UMI MICROFILMED 1989 INFORMATION TO USERS The most advanced technology has been used to photo- graph and reproduce this manuscript from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of th is reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright m aterial had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are re- produced by sectioning the original, beginning a t the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections w ith small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. These are also available as one exposure on a standard 35mm slide or as a 17" x 23" black a n d white photographic p rin t for an additional charge. Photographs included in th e original m anuscript have been reproduced xerographically in th is copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and w hite photographic p rin ts are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. University Microfilms International A B ell & Howell Information C om pany 300 North Z e e b Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 -1346 USA 313/761-4700 800 /521 -

Order Number 8923974 A m ericanism versus Communism: The institutionalization o f an ideology Horne, Jeremy, Ph.D. University of Florida, 1988 Copyright © 1988 by Horne, Jerem y. All rights reserved. UM-I 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI

AMERICANISM VERSUS COMMUNISM: THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF AN IDEOLOGY By JEREMY HORNE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1988 Copyright 1988 by Jeremy Horne To Jackie You brought me good luck and evidence for my contentions. You surely remember this quote: "You hire someone because you will earn more from his labor than you will pay him in wages." ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My initial thanks for helping make this dissertation possible are to the chairperson of my committee, Richard P. Haynes. Besides patiently going over the numerous revisions of the manuscript, he greatly assisted as graduate coordinator in getting me admitted to the department and procuring my teaching assistantship. I am deeply indebted to Donald C. Hodges under whom I have studied since 1976. His deep insight has been invaluable in guiding me through one of the most valuable political philosophy programs I think a person can experience. Don is one of the few individuals who know the nature of the trail I have had to follow in obtaining my Ph.D. In particular, I appreciate his picking up where others left off in seeing this dissertation through. Ellen Haring patiently read the manuscript and contributed her valuable time and advice about the form of presentation. Robert D'Amico's persistent warnings about objectivity and philosophical relevance helped keep the project on an even keel. Norman Markel and I had many conversations about labor politics and social theory, and much of his valuable counsel has been incorporated herein. Sam Andrews contributed many helpful hints on sources and to him I am grateful. Although Robert Baum did not contribute directly to this work, he gave me continued moral support and valuable assistance in my professional development in coaching me in my responsibilities as teaching assistant in logic. Of course, other departmental members helped enormously. Here, in Arizona, Perlita Gauthier took her valuable time in editing this manuscript, Sandi Reynolds typed the final draft, and my friend Dan Purcell helped me print the final copy. Without their assistance many last minute deadlines would not have been met. My companion, Jacqueline Olan, put up with my grouchiness, had the patience to stand by me during numerous wretched moments, and provided the biggest motivation of all. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................... iv ABSTRACT.................................................viii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION.......................................1 TWO THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S D.O.E. PROGRAM: A CASE STUDY............................................ 7 The Americanism versus Communism A c t ............. 7 The Free Enterprise and Consumer Education Act....13 What Social Studies Texts Teach................... 18 THREE HOW FLORIDA'S D.O.E. PROGRAM IS ADMINISTERED..27 How the State Administers the D.O.E. Program...... 27 How Businesses Implement the D.O.E. Program....... 30 FOUR WHY THE D.O.E. PROGRAM IS IDEOLOGICAL..........37 The Issue of Ideology.................................37 How the D.O.E. Defines Ideology..................... 39 What Mainstream Writers Say About Ideology........ 42 FIVE THE D.O.E.'S DEBT TO CONSERVATIVE PHILOSOPHY..49 Niemeyer's Philosophy.................................49 Classical Foundations of the D.O.E. Ideology...... 58 The Authoritarian Basis of the D.O.E. Program..... 65 The Role of Religion and Faith in the D.O.E. Ideology............................. 70 How Freedom and Liberty Shape the D.O.E. Ideology.73 Critical Thinking As A Part of the D.O.E. Program.76 SIX THE D.O.E. IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL REALITY 86 How Students Are Told They Must Act in the Workplace ..8 6 Business Values Underlying the Curriculum......... 93 What the Business Values Mean....................... 97 SEVEN THE D.O.E. PROGRAM AND PHILOSOPHY............103 What Constitutes Reasoning and Critical Thinking.103 What Logic Is.............. 114 What It Means To Think Philosophically............118 EIGHT HOW THE D.O.E. PRESENTS ITS COURSES......... 122 The D.O.E. System of Logic......................... 122 The D.O.E. 's Deductive Methodology................ 130 Other Logical Approaches........................... 137 Criteria For Analyzing Social Systems.............141 NINE ALTERNATIVES TO THE D.O.E. PROGRAM............144 Why Change Is Needed................................ 144 Alternative Cold War Education Programs...........148 What A Cold War Education Program Must Address... 153 The California Program..............................156 APPENDICES A THE AMERICANISM VERSUS COMMUNISM ACT..........162 B THE FREE ENTERPRISE AND CONSUMER EDUCATION ACT................................. 164 WORKS CITED................................ ...........166 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 174 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy AMERICANISM VERSUS COMMUNISM: THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF AN IDEOLOGY by Jeremy Horne December, 1988 Chairman: Richard P. Haynes Major Department: Philosophy In order to graduate, Florida's high school students by law must learn that Communism is evil, dangerous, and fallacious. All students must learn that the U.S. produces the highest standard of living and the most freedom than any other economic system on earth. State universities in Florida are creating a curriculum to implement the Americanism versus Communism Act (A.V.C.) of 1961 and the Free Enterprise and Consumer Education Act (F.E.C.E.A.) of 1975. The Florida Department of Education says that ideology, noncritical thinking, is superior to viii critical thinking and that the superiority of the U.S. political economy and the dignity of the individual rest in part on peoples' being able to express themselves freely. Florida's A.V.C. and F.E.C.E.A. proponents have a special way of convincing audiences that they will develop loyalty while at the same time imposing a set of ideas not open to question. This work argues that, intentionally or not, Florida's legislature and Department of Education have set up an official ideology and the mechanism to purvey it. This ideological approach defeats the aim of comparing systems objectively. While the stated aim is to promote critical thinking, the D.O.E.'s special philosophy underscoring words like "democracy" results in indoctrinating students with a questionable description of the U.S. system. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION In order to graduate, Florida's high school students by law must be "informed as to the evils, dangers and fallacies of Communism" and understand that "the free-enterprise-competitive economy" is the one system that "produces higher wages, higher standards of living, greater personal freedom and liberty than any other system of economics on earth" (Florida Revised Statutes 233.064). This means giving the answers mandated by law and wanted by the Department of Education (D.O.E.), even though the U.S. system is continually being debated in public forums and election campaigns. Teachers, says the legislature, are not to "present Communism as preferable" to the U.S. "freeenterprise -competitive economy." To meet what the legislators see as the "challenge" of communism's "manipulation of youth and student groups" Florida's Department of Education (D.O.E.) has an ongoing curriculum mandated by the Americanism vs. Communism Act (A.V.C.) and the Free Enterprise and Consumer Education Act (F.E.C.E.A.) (collectively referred to herein as 1 2 "program"). This program, in which the answers to questions of relative value are dictated by the teaching materials, is implicitly justified by the need to combat ideology- specifically communism (233.064). Communism, says the D.O.E., "is an ideology," and ideology is "a system of ideas . . . which its adherents do not consider open to question or criticism" (Florida State 19-20). "The Communist Party's aim is to conquer the world . . . ," and that party's ideology "provides the communist with a false belief of reality" Florida State 34). To combat these "evils, dangers and fallacies of Communism" the legislature wants teachers to "instill in the minds of students a greater appreciation of democratic processes," and that means teaching students the opposite of ideology, that is, philosophy. Ideology, says the D.O.E., is noncritical thinking, and philosophy is critical thinking (Florida State 18). The D.O.E. claims that the superiority of the U.S. political economy and the dignity of the individual rest in part on peoples' being able to express themselves freely in a critical manner. Both the D.O.E. and the legislature have said much on the relationship between the dignity of the individual and free speech. 3 Florida's legislature tells the D.O.E. to take as one of the guides for instructional material the "official reports of the [defunct] House Committee on Un-American Activities . . . " (also known by its more pronounceable acronym, "H.U.A.C."). The H.U.A.C. issued a statement "Americanism Defined," and that is referred to in the D.O.E. curriculum guide on the A.V.C. Act (Florida State 65). That statement says a person's inalienable rights include the freedom of speech and press, and the D.O.E. reinforces this by averring that individual dignity and worth is possible "only when individuals are given free access to all different competing viewpoints" (4, 65). Legislators wanted the program to counter "communism" and Marxism for the isms' dogmatic approach to thinking. Gerhart Niemeyer, chief consultant for the A.V.C. program, wrote several works accusing Marxists of being ideological. Both the legislature and the D.O.E. detest communism and Marxism, claiming that the "isms" do not promote critical thinking. "The proper study of communism," says the D.O.E. "is similar to that of a scientist who examines the poison in order to offset its evil effect." In teaching the A.V.C. curriculum, "it is suggested that a critical analytical approach be used" 4 in teaching about the "communist conspiracy" (Florida State 12). Students are urged by the D.O.E. to think critically as dignified individuals, even though they are expected to believe a social doctrine before they see it demonstrated as best in comparison with others. Florida's A.V.C. and F.E.C.E.A. proponents have a special way of convincing audiences of the program's benefits while at the same time imposing a set of ideas not open to question. The legislature warns of communism's "false doctrines" and "manipulation of youth" (Statutes, 233.064), and the D.O.E. says that "double-talk" has been used as "a prominent communist deceptive device to fool non-communists" (Florida State 19). If students follow the guidance of legislators, it is argued that communism will be less able to take over the world by deceit and force. Programs similar to that of Florida's are widespread, many are established by law, and present fundamental problems on how to promote critical thinking. Besides the nationwide implications of Florida's attempt to suppress any challenge to capitalism, the Florida program needs also to be examined in the light of the continuing effort to promote critical thinking in the schools. 5 This work argues that, intentionally or not, Florida's legislature and Department of Education have set up an official ideology and the mechanism to purvey it. This ideological approach defeats the aim of comparing systems objectively. While the stated aim is to promote critical thinking, the D.O.E.'s special philosophy of underscoring words like "democracy" results in indoctrinating students with a questionable description of the U.S. system. The ostensible D.O.E. objective of critical thinking becomes transformed under the influence of the philosophy of Gerhart Niemeyer and like-minded conservatives shaping the program. Both the A.V.C. and F.E.C.E.A. are products of a cold war philosophy that pits the U.S. system against others. Private businesses are advocates of the D.O.E. program, and numerous statements by "free enterprise" supporters demonstrate that the D.O.E. program serves more the interests of its sponsors than the ideal of teaching students to be open-minded. Materials used to orient students to the workplace reinforce the values of the program's sponsors. Rather than promoting critical thinking, it is a program serving the interests of those who seem to 6 believe that the average individual cannot think critically. It will be shown why the current curriculum does not accomplish the D.O.E.'s stated objective of teaching students to think critically. Clarifying the meaning of critical thinking will help in designing a program to meet that objective. The second part of this work evaluates the D.O.E. program according to generally accepted standards for critical thinking and suggests the California model curriculum as a type of alternative program. CHAPTER TWO THE STATE OF FLORIDA'S D.O.E. PROGRAM: A CASE STUDY The Americanism versus Communism Act Americanism versus communism debates in the U.S. go back to the 1870s when Birdsey Grant Northrop of the Connecticut State Board of Education wrote an essay called "Schools and Communism." He deplored "communism" and assured persons that the public schools were teaching students to be loyal to the U.S., and children would not be turned into Communists (Fraser 355). Since the Bolsheviks took power in Russia in 1917, anti- communist hysteria has surfaced numerous times in the U.S., evidenced by the 1920's Red Scare, the loyalty oath and internal security acts of the late 1940s, President Truman's 12 March 1947 containment-ofcommunism speech, and the McCarthy period. After the Korean War, Florida's anti-communist activists began formulating their programs (Florida State iii-vi). Florida Bar Association members in 1955 went to schools and delivered a lecture, "The Meaning of Communism," published and issued jointly by the Bar and 7 8 the Florida State Department of Education (D.O.E.)