Uncategorized

In this 20-part series, I explore the root causes and effects of academic disengagement in K-12 learners and explore the factors driving American society ever closer to being a nation that lacks intellectualism, or the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake.

The worship of celebrities and athletes in contemporary culture perpetuates the devaluation of intellectual thought. Particularly when it comes to impressionable children, the way certain Americans (and not others, often equally worthy) are placed on pedestals steals some validity from intellectual pursuits.

The Legend that Michael Built

Those learning to become teachers today may not quite remember the phrase “Be Like Mike” which had a catchy, accompanying song and was all the rage during the height of the Chicago Bulls three-peat championship runs in the 1990s. You couldn’t turn on a television in the mid-90s without catching a Gatorade, Chevrolet or Fruit of the Loom commercial starring Michael Jordan. Chicago’s United Center is often called “the house that Michael built” and the National Basketball Association’s total television revenue grew $877 million over the course of Jordan’s career. Jordan was a goldmine for the products he endorsed in part because of his prowess on the court, but also because people really liked him.

The story of Jordan getting cut from his high school basketball team and then rising to become the best basketball player of all time, with six championship rings to prove it, resonated with ordinary people who had faced their own adversity. He was a symbol of how the great American characteristics of hard work, determination and rugged individualism could combine to create a superstar. That his talent on the court was incredible goes without saying. But the deep adoration he enjoyed from fans around the world ran deeper than the points he tallied on the scoreboard or the number of times in a season he earned the elusive “triple double.” People did not just want to BE like Mike. People liked Mike.

In a 2013 column that asks the questions “Do I Still Want to Be Like Mike?” writer Kelly Scaletta takes a retrospective look at the absurdity of an entire generation putting Jordan on a pedestal. Gambling addiction, paternity lawsuits and what was, at the time, the most expensive divorce in history (complete with millions in hush money to a mistress) have all pointed to a man who may not quite have been a model of integrity for his own kids, let alone everyone else’s. Even during his Hall of Fame speech Jordan showed a petty, narcissistic side by devoting much of his podium time to criticizing his nay-sayers and airing old grudges. Scaletta admits that Jordan was and is a great basketball player, but points out that his “character flaws are many.” He sums up the Jordan idolization, indicative of a much larger cultural norm, by saying:

Jordan is fascinating in that he’s a perfect example of what the problem has become with the way we view the American athlete. We demand them to be more than what they are, then we despise them for being what they aren’t. If they win, we forgive them for not being what they never weren’t.

Athletes Behaving Badly

Jordan is not the only professional athlete who has been adopted as a role model due to his professional prowess in spite of glaring character flaws. Look at the narcissism of current NBA star Dwight Howard, who reportedly has fathered six children by several different mothers. Howard’s outspoken, non-team-player attitude is at least more straightforward than the model of austerity that was fostered during Jordan’s golden years. The news that New England Patriots’ player Aaron Hernandez was arrested for a shooting death, and suspected for several others, sent shockwaves through the sports world and beyond. As more details emerged on the violent past of the former Florida Gator, who played alongside devout Christian and sometimes-missionary Tim Tebow, other players, coaches and friends of Hernandez suddenly remembered his sketchy and questionable past actions. Maybe he should not have been given a pass in life simply because he was an effective blocker. Maybe his athletic ability should not have overshadowed the basic tenets of his character.

And who could forget the sex scandal surrounding golf megastar Tiger Woods? A fixture of the golf world from his teenage years, Woods passed up the traditional adolescent rites of passage that accompany high school graduations, college party weekends, and post-college apartment living for the privilege his athletic ability afforded. After his marriage to model Elin Nordegren in 2004, Woods’ image as a clean-cut young man was transformed to one of an ideal family man. Though Woods never asked to be the poster child, or man, for young golfers, young black athletes, or young husbands, he became a role model in all three arenas. When his shiny gold star was scratched, he inadvertently disappointed millions and then had to apologize for it. Woods was forced to say “I’m sorry” for not being what he never wasn’t.

The stars like Woods or Jordan or Hernandez are not to blame for the American cult of unthinking hero-worship. Sure, they could act a little nicer, and not cheat on their wives, and not commit violent acts, but the core problem does not lie in their actions – it lies in Americans’ blind faith where athleticism is concerned. The same is true of celebrities, who it can be argued have even less admirable talents than athletes. When was the last time you heard a child name an astronaut or leading genetic researcher as his or her role model? Where is the love for philosophers, and authors, and Nobel Prize winners? The greatest problem is not the athletes themselves, but everyone else who worships them as more than what they truly are: flawed human beings.

There is something to be said, of course, for realistic role models who are viewed as humans and not gods. But if we, as a culture, expect our children to develop intellectualism and rationalism than we need to value critical thinking and learning over physical ability or attractiveness.

Which is more admired: a kid who earns a college scholarship because of what he knows, or one who earns it to bring the school a football championship? We cannot change the values of Americans overnight and have no control over what they view at home or in the media. Educators have the special responsibility of making an impact on students’ lives, and their desire for intellectual pursuits, in a very limited span of time. It’s an uphill battle but one that is better fought with recognition of the current state of stars as role models and its impact on K-12 academic disengagement.

