Education: Fusilier

(3 of 9)

Adler revolted against this universe. He reasserted the old-fashioned belief that ideals like freedom and democracy are not mere regional preferences, but demonstrably good; that man has will and reason with which to distinguish between good & evil. He felt that organized U.S. education, dominated by the pragmatists, was "one of the largest rackets in this country," turning out students "chaotically informed and viciously indoctrinated with the local prejudices of professors and their textbooks." Most U.S. college graduates, says Adler, can neither read, write nor think properly. They are not being taught how to lead a good life (the aim of all liberal education), but merely how to make a good living. Education merely for specific jobs, cries Adler, "is the training of slaves."

What to do about it? Adler, Hutchins and a band of dedicated fellow guerrillas —notably Stringfellow Barr, former president of St. John's College, Scott Buchanan, former dean of St. John's, and Mark Van Doren, English professor at Columbia—have answered long & loud: make U.S. education truly liberal. That means, according to Adler, that 1) American college professors must commit academic hara-kiri by giving up their specialized fields; they should be able to teach anything in the liberal arts; 2) the scientific method should stick to science, and leave to philosophy the job of determining matters of right & wrong; 3) all Americans should get the same kind of liberal education till they take their A.B. (from two to four years earlier than at present) and specialize later.

Whether such a program can be put into practice in 20th century America is a question. In the U.S. of the 18th century, liberal education was the privilege of the few. But when all U.S. men & women got the vote, and unprecedented amounts of wealth and leisure, the situation was changed. The problem at the heart of the educational controversy which has been raging for half a century in the U.S. is simply: how to educate the freed citizen for a free life.

Tide Turning? The first U.S. answer, helped along by John Dewey, was free colleges and the elective system, with heavy emphasis on "useful" subjects like science. Most U.S. educators today agree that the elective system leads generally to an aimless nibbling at knowledge, or to excessive specialization. But there is bitter disagreement as to what should be done. Most Deweyites insist that 20th century students must combine the liberal arts with "useful" studies, and that the learning of the past must be "reconstructed" to fit present needs. Adler feels that this view has led to totally inadequate half measures, i.e., digested "survey" courses in the humanities. But there are signs that the great battle—variously expressed as Humanists v. Pragmatists, Thomists V. Positivists,* Adler v. the rest of U.S. education —is slowly beginning to turn.