This weekend has been full of things that ought to be a surprise, but aren’t. The latest addition to this ever-growing roster comes in the form of study results detailing what most have suspected: teenagers these days are quite at peace with shoplifting, stealing from each other or their parents, cheating on their schoolwork, plagiarizing at will, and lying through their teeth… while seeing themselves as being quite the upright young citizens. Interesting how that works out.
This comes as no genuine news. We have a generation raised on the gospel of situational ethics, actions minus consequences, and self above all (thank you, President Clinton, for showing the way). Naturally they’re trotting down this path despite any teachings to the contrary that may have come their way. Why? This is the easiest way to go. And just as naturally today’s educators are recoiling with horror at the study’s insinuation that the little darlings under their tutelage are in any fashion bear responsibility for their own state of being. A quote from a news article about the study frames this quite nicely:
Nijmie Dzurinko, executive director of the Philadelphia Student Union, said the findings were not at all reflective of the inner-city students she works with as an advocate for better curriculum and school funding.
“A lot of people like to blame society’s problems on young people, without recognizing that young people aren’t making the decisions about what’s happening in society,” said Dzurinko, 32. “They’re very easy to scapegoat.”
Peter Anderson, principal of Andover High School in Andover, Mass., said he and his colleagues had detected very little cheating on tests or Internet-based plagiarism. He has, however, noticed an uptick in students sharing homework in unauthorized ways.
“This generation is leading incredibly busy lives — involved in athletics, clubs, so many with part-time jobs, and — for seniors — an incredibly demanding and anxiety-producing college search,” he offered as an explanation.
Riddle, who for four decades was a high school teacher and principal in northern Virginia, agreed that more pressure could lead to more cheating, yet spoke in defense of today’s students.
“I would take these students over other generations,” he said. “I found them to be more responsive, more rewarding to work with, more appreciative of support that adults give them.
“We have to create situations where it’s easy for kids to do the right things,” he added. “We need to create classrooms where learning takes on more importance than having the right answer.”
Let me roll that last paragraph around for a moment. Quote: “We have to create situations where it’s easy for kids to do the right things. We need to create classrooms where learning takes on more importance than having the right answer.”
We have to create situations where it’s easy for kids to do the right things.
Really.
I mean, really.
Really?
Pray tell — public educators, kindly pardon my using any form of the word “prayer” — how exactly would one propose to do this. Create a situation where it’s easy to do the right thing.
Interesting.
Given how humanity has proved throughout all its generations that man apart from God has a natural predilection for not only performing that which is evil but denying itself to be evil, how would one go about making it easy to do the right thing when not only is it human nature to do the wrong thing it is also impossible for man to define what is good and what is evil? What man-made measuring stick can be used for such a purpose? If, as the teaching of the world goes, all are equal and all have validity what is the deciding factor when conflicting definitions of the right thing exist? To an Islamic extremist, murdering what by their definition of their beliefs are infidels is good. How do we then declare it to be evil? Do we have a vote where the majority rules? If so, who can vote? You can see the problems with this arrangement. In absence of a universally agreed on code stating what is right and what is wrong, how can anything be declared to be either? Unless there is a clear definer of right and wrong, good and evil, there can be no establishment of an environment where it is easy to do the right thing because there is no genuine definition of the right thing.
Okay, one may reluctantly say, we’ll go with the Ten Commandments as our definer. Problem solved? Hardly. If it is accepted that the Ten Commandments are a definer, therefore there is a definer, said definer being God’s Word as communicated through the Bible, how then can the definer be accepted as having the authority to be a definer unless along with it comes acceptance of the source having authority? All right, fine, there’s something to the Bible. Can we get on with this? No, not even close to it.
If the Bible has “something,” the tenets and teachings about God and man as contained in the Bible have “something.” If this is true, you’ve got a real sticky wicket on your hands. Why? The definer says there can be no establishment of an environment in which it is easy to do the right thing because it is not easy to do the right thing.
More on this tomorrow.