* So popular was this tract that it received national acclaim and endorsement by many influential conservative organizations, such as Freedoms Foundation. Pressure mounted from both the Florida public and from government officials to create a public high school course composed of similar materials, and in the ensuing years, the D.O.E. proposed such a curriculum to the legislature (Florida State iii). The course material was taken principally from the hearings and publications of the old House Committee on Un-American Activities (also known by its more pronounceable acronym, "H.U.A.C.") and Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (S.I.S.C.) and their supporters. The major thrust of the political orientation course proposed to the legislature was anti-communist, and the course name, "Americanism versus Communism," suggests that the instructors should contrast the two systems rather than compare them. To meet what the legislators described as a challenge of the Communist "exploitation and manipulation of youth and student groups," the course was to "instill in the minds of students" not only the "evils, danger and fallacies of communism" but "a greater appreciation of democratic processes, freedom 9 under law, and the will to preserve that freedom" (Florida Statutes 233.064{1)(b) and 3). Cold war schooling became official when the Florida State Legislature acted upon the D.O.E.'s proposal and passed the "Americanism versus Communism Act of 1961." A program advisory committee, composed of legislators, private citizens, and educators first met in October 1961 to put together the Americanism versus Communism curriculum, and by January of the following year, both the course content and the methods were ready to be approved by the D.O.E. and the state legislature. Ever since it was first taught in Florida's public high schools in September, 1962, the Americanism versus Communism course (hereinafter referred to as A.V.C.) has been a required course for graduation. The statute establishes the guidelines while the D.O.E. selects texts and other materials "as provided by state law" (233.064(6)). The law says that "The free enterprise competitive economy of the United States" is the economy "which produces higher wages, higher standards of living, greater personal freedom, and liberty than any other system of economics on earth" (Florida Revised Statutes 233.064(4)). In its Resource Unit handbook the D.O.E. 10 suggests students refer for a definition of Americanism to the H.U.A.C.'s statement "Americanism Defined." Americanism, says H.U.A.C., means that the "Inherent and fundamental rights of man are derived from God and not from any other source," as was stated in the Declaration of Independence. Second, the inherent or unalienable rights include freedom of worship, speech, press, assemblage, and right to work according to one's qualifications. As another right, one should enjoy the fruits of work, including property and the pursuit of happiness, as long as such activity does not prevent others from doing the same. Third, the structure of the U.S. government is based upon these principles. Fourth, law and order must be maintained to preserve these rights. Fifth, the government is the servant of the people, and a checks-and-balances system is necessary to control government power. Sixth, majority rule is far less important than minority rights. Finally, the statement accredits Americanist principles to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (Florida State 65). As to teaching methods, the statute said that "No teacher or textual material assigned to the course shall present Communism as preferable to the system of 11 constitutional government and the free-enterprise competitive economy indigenous to the United States" (Florida Revised Statutes 233.064(7)). The D.O.E. course handbook, A Resource Unit, AMERICANISM VERSUS COMMUNISM says course "materials should be used only to demonstrate the evils, fallacies, and contradictions of communism," those materials coming from the H.U.A.C. or S.I.S.C. lists or from avowed anti-communists (Florida State 68). The teachers were not to teach the course "unless informed about the nature of communism," and those teachers feeling inadequately informed about communism, or unfamiliar with the course, its goals and content "should not attempt to teach it without first obtaining additional preparation" (Florida State vi). For example, a number of attempts to repeal the A.V.C. law have failed. On 4 June 1982, B. Frank Brown, program manager of the prestigious Charles S. Kettering Foundation and chairman of the Governor's Commission on Secondary Schools, sent a report to Governor Robert Graham recommending "the repeal of the requirement of a 30-hour course in Americanism vs. Communism." Brown and five members of the Florida legislature, the superintendent of the Monroe County Schools, a member of the State Board of Education, and four others from 12 educational establishments sat on the commission. They said that the A.V.C. course was hard to implement, and legislative requirements should pertain only to "major academic subjects" (Governor's XIII). The 1983 legislature ignored the report, and by an 89 to 26 vote, the A.V.C. law was sustained. These failures suggest that the A.V.C. program still has enough support to keep it alive. The most recent stronghold of backing has been southern Florida, home of many Cuban exiles, who generally are militantly anti-Communist (Skene). However, as of Spring 1988, the original 1961 law was still on the books, and in order to graduate, high school students need to take "a comparative study of the history, doctrines, and objectives of all major political systems in fulfillment of the requirements of 233.064," the original A.V.C. Act (Florida Statutes 232.246(1)(b)(5)). Teachers still have to use an antiquated bibliography from which to draw materials to instill in the minds of students the "evils" and "fallacies" of communism, indicating that academic interest in composing a new bibliography is declining. 13 The Free Enterprise and Consumer Education Act Another indoctrination program was instituted in 1975. Originally intended as a replacement for A.V.C., the Free Enterprise and Consumer Education Act (F.E.C.E.A.) now complements the A.V.C. by emphasizing economics (Florida Statutes 233.0641). As early as March 1963, the social studies consultant for the D.O.E. noted that new accreditation standards placed the responsibility for economic education upon the teachers and schools. Such a program would involve "The curriculum from K-12," and it assumed that students did not understand the philosophy and structure of the "free enterprise" economy to which the A.V.C. referred (Kastner 33). The law states , "The free enterprise or competitive economic system exists as the prevailing economic system in the United States . . ." and "The public schools shall each conduct a free enterprise and consumer education program in which each student shall participate" (Florida Statutes 233.0641(2)). The law states that the course must include information about day-by-day consumer activities, such as banking, advertising, insurance, and "an orientation in other 14 economic systems." With respect to what is expected of individuals, students learn what is and what is not suitable economic behavior through instruction at each grade level. Students are instilled with a doctrine before graduation, and an organizational apparatus exists to carry out the indoctrination program. According to the statute, the D.O.E. instructs personnel in the F.E.C.E.A.'s administration and involves other academic disciplines as well as private governmental organizations related to consumer education. The Commissioner of Education makes reports to the legislature about the program with recommended ways of gauging the curriculum's success. The D.O.E. gives reports "as to the effectiveness as shown by performance-based tests, efficiency, and utilization of resources" (Florida Statutes 233.0641(5)). Some 89 objectives are to be accomplished by the Free Enterprise course. For example, students "will identify elements of the American economic system to include: freedom, opportunity, justice, efficiency, growth, and security." They must remember a number of specific definitions, such as "production [is] the creation of goods or services" (Goddard, Carr, and Randall, CH-310, 72-73). 