained chunks, and then use those principles to make connections to current events and real-world scenarios.
Claiming that history is better taught thematically does not mean that all subjects need to be taught this way. It is only a new way, the best way so far. Some students may still learn history better another way. These are only generalities in how to teach history. They are not hard do’s and don’ts. Teachers still have (and should have) a large degree of discretion in the classroom.
Five Myths of Teaching History
The following are five "myths" that are perpetuated in our schools and communities. They often come in the form of reactionary complaints from educators, parents, and policy makers about how we should be teaching history in our classrooms. (Notice that I don't include students in that list. I've never heard students complain that they don't get enough multiple-choice tests, worksheets, or lectures!).
The "truths" that debunk these myths are a composite of things I have learned about the teaching of history from my own personal teaching experience, from instructional methods based on educational research, as well as from my personal ideals and vision for the teaching of history in our schools.
Myth #1: History happened chronologically, therefore we need to teach it that way.
Truth: Yes, historical events happened chronologically, but that's not how history was created or written. History is not linear. We cannot truly place all human events onto one large timeline. Some events happen simultaneously whether related or not.
There are two kinds of history: History 1 which is the actual event itself and History 2 which is our interpretation of an event. When we think of history, we usually think of History 1. History 2 is often called historiography or the study of history. We need to teach both kinds of history in our history classes. Otherwise, it would be like teaching a science class without teaching the scientific method. We can teach the periodic table and all the planets and the parts of a cell, but it does not mean as much to the students unless we also teach them how we know what we know. They need to understand that science (or any knowledge for that matter) is not given to us on a silver platter or in a petri dish. It was discovered by individuals - people like you and me - who were willing to ask questions, often really hard questions. Historiography is an integral part of any successful history class.
The second part of this truth is that it is OK to teach history thematically instead of chronologically (more on this below). We don't need to adhere to a strict chronological sequence when teaching history. History may happen in chronological order, but it is not created in chronological order. History is created as individuals examine and interpret primary sources - newspapers, speeches, letters, laws, photographs and maps. Students must learn to do the same by learning to interpret primary and secondary sources.
Myth 3: We just need to teach kids "the answers" to history and have them memorize them. We shouldn't waste time talking about interpretations and opinions; kids just need to know the facts!
Truth: This myth first assumes that the facts are the "answers" to history. The "answers" in our history classes keep changing, because history keeps changing. Aside from dates, names, and places, there are no correct answers in history. It is not like math in which there may be several ways to get to the one right answer; history is more like English in this regard. Learning about history is learning about humanity - ourselves - and certain human values and principles. History should teach us how to act and how to think. This is the ultimate value of studying history - the untapped potential to teach valuable life lessons to our rising generation.
Myth #4: History can't be "done" by children and teenagers. They just need to focus on learning it; they aren't yet at that cognitive level that they can use their higher order thinking skills to properly analyze and then write history.
Truth: Teenagers never cease to surprise me. They use the principles of historiography on a daily basis - they just don't recognize it. They tell stories all the time. They are social creatures. They can recognize (and need to be able to recognize) that other people have different perspectives about the same event. We need to hone and refine those in-born skills that they already have and already use. We need our younger generations to be more involved in writing their own history, rather than having it handed to them in pre-packaged form. The making of history should not be left solely to university professors and academics, and especially not to politicians!
The "truths" that debunk these myths are a composite of things I have learned about the teaching of history from my own personal teaching experience, from instructional methods based on educational research, as well as from my personal ideals and vision for the teaching of history in our schools.
Myth #1: History happened chronologically, therefore we need to teach it that way.
Truth: Yes, historical events happened chronologically, but that's not how history was created or written. History is not linear. We cannot truly place all human events onto one large timeline. Some events happen simultaneously whether related or not.
There are two kinds of history: History 1 which is the actual event itself and History 2 which is our interpretation of an event. When we think of history, we usually think of History 1. History 2 is often called historiography or the study of history. We need to teach both kinds of history in our history classes. Otherwise, it would be like teaching a science class without teaching the scientific method. We can teach the periodic table and all the planets and the parts of a cell, but it does not mean as much to the students unless we also teach them how we know what we know. They need to understand that science (or any knowledge for that matter) is not given to us on a silver platter or in a petri dish. It was discovered by individuals - people like you and me - who were willing to ask questions, often really hard questions. Historiography is an integral part of any successful history class.