In this 20-part series, I explore the root causes and effects of academic disengagement in K-12 learners and explore the factors driving American society ever closer to being a nation that lacks intellectualism, or the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake.

The anti-intellectualist tendencies in K-12 education in America have not arisen in a vacuum.  Schools have always been profoundly affected by the fears and political divisions of the broader culture.   This was true during the 1950s and early 1960s when elementary students regularly cowered underneath their desks during mandated bomb drills. It was true when metal detectors first started appearing following high-profile incidents of school violence in the 1980s. It is true today as students are more connected than ever through use of mobile technology in the classroom, blurring the boundaries between school hours and leisure time. Schools cannot teach in isolation; they must recognize the impact of outside forces on the learning experience in order to have any hope of reaching students.

But a vital question remains: How much should educators alter their teaching to adjust to cultural forces, and how much should they hold fast to their preferred teaching methods in spite of those cultural forces, in this time when cultural perceptions are changing and worldviews evolving with unprecedented rapidity? Is academic disengagement actually fueled by the influence of modern society?

Tea Party Politics and the Self-Made Man Fallacy

Certain popular political movements profoundly influence the worldview and characters of today’s students. Take the founding of the contemporary Tea Party movement around the time of the 2008 Presidential election. At its core, the Tea Party calls for less ‘government interference’ in the form of taxes, health care reform or other initiatives meant to serve the “greater good”. At the risk of oversimplifying, Tea Party members believe in self-made Americans who make their own money, keep their own money and should not be required to share any of that money with their fellow countrymen.

The problem with Tea Party philosophy, on an intellectual level, is that no American is fully self-made. The successful businessman who built an empire after growing up in conditions of poverty did that with at least some help from other Americans. Even if he never took advantage of any federal grant money for college, or any tax breaks when he was building his small business (unlikely in both cases, but certainly possible), that businessman enjoys his success in part because of the unique freedoms which America offers to its citizens. If this same hypothetical person and his business were set in another region of the world, say Ethiopia or Turkey, would he be as successful?

Without the privileges of American society, all earned by the sacrifices of other people, would that businessman have a shingle to hang at all?

Conservative Politics Versus Scientific Theory

It is not just government control that the Tea Party opposes.  Their base appears to believe that proven scientific facts are just another government-created scheme against religion and individual rights. Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, has repeatedly spoken out against the scientific theory of evolution and has also dismissed global warming facts as “fraudulent.” Mitt Romney expressed concern about manmade climate change when he was the governor of Massachusetts, but when he made his presidential run he rejected the notion that human actions could be behind the rise in global temperatures.

This change seems to have been made in order to appeal to Tea Party and other conservative constituents. A push by Newt Gingrich and fellow Republicans to eliminate the Office of Technology Assessment in Congress was successful during the term of George W. Bush, along with censorship of government-led scientific research (Mazo, 2011). Research Fellow for the International Institute for Strategic Studies Jeffrey Mazo sums up Republican-led rejection of scientific theory with this faulty syllogism:

If the scientists are correct, it means certain actions should be taken. Those actions should not be taken; therefore, the scientists are not correct.

Those who completely reject scientific theory on philosophical or religious grounds act as though they do not need to have a different, better explanation for the observed and proven facts. They simply believe what they believe and refuse to ask certain questions. This closed-off acceptance of non-truths damages the entire American mindset and is a danger to the intellectual growth of children. Even secular public schools feel the pressure of parents who have ethical objections to what is taught in accepted textbooks.

How Politics Influence K-12 Learners

When children come into the classroom with a warning from home regarding the inaccuracy of the lesson at hand, it undercuts the rest of what is taught too. How can students be academically engaged with material that they believe is at odds with their own upbringing?

Of course, The Tea Party is not the only group to blame for academic disengagement and cultural anti-intellectualism. It is merely one influential source that manages to penetrate the walls of K-12 classrooms, encouraging students to question the validity of facts. If people are free to openly doubt accepted theory as adults, then children should have that same right. Or so goes the belief.

Openly and strongly expressed political convictions, liberal or conservative, are easy to notice and criticize, but what about more subtle aspects of American thought and behavior? Kids’ attitudes often reflect the small, mundane details of their everyday lives. A political protest is a dramatic sight, and certainly it could stand out in the memory of a child, potentially influencing their belief system. But the behaviors and attitudes children see in their homes and learn about in their own communities day after day, the assumptions that are taken for granted rather than dramatized, exert an influence that is all the more potent because it so often goes unexamined.

In this 20-part series, I explore the root causes and effects of academic disengagement in K-12 learners and explore the factors driving American society ever closer to being a nation that lacks intellectualism, or the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake.

The two authors best known for addressing contemporary anti-intellectualism are Leonard Woolf and Richard Hofstadter. Woolf’s 1935 book Quack, Quack! looks, in part, at how governments and religions contribute to anti-intellectualism. He speaks specifically of his own opposition to fascist regimes like those of Benito Mussolini and Adolph Hitler, and talks about how Fascist rule is set up like a primal tribe with leaders wielding power over “savages” through control of knowledge.

By contrast, Woolf believed that what was good for one person was good for the whole population. He was not religious, but he felt that all people were inherently equal and that all humans had vast potential for improvement. He stated that religious ideals and government-approved messages were not the best tools with which to effect this improvement, but that an increase in rationality raised the equality and knowledge base of all people.