15 Students graduating from high school must have attained these objectives. For assistance in assembling the large F.E.C.E.A. curriculum, the D.O.E. called upon the Florida Council on Economic Education (F.C.E.E.), consisting of government and business personnel and one union representative. In turn, the F.C.E.E. board affiliated with university centers for economic education to create the curriculum (Florida Council, Annual Report). A description of the course content can best be obtained from materials prepared by the Center for Economic Education (C.E.E.), an organization co- sponsored by the College of Business Administration and the College of Education at the University of Florida. Although seven other universities prepare F.E.C.E.A. materials, the University of Florida is the only university creating a comprehensive economic orientation program (C.E.E. flier). University Centers may emphasize parts of the free enterprise program differently, but all 89 objectives have to be met by the schools. The C.E.E. groups the 89 objectives under 22 headings. Subjects include comparative economic systems, economic principles, organizations, and consumer behavior. Other topics are public and private property 16 distribution, basic economic laws, economic institutions such as banks, and consumer habits. More topics are labor unions, governments, private entities, technology, energy, and ethics. Four text/workbooks prepared by the C.E.E. represent the kinds of material being taught at all grade levels. Among the first principles that grade school children must learn is the distinction between public and private property. "Private property" is that "which is owned by an individual or a group of individuals," while "public property" is property "owned by everyone and which should be used according to certain rules (Goddard, Carr, and Randall, CE-102, 2). In giving the impression that private property is sacrosanct, second graders are not taught that private property might have to be heavily regulated and that productive property should be used according to what is deemed desirable for society as a whole. Private property and private ownership of the means of production are treated as preferred institutions, while governmental functions primarily center about protecting property. The workbook on property tells a story about several people being robbed of their property and the need for the police. 17 For the second grader, the excuse for taxes is to pay the police, whose major function is to preserve private property. The first impression that these very young children have of what a society should be is not that of a collective and cooperative entity, but a collection of individuals who use a strong-arm agency to protect their selfish interests. Although the grade two booklet later describes other governmental functions, the students initially are taught that private property is the primary institution around which governments and society revolve (Goddard et al., CE-102, 1). In Middle School (grades 7 through 9) students continue work with concepts relevant to a small pre- industrial economy. Everyone presumably is on an equal footing, and one's rationally calculated actions will have the desired and gainful results of hard work, competition, thrift, and inventiveness. Land, labor, capital, combined with management enables a businessperson to thrive, the principal reward being profit, "the reward for taking risk in business" (Goddard et al., CM-202, 21). High school students encounter a somewhat more sophisticated model of the U.S. economy. Social problems, such as unemployment and monopolies, temper 18 the ideal economy presented in grammar school, although students are still taught that the U.S. economy is "free enterprise" and that it is the vastly superior political economy (Goddard et al., CH-310, 33). The D.O.E. offers students arguments that the system has corrective mechanisms to solve the major problems, and materials remind them constantly that the "individual freedom of choice is a central element of the American Free Enterprise System" (Goddard et al., CH-310, 13). Individuals theoretically may choose the goods they buy, the place and type of work they do, and the type of business they want to operate. Attendant problems, such as fraud, harmful products, and unsafe working conditions are remedied by adequate regulatory mechanisms like government agencies and competition. Students are told that "we do not believe that any group of experts or legislators can better make decisions about what will enhance the quality of our life as well as we can" (Goddard et al., CH-310, 34). What Social Studies Texts Teach Two often used social studies texts, Our American Government and Political System by Wit and Dionisopolous, and McClenaghan's Ma g r u d e r 's American 19 Government, reflect the curricular content specified by the A.V.C. and Free Enterprise Acts. Fundamentals of the American Free Enterprise System by Hodgetts and Smart typifies a high school economics course. The political system, says Wit and Dionisopolous is " . . . the primary source of social control and collective action in the society in which it exists (20). Among a number of elements comprising the U.S. political economic systems are 1) popular sovereignty, where political decision-making ultimately rests with the whole population, 2) majority rule with a respect for minority rights, 3) the "rational man,1 who effects change through persuasion rather than force, 4) rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights and related documents, and 5) the need to keep the political/economic system intact (54-70). Wit and Dionisopolous say that natural law and ideology shape the system. Law is a code of behavior given to humanity by God (80). Ideology is "good" or "moral" principles (609). These two writers compare and contrast democracy with the Fascist, Nazi, and Communist "dictatorships." Against the latter three, the U.S. must struggle. While Wit and Dionisopolous do maintain that democracy has problems, they say corrective 20 processes, such as checks and balances, allow people to effect change. Dictatorships do not tolerate popular decision-making (562). Both Wit and Dionisopolous describe "Free Enterprise," as a system having the ". . . high degree of individual freedom desired by most Americans (562). They term the prevailing economic system in the U.S. "free enterprise" but qualify "free" by saying the government regulates businesses. Two principles undergirding "free enterprise" are private property ownership and freedom to own and operate a business. Three additional features are profit motive, free market, and limited government intervention (566). Whenever economic activity becomes harmful to others, then the government regulates. Though they say the system is flexible enough to deal with problems, the authors question whether the system provides adequate economic security and alleviates economic suffering (592). Wit and Dionisopolous indicate that the U.S. "free-market system" is impressive, most compatible with democratic values, and is much better than what workers encounter in "a communist nation" (571). In Magruder's American Government, McClenaghan recognizes the greater sophistication of his post-Viet21 Nam audience, and is interested in resolving problems within the system through techniques such as conflict resolution. Despite the absence of the 1950s' style rhetoric, none of the basic suppositions that Wit and Dionisopolous make about the system are challenged seriously. Compared to other text writers, such as Wit, McClenaghan supports his views with more emotional means, such as nationalism and religion. He starts much like Wit and Dionisopolous in outlining the purposes of political and economic systems. Social systems, of which the State is a major element, make human survival possible by making and enforcing laws (6). "Democracy" is the form of government where "supreme political authority rests with the people," and power is maintained only by popular consent (11). The chief features of a "democracy" are the concept of basic individual worth and dignity, equality of persons before the law, majority rule and minority rights, a need for compromise, and individual freedom as listed in the Bill of Rights. These characteristics of a "democracy" define the U.S. social system and it is a primary function of our government to keep it intact. Therefore, our government must not allow a "non-democratic" system to predominate. 