The second part of this truth is that it is OK to teach history thematically instead of chronologically (more on this below). We don't need to adhere to a strict chronological sequence when teaching history. History may happen in chronological order, but it is not created in chronological order. History is created as individuals examine and interpret primary sources - newspapers, speeches, letters, laws, photographs and maps. Students must learn to do the same by learning to interpret primary and secondary sources.
Myth #2: But, like the physical sciences and math, history is not subject to interpretation. We can't change history because we can't change facts.
Truth: History is created in the context of contemporary events and as a result of current events, as well as the interpretation of both of these sets of events. In other words, we can return to a historical event and re-write it based on our understanding of current events and new information about past events. Events do not happen in a vacuum. There are other events that happen before, after, and during any one historical event that influence how people approach that event. Again, think of History 1 and History 2. For example, the history of the Vietnam War has been written and re-written based on new information about past events and in light of current events, such as the fall of the Soviet Union, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Arab Spring. Yet, the basic facts - dates, names, and places, have not changed. What has changed is the meaning these facts holds for us.
Myth 3: We just need to teach kids "the answers" to history and have them memorize them. We shouldn't waste time talking about interpretations and opinions; kids just need to know the facts!
Truth: This myth first assumes that the facts are the "answers" to history. The "answers" in our history classes keep changing, because history keeps changing. Aside from dates, names, and places, there are no correct answers in history. It is not like math in which there may be several ways to get to the one right answer; history is more like English in this regard. Learning about history is learning about humanity - ourselves - and certain human values and principles. History should teach us how to act and how to think. This is the ultimate value of studying history - the untapped potential to teach valuable life lessons to our rising generation.
Myth #4: History can't be "done" by children and teenagers. They just need to focus on learning it; they aren't yet at that cognitive level that they can use their higher order thinking skills to properly analyze and then write history.
Truth: Teenagers never cease to surprise me. They use the principles of historiography on a daily basis - they just don't recognize it. They tell stories all the time. They are social creatures. They can recognize (and need to be able to recognize) that other people have different perspectives about the same event. We need to hone and refine those in-born skills that they already have and already use. We need our younger generations to be more involved in writing their own history, rather than having it handed to them in pre-packaged form. The making of history should not be left solely to university professors and academics, and especially not to politicians!
Myth 5: We need to teach kids that there is a right and wrong side of history. We need to teach them to be on the 'right side' of history by promoting a progressive agenda and view the progress of society as inevitable.
Truth: There is no
'right' or 'wrong' side of history. Such assertions are not logically sound if one accepts a dynamic view of history. But there is a right and wrong side of morality – which can be defined as that which is helpful over that which is hurtful. Morality is not always subject to interpretation, but history is. What is moral is often incorrectly labeled as the "wrong side" and vice versa with the right side of history. Political correctness, as a rule, has no place in a history classroom. What may be politically correct today may not have been 100 years ago. Historians must be honest enough to recognize that fact without necessarily agreeing with it.
I am not a revisionist. I'm not one of those people who take advantage of the broad nature of history in order to promote a political agenda or ideology by ignoring a specific set of facts. But, I do believe that each generation, each society, each individual must create their own history; in this sense, I am a devout revisionist. We all have the right to create our own history. We cannot change or ignore the facts, but we can choose how we view those facts and what they mean for us. In other words, we cannot change History 1, but we can change History 2. Our history is our identity, and surely we have the right to create our own identity and not to be given our identity by others.
I am not a revisionist. I'm not one of those people who take advantage of the broad nature of history in order to promote a political agenda or ideology by ignoring a specific set of facts. But, I do believe that each generation, each society, each individual must create their own history; in this sense, I am a devout revisionist. We all have the right to create our own history. We cannot change or ignore the facts, but we can choose how we view those facts and what they mean for us. In other words, we cannot change History 1, but we can change History 2. Our history is our identity, and surely we have the right to create our own identity and not to be given our identity by others.
How Do We "Do" History?
So, if we do not subscribe to these myths of viewing history as static, then we must re-think the way we teach history in schools. We need to get our students to DO history, not just learn it. And if we feel we may be teaching history wrong, we should also take the time to ask, "Am I just teaching the wrong history?"
"You're not one of those teachers that gives worksheets, are you?"
Let's be honest; we've all had a teacher (or been that teacher) that gives worksheets. Worksheets are OK. They may be necessary now and then. But it is important to know how to use worksheets effectively. They must be used only if they work to achieve the class objectives. Rarely will a worksheet align with a teacher's objectives, because the teacher often does not create their own worksheets - someone else did. Students must understand and create their own history, not someone else's.
I propose a new curriculum that is based on a dynamic view of history. This approach is standards-based, and uses global, course, unit, and daily objectives, and is built on essential questions, inquiry-based lessons, performance assessments, and primary sources.