Woolf believed that even the most advanced cultures were perpetually at risk of succumbing to anti-intellectualism, and that even the highest level of free-thinking society could quickly revert to savagery. Woolf viewed intellectualism and rational thought as active philosophies that were at risk of failure without a core group willing to stand behind their thoughts. One wonders how Woolf might have compared the American people of today with his contemporaries. Would he issue a warning designed to keep Americans from falling into a state of savagery previously unseen on U.S. soil?

Woolf and Individuality

Woolf took issue with other peer thinkers like Scottish Thomas Carlyle who felt that every culture needed to hold up hero figures so as to maintain order. Carlyle’s strict Calvinist upbringing predisposed him to believe that figureheads were required for optimal societal function. The idea that the weak needed to be sacrificed in order for the strong to thrive was intrinsic to Carlyle’s philosophies.

Carlyle’s controversial work Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question defended African enslavement by white people as an institution that was basically doing a favor for the inherently lazy black population. Carlyle believed that without forced, unpaid labor Africans would never work, and that slavery should have never been abolished – or at the very least should have been replaced with serfdom.

This type of thinking is certainly outrageous by modern standards but was not necessarily viewed as hateful or discriminatory in the early 20^th century. People like Carlyle were respected for their views, even as others like John Stuart Mill published rebuttals. Ideas of a century ago were protected in ways that placed value on the speaker and did not put him on public trial if he offended a particular group. Contrast that with the high stakes associated with casual misstatements in the public eye today. Book deals, endorsements and entire empires fall if the opinion of an individual is viewed as “backward” or at odds with good, clean American ideals.

Hofstadter and the Decline of Intellectualism

Written two decades after World War I, Hofstadter’s 1963 book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life looks at movements in the U.S. that contributed to a decline in rationalism. Hofstadter talks in depth about the role of democratic education in promoting anti-intellectual tendencies. He argued that there was a difference between excellence and fairness in education. Schools had two great responsibilities: to educate the public and to produce thinkers to take Americans to the next level of intellectual thought. Hofstadter believed that the first of those responsibilities was being accomplished at the expense of the second.

However, Hofstadter argued that democracy was not the only cause for a decline in rationalism. In his view the influence of Protestant heritage and of a generally excessive reliance on religion had contributed to shallowness in American thought since the dawning of the nation. Long before Americans relied on the evening news or their Twitter feed to sum up what was important in their world, Americans were depending on religious entities for direction. Thinkers like Hofstadter saw great dangers in allowing a larger group to dictate social and religious norms.

Utilitarianism, or placing the rights of a collective group above individuals, was another aspect of the American “majority rule” way of thinking with which Hofstadter took issue.  How can opposing viewpoints be considered if conformity with majority opinions is favored? The idea that the outcome of an action determined its value was flawed, Hofstadter believed, because it provided a very narrow definition of how a society should behave.

Why Hofstadter’s Theories Matter in K-12 Learning

Hofstadter’s assertion can be applied to the current state of K-12 education. The success of a particular school is measured in graduation numbers, college placement rates and improvements in standardized test results from one year to the next. These short-term statistics boost bragging rights and influence public school funding, but they do not take into account the long-term education of the students. The application of cut-and-dry metrics to K-12 education leaves no room for interpretation and no space for critical thinking. Essentially telling students what facts they need to memorize to move up in life deprives them of the satisfaction of learning on their own terms. When educational expectations are reduced to the lowest common denominator, short-term numbers go up but intellectual thought becomes a casualty.

This series will, in part, explore Hofstadter’s claims from half a century ago that the democratization of schools has actually hurt intellectual growth. Public education, measured by initiatives like standardized testing and the No Child Left Behind Act, is basically democratic. But as we seek to level playing fields and treat all students equally, are we sacrificing intellectual growth? To put it another way, are the American virtues of equality and access to free education actually hurting the progress of intellectual thought in the nation’s children?  Are the next generations of Americans in danger of a descent into savagery because of how they are educated?

In this 20-part series, I explore the root causes and effects of academic disengagement in K-12 learners and explore the factors driving American society ever closer to being a nation that lacks intellectualism, or the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake.

While the anti-intellectual mindset is deeply entrenched in American culture, it is seldom discussed. Those who accuse the popular culture of ‘dumbness’ are viewed as offensive and even elitist. Those who say that they find Americans less cultured or intelligent than citizens of other nations are convicted of unpatriotic behavior in the court of public opinion. As a result, little is written about the decline of public knowledge, and when relevant statistics are published they usually come with no commentary. The truth is often hard to hear, but it remains true.  Contemporary Americans are far behind the rest of the civilized world in intellectual terms, and even far behind the Americans of 70 years ago.

No Time for Rational Thought

Americans lack patience when it comes to listening to serious discussion of political issues. The average length of a political message dropped from 42.3 seconds to just 7.8 seconds from 1968 to 2000. Candidates who will not encapsulate what they represent in less than 8 seconds are viewed as weak communicators. Thus Americans place a higher value on the presentation of platforms than on the actual content of a particular candidate’s beliefs.

Take the 2012 Presidential campaigns, for example. The now-iconic Facebook photo of Barack Obama embracing Michelle Obama after victory had been declared garnered over 1 million “likes” in under an hour. The same image with the words “four more years” actually broke Twitter’s record for most retweets in less than an hour, with 350,000. The viral photo is a fitting representation of the role that social media played in the election cycle for the first time. There were people talking about the Presidential election on Facebook and Twitter in 2008, but not in the same numbers or with the same social savvy. Mitt Romney’s campaign did not utilize social media channels as expertly as the Obama team, and on several occasions the viral nature of the Internet hurt the Romney camp.

Romney faced a firestorm of public outcry when he described Americans with incomes too low for taxation as self-declared victims with a high sense of entitlement and a low sense of responsibility.  The comments were secretly recorded at a fundraising event and Romney later admitted he should have stated his position in a more “elegant” fashion. However, he stood by the principle of his statement – that opponent Barack Obama’s tax plan was attractive to people on the lower end of the socio-economic scale. Critics panned Romney for his obvious lack of connection with “average” Americans, and the general public followed suit. That particular recording has been described as the beginning of the end of the Romney Presidential run.

But were Mitt Romney’s comments made in what he thought was a private venue really that different from what he was saying in pre-written addresses across the country? A wealthy capitalist himself, Romney had made similar, more elegantly spoken statements in the past. In fact, anyone who took the time to listen to what he and his running mate Paul Ryan were saying on a daily basis in disclosed meetings would have seen that his super-secret, supposedly character-revealing statements were really not all that secret or revealing. The American people had neither the time nor the concern to truly hear what Romney had to say about their economic states until it was condensed into a short, scandalous, overplayed clip.

Were We Ever Rational Conversationalists?

Susan Jacoby observes in The Age of American Unreason that the Americans of a century ago were much more active than their descendants in seeking out opposing views, even if there was no chance that the information would change their minds. When political candidates held rallies to push their agendas, they spoke to a mixed audience of supporters and detractors.

Jacoby says that when she went on tour to promote her first book, Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism, she was prepared to argue her points with those who found her writing off-base. She says that she looked forward to the debate. Jacoby quickly discovered, however, that the only people showing up to her book events were “the converted.” The people in the audience had exactly the same views and she was essentially “preaching to the choir.” She would not have to defend her points because the people who disagreed with her simply would not show up.

Jacoby mentions this example in the introduction of her second book to illustrate the contrast between the open environment for discourse and curiosity about other opinions that once existed in America on the one hand, and the current state of narrow-mindedness across the belief spectrum on the other. She says “The unwillingness to give a hearing to contradictory viewpoints…represents a departure from the best side of American popular and elite intellectual traditions.”

The effort of defending one’s own views and lending an ear to opposing ones has come to be seen as excessive. This is what might be expected of an over-stimulated, instantly gratified American public that has no use for personal fact-finding missions. It is much easier to wait for outrageous scandals and 400-word summary blog posts that outline the “10 Reasons to Vote for Obama” than to dig into details. Anti-intellectualism then becomes a state of deliberate unknowing and uncaring.

Will the next generation of thinkers care enough to hear all sides of an issue? Or accept the first sound bite that is appealing?

In this 20-part series, I explore the root causes and effects of academic disengagement in K-12 learners and explore the factors driving American society ever closer to being a nation that lacks intellectualism, or the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake.

It is not only traditional authoritative bodies, like government and religion, which have promoted anti-intellectual thought. Widespread beliefs fueled by the people can be just as dangerous to intellectual progress. Consider the paranoia that erupts when a particular group is associated with a crime, or with anything that threatens the American way of life.

Anti-Muslim thought ran rampant in the days following the 9/11 attacks in 2001, much in the way that anti-Japanese sentiments were common, and even accepted, following the now infamous Pearl Harbor attacks of 1941. In both cases there is an argument to be made for the influence of media coverage on public perception, but outright discrimination was not sanctioned by official, authoritative bodies as a whole. People who chose to blame the actions of a small group of offenders on a larger demographic without further consideration did it on their own, or as a result of peer pressure.

Paranoia and Irrational Thought

Much like the anti-intellectual activities of government and religion, witch hunts carried out by common man have been around for centuries. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 took place in the 20^th and 21^st centuries but the public reaction bears a striking resemblance to the anti-Irish sentiments that ran high in 19^th -century America. Those outside Irish culture often assumed that Irish immigrants were alcoholics, only smart enough to land low-paying manual jobs, based only on their ethnicity.

Since many Irish Americans were also Catholic, initiatives like the Know Nothing Movement of the 1850s were created to keep all Catholics from holding public office. Given the current 75 million Americans who claim to be Catholic, these discriminatory movements now seem barbaric – even silly. It is important to note, however, that as recently as John F. Kennedy’s election to Commander in Chief in 1960, resentment against Catholics in America was rampant, with mistrustful non-Catholics portraying Catholics as blind followers of the Pope.

This religious prejudice cut both ways. It was a common practice for even barely-devout Catholics of the 1940s, 1950s and beyond to shun establishments that did not carry the stamp of approval of the church. The YMCA and Salvation Army, both considered fairly neutral religious organizations by the contemporary public, were off-limits for people who answered to the Pope during the middle of the 20^th century because they were not expressly Catholic. The church certainly influenced this movement, but Catholic-law abiding citizens who associated with the YMCA or the Salvation Army risked social suicide more than church expulsion. Peer pressure intensified religious division then, and it still does today.