22 McClenaghan continues on to say that democracy exists in this country because, as a people, we believe in the concepts upon which it is based. "It will continue to exist, and be improved in practice, only for so long as we continue to subscribe to--and practice-those concepts" (12). In other words, people must live a lifestyle incorporating what they believe to be democracy if the U.S. system is not to collapse. Part of that life includes combating external threats. He states that external threats to the system exist and are mainly posed by the U.S.S.R., but he suggests that internal problems are solvable and less threatening. External threats exist, posed mainly by the Soviet Union. Problems do occur within the U.S. system, but McClenaghan says that, unlike in the U.S.S.R., they are solvable within the system using democratic processes (14). He concedes that "free enterprise" as basically a private economy subsists only as a model system. The actuality is a mixed economy, one with major governmental intervention to smooth out business cycles and "curb abuses" (694-695). Because free enterprise " . . . provides a large segment of the population of the United States with one of the world's highest standards 23 of living,." McClenaghan says, "Most of the people of the United States believe that a well-regulated capitalistic system--one of free choice, individual incentive, private enterprise- is the best guarantee of the better life for everyone," and accentuates that the people's belief sustains the system, making it democratic (695, 17). Hodgetts and Smart, in Fundamentals of the American Free Enterprise System, says that "free enterprise" is characterized by private property, private enterprise, and freedom of choice. It rests upon the ideals cherished by many Americans, mainly ". . . democratic government, personal freedom and responsibility, respect for the law, and the dignity of the individual." The system ". . . i s based upon American customs, laws, and institutions, and "it is a basic part of American civilization and our way of life" (6). Processes maintaining it are popular subscription and goal oriented behavior in the form of production and growth. Hodgetts and Smart echo the claim made by other texts and the D.O.E. material that capitalism has its problems but still provides the best means of solving economic problems. 24 Few of the foregoing points made by the text writers are exceptional. It is in the implicit doctrines advocated indirectly by the D.O.E. that disturbing elements are to be found. While text writers do not stress that only a transcendental god is the author of rights, the D.O.E. suggests so when it refers students to the statement on Americanism (Florida State 65). Public ownership and/or control of the means of production should not be encouraged. Individuals and organizations should not promote actions designed to alter or replace the "free enterprise" system. Private nonproductive property must be preserved, as well as the private ownership of the means of production. Writers like McClenaghan say, "private enterprise is the best guarantee of the better life for everyone " (19), and the A.V.C. Act says that free enterprise is the best system on earth. Both text writers and the D.O.E. agree that under "free enterprise" individuals are afforded the rights and protection enumerated in the Bill of Rights and related law. This includes the right to dissent, minority rights, "dignity of the individual," and the right to choose when and where to work (Wit and 25 Dionisopolous 32, McClenaghan 12-16, Goddard et al., CH310 , 13, Florida Statutes 233.064). Because free enterprise produces the highest standard of living in the world, other systems (those not promoting the above elements) are to be discouraged from flourishing both nationally and worldwide. People like McClenaghan say it, and the legislature agrees (McClenaghan 19, Florida Statutes 233.064). The "dignity of the individual" hinges upon the U.S. system's viability. Writers like Wit and McClenaghan argue this, and the D.O.E. concurs (Wit and Dionisopolous 54-70, McClenaghan 12, Florida State 3-4). Both the D.O.E. curricular material and the social studies texts claim that the U.S. system is superior to communism because in the former, a person is encouraged to criticize the government, and in the latter people are told what to do. The U.S. reputedly is a free country, where one can live a relatively unrestricted lifestyle, but in the U.S.S.R. people supposedly have a grim life filled with trepidation (McClenaghan 702-709, Goddard et al., CH-310, 13-14, Florida State passim). Yet, Florida students must take a program which discourages the favorable consideration of noncapitalistic systems and non-Western religious views. 26 (Florida Statutes 233.09, 233.064). If maintaining the current D.O.E. program does not foster free expression and critical thinking, then whose interests are served? The next chapter answers this question. CHAPTER THREE HOW FLORIDA'S D.O.E. PROGRAM IS ADMINISTERED How The State Administers the D.O.E. Program m Public and private institutions comprise an elaborate structural apparatus to implement the D.O.E. course program. Included are the legislature, the D.O.E., the individual county school systems, and private organizations. Both the Americanism versus Communism (A.V.C.) and the Free Enterprise and Consumer Education (F.E.C.E.) Acts are administered through the government, but private organizations also help run the F.E.C.E. program (Florida Revised Statutes 233.0641 and 232.246). Some critics argue that a number of the private organizations form a corporate elite, "corporate Florida" (Mills 147-170, and Butcher passim). The Florida state legislature passes laws and has, through the budget, ultimate supervisory authority over the D.O.E. program. From the time the A.V.C. law was passed in 1961 to the present, the Florida legislature has been composed mainly of private employers, attorneys, and "educators." The majority of the workers in Florida and the families of students receiving the 27 28 the economic instruction of the A.V.C. belong neither to these groups nor to the formal civil service bureaucracy. There is no mechanism provided for evaluation of the program nor for inviting discussion by those persons most directly affected. The classroom teacher, normally the source of variable points of view on questions of value, is provided a curriculum by D.O.E. which has little latitude for the introduction of teacher commentary. (Morris 19 et s e g . , Bowles and Gintis 90, Florida Statistical Abstract 260 and 265). The school system bureaucracy merely implements what the legislature wants. Specific administrative measures, such as teacher contract enforcement, are enacted to carry out the laws (Florida Revised Statutes 231.09). Advisory committees and the Secretary of Education oversee the details of how the program will be effected. The D.O.E. oversees the implementation of the policies by the school districts. School districts may create their own curriculum, but the D.O.E. sends in auditors every five years to determine whether the intent of the law is being met. In addition, students take examinations to assess mastery of the A.V.C. and F.E.C.E. material (Florida Revised Statutes 232.246(2)). 29 There is a section in the 1983 Raise act called "Coordination of Vocational Education" assuring that vocational education would be part of the economic orientation (Florida Revised Statutes 232.246(14)). A bureaucratic apparatus consisting of regional coordinating councils is established to coordinate vocational training programs. Although the law stipulates that "outside" members of the coordinating councils will be composed of "bona fide trade and business organizations," the only control over the composition of the councils is the guarantee that at least one member shall be drawn from a "private industry council" (Florida Revised Statutes 232.246 ( 14)( 3)) . Nothing is mentioned about any member of a labor organization having to be on the council. The goals of the coordinating councils are to 1) "maximize effective student articulation" in vocational educational programs; 2) maintain effective connections with business and industry to meet the needs of the labor market; 3) coordinate governmental efforts at vocational education; 4) make vocational education costeffective . State resources are to be made available to the Council and state cooperation is expected (Florida Revised Statutes 232.246(15)). No objective deals with 30 any attempt to meet demands by students for particular training. How Businesses Implement the D.O.E. Program Chapter Two mentioned that the D.O.E. courses formed a part of a total political economic orientation program involving all students. Businesses promote the D.O.E. courses extensively, an unusual example of strong outside influence on classroom instruction, especially when the private aims of business can be affected by the result of the educational program. In 1948, the national office of the Joint Council, on Economic Education was formed by business leaders to disseminate information about the U.S. economy. It was supposed to present a "non-partisan" explanation of the economy. In turn, various state branches were established, philosophically akin to the national