The Biggest Trope in Education … “Indoctrination”

To those on the right and those on the left, I’m sorry if this offends you.

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe in the white-hot, let’s burn-the-schools-down word … “indoctrination.”

I’m sorry, but I don’t imagine educators the way some imagine the illuminati … like malicious figures sitting in dark chambers, systematically and intentionally plotting the mental downfall of second graders and college students.

Because the word “Indoctrination” — when used as an all-encompassing, let’s-raise-our-pitchforks word — is simply not true. Do singular people indoctrinate? Yes they do. Does indoctrination exist in isolation? It most defiantly does.[1] But when applied broadly and uncritically to education[2] — both by the right and the left — the word “indoctrination” is nothing more than Kool-Aid for the masses.

Finger Pointing from the Right

Let’s first understand what “indoctrination” actually is. Here’s three different definitions:

· the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.

· the process of repeating an idea or belief to someone until they accept it without criticism or question.

· teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs.

In a nutshell, “indoctrination” is 1) teaching someone, 2) to accept an idea, belief, or opinion, 3) without criticism or question. This, according to the tweet below, is exactly what’s happening in public schools:

This tweet reflects the view — typically from the right — that public schools have launched a systematic, wide-ranging, intentional campaign to 1) teach someone 2) to accept “secular” ideas, beliefs, or opinions 3) without criticism or question. But this is untrue, and I know this because my conservative, Christian wife has been teaching at a public school for nearly thirty years. And never once has she intentionally or consciously taught a student to accept any polarizing idea without question. Nor has she ever been required or mandated to do so.

The tweet above implies that my wife is part of some huge cabal, that her public-school curriculum is full of brainwashing, that student questioning is governed with draconian methods. Sorry to disappoint, but her assignment on robotics doesn’t contain any subterfuge or wokeism; her lesson on 3-D printing creates only keychains, not ideologies. She teaches nothing about critical race theory (it’s not part of the curriculum); nothing about gun control (though the kids might be aware with all the active-shooter drills); nothing about pronouns (the issue is there, but apparently, this group of parents, students, teachers, and administrators can — like adults — agree to disagree).

And before you toss out “libraries” as your source of indoctrination, you’ll need to prove the systematic and collusive use of any suspect books.[3] Because a book can’t indoctrinate if it simply sits on a shelf. Yes, it has the potential for indoctrination, but if left unopened, it’s merely paper and ink, lifeless and inanimate. Show me the public schools and their teachers — in bulk — who are directing students 1) toward specific books and 2) away from other books. Or maybe your argument is something weaker … that these books were strategically placed — among thousands of books — with the malicious hope that students might stumble upon them. You know … indoctrination by chance or ideology through chaos.

Finger Pointing from the Right

But indoctrination — as a broad, thoughtless accusation — doesn’t live solely on the right; it’s a darling of the left too. I should know because professionally (compared to my wife), I sit on the opposite side of the educational fence … I work at a conservative, Christian university.

There’s a narrow-minded perception out there that Christian universities indoctrinate. Speaking from my own personal experience, this is simply untrue.[4] It’s wishful thinking from an anti-Christian perspective … a typically left perspective.

At my Christian university, there’s no book ban … students are free to read whatever they want to read. There’s no political straightjacket … students are free to join the Young Republicans or the Young Democrats (both clubs are active on campus). There’s no force-feeding of ideology … sure, ideas are presented — like ANY university in America — but — like ANY university in America — students are free to accept what they hear in part, in whole, or not at all. From these students, I’ve witnessed both criticism and questioning — the expression of free will — far from the liberal myth that Christian students are nothing more than spoon-fed, indoctrinated, Republican robots.

As a Christian university, there’s an honor code on campus — one that excludes drinking, sex, and dishonesty. I wouldn’t call this “indoctrination”; it’s more a requirement of attendance, freely accepted but still open to criticism or question. Living by rules and accepting those rules doesn’t mean you’ve been indoctrinated by those rules. Regardless, the person who calls this “indoctrination” conveniently ignores the rules on other college campuses. Consider the student rules from Stanford:

· Actions that have been found to be in violation of the Fundamental Standard include alcohol- and drug-related violations, including driving under the influence. (i.e., drinking)

· Conduct that have been regarded as being in violation of the Honor Code include representing as one’s own work the work of another. (i.e., honesty)

· Sexual or romantic relationships — whether regarded as consensual or otherwise — between individuals in inherently unequal positions should in general be avoided and in many circumstances are strictly prohibited by this policy. (i.e, sex)

The Stanford defender might argue that “some” rules are always needed and that the aforementioned rules reflect a general consensus of society … i.e., everyone agrees upon these rules, their reach, and their applicability. But this hypocrisy is actually a form of closemindedness. That Stanford’s rules are somehow better — and more acceptable — than the rules of a Christian university is an assertion lazily made. It assumes — without proof — that Stanford’s stamp-of-approval is superior, that its choices are above reproach. This is — what some would call — elitism.

Painting with a Broad Brush

Neither the public school nor the Christian university is a flawless system … that’s not what I’m saying. Because perfection is unattainable … all institutions have warts. What I am saying is that critics of these institutions think uncritically when they paint with a broad brush. At the very least, it’s lazy to lump everything into a single pot — i.e., “indoctrination” — without acknowledging the truth …. that every single educator and every single administration and every single student isn’t mindlessly and actively participating in ideological collusiveness.

At the very worst, to label broadly and indiscriminately is the truer form of indoctrination. The critic becomes the indoctrinator because his or her opinion is purposefully unmovable … if everyone “indoctrinates,” then any criticism, question, or rebuttal simply cannot exist. If one-size-fits-all, then everyone’s the enemy, which is a good strategy if you’re trying to force feed viewpoints and suppress dissent. “The indoctrination is,” as Noam Chomsky said, “so deep that educated people think they’re being objective.”

[1] In an educational system, are there rogue actors who intentionally push their personal agendas? Most definitely, the same for any church, corporation, or government entity. But individual actions don’t always reflect everyone’s efforts. It’s lazy thinking to define a school system or college campus by a few bad apples. In fact, it’s indoctrination to think this way, to label broadly and indiscriminately. If everything is swept up in the “indoctrinating” problem, then there can be no room to prove otherwise. A vacuum is formed in which criticism, questioning, and objectivity have no place to gain their footing.

[2] There’s also a vast gulf between dumb decisions and indoctrination. Admittedly, some administrators and teachers make dumb decisions, but dumb decisions don’t automatically amount to indoctrination. A one-off, dumb decision doesn’t arise to the level of a systematic, campus-wide agenda to indoctrinate.

[3] Don’t confuse choice with indoctrination. Choices on a bookshelf — without indoctrinating intent — are merely options, even if you don’t like those options. This is why the removal of options — i.e., “censorship” — is more akin to indoctrination. Because it’s the targeted, intentional removal of ideas, beliefs, or opinion with the intent to dampen questions or eliminate criticism.

[4] Of course, I can’t speak for every conservative and/or Christian university, but I don’t need to. Some very well might indoctrinate, but even if some do — and this is the point — some don’t. The all-encompassing, everyone’s-doing-it word — “indoctrination” — is a lazy catch-all, one that brands indiscriminately and dishonestly.