Elements of a Dynamic Approach to Teaching History
Standards – A dynamic approach uses specific standards and objectives that define what the students will be able to know and do at the end of each lesson, unit, and course. If something does not help students reach these objectives, teachers should seriously re-consider their use of it.
Essential
questions – Lessons are built around questions that provoke thought and encourage the application of the content to real-life scenarios and contexts. Good essential questions personalize historical principles and life lessons.
Inquiry-based models - History is a subject that is perfect for allowing students to create their own knowledge, rather than relying entirely on the teacher. Students ask the questions, examine primary and secondary sources, conduct research, and make conclusions based on supporting evidence.
Inquiry-based models - History is a subject that is perfect for allowing students to create their own knowledge, rather than relying entirely on the teacher. Students ask the questions, examine primary and secondary sources, conduct research, and make conclusions based on supporting evidence.
Performance Assessments
– Students need a way to prove to the teacher that they know the content and that they can DO history, and not just be able to regurgitate facts on a test. It doesn't need to be multiple-choice questions. MC is often the worst way to assess
a student’s knowledge and understanding of history. Essays, research projects,
portfolios, book reports, and people reports are some of the many effective ways of assessing a student's knowledge of historical principles.
Reading and writing skills - These are the bread and butter of history and the humanities in general. History is best learned when it is read AND written, and then subsequently re-created or discussed openly.
Reading and writing skills - These are the bread and butter of history and the humanities in general. History is best learned when it is read AND written, and then subsequently re-created or discussed openly.
Primary documents/sources
The clincher: There is no textbook! Textbooks are easily outdated and often contain subtle biases that only confuse students. It can be expensive for a school to buy one for each student. Sharing them makes them wear faster and forces the teacher to keep the books in the classroom. Textbooks are not viewed as the objective and infallible source of historical knowledge. A dynamic approach uses a series of primary and secondary sources that are reliable, timeless, and re-producible (unlike textbooks). Primary sources can be collected into a set or book for each student and they can be available online. Primary documents do not need to be updated on a regular basis as do textbooks. They allow students to study history the way it was meant to be – unfiltered! New primary sources can be added as the curriculum evolves and new events occur. We don’t do history by looking through a book until we find the ‘right’ answers. The answers are inside of us and all around us.
Examples of primary and secondary sources include letters, journals, newspapers, books, photos, maps, quantified data, speeches, artifacts, tours, museum visits, guest speakers, etc.
Each unit of the course is connected to current events in the world, the nation, and the community. This allows students to connect historical principles to real life situations by creating tomorrow's history today. This is best done when using a thematic sequence instead of a chronological one.
Thematic approach - This is one viable alternative to teaching chronological history. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages that need to be weighed. A thematic approach includes big, overarching themes (several weeks) and sub-themes (few days or a week) instead of units and chapters. It allows students to see the patterns and principles of history in more contained chunks, and then use those principles to make connections to current events and real-world scenarios.
Claiming that history is better taught thematically does not mean that all subjects need to be taught this way. It is only a new way, the best way so far. Some students may still learn history better another way. These are only generalities in how to teach history. They are not hard do’s and don’ts. Teachers still have (and should have) a large degree of discretion in the classroom.
Copyright ©
2013 Russell C. Duncan. All rights reserved.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Two Truths and a Lie
God's prophets have told us repeatedly that marriage is between one man and one woman. Anyone who claims otherwise is being deceived by the devil.
All men are created equal and should be treated equally under the law regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Anyone who claims otherwise does not see other humans as fellow brothers and sisters.
Somehow these two truths must be reconciled. These two truths were given to us by God and are endorsed by God. God's house is not divided against itself. If it were, it could not stand. But we know it stands. God is not dead. His prophets walk the earth! His Church has been restored and will fill the entire earth! Let's not find ourselves on a side that seeks to tear down God's house or His laws. Somehow, He believes these truths can be reconciled. It is up to us to find out how.
Congress, the courts, and every president to-date has failed to uphold these two truths by seeking to reconcile them. Instead, both sides of the political spectrum have chosen to take the easy way out by choosing to compromise one or the other of these two truths. When we as a society choose to betray one or both of these truths, we will do so to our own destruction.
Our civic and religious leaders must do the hard work and preserve these two eternal truths. They must find a way. There is a way. I know there is.
NOTE: This post has been edited since its initial publication.
All men are created equal and should be treated equally under the law regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Anyone who claims otherwise does not see other humans as fellow brothers and sisters.
