Near the beginning of the last century (about 1914)
a radical change took place in American education, as most universities
replaced the classical curriculum (which had been the basis of
education for centuries) with the so-called modern or scientific
curriculum. Since that change took place, our universities have, to a
great extent, changed from respected halls of learning into ideological
indoctrination centers, and institutions that once stood for moral,
spiritual, and academic excellence have become hotbeds of spiritual and
moral degeneracy. In fact, the morality (or lack of it) now dominant in
our universities is the morality that was formerly associated with the
most poorly educated members of society (tobacco row).
What needs to be understood, is that real education
involves much more than just training people to do a high paying job.
It requires a disciplining of the mind that enables a man to lift his
thoughts above the ideologies and passions of the hour. To that end,
the classical curriculum required students to learn the classical
languages, and by so doing, helped them to better understand the
English language, and, thus, to think in clearly defined concepts. In
fact, without that mastery of language modern scholars are severely
handicapped. For example, very few college graduates now understand the
difference between a republic and a democracy, yet the words “republic”
and “democracy” are entirely different in their origin, and their
meaning is as different as the governments of Rome and Athens. In
contrast, the men who founded our government had a clear understanding
of the difference between a republic and a democracy, viewing democracy
as the worst form of government and a republic as the best.
In addition to helping the student think more
clearly, the classical curriculum enabled the student to expand his
thinking beyond the thought forms popular in his own era. Through
familiarity with the great thinkers of the past, he was able to lift
his mind above ideology in order to see things from another
perspective. As a result, those who received a classical education were
not easily swayed by every wind of ideological doctrine. Instead, they
were able to view popular trends and opinions in their historical
perspective, and to know where various ideas originated, what their
consequences were, and how they reappeared from time to time with
slight alterations. At the same time, the Word of God provided them
with a standard for evaluating those ideas.
For example: In Plato's account of the death of
Socrates we find that Socrates believed that our sense of right and
wrong had its origin in civil law, rather than in the law God inscribed
upon the heart (Romans 2:14). In other words, instead of seeing the
moral law as basic to the political law he saw the political law as
basic to morality. And, that view is known as “statism.” However, while
it is true that the political law is often needed to reinforce and
support the moral law, those who assume that our ideas of right and
wrong come from the political law, wind up thinking that they can
change morality (and, thus, human nature) by changing the political law.
The science of economics originated with Adam
Smith’s book “The Wealth of Nations.” However, while many of the
observations noted in that book are still valid, one assumption that
was later rejected is the idea that the value of a product is
determined by the amount of labor it takes to produce it. Although that
view may seem reasonable on the surface, is does not explain many
things, such as why iron and gold, which require a similar amount of
labor to produce, are so different in price. That is why economists now
believe that value is subjective, and is conditioned by supply and
demand. Nevertheless, some of the early economists (who had accepted
Adam Smith’s theory) wrongly assumed that rent, interest, and even
profit was unjust because it added no labor to the product yet demanded
greater value.
The concept of evolution occurred to naturalistic
philosophers long before Charles Darwin was born. Darwin simply took
their philosophy and interpreted certain facts of nature to support it,
while offering “survival of the fittest” as an explanation of why it
took place. However, even though he led his readers to believe that the
theory was supported by observable data, that is not the case at all.
For example, no one has ever observed one species changing into
another, and there is genetic evidence that such a change is
impossible. For that reason, Darwin’s theory it is not actually
science, in the strict sense of the word. Nevertheless, it has become
popular, and one reason for its acceptance had to do with the fact that
it gave credibility to popular belief in the perfectibility of man and
society. [I might also add, that it was the philosopher Robert Owen
(the father of modern socialism) who popularized the theory of the
perfectibility of man. Among other things, he denied that human nature
was basically sinful, while assuming that it could be improved by
changing the environmental influences upon it.]
Communism brought together the mistaken doctrines
that I have just mentioned, and forged them into a secular religion.
That religion denies the existence of God (and therefore of morality),
while assuming that profit is immoral, and that human nature can be
changed by the state (statism). On the basis of those beliefs, that
religion then proposed to alter human nature in a way that would make
everyone willing share the fruit of their labor with others. It
proposed to accomplish that goal by first establishing a dictatorship
that would change morality (and thus human nature) by requiring people
to live according to communist ideals. However, even though history has
shown the world what a dismal failure communism actually is, it had to
cause untold suffering and the death of millions of people, before the
pseudo-scholars that dominate our universities would admit that it does
not work, and some still will not admit it.
I know of one woman who views herself as
intellectual, pluralistic, and tolerant. Yet, she worked long and hard
to pass legislation aimed at forcing her feminist views on everyone
else. Moreover, upon learning that the congregation I attended held to
the traditional roles of men and women, she urged the women to rebel.
Her university training had obviously not brought her to the point
where she could appreciate or tolerate opinions that were not in accord
with her own way of thinking.
In his book “The Closing of the American Mind”,
Allen Bloom laments the almost tyrannical narrow mindedness common on
many university campuses. Sadly, government support for modern
education tends to institutionalize that narrow mindedness. Moreover,
because many highly influential (but narrow minded) graduates are
working to impose their feminist views on us by force, my daughters may
have to leave the country if the government ever tries to draft them
and send them into combat. So far, true patriots have held off feminist
attempts to subvert freedom, however, the feminists have no intention
of giving women a choice when it comes to combat. And, I see no real
hope for change until this nation returns to God and to a classical
curriculum taught in accord with God's Word.
Throughout history there have been certain people
who view themselves as superior to others, and imagine that all of the
problems of society would disappear if everyone would simply think like
them. Moreover, time after time these people have wormed their way into
positions of power and influence, and then used their position to
tyrannize others. That is where a knowledge of the classics, including
a knowledge of history and of how these people have worked in the past,
would be useful in preventing tyranny, including the kind of tyranny
now being promoted by the universities.