Conversion to Mainstream Beliefs

Consider the recent controversy surrounding DOMA, or the Defense of Marriage Act.  The challenge to DOMA reached the Supreme Court on the shoulders of outspoken octogenarian Edith Windsor, who represented the human face of a theoretical debate surrounding the legal validity of same-sex marriages along with the rights associated with that distinction. DOMA’s Supreme Court appearance, which began with a purely legal argument based on Windsor having to pay over $350,000 in estate taxes after the death of her partner Thea Spyer in 2009, made people feel inspired to air their own beliefs about the sanctity of marriage and about who should be allowed to enjoy its privileges.

There were politicians and religious leaders who spoke up on both sides of the debate, but perhaps the most vocal and heated discourse came from the common people themselves, particularly through social media circles. For weeks before the SCOTUS ruling, people posted stories, photos, facts and other memes meant to influence their friends one way or another.

It mattered not that the case did not reference the Biblical definition of marriage, or any other religious documents; people hotly debated whether or not Jesus (who never married, according to his followers) would approve and whether an end to DOMA would spell the end of days for America. It mattered not that nothing in the lawsuit asked for churches to be forced to perform same-sex marriage rites or even to recognize the unions in their congregations. It mattered not that the lawsuit did not ask for the legal rights of heterosexual married couples to change even slightly. Common man turned the pending ruling into a religious and moral debate, whether for or against DOMA.

When the Supreme Court struck down the 1996 act in June of 2013, the Internet-waves exploded with the pronouncements of ecstatic and disappointed people. Even after an official decision had been made at a federal level, arguments raged about what the ruling truly meant for the moral future of Americans. A comparison to the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision was made on both sides of the issue without much regard for the fact that, though Roe was considered a “victory” by liberals, abortion rights remain on the perennial state legislature chopping block 40 years after the supposed triumph. The inability of either side of the issue to see the basic, rational grounds for overturning the law demonstrated a primitive side of American anti-intellectualism that is often guided by emotions at the cost of facts.

Social Acceptance and Anti-Intellectualism

Pressure to keep up with the Joneses, or at least to be considered “normal” by peers, is ubiquitous. People want to be accepted by others in their immediate surroundings – neighborhoods, workplaces, churches and family units. Sometimes it is simply easier to go with the popular thought than to speak out against it, even if a person has inner doubts. In this way, anti-intellectualism is often a result of the social pressures of everyday life. It is a byproduct of taking the easy way out, desperately seeking the acceptance of similar people.

The K-12 education system is often a victim of the common man’s anti-intellectualism. Throughout the U.S. educational standards vary by region and reflect the majority belief systems of particular geographic areas. This is evident in religious squabbles over displaying The Ten Commandments on school property, and in parental input in the amount of hours children should spend at school in rural areas where they are needed for family income.

The way that people believe in a certain community has an impact on what is taught in the schools there, and this can be detrimental to students. The power to determine what is valuable in educational settings should not be given over to parents, or business owners, or even politicians, but the idea that the majority knows best overshadows many K-12 educational pursuits. When beliefs, religious or otherwise, interfere with educational pursuits, they should be re-examined for validity and if they are impeding the learning process. Fear is a powerful thing – so much so that it gets in the way of knowledge, time and time again. So how can it be overcome to bring the next generation of K-12 learners back to intellectual pursuits?

In this 20-part series, I explore the root causes and effects of academic disengagement in K-12 learners and explore the factors driving American society ever closer to being a nation that lacks intellectualism, or the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake.

Americans with differing religious convictions disagree on the severity of the risk to intellectualism posed by religious control. For atheists, any person who believes in a non-tangible “god” and takes orders on how to live a life of faith from another mortal is simply being bamboozled. For those who choose to incorporate faith as part of a larger life, and abide by the widely socially acceptable characteristics of kindness, charity and concern for their fellow human beings, religion does not pose a negative threat and is not overtly labeled as “dangerous” to free thinking. But which is more intellectual – a carefully chosen belief system of “faith without seeing,” or one that is grounded in observing physical proof?

Is it all a Cult?

To explore those answers more fully, let’s start with extreme incidences of religious contributions to anti-intellectualism. There is the outright manipulation of people through fear or promise of reward, most often labeled as a “cult” in American culture. Some experts claim that those who use these brainwashing techniques do not simply cast a wide net, but that they target particularly vulnerable people. Malaysian professor and cult expert Dr. Ong Seng Huat has called these so-called cult religious leaders “charismatic” and talks about how their victims are often people dealing with failure or depression.

In other words, people with mental instability are often the very same people who are quick to cling to a pre-determined path when it comes to spiritual matters. Author Peggy Riley calls the impulse of charismatic leaders to build utopian empires, however selfish, a “uniquely American” one. While high profile cults in the U.S. like the Branch Davidians of Waco standoff notoriety and the Church of Bible Understanding prove that there is a market for religious anti-intellectualism, extreme groups claiming divinity date much further back than American settlement.

