A problem with “indoctrination” debates: For people who demand unquestioning adherence to received wisdom, learning to consider a variety of perspectives and base conclusions on evidence can seem like indoctrination into an alternative belief, even though it’s not.
Let’s say your family likes Trump and believes his claim of “the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan.” Then your kid goes to college, takes an American politics class, and learns that Trump’s win ranked 5th of 7, ahead of only GWB.
Was that left-wing indoctrination?
Was that left-wing indoctrination?
Let’s say you’re raised with hateful stereotypes of gay people. You go to college, meet some gay people, and find they’re just people. You don’t like a lot of “woke” politics, but you decide not to use anti-gay slurs anymore.
Were you indoctrinated into a left-wing belief system?
Were you indoctrinated into a left-wing belief system?
Let's say your family's anti-war and refers to the US invasion of Afghanistan as illegal imperialism. Then you take an international law class, learn about arguments that it was legal self-defense, and tell your parents "well, it's complicated"
Was that right-wing indoctrination?
Was that right-wing indoctrination?
One big reason why some see professors encouraging students to consider multiple perspectives as indoctrination is they want people to consider only one perspective--theirs--and they listen to people whose business model depends on stoking outrage:
A central goal of college education could be called anti-indoctrination--question others' claims, consider multiple perspectives, test claims against evidence, etc.--and for people who want unquestioned adherence to a rigid set of beliefs, anti-indoctrination is a threat.
(END)
(END)
