Undoing the Dis-Education of Millennials
Yes! From New Boston Post:

Undoing the Dis-Education of Millennials

By Adam J. MacLeod | November 9, 2017, 9:06 EST

I teach in a law school. For several years now my students have been mostly Millennials. Contrary to stereotype, I have found that the vast majority of them want to learn. But true to stereotype, I increasingly find that most of them cannot think, don’t know very much, and are enslaved to their appetites and feelings. Their minds are held hostage in a prison fashioned by elite culture and their undergraduate professors.

They cannot learn until their minds are freed from that prison. This year in my Foundations of Law course for first-year law students, I found my students especially impervious to the ancient wisdom of foundational texts, such as Plato’s Crito and the Code of Hammurabi. Many of them were quick to dismiss unfamiliar ideas as “classist” and “racist,” and thus unable to engage with those ideas on the merits. So, a couple of weeks into the semester, I decided to lay down some ground rules. I gave them these rules just before beginning our annual unit on legal reasoning.

Here is the speech I gave them.


Before I can teach you how to reason, I must first teach you how to rid yourself of unreason. For many of you have not yet been educated. You have been dis-educated. To put it bluntly, you have been indoctrinated. Before you learn how to think you must first learn how to stop unthinking.

Reasoning requires you to understand truth claims, even truth claims that you think are false or bad or just icky. Most of you have been taught to label things with various “isms” which prevent you from understanding claims you find uncomfortable or difficult.

Reasoning requires correct judgment. Judgment involves making distinctions, discriminating. Most of you have been taught how to avoid critical, evaluative judgments by appealing to simplistic terms such as “diversity” and “equality.”

Reasoning requires you to understand the difference between true and false. And reasoning requires coherence and logic. Most of you have been taught to embrace incoherence and illogic. You have learned to associate truth with your subjective feelings, which are neither true nor false but only yours, and which are constantly changeful.

We will have to pull out all of the weeds in your mind as we come across them. Unfortunately, your mind is full of weeds, and this will be a very painful experience. But it is strictly necessary if anything useful, good, and fruitful is to be planted in your head.

There is no formula for this. Each of you has different weeds, and so we will need to take this on the case-by-case basis. But there are a few weeds that infect nearly all of your brains. So I am going to pull them out now.

First, except when describing an ideology, you are not to use a word that ends in “ism.” Communism, socialism, Nazism, and capitalism are established concepts in history and the social sciences, and those terms can often be used fruitfully to gain knowledge and promote understanding. “Classism,” “sexism,” “materialism,” “cisgenderism,” and (yes) even racism are generally not used as meaningful or productive terms, at least as you have been taught to use them. Most of the time, they do not promote understanding.

In fact, “isms” prevent you from learning. You have been taught to slap an “ism” on things that you do not understand, or that make you feel uncomfortable, or that make you uncomfortable because you do not understand them. But slapping a label on the box without first opening the box and examining its contents is a form of cheating. Worse, it prevents you from discovering the treasures hidden inside the box. For example, when we discussed the Code of Hammurabi, some of you wanted to slap labels on what you read which enabled you to convince yourself that you had nothing to learn from ancient Babylonians. But when we peeled off the labels and looked carefully inside the box, we discovered several surprising truths. In fact, we discovered that Hammurabi still has a lot to teach us today.

One of the falsehoods that has been stuffed into your brain and pounded into place is that moral knowledge progresses inevitably, such that later generations are morally and intellectually superior to earlier generations, and that the older the source the more morally suspect that source is. There is a term for that. It is called chronological snobbery. Or, to use a term that you might understand more easily, “ageism.”

Second, you have been taught to resort to two moral values above all others, diversity and equality. These are important values if properly understood. But the way most of you have been taught to understand them makes you irrational, unreasoning. For you have been taught that we must have as much diversity as possible and that equality means that everyone must be made equal. But equal simply means the same. To say that 2+2 equals 4 is to say that 2+2 is numerically the same as four. And diversity simply means difference. So when you say that we should have diversity and equality you are saying we should have difference and sameness. That is incoherent, by itself. Two things cannot be different and the same at the same time in the same way.

Furthermore, diversity and equality are not the most important values. In fact, neither diversity nor equality is valuable at all in its own right. Some diversity is bad. For example, if slavery is inherently wrong, as I suspect we all think it is, then a diversity of views about the morality of slavery is worse than complete agreement that slavery is wrong.

Similarly, equality is not to be desired for its own sake. Nobody is equal in all respects. We are all different, which is to say that we are all not the same, which is to say that we are unequal in many ways. And that is generally a good thing. But it is not always a good thing (see the previous remarks about diversity).

Related to this:  You do you not know what the word “fair” means. It does not just mean equality. Nor does it mean something you do not like. For now, you will have to take my word for this. But we will examine fairness from time to time throughout this semester.

Third, you should not bother to tell us how you feel about a topic. Tell us what you think about it. If you can’t think yet, that’s O.K.. Tell us what Aristotle thinks, or Hammurabi thinks, or H.L.A. Hart thinks. Borrow opinions from those whose opinions are worth considering. As Aristotle teaches us in the reading for today, men and women who are enslaved to the passions, who never rise above their animal natures by practicing the virtues, do not have worthwhile opinions. Only the person who exercises practical reason and attains practical wisdom knows how first to live his life, then to order his household, and finally, when he is sufficiently wise and mature, to venture opinions on how to bring order to the political community.

One of my goals for you this semester is that each of you will encounter at least one idea that you find disagreeable and that you will achieve genuine disagreement with that idea. I need to explain what I mean by that because many of you have never been taught how to disagree.

Disagreement is not expressing one’s disapproval of something or expressing that something makes you feel bad or icky. To really disagree with someone’s idea or opinion, you must first understand that idea or opinion. When Socrates tells you that a good life is better than a life in exile you can neither agree nor disagree with that claim without first understanding what he means by “good life” and why he thinks running away from Athens would be unjust. Similarly, if someone expresses a view about abortion, and you do not first take the time to understand what the view is and why the person thinks the view is true, then you cannot disagree with the view, much less reason with that person. You might take offense. You might feel bad that someone holds that view. But you are not reasoning unless you are engaging the merits of the argument, just as Socrates engaged with Crito’s argument that he should flee from Athens.

So, here are three ground rules for the rest of the semester.

1.  The only “ism” I ever want to come out your mouth is a syllogism. If I catch you using an “ism” or its analogous “ist” — racist, classist, etc. — then you will not be permitted to continue speaking until you have first identified which “ism” you are guilty of at that very moment. You are not allowed to fault others for being biased or privileged until you have first identified and examined your own biases and privileges.

2.  If I catch you this semester using the words “fair,” “diversity,” or “equality,” or a variation on those terms, and you do not stop immediately to explain what you mean, you will lose your privilege to express any further opinions in class until you first demonstrate that you understand three things about the view that you are criticizing.

3.  If you ever begin a statement with the words “I feel,” before continuing you must cluck like a chicken or make some other suitable animal sound.


To their credit, the students received the speech well. And so far this semester, only two students have been required to cluck like chickens.
Adam J. MacLeod is an associate professor of law at Jones School of Law at Faulkner University in Montgomery, Alabama.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 5 users Like VoxClamantis's post:
  • BluegrassMTBer, Catherine, dahveed, HailGilbert, IntoTheMystic
As a millennial myself who has worked through the academic system, I wish I could have given this to students in their Intro to Philosophy courses. Thanks for sharing!
[-] The following 1 user Likes IntoTheMystic's post:
  • HailGilbert
I might just need to post this in my classrooms.  Big Grin
My ipad keyboard hates me.  Please forgive the typos; they are unintentional.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Fontevrault's post:
  • HailGilbert
As a high school teacher this might be slightly too harsh for my students, but I do try to teach them the same thing. Inevitably a discussion comes up where someone makes a claim about God’s existence. I will ask the class if the claim is true, and inevitably they answer “well, it depends on what you believe.” I point out that it doesn’t depend at all on what you believe. God either exists or he doesn’t, and no amount of belief can change that fact. 

I also teach them syllogisms and formal logic, and I plead with them not to follow any ideology without using logic to thoroughly test it. Unfortunately, they are generally too immature to understand what I mean, and their other teachers are working hard to indoctrinate. And if high school doesn’t get them, college will.
"I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’ — though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory." -J.R.R. Tolkien

"I know quite well that, to you as to me, the Church which once felt like a refuge, now often feels like a trap. There is nowhere else to go! (I wonder if this desperate feeling, the last state of loyally hanging on, was not, even more often than is actually recorded in the Gospels, felt by Our Lord’s followers in His earthly life-time?) I think there is nothing to do but pray, for the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and for ourselves; and meanwhile to exercise the virtue of loyalty, which indeed only becomes a virtue when one is under pressure to desert it." -J.R.R. Tolkien

"There is none so blind as he who will not agree with me." -someone else
[-] The following 1 user Likes Optatus Cleary's post:
  • HailGilbert
Ah, is this the thread about small-souled bugmen?

“Small-souled bugman” implies that the person has been cut off from their cultural roots and is completely entrenched in the consumerist neoliberal hive. They are devoid of any sympathy for their ancestors, nation, higher spirituality, or natural passion. If they do engage in activities that are somewhat human, they are heavily saturated with global materialism. If they are a sportsball fan, they will participate in “fantasy sports”, obsessed with arbitrary statistics and meaningless analysis. If they exercise, it will be all cardio and tracked by fitbit before being uploaded to their Faceberg account. Their tastes in food, art, music, and movies are predetermined by review aggregator sites like yelp, metacritic, and rotten tomatoes. The conversations they have are replete with vapid discourse concerning cartoons, video games, shows, and safe-space politics (usually dictated to them by SNL, Colbert, NPR, et cetera). Should they encounter any confrontation or pushback in their dealings with others, they will immediately give ground and concede without putting any effort into presenting their point of view.

See also: Soyboy

[Image: uWx62iWzES-iABbvPeFE8hfcksH4OsbKH1Zys9Xf...71fc1411f2]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Imperator Caesar Trump's post:
  • VoxClamantis
How Urban Dictionary defines the bugman:

(1) A bugman is your typical big left leaning city dweller. He is usually obsessed with consumerism, lining up to purchase the newest iPhone or MacBook when it comes out, and using a smartwatch/smart home speaker for longer than the week after he bought it. Chances are he owns other throwaway smart gadgets as well. All his tastes in movies, music, expensive food, art, and more are determined by what review sites and blogs say.

Everything about his personality and life is not defined by who he is, but by what he buys and his consumerist tendencies. He'll be subscribed to at least one, maybe multiple subscription services, he'll happily use social media and upload all of his information to the cloud, and he'll gravitate towards things that seem "rational" and use big words.

In fact, their social media use defines a lot about who they are, as they try to get the most likes on social media bragging about their life and viewing the lives of others who do the same.

Yet there is something big missing about their life, something that can be seen in their face. Something that can be seen the minute you strip away all the consumerist choices and realize, there's nothing else. Their lives are empty, hollow, and all about serving corporations, until they die, and this is seen in their empty insectoid stare that implies they're dead inside, giving them the name bugmen.

Ex: Did you see that bugman standing in line waiting for the new iPhone X?

(2) A homosexual who has contracted HIV.

[Image: 1511409467297.jpg]

[Image: 1511410265498.png]

[Image: 170112230349-paul-ryan-town-hall-dab-large-169.jpg]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Imperator Caesar Trump's post:
  • VoxClamantis

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)