Somehow these two truths must be reconciled. These two truths were given to us by God and are endorsed by God. God's house is not divided against itself. If it were, it could not stand. But we know it stands. God is not dead. His prophets walk the earth! His Church has been restored and will fill the entire earth! Let's not find ourselves on a side that seeks to tear down God's house or His laws. Somehow, He believes these truths can be reconciled. It is up to us to find out how.
Congress, the courts, and every president to-date has failed to uphold these two truths by seeking to reconcile them. Instead, both sides of the political spectrum have chosen to take the easy way out by choosing to compromise one or the other of these two truths. When we as a society choose to betray one or both of these truths, we will do so to our own destruction.
Our civic and religious leaders must do the hard work and preserve these two eternal truths. They must find a way. There is a way. I know there is.
NOTE: This post has been edited since its initial publication.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
The Great Awakening
The following is intended to be an analogy. While based on actual experiences, it is not a declaration of religious belief or manifestation. It is merely meant to draw connections between modern political parties and religious sectarian conflict. Readers are encouraged to take interpretive license.
"There was in the place where I lived an unusual excitement
on the subject of politics. It commenced with the Democrats, but soon became
general among all the parties in that region of country. Indeed, the whole country
seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different political
parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some
crying, “Look, here!” and others, “See, there!” Some were contending for the Democrat
party, some for the Republican, and some for the Libertarian.
For, notwithstanding the great love which the members of
these different parties expressed at the time of their joining, and the
great zeal manifested by the respective leadership, who were active in getting
up and promoting this extraordinary scene of political feeling, in order to
have everybody "converted," as they were pleased to call it, let them join what party
they pleased; yet when the voters began to file off, some to one party and some
to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the leaders and the voters were more pretended than
real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—candidate contending
against candidate, and voter against voter; so that all their good feelings one
for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in the strife of words and
a contest about opinions - all noise to my ears.
During this time of great excitement my mind was called up
to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep
and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I
attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process
of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Republican party, and I felt
some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife
among the different parties, that it was impossible for a person young as I
was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion
who was right and who was wrong.
My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult
were so great and incessant. The Democrats were most decided against the
Republicans and Libertarians, and used all the powers of both reason and
sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they
were in error. On the other hand, the Republicans and Libertarians in their
turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and
disprove all others.
In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I
often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right;
or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and
how shall I know it?
I eventually came to the logical conclusion that I need not join any of the parties in order to obtain and hold to the truth. I
promised myself to not join any of them; and many other things I thought
to myself, which I cannot write at this time. And as I leaned up to the
fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is
well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for
myself that partisan politics is not true.”
It seems as though the adversary
was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a
disturber and an annoyer of this "kingdom of noise;" else why should the powers of darkness
combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me,
almost in my infancy? Why should political parties, of all things, be a cause - even a tool to be used - for such division, persecution, and confusion?
Some few days after I came to this conclusion, I happened to
be in company with one of the local party leaders, who was very active in the
before mentioned political excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject
of politics, I took occasion to give him an account of the conclusion that I
reached. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication
not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that
there were no such things as moderate, open-minded statesmen or
transformational leaders in these days; that all such things had ceased with
the Founding Fathers, and that there would never be any more of them.
I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited
a great deal of prejudice against me among party leaders and advocates, and was the cause of
great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure
young man, barely out of college, and my circumstances in life such as to make a man
of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice
sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter
persecution; and this was common among all the parties—all united to persecute
me.
I had now got my mind satisfied
so far as the political world was concerned—that it was not my duty or obligation to join
with any of them, but to continue as I was until further directed."
Reference: Joseph Smith History
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Marriage Equality
I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I also believe that gays and lesbians should have the same rights as heterosexuals. You might wonder then, how can these two statements be reconciled?
First, you can't change the definition of marriage any more than you can change the definition of other family relationships. For example, if I have a new nephew, can I refuse to be called his uncle and demand that society identify me as his aunt instead? Some may refute this by saying that there are no rights associated with being an uncle as there are with being a husband or wife.
My answer: my point exactly.
Why shouldn't other relationships have the same rights? If marriage is just a relationship of love and is about receiving benefits, why can't a father and daughter get married? Can two first cousins get married so they can visit each other in the hospital or receive other benefits as a husband and wife do? What about two siblings? Or can three women get married to each other?
If same-sex marriage is legalized, then polygamy must be legalized; incest must be legalized. If marriage is a relationship of love - and I can love whomever I want - why can't I marry my sister or brother or marry more than one person?
Do I have the power to re-define "uncle"? No. And if I disagree with that definition, perhaps I should take up my cause with the dictionary, not the government.
The federal government should not be defining marriage one way or the other. It has no right to determine what the dictionary says. I am 100% supportive of guaranteeing gays and lesbians full rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals under the law. But, whatever relationship two individuals of the same sex make with each other - whatever it may be - it should not be called marriage! We need to get government out of marriage in order to protect and preserve it.
Government should instead institute a program in which any two citizens can designate each other as their beneficiary. Such a designation would have no sexual connotations whatsoever - thus avoiding the issue of incest. Any TWO people would be able to designate each other (regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or age) as the recipient of their benefits - thus avoiding the issue of legalizing polygamy. It would purely be about who gets what benefits. Under this system, a traditionally married couple would still enjoy their benefits and the sanctity of their religious marriage. A same-sex couple would enjoy all the rights and benefits they demand that are currently enjoyed by married couples.
We do need to preserve marriage. Countless studies have been done in recent years that support the idea of traditional marriage as a societal good - economically, psychologically, and socially. We as a society are attempting an experiment with same-sex marriage and like any experiment, the results may not be what we expect; there will be disastrous consequences for a failed experiment such as this.
Right at the core of it all, the issue is not about same-sex marriage. Society has already re-defined marriage for us. We're just waiting for our government to catch up with "modern" society. Same-sex marriage is only the logical conclusion of society's view of marriage as a mere contract for adults and is a result of the overall decline and transformation of marriage over the past 50 years.
Parenthood - built on the foundation of traditional marriage - is the ultimate role of selflessness. Those "who have a value system that causes them to subordinate their own needs to those of others, especially to the welfare of children" should support traditional marriage...."We need politicians, policy makers, and officials to increase their attention to what is best for children in contrast to the selfish interests of voters and vocal advocates of adult interests" - Dallin H Oaks.
First, you can't change the definition of marriage any more than you can change the definition of other family relationships. For example, if I have a new nephew, can I refuse to be called his uncle and demand that society identify me as his aunt instead? Some may refute this by saying that there are no rights associated with being an uncle as there are with being a husband or wife.
My answer: my point exactly.
Why shouldn't other relationships have the same rights? If marriage is just a relationship of love and is about receiving benefits, why can't a father and daughter get married? Can two first cousins get married so they can visit each other in the hospital or receive other benefits as a husband and wife do? What about two siblings? Or can three women get married to each other?
If same-sex marriage is legalized, then polygamy must be legalized; incest must be legalized. If marriage is a relationship of love - and I can love whomever I want - why can't I marry my sister or brother or marry more than one person?
Do I have the power to re-define "uncle"? No. And if I disagree with that definition, perhaps I should take up my cause with the dictionary, not the government.
The federal government should not be defining marriage one way or the other. It has no right to determine what the dictionary says. I am 100% supportive of guaranteeing gays and lesbians full rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexuals under the law. But, whatever relationship two individuals of the same sex make with each other - whatever it may be - it should not be called marriage! We need to get government out of marriage in order to protect and preserve it.
Government should instead institute a program in which any two citizens can designate each other as their beneficiary. Such a designation would have no sexual connotations whatsoever - thus avoiding the issue of incest. Any TWO people would be able to designate each other (regardless of gender, sexual orientation, or age) as the recipient of their benefits - thus avoiding the issue of legalizing polygamy. It would purely be about who gets what benefits. Under this system, a traditionally married couple would still enjoy their benefits and the sanctity of their religious marriage. A same-sex couple would enjoy all the rights and benefits they demand that are currently enjoyed by married couples.
We do need to preserve marriage. Countless studies have been done in recent years that support the idea of traditional marriage as a societal good - economically, psychologically, and socially. We as a society are attempting an experiment with same-sex marriage and like any experiment, the results may not be what we expect; there will be disastrous consequences for a failed experiment such as this.
Right at the core of it all, the issue is not about same-sex marriage. Society has already re-defined marriage for us. We're just waiting for our government to catch up with "modern" society. Same-sex marriage is only the logical conclusion of society's view of marriage as a mere contract for adults and is a result of the overall decline and transformation of marriage over the past 50 years.
Parenthood - built on the foundation of traditional marriage - is the ultimate role of selflessness. Those "who have a value system that causes them to subordinate their own needs to those of others, especially to the welfare of children" should support traditional marriage...."We need politicians, policy makers, and officials to increase their attention to what is best for children in contrast to the selfish interests of voters and vocal advocates of adult interests" - Dallin H Oaks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)