On Character and Education Again, Part III

When I was a young faculty member some years ago we often engaged in some fairly intense discussion about the role of the university in the life of the student. Some of the old assumptions needed to be challenged, to be sure. “The Times They Are a-Changin,” the great Bob Dylan reminded us so eloquently during those years. The younger generation of the ‘60s and ‘70s thought they were a generation of destiny, changing everything. They thought they were in the driver’s seat when it came to setting the rules of any game.

And of course as a very young faculty member, I found myself on the side of the student much of the time. We needed to end in loco parentis once and for all, that notion that the university should stand in the place of the parent. We felt we needed to give our students more room to grow and make their own choices. We needed to get out of their way. This kind of new freedom was essential for their own growth, indeed for the formation of character.

But then this whole cultural debate turned deadly serious. The questions began to broaden into a challenge of all authority. Who needs parents to show the way? Who needs the adult generation? Who needs institutions of any sort? Who needs the rich heritage of tradition of any sort? As the provocative, mid-20th century social and political philosopher Hannah Arendt began to observe, we had entered into a damaging era of an outright “crisis of authority.” All authority was under suspicion.

At just this time, the American university almost completely stepped out of the business of setting standards for our students. We began to believe we should turn our students loose to define their own moral universe. We began to believe it was just too difficult, in a contested and conflicted culture, to teach character. Our focus as universities began to turn away from teaching such things as integrity, honesty, decency, kindness, regard for the common good, notions of genuine community. We began to focus almost exclusively on teaching for competency in the professions. We began to adopt a posture of suspicion and even cynicism when it comes to resources out of the past for guidance in such matters.

In an extraordinary article in The Atlantic some years ago, David Brooks says that “today’s students do not inherit a concrete and articulated moral system.” And alarmingly, the university does not have “a set of ideals to instruct [these] privileged men and women on how to live, how to see their duties, and how to call upon their highest efforts.”

And why not? Because we made “‘the decision that these are adults and this is not our job,’” Brooks quotes one dean from Princeton. “When it comes to character and virtue,” says Brooks, “these young people have been left on their own . . . go figure out what is true and just for yourselves.”

“We assume,” says Brooks, “that each person has to solve these questions alone (though few other societies in history have made this assumption). We assume that if adults try to offer moral instruction, it will just backfire, because our children will reject our sermonizing (though they don’t seem to reject any other part of our guidance and instruction). We assume that such questions have no correct answer that can be taught.”

But, then, and here is the kicker for me: “Maybe the simple truth, is that adult institutions no longer try to talk about character and virtue because they simply wouldn’t know what to say.”

Hannah Arendt makes a comment I like so much: “Education . . . is where we decide whether we love our children enough not to expel them from our world and leave them to their own devices, nor to strike from their hands their chance of undertaking something new, something unforeseen by us, but to prepare them in advance for the task of renewing a common world.”

Arendt beautifully balances both sides of this task of educating for character. On the one hand I feel very strongly that we must educate in such a way that we do not exclude our students from the wisdom of the ages that precedes them on just these questions. We need to pass on the secrets of the tribe. We need to give them a story of what is true and good and beautiful.

But we must also be very careful not “to strike from their hands their chance of undertaking something new.” They do indeed need the freedom to explore and discover and make their choices. And we who are doing the educating always have much to learn from them. It is this balance we must achieve, and we must live within the tension that often crops out in the process.

Frankly, and this may be a controversial point, I believe students come seeking some kind of guidance on these matters. As Jesus says in Matthew, I think they come asking for bread. I think they come seeking some understanding of what has been taught over the ages to be true and good, healthy and helpful. How can we go silent on just these issues so critical to their lives and ultimately critical to our society for the future?

When they come asking for bread, then, can we possibly hand them a stone? Don’t we have to figure out, complex and challenging though it is, how to teach for character?

Oh, there is much more to say on this subject. And I am grateful for the good discussion that has appeared on the blog. Thank you for your comments. They are very helpful and stimulating.


Categories: Change, Character, Culture, Leadership

4 replies

  1. Perhaps the next best move is to better understand what exactly it is students are seeking in coming to a university. You mention that you believe students come seeking guidance on matters of character. This could easily be true and I would suspect what students seek in coming to a university differs dramatically according to personality, demographic, cultural background, etc. I personally would suggest that few assumptions be made. Students may come seeking bread, true, or some students may come seeking stone. Still, some students may come seeking something vastly different. Defining what a university is for is of course a large issue, especially during the information age where similar course material could be found elsewhere and personal values are extremely relative. Then there is the famous line “You get out of it what you put into it.” Perhaps providing a university environment and curriculum that allows for students to get out of it what they want — ethical maturation or technical education — is best. Allow for all manners of enrichment through a properly well-rounded university… but do not expect students to be enriched according to others’ expectations. After all, students will not absorb education about “character” unless they are interested in doing so in the first place. Thus the quote applies once again.

  2. Came across this in my reading today –
    “In a letter placed at the beginning of his LAUSIAC HISTORY, Palladius said, “Words and syllables do not constitute teaching… Teaching consists of virtuous acts of conduct….This is how Jesus taught….His aim was the formation of Charater.” As Plutarch had recognized earlier, deeds need not mean great and noble displays of bravery of strength. “A slight think, like a phrase or a jest,” he wrote, often reveal more of a person’s character than “battles where thousands fall.” (THE SPIRIT OF EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHT – Robert Louis Wilken – page 265

  3. When I was in college, I basically learned from reading and found that most of my instructors taught with a discouraging tinge of sarcasm. I would say that if it weren’t for them, I wouldn’t have the character to deal with condescension.

  4. I appreciate your grappling with such an important topic. As a parent paying my student’s way, I encouraged (didn’t insist – my daughter went elsewhere, my son to SPU) my kids toward SPU exactly for the moral guidance/ character building you discuss as part of SPU’s mission. I found it there as a student in the 70’s/80’s and wanted it for my kids during such a formative time in their lives – I believe I am not alone in those feelings as a parent. I hope we don’t make the mistake in believing the world is some sort of neutral place for kids to discover and adopt their own moral compass. I heard Tony Campolo say, “everyone else is telling your kids how to live and what is important in life, why aren’t you!” I agree with a previous comment, that Jesus most definitely taught character and as an institution shaped by a Christian heritage I hope you continue to do the same. I would argue that character building is at least as important as competence building, and in the Kingdom Jesus was/is ushering in it is of paramount importance. I also understand the student comment that it is ultimately the student’s choice whether or not to ‘buy in” to the moral imperatives the University (and anyone/anything else for that matter) puts forth; not even Jesus imposed His character on others, but His Father did create in a way that imposes a price on life lived in immorality. In the end however, we are valuable because God chooses to love us, not loved because we are valuable. I think the awareness and courage to act morally, even when it when it would be more valuable to act otherwise, comes from God and an awareness of His love for us. It is a privilege to be an instrument of that awareness and ultimately of God. I hope SPU doesn’t give that up!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: