Indoctrinate This
“Education is not merely neglected in many of our schools today, but it is replaced to a great extent by indoctrination.” (Thomas Sowell)
If I understand it correctly, Thomas Sowell is a bit of a darling on the political right in the US right now. Whether the idea originates with Sowell, or whether he just amplifies it, the fear that schools and colleges have become a place of indoctrination is widespread. To wit:
Ron DeSantis: “Following woke indoctrination in our schools, that is a road to ruin for this country.”
Donald Trump: “The left-wing rioting and mayhem are the direct result of decades of left-wing indoctrination in our schools.”
Ben Shapiro: “The higher education system indoctrinates America’s youth.”
Candace Owens: “This is why I say to parents over and over and over again, the time is now. Remove your children from these indoctrination camps. They are not learning to be smart. They’re not focused on hard academics. They are being brainwashed and systematically controlled.”
Laura Ingraham: “From teachers unions [sic] to gender activists, to Biden’s vaccine pushers, we’re seeing a concerted effort backed by some of the biggest financial interests out there to indoctrinate our children into a dark mindset of anti-Americanism.”
Jordan Peterson: Dangerous people are indoctrinating your children at university. The appalling ideology of Diversity, Inclusion and Equity is demolishing education. They are indoctrinating young minds across the West with their resentment-laden ideology. Wokeness has captured universities.”
Ann Coulter: “Should teachers and college professors who indoctrinate students to believe that all whites are guilty of ‘systemic racism’ keep their jobs?”
Charlie Kirk: “Angry indoctrinated college women will ruin America if we let them.”
The memo certainly seems to have gone out.
But just what is “indoctrination” and how does it differ from “education?” Well, the short answer is, it depends on whether you agree with it, or not.
But as for the long answer, that’ll take, well, longer.
Let’s begin at the root of things. Let’s look at the root, or etymology, of the two words.
According to that long-standing stalwart of foundational meaning, The Oxford English Dictionary, “to educate” derives from from classical Latin, and it can mean either “to bring up” as in animals or children, or “to lead.” The noun “education” also has a number of distinct meanings. It can include activities such as raising silkworms and raising animals. It can also include imparting manner and morals. So, when someone calls another person “mal-educated,” they mean to say that the person has bad manners or bad morals. However, more directly to our question, the OED says education is:
The systematic instruction, teaching, or training in various academic and non-academic subjects given to or received by a child, typically at a school; the course of scholastic instruction a person receives in his or her lifetime.
On the other hand, according to the OED, “to indoctrinate” has five meanings. They include “to imbue with meaning,” “to teach,” and “to instruct in a subject.” Each of those sound like synonyms for “to educate.” However, “indoctrinate” can also mean “to imbue with a doctrine, idea, or opinion.” Finally, the OED offers a “rare” usage of “to inculcate.” Consequently, “indoctrination” signifies “Instruction, formal teaching” as well as a “specialized” meaning of “brainwashing.”
The primary difference between the two is dialog. Indoctrination, in the latter meaning, contains the sense that the education is a one-way street. The object of the brainwashing has little or no say in the activity. They cannot refuse. They cannot resist. They cannot engage in dialog. The information is imposed upon them.
So, is that what’s happening in schools and colleges today?
It’s true that every child in the US is required to attend school (barring some exemption). Indeed, they have little choice in the matter. And bear in mind that that came about almost entirely because businesses wanted an educated workforce. The liberal arguments about quality of life and equity of access did not prevail. The conservative arguments about maximizing profits won those arguments.
The level of “inculcation” depends, too, on the discipline. For example, I don’t recall much dialog in a math class or an algebra class. The teacher or professor presented the information, and we did not get to discuss whether we thought it was correct, or not. We accepted that 2+2=4, and that a2+b2=c2. Similarly, we didn’t argue much about the periodization of history, about kinds of rocks, about the order of the US presidents. And so on. In fact, we didn’t argue about much of anything. We were much more likely then to be required to learn by rote.
Today, rote learning is pretty much gone from the US education system. However, rote learning seems much more aligned with indoctrination than whatever is happening today. Ironically, I hear some conservatives calling for a return to it. Rote learning has been replaced by discussions, by Socratic dialog, by small groups discussions. All of those contemporary methods reject the idea that knowledge is compelled from above. Critical learning encourages active participation in the learning process.
But I suspect that that’s not what they’re referring to above, either.
No, they’re referring to History classes that no longer offer the traditional narratives about US history. I think it’s hardly controversial to say that history is written by the winners. And, as such, it’s hardly controversial to say that that history written by the winners would contain biases. That version of history is not objective. It tends to make the victors seem more righteous. It makes the losers seem deserving and unworthy.
Today, historians of all races, ethnicities, sexualities, and backgrounds are looking back at the documents of the past and trying to offer a less biased and more accurate vision of of past. Will it be purely objective? Certainly not. Will it be closer to the truth of whatever happened? One hopes so. But fact that historians of color are now participating in the discipline of history means that a new set of eyes are on the past. It means that people who had been on the losing side of history now offer a corrective. But the notion that looking critically at the past and developing a new understanding of it is a far cry from saying that every student must now hate the US.
Surely, we can say we made mistakes in the past and that is not the same as saying “I hate it.”
So, does the act of asking students to re-imagine that history constitute “un-American” activities? Does that new understanding of history make the students hate the US? Does it constitute indoctrination? It might. It might not.
Apart from History, those named above tend to take exception to fields of study such as African American Studies or Women’s and Gender Studies. They argue that these “studies” are not legitimate fields of inquiry. They argue that they are exercises in indoctrination. And yet, it cannot be controversial to say that history and literature courses of the first 200 years of our existence were biased. It is hardly a shock to say that they left out or suppressed the contributions of many groups of people — African Americans, women, LGBTQ+, etc. Simultaneously, we know that individuals from those groups made vital contributions to our history and to our culture. If they have not been included in “History” and “Literature,” then why not in African American Studies and Women’s and Gender Studies? They, again, serve as correctives.
Now, as you saw in the quotes above, critics suggest that reading a slave narrative, or an autobiography from one of these groups is tantamount to compelling hate.
I cannot speak for every college professor. I know how I run my classroom. I know how I design my assignments and tests. I assign texts that look critically at the past. We discuss those texts. I ask them whether they agree or do not. I ask them to engage in a conversation with the text, with their classmates, and with me. And then I ask them if they understand what the author of the text said. Not whether it was right or nwrong. Not whether they agree or not. I expressly tell them that they are free to disagree with an author 100%. However, they have to be able to explain what the author was arguing in order to disagree with it.
In fact, I would argue that these professors and these courses are fundamentally American. It has always been the bedrock of US politics that disagreement is good. It has been foundational that citizens push the government and corporations to do better. It is fundamentally patriotic to ask our education system to do better for ALL citizens and residents. Nothing is more patriotic than trying to live up to the potential of the US.
And on the other hand, I would argue that what the above-named celebrities and politicians suggest is closer to the actual definition of “indoctrination.” They have explicitly said that they want students to learn that they “live in the greatest country on Earth.” Well, is that open to debate? Do they have any say in that? Can they push back? Is there a dialog? Or is it simply a “fact” that they have to learn by rote? That seems doctrinaire. They would like students to learn that slavery wasn’t all that bad, that the slaves learned skills that helped them post-emancipation. Is that presented as a categorical fact? Is it offered as opinion? Can students challenge that idea? Or do they have to regurgitate on an exam?
No, by definition, those are examples of indoctrination. They are requiring the students to internalize a particular doctrine.
I know that it will make little difference to offer counter examples. I know that the “indoctrination” talking points score big with the intended demographics and voter blocks.
Maybe if the voters had taken a few more classes that asked them to critically engage with ideas, they might be able to see through the rhetoric.
Ritch Calvin is an Associate Professor of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at SUNY Stony Brook. He is the author of Queering SF: Readings, Feminist Epistemology and Feminist Science Fiction (Palgrave McMillan) and edited a collection of essays on Gilmore Girls (McFarland). His most recent book is Queering SF: Readings (Aqueduct Press).