organization. A private organization, the Florida Council on Economic Education (F.C.E.E.) was established to work in conjunction with the D.O.E. to create the curriculum for the free enterprise program. Its objectives are "increasing the level of economic literacy in Florida as well as an appreciation for our American Economic System." The F.C.E.E. claims 31 that it wants to teach students "how to think, NOT what to think" while providing economic reasoning skills concerning "fundamental issues and problems," institutions, and major concepts needed for the "kind of economic knowledge a person needs in order to function as a citizen, worker, and consumer in the American Economic System" (F.C.E.E. Annual Report 3). An F.C.E.E. publication, "WHY? The Free Enterprise Development F und," tempers this ostensibly neutral objective by saying that free enterprise is being introduced in all of Florida's schools at all levels, "not as a separate subject, but as an integral part of basic disciplines ranging from reading and math to art and history," with the program being made "available to adults in every community." This program uses a total approach that every aspect of a student's life will be touched, from economics to history and even art. That is, "the impact of the Free Enterprise American Way in our state will continue in our educational system." The Florida Council says that "the American Free Enterprise System is not a theory, it is a way of life" ("Free Enterprise System" is capitalized in the original text)(Florida Council, Why?). 32 Persons and organizations not elected and unconnected with the school districts have achieved unusual control of the curriculum. That this power was given rather than sought does not change the power they hold. The F.C.E.E. gives mini-grants to school districts to help develop the free enterprise act curriculum, but the University of Florida has done most of the overall course program development, in conjunction with the grants, the Developmental Economic Education Program (D.E.E.P.) is, in F.C.E.E.'s words, "a K-12 curriculum project," giving materials and resources to school districts for course planning around the F.E.C.E. Act. Such includes teacher training programs, a library of materials, and consultant time (F.C.E.E. Annual Report, 1981-1982, 6). In the University of Florida's case, the F.C.E.E. received a $250,000 grant from the state in 1982 to help the university prepare the curriculum materials (F.C.E.E. Annual Report, 13). Aside from the F.C.E.E. itself, there exist under its aegis some eight University Centers for Economic Education, each developing curriculum materials for the free enterprise act. It is the University of Florida's program that provides the most complete and representative sample of 33 the type of curriculum one will see emerging from the D.O.E. program (Annual Report, 1981-1982 7-8). The course program, as seen above, is established by forces representing organizations which occupy dominant positions in the economy and which would be threatened by a major change in the system. Persons serving on the various boards and councils, like the organizations from which they are drawn, are an elite minority with a vested interest in the status quo. There is.no pretense that these people are the agents of democratic interest in the schools because they are not representative. As for the F.C.E.E. the 34 member Board of Trustees in 1981-1982 consisted of two attorneys, eight school system bureaucrats, and 23 officers of corporations. Only one union was represented, by the president of the Florida A.F.L.-C.I.O. There was only one woman, and there were no blacks. Except for only four individuals, the rest of the published list of contributors was made up of major corporations (Annual Report 9-12). Corporations form a larger economic structure maintaining entrenched and greatly skewed wealth at both the national and state levels (Petersen, Greever, North American Congress on Latin America, Domhoff, Mills 292-297, Butcher). 34 The Florida Council represents only a part of the economic power structure seeking to preserve "free enterprise" through both public and private agencies. Since the mid-1970s, the Florida Council of 100 has had major input on state governmental policy. High state governmental policy-makers frequently consult the Council before arriving at decisions. This body consist of numerous corporation heads, prominent attorneys, members of the Board of Regents, and high level bureaucrats. No labor organizations are represented. Neither are any women. The chairman, vice-chairman, secretary, and numerous other members of the Florida Council on Economic Education are members of the Council of 100 (F.C.E.E. Annual Report). Of immediate significance to the D.O.E. program is how much influence business has over the course content in the public schools. It is not necessary to prove any recommendation any business group makes is biased or the result of collusion. Business's interests are so clearly associated with the status quo that their supervision of the educational process (which must necessarily change and evolve) is suspect before it takes place. One could expect that the businessperson benefiting from the present political economy would promote and 35 support the D.O.E. courses. It is said that the A.V.C. program is needed to teach students about the "fallacies" of communism. Yet, failing to balance the criticisms with the many serious contradictions in the U.S. system does not mean that the F.C.E..E. is teaching students "how to think, NOT what to think (F.C.E.E. Annual Report). Combating "communism" and teaching that "free enterprise" is the best in the world suggest that students accept the regime in power. From the viewpoint of keeping the system stable, the D.O.E.'s curriculum requirement is a calculated action and not an unusual one insofar as a public school social studies program goes. Students have the potential for becoming sophisticated by comparing systems in a balanced fashion. Florida's D.O.E. wants to avoid that risk of developing a critical population when it indoctrinates students with an unflinching loyalty to the established order. Unquestioning approval and love do not necessarily imply each other. Teaching a love for one's country also means teaching civic responsibility, and that emerges only by teaching that the citizenry can and should freely criticize a country's social institutions. 36 The ideals espoused by the legislature have democratic decision-making and the free enterprise economy strongly linked. In this instance of the way the D.O.E. curriculum is assembled, the decisions are made in an undemocratic manner, and key persons who would benefit from programs in critical thinking are not affected. A well-formed apparatus outside a democratically elected legislature is implementing a curriculum that allows students only to put the "right" answer on a D.O.E. exam. That the students must give "right" answers suggests that while the D.O.E. attacks communism for being ideological, the A.V.C. and F.E.C.E. acts are equally so, a question examined in the next chapter. CHAPTER FOUR WHY THE D.O.E. PROGRAM IS IDEOLOGICAL The Issue of Ideology D.O.E.'s Americanism versus Communism and Free Enterprise courses constitute an indoctrination program. Students cannot seriously challenge the intent and content without risking failure. The curriculum is inflexible; teachers must show that the U.S. has the best system of economics in the world. The problem of course content is raised when A.V.C. legislation says that schools should "instill in the minds of the students" the "evils" of communism and make them understand that the U.S. "free enterprise" economy is better "than any other system of economics on earth" (Florida Revised Statutes 233.064). This indoctrination is administered through the advice of a network of nonelective boards and councils who have a vested interest in resistance to change. A D.O.E. handbook, A Resource Unit: Americanism versus Communism, says that in the Soviet Union a small group of communist party members "does all the thinking" and that "all individual opinions must conform to the 37 38 'Party Line'" (Florida State 35). Yet, the D.O.E. is doing the same thing it is accusing the Communists of doing, force-feeding a political economic