In ancient Greek and Roman mythology, believers in the gods took strange and often dangerous actions to prove their faithfulness. Followers of the Roman god Mithras were put through life-threatening initiation ceremonies, and women who adhered to the Bacchic cult proved their devotion by running wild in the countryside. The act of “hero worship” celebrated humans who had proven their worthiness.  A part of the body of the deceased hero, like the head, was often put on display in a common area, and believers felt that it led to greater prosperity, safety and fertility. To show appreciation to the hero-god, followers would sacrifice an animal (often a ram) and allow the blood to flow to the remaining piece of the hero’s body. It was believed that through contact with the blood, these heroes were momentarily revived and could pass down advice and decrees to the faithful.

The ancient Greek and Roman world’s sacrificial rituals are surprisingly similar to those of Old Testament Jews who placed their own sins on the backs of animals that were then led to slaughter, often called “sacrificial lambs.”  This act of worship was later interpreted by Christians as symbolic of the transgressions that the Jesus took upon his own body in death. The text of the Christian Old Testament, along with other supporting historical documents, records repeated offenses by the followers of Jehovah who often stepped outside the confines of their religion to seek out other gods. According to these writings, great turmoil and misfortune fell upon those who chose a life outside the belief system set forth by the accepted god of the Jewish people. Even today, teachings about the dangers of idol worship, or putting anything before the Heavenly Father, are used as cautionary tales in even the most mainstream Christian churches.

Notable members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, generally considered a non-cult religion in America, have spoken out about the discord between religion and rational thought. The Book of Mormon consistently criticizes people who seek answers outside the church, accusing such people of being prideful or elitist. Such people are seen as being tempted by Satan or adversarial forces, not simply seeking answers to normal questions of human nature. Therein lies the intellectual problem with religion in America, and not just with Christianity. If people are condemned for asking questions, how can they exercise their rationalism?

Is Atheism Intellectual?

Atheist thinkers like Richard Dawkins claim that a belief in any higher, unseen being is akin to faith in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Theories of Creationism are no longer acceptable in public schools that teach Evolutionary science instead – much to the anger of parents and religious groups who feel Darwinian theory is far from proven. People are quick to categorize themselves and others based on opposing theories of world origins, or theism versus atheism, or even one religious group versus another one.

Susan Jacoby addresses this uniquely American approach to religion, and the ways in which it feeds anti-intellectualism, in her book The Age of American Unreason. She contends that the ability to create any religion with no outside government interference has led to numerous unsubstantiated sects whose followers display unquestioning enthusiasm and commitment. The government has no right to decide which spiritual philosophies are better than others, so long as their followers do not actually violate the law of the land, so religious beliefs run the gamut. Of course, Americans are free to see through any crackpot beliefs and point out their invalidity, but there are always at least a few who are duped. In this way, Jacoby says that intellectualism is not actually broadened by more religious choices but stunted.

Religion can be Well-Reasoned

Contemporary religion, therefore, is not inherently anti-intellectual. It is a choice, a lifestyle that has its place in millions of lives. A person who is informed about other belief systems, or has considered evidence from other perspectives, and who chooses to live in a particular faith is not a blind follower. That person is enlightened, and an argument could be made that he or she is more of an intellectual than another who denies all religious beliefs without investigating any.

It is when religion purports to trump new findings proven through scientific discovery – when it places itself as the end-all and be-all of human thought, despite evidence to the contrary– that it becomes a dangerous force against intellectual progress.

In this 20-part series, I explore the root causes and effects of academic disengagement in K-12 learners and explore the factors driving American society ever closer to being a nation that lacks intellectualism, or the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake.

 If the main purpose of intellectualism is to reveal truths, it is no wonder that governments throughout history have opposed free thinkers. Power attained through deceitful or heavy-handed tactics is always in jeopardy of exposure. In contemporary culture, conservative politicians are often viewed as being at odds with progressive ideas or rational thought. The truth is that all politicians at extreme ends of the spectrum– and the ones in between–can feel threatened by an enlightened constituency. This is certainly the case if a politician has something to hide.

Ancient Anti-Intellectualism in Government

Think back to the days of the Egyptian Pharaoh in the time of Moses, in the mid-1400s B.C. There is debate as to the identity of this Pharaoh, who has been variously identified as Tuthmosis III, Amenhotep II or Apophis. There is more widespread agreement about the historicity of his decree that all Hebrew boys should be thrown into the river to drown. The Quran, Hebrew Bible and Christian Old Testament all document the mistreatment of the Hebrews by Pharaoh because of his own fear that the Jewish people would rise up and outnumber his army.

His plan demonstrated strategic genius. Rather than trying to kill off a strong group capable of self-defense, he targeted an easier demographic. This Pharaoh was planning for the long term; he could protect his own political agenda by wiping out the future generation of Hebrews. His motivation was certainly grounded in the fear of a physical uprising, but he was also waging an intangible war. The Jews were not only dangerous because of their growing population; they frightened the Egyptian ruler (or rulers) with their difference in beliefs and their claim to have the ear of the one true God. Rather than working toward a long-term plan for harmony between Jews and other Egyptians, it was easier to use brute force. Anti-intellectualism at its finest.