doctrine. One major reason for creating the A.V.C. course was that legislators feared young people would not recognize that communist beliefs were faulty, and their solution was to tell students so (Florida State 18) . Parallels can be drawn between the denunciation of capitalism in Soviet classrooms and lectures on the evils of communism in the D.O.E. program. In the formulation of the Florida program, there must have been a recognition of the similarities so that it was felt necessary to prove differentiation by saying that "philosophy" is superior to "ideology." Yet, while the framers of the curriculum set out with the best of intent to encourage students to think critically, they ended with a program consisting of elements they said they feared. The D.O.E. says, "Ideology is a set of ideas developed in a logical order on the basis of preconceived notions which its adherents do not consider open to criticism or even question." Ideology's opposite is philosophy, "an attempt to approach the truth in which basic assumptions may be questioned and critically examined." (Florida State 18) Whether an idea can be 39 criticized--that is, subjected to critical thinking-separates ideology from philosophy. Teaching students to prefer philosophy over ideology, so the D.O.E. thinking goes, will help the student to reject communism. The D.O.E. wants the young to learn that the ideology of the Communist Party "provides the communist with a false belief about reality and that it advances the ideology through rigid school programs not open to question" (Florida State 34). The D.O.E. makes much of the need to teach "philosophy" in the schools in order to help students understand the weakness and error of ideology. Some consideration of the identification of these terms in educational settings is in order. How the D.O.E. Defines Ideology Gerhart Niemeyer, the A.V.C. program's chief architect, came to the cold war with impressive credentials, and it is to his writings one turns for the philosophy shaping the D.O.E. program. He was very much a part of the prevailing political order, as his anti- communist credentials included teaching "graduate courses on Communist ideology" at prestigious 40 universities like Yale, Princeton, and Columbia, being a Planning Advisor with the State Department, a research analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations, and member of the resident faculty at the U.S. War College (U.S. Congress, H.C.U.A. 14). Niemeyer says that ideology means the total rejection of any society based upon "subordination of contemplative theory" and the adoption of dogmatically willed positions. Philosophy "connotes theory, contemplation born of the love of truth" (Niemeyer, Between Nothingness and Paradise 142). Ideologies, Niemeyer asserts, have assumed a number of characteristics: 1) they are total critiques of society; the whole existing order must be overturned so it can be replaced by a new one. Ideologies prescribe as well as describe; 2) all previous phases of society in history are rejected in favor of the projected or prescribed one; 3) ideologies claim that reason and logic substantiate the argument in favor if ideology; 4) revolution and other events resulting in the ideology's predominance occur as a result of natural processes rather than being forced into history by humans; 41 5) understanding the natural processes by which the ideological goal is reached requires "a specific and secret knowledge made manifest by the thinker as messenger. Once the masses obtain the secret knowledge from the ones who know, the old social order will fall. (Niemeyer, Between 42-43). F) With the advent of Marx and Engels, Niemeyer says ideology assumed additional characteristics: 1) history results from natural processes or stages; 2) besides laws of change, there is an ultimate goal where humanity attains a life with greater value; 3) by pitting the ideal future against the past, the ideologues say that humanity has no desire to identify with the past; 4) the ideological goal is not embodied in one person or group but, rather it stands as something obtainable only by humanity acting collectively. (Niemeyer, Between 74-75). The common thread of Niemeyer's characterizations of ideology is that a collectivity, once made conscious of its conditions by information from one or a small group of individuals, completely supplants the old order with a new one as a result of naturally occurring 42 processes. Overturning of tradition worries Niemeyer, as evidenced by his repeated denunciation of ideology for rejecting the past (Niemeyer, Between 81-83). Revolutionary changes are radical breaks with tradition, and they are a most potent form of social criticism. Often, leaders {usually intellectuals) of major social movements have carefully-thought-out views expressing sentiments widely held by the general population. Despite Niemeyer's claims, the details of revolutionary ideas are not usually secret, but the intellectuals holding them are in the minority because formal education usually is beyond the economic means of the average person. If the ideas are not subject to criticism, however, the integrity of the intellectual is at stake. Niemeyer is preoccupied with the threat of ideology to "the past"- i.e., to traditional systems- so much so that he tends to slide into the error of seeing any challenge to traditional as ideological. Critical thinking about any social system is in fact a kind of challenge. 43 What Mainstream Writers Sav About Ideology "Ideology" was a word first used by Antoine Louis Clause Destutt de Tracy on 23 May 1797 in proposing a new science of ideas before the French National Institute of Arts and Sciences. By systematizing ideas into an ideology, he claimed, the mysticism of the past could be supplanted by reason. All of society's wrongs could be eliminated by restructuring the school system in order to institute an education founded upon the new rational method of understanding called "ideology." People's beliefs could be put into a well-defined order and treated as a logical system, thereby mitigating disagreements about the way a society was to be run (Mannheim 71). Both the French and American revolutions, along with numerous other social upheavals, emphasized the importance of idea systems in dealing with increasingly structured and urbanized societies. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels reinforced that importance in agreeing with de Tracy by calling belief systems ideologies, but went further by arguing that ruling classes used ideology to instill a false consciousness in the masses (Marx 25, 79). Marx and Engels held that the bourgeois 44 ideology, in particular, did not accurately describe society. The dominant ideology was that of the ruling class, and the bourgeois ruling class had described society in a way that satisfied its own needs. Those people who make the major decisions about how society is to be run propound the dominant ideas, or, as stated by Marx and Engels, "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas" (Marx 47). Marx and Engels argued that it is an illusion to think that these dominant ideas can never change, for people can always opt for revolution. Often, the ruling ideas are "expressed as an eternal law," or as morality and rights (Marx 47). For Marx and Engels, the tool of ideology is usually biased, while for de Tracy, it is a technique to describe actuality. Karl Mannheim in Ideology and Utopia says that ideology is a set of ideas imposed upon a society by the ruling class and is, to a certain extent, illusory (Mannheim 8, 193). ideology reflects a person's class status, as well as his discontent with society. These belief systems may admit to social discontent but often attribute false reasons for it. Often the ruling class will lay the blame for social problems on things entirely distinct from the actual causes. When a person 45 holds ideas which prevent effective action, the belief system constitutes an ideology (Mannheim 194). Otherwise, if the person can act effectively within society (political participation, interacting with social institutions, etc.) in spite of the ideas, the idea system is a utopia (Mannheim 204). For Mannheim, ideology is reactionary because people cannot effectively express their social aspirations. Reality is always