Contemporary Anti-Intellectualism in Government

More recently, government-fueled anti-intellectualism took place in the USSR in the mid-1900s. In 1948, Lysenkoism, an agricultural science developed by Trofim Lysenko, was adopted to determine the practices of farms all over the country. This political approach to science stressed control over genetics and the ability to determine scientific outcomes. Meant to further Communist theory, Lysenkoism had dismal results when it came to its actual yields. The theory was officially abandoned, and renamed a pseudoscience, by 1964. Before it disappeared as a tenet of Russian government and farming, however, many scientists who spoke out against Lysenkoism lost their livelihoods and even their lives. Those who did not agree with the narrow view of the government were punished, a process that discouraged intellectualism in this particular area and others too.

These examples of persecution are just the types of things that Americans vehemently oppose, at least in theory. Government-issued science and genocide based on paranoia – things that the founders of this nation took great strides to avoid – are part of other cultures, other ways of life. Horror stories of young women facing government-sanctioned genital mutilation in African nations like Ethiopia are viewed as distant problems of the Third World. Americans don’t wonder that anti-intellectualism flourishes in places that lack the resources, education and freedom of choice available within the U.S. borders.

Is American Government Anti-Intellectual?

Perhaps it is the subtlety of the American brand of anti-intellectualism that is so dangerous. Blind belief in the prescriptions which the people elected to the highest offices have condensed into 8-second sound bites is worrisome. Religious freedom is a foundational principle of American government and culture – yet lawsuits are still regularly filed because public schools punish students for declining to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or stand for the Star-Spangled Banner. Perhaps the lip service Americans pay to liberty of thought serves to disguise the anti-rationalism underneath.

It is true that in the capitalist U.S. a mandate like Lysenkoism would never stand, particularly since agriculture represents $100 billion in U.S. exports alone each year. It is also hard to imagine a U.S. government official declaring that all baby boys of a particular ethnic group be thrown into the nearest Great Lake. The American government would not be accepted if it acted as a vehicle of anti-intellectualism in outright ways. Free thought and the liberty to believe pretty much anything, no matter how virtuous or ridiculous, are the marks of a true American.

But can a democratic country that allows the voice of the majority to make decisions really achieve heightened states of intellectualism for the individual? Beginning with the public educational system, this is a question that Americans must answer if they are to avoid complete loss of rational thought in the future. While a level playing field, mandated by the government though not always carried out in practice, serves idealistic purposes, does it hurt intellectual progress of citizens? Through its democratic idealism, is America’s government actually the most anti-intellectual of them all?

In this 20-part series, I explore the root causes and effects of academic disengagement in K-12 learners and explore the factors driving American society ever closer to being a nation that lacks intellectualism, or the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake.

The 20^th century saw the rise of a new sort of anti-intellectualism in America, one stemming from a nationalist perspective. The idea that love of country trumped all other ideas and ideals was popularized during both World Wars, and exacerbated by the Communist paranoia and McCarthyism in the decades that followed. Speaking out against war or showing sympathy with other countries at odds with the U.S. was frowned upon, and sometimes outright condemned. Questioning the reasoning of war as a concept was seen as direct disloyalty to the country.

Even today movies that showcase nationalist perspectives, like 1995’s classic Braveheart, remain popular with Americans, despite the fact that nationalism was not actually a European philosophy until the 18^th century. It is more likely that 13^th-century William Wallace performed his feats of bravery (much exaggerated in the Hollywood version) out of loyalty to his individual tribe rather than a grandiose faithfulness to Scotland. Still, the American tendency to cover all sins with flag-waving patriotism found its roots in the 20^th century and still exists today.

Love, Loyalty and Loss of Debate

That school of nationalist thought which was widely accepted following the two world wars came into question as anti-war protests grew in strength during the Vietnam War. The anti-war demonstrations that surrounded the Vietnam War were met with counter-attacks by pseudo-intellectuals like Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. Though he attempted to explain the rationale behind the alarming number of U.S. casualties in intellectual terms, the American public saw through his attempt at dumbing down the realities of the war. For demonstrators who spoke out against the Vietnam War, fighting was a poor substitute for the harder work of actually seeking out true change.

Many of the soldiers in Vietnam were the sons of World War I and World War II veterans who were witnessing the cyclical nature of wars that seemingly had no end. As the soldiers from the 1940s and 1950s aged, it is reasonable to assume that at least some of them experienced a feeling of helplessness, believing their sacrifices really had not made enough of an impact, since their own children were back fighting the same battles under a new banner. Even today, as struggles in the Middle East stretch across two decades, Americans have become desensitized to what the ongoing loss of life means in a world that seems unable ever to be truly at peace.

This nationalist challenge to intellectualism, like the fundamentalist challenge discussed earlier, is based on an orthodoxy which forbids questioning and reasoned disagreement.  While it is less pronounced than in previous generations, it still exists and integrates itself in our schools.

But are we building a spirit of national camaraderie at the expense of intellectualist thought?

In this 20-part series, I explore the root causes and effects of academic disengagement in K-12 learners and explore the factors driving American society ever closer to being a nation that lacks intellectualism, or the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake.

It is easy to blame the rise of anti-intellectualism on the vagaries of the digital age, but in fact anti-intellectualism has been present in America from the beginning of our national history, and its roots lie in other civilizations.