changing, and a person can easily become ideological by not changing with that reality. Utopian or ideological, ideas do not accurately portray reality because the people holding them are biased. Other writers, discussed below, substantiate Mannheim by saying that ideology hinders change, blocks understanding, and reinforces the traditionalism favored by Niemeyer (Ries 290, Harrington 348-349, Hodges 377). Lewis Fuer calls ideologies "works of presumption. An ideology," he says, "projects wish fulfillments where knowledge is unavailable." It is "an attempt . . . to impose one's political will upon the nature of the universe" (Fuer 64). Daniel Bell refers to ideology as "a secular religion . . . the conversion of social ideas into levers. It is the commitment to the consequences of ideas" (Bell 96). Ideologies ask one "to accept a 46 reading of events." Ideologies do not contain knowledge of events "but their 'true' meaning." In this sense, ideologies, says Irving Kristol, "are religions of a sort" (Kristol 108). To Raymond Ries, ideology is "the insistence that knowledge of society must act as an instrument of social change. It is something to believe in . . . analogous to religious commitment." (Ries 283) For another writer, "Ideology consists both of that form of consciousness and also of that way of interpreting and understanding the world, which justifies or maintains specific relations of power" (Lilienfeld 260). Not all persons hold the view that ideology is undesirable. C. Wright Mills, Robert Haber, and Michael Harrington see the value of an ideology as a way of clarifying political issues and motivating people to act for social change (Mills 131, Haber 186, Harrington 342). As a type of compromise between ideology as an inhibition to human understanding and as a neutral way of analyzing social phenomenon, Maurice Cornforth views ideology as being a useful expression of a "profound impulse to development." However, as a class takes power, the ideology becomes conservative, then reactionary, and ultimately deleterious to human development (Cornforth 91-92). While these last four 47 views take de Tracy's positive approach to ideology, none of these writers would favor ideology if it was used to stifle understanding and an improvement of society. All these writers agree that ideology is at least a system of ideas about a social situation. However, Marx, Engels, and especially Mannheim provide the foundation for the view held by many modern writers that an ideology is a non-critical way of thinking. For example, Donald Clark Hodges holds that ideology "can be identified with the more or less conscious deceptions and disguises of human interest groups" (Hodges 374). While people disagree about the detailed characteristics of ideology and what roles it should play, most view ideology as a pejorative name for a set of ideas held by someone with a closed or uncritical mind. On the surface, Niemeyer rejects ideology because of its close-minded approach, a view not especially unique or significantly deviant from the other writers Marx clarifies these concerns by stating that ideology is a false consciousness when reality changes and thinking about it does not. If anything, it is ironic that this aspect of Niemeyer's position on ideology is more like that of Marx in that holding rigidly set ideas 48 is counterproductive to understanding how society functions. In other words, the worst feature of ideology is that it obstructs clear thinking. Non-critical thinking and rigid bias are the two senses of ideology that Niemeyer presumably dislikes, and Marx's criticisms of ideology are grounded in the failure to assess critically one's biased thinking about political economies. Niemeyer faults the ideologues for grounding their system of beliefs in a logic void of critical thinking. While he says ideology is dogmatic, his characterization and real objection to it centers about people behaving normally by rejecting what has been done to them in the past and opting for a change. For its part, the D.O.E. claims to favor critical thinking. A discrepancy exists between advocating critical thinking and promoting the D.O.E. indoctrination program to preserve traditional economic systems. A great deal of critical thought went into shaping the rationale for the D.O.E. program, but that thought was shaped within the confines of a rigid conservative philosophy. The next chapter demonstrates how this philosophy allows the D.O.E. to espouse critical thinking as superior to ideology and still defend the indoctrination program. CHAPTER FIVE THE D.O.E.'S DEBT TO CONSERVATIVE PHILOSOPHY Niemeyer * s Philosophy Many public school social studies curricula are ideological. That, in itself, is not very interesting. What elicits concern is the pragmatic and philosophic reasons explaining why the ideologues want to install their agenda. Frank S. Meyer, an author appearing on the A.V.C. book list, says that the importance of ideology lies not so much with its content as with the attempt to change a social order with that content (Meyer "Consensus" 230-231). Reinforcing their program is the fact the average workplace, where so many people spend over half their waking hours, can be described as authoritarian and even worse oppressive. By what they say and the nature of their position those controlling the workplace and other key segments of the economy have a practical reason for favoring ideology. Without critical thinking workers are more docile and yielding to the demands of bosses. The less apparent philosophy bespeaks a special brand of conservatism underscoring the D.O.E. ideology justifying the U.S. system. 49 50 Gerhart Niemeyer's conservative thinking permeates the rationale for the curriculum, and he is transparent about the society he would like to see. While the architect of the original D.O.E. program, he expressed his principal motive for opposing communism and establishing a new order in Facts on Communism prepared by the defunct H.U.A.C. and forming part of the A.V.C. curriculum bibliography. Niemeyer says that communism is held out ". . . for many who want something to replace the notion of Providence and divine judgment" (U.S. Congress, H.C.U.A. 128). The core of his attack on communism is that "the rejection of religion is thus the very essence of Communist thinking" (U.S. Congress, H.C.U.A. 133). This doctrine is entirely consistent with and made relevant for close examination by the Americanist doctrine which "recognizes the existence of a God and the all-important fact that the fundamental rights of man are derived from God and not from any other source" (U.S. Congress, H.C.U.A. 65). Human beings do not accord themselves fundamental rights either by democratic elections or revolution. Niemeyer also rejects communism because "It . . . means the explanation of all things and happenings in terms of a supposedly ultimately material reality (U.S. 51 Congress, H.C.U.A. 127). Underlying this objection is the rejection of materialism, itself, for it is ". . the deliberate rejection of God. Rejecting God means rejecting the idea that the material world is the creation of a divine spirit (U.S. Congress, H.C.U.A. 125). Niemeyer discusses both political and religious instruments for bringing about a society based upon this view. He makes clear who should run society and what they should do. In Law Without Force he states that the chief ends of a political entity are to "struggle for the definition of . . . ends" (Niemeyer, Law 125). While many views always exist in a society, "the group which is agreed upon the prevailing definition of the State's ends does not embrace more than a section, possibly only a minority, of the entire 'membership' of the organization" (Law 121). The "unity of common aims among the persons of that dominating group . . . makes an organization of social coordination possible." Political organizations coalesce around a prevailing definition of functional ends, and the definition set by the dominating group in the organization "represents in some way the entire 'membership' because it provides 52 the concrete formulation of the ends of State functions, without which no organization could operate at all" (Law 122). As to those functions, Niemeyer says that "politics coordinates behavior, not lives; it brings forth collective action