The Roman Republic had anti-intellectual overtones, particularly when it came to assimilation of new cultures. Roman culture was seen as providing a model of the “right” way to live, speak and practice religion.  Questioning, dissent and rational analysis were no more welcome in ancient Rome than in certain radical groups of contemporary Americans.  Deportation of “dangerous” free-thinking groups was a common practice in Rome. The Roman fear of letting in outsiders, thus exposing Roman-born citizens to the danger of becoming the minority, is reminiscent of some American sentiments regarding immigration reform today. As the Romans learned, and as Americans have discovered, fear-driven resistance to outside change cannot keep change from happening sooner or later. The idea that control of movement over a particular group can and should be mandated by any government entity is an old one, but alive and well in American culture still.

Fear of outside influences was not the only hallmark of anti-intellectualism in America. As early as colonial times, influential men wrote about the danger of a public educated in progressive thought. The famous Puritan John Cotton spoke out against too much education, saying it made the learned “more fit to act for Satan” and therefore a danger to society.

Another problem for intellectuals in the early days of American colonialism was that they were considered less valuable than those with practical skills like farming, construction or other hands-on tasks. Lofty thoughts without clear application to the practical side of life were seen as irrelevant to the physical tasks of building a new nation. Furthermore, most of the people who arrived in early America were not part of the so-called intellectual group of Europeans. They were working folks who had reason to flee their home countries in pursuit of freedom from persecution. They possessed a type of intellectual thought that cannot be taught, but lacked the education which might have enabled them to relate those thoughts to other revolutionary and intellectual ideas in history.

Jeffersonian Contradictions

Thomas Jefferson has long been described in history books as an intellectual who was partially responsible for founding America on concepts of equality. Contemporary history, however, paints a different picture of Jefferson as a man who owned slaves and fathered illegitimate children through abuse of his master status. Jefferson didn’t actually believe in equality for all; he actually believed in limited equality as long as it benefitted his own gains. Jefferson used his education and position in society to justify his own misdeeds when it came to slavery and general treatment of people in lower classes.

While his writings contribute greatly to the causes of reason and equality, his life seems to have offered some justification for the anti-intellectual tendencies of many of his contemporary compatriots.

In this 20-part series, I explore the root causes and effects of academic disengagement in K-12 learners and explore the factors driving American society ever closer to being a nation that lacks intellectualism, or the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake.

The tendency to view scientific fact as merely one theory in a great sea of possible understandings is deeply ingrained in Americans.  This tendency has been deliberately fostered. Since the nation’s founding, people in authoritative positions have periodically managed to convince citizens that actual science is subjective and on the same plane as other unproven theories. While, the term “scientific theory” actually refers to those understandings which have been tested, proven and accepted as the truth in the scientific community, people opposed to these facts on political or religious grounds have often used the term “theory” to disparage the actual validity of the information.

Perhaps no scientific theory has demonstrated this phenomenon more than evolution. When the now legendary Scopes “monkey trial” of 1925 captured the nation’s attention, the strong forces of scientific thought and religious fundamentalism went up against each other in an attempt to decide what should be taught in public schools. Creationism, which rationalists saw as nothing more than a fictional story with a religious purpose, was pitted against the controversial but certainly evidence-based “theory” of the descent of man made popular by Charles Darwin. High-school science teacher John Scopes was seated in the defendant’s chair, but more than his reputation was on the line. The American people looked to the legal system to sort out what they should believe about where they came from and whether their existence was divine or was simply an evolving state in the grand plan of nature.

The actual impact on American society of Scopes’ guilty verdict is debatable, since it was later overturned. The arguments on the part of the prosecution, including William Jennings Bryan’s assertion of the historical accuracy of the Biblical creation story, may seem antiquated by even fundamentalist standards today. Nevertheless, evolution is still treated by many as just one of several explanations for the existence of man, not as the leading scientific theory. For all the scientific and technological advancements made in nearly a century since the Scopes trial, evolution is still considered a matter of opinion, not fact, when it comes to the how and why of human existence.

Misuse of the Word “Evolution”

Some of this has to do with the careless or disingenuous way in which the concept of evolution has sometimes been used outside actual scientific circles. The 19^th English philosopher Herbert Spencer used Darwin’s biological research to support the notion that humans were supposed to live in varying states of privilege. Spencer, and later Ernst Haeckel, used the strictly biological parts of evolution to justify social injustice and even eugenics, claiming that white people were more civilized and intelligent than black people as a result of evolution, and that the men who championed their prospective business industries were highly evolved specimens of humanity who deserved more wealth than less-evolved people.

The problem with this use of scientific theory to describe social conditions, besides its blatant misuse of Darwin’s intentions, was that it made more enemies for the actual theory of evolution. Church groups already leery of Darwin’s disproving of Creationism certainly could not sit by and allow the poor to be treated badly in the name of evolution. The term “survival of the fittest” took on a cut-throat, unfeeling meaning that even non-religious people had to question.

Most people understood that humans are not on the same level as animals. In fact Darwin concurred with this understanding, but some people who claimed to be his followers did not, and the inhumane views propounded by those followers tainted Americans’ understanding of Darwin’s original theory. Now, over a century and a half after On the Origin of the Species was first published, Americans are not much closer to a collective acceptance of the facts than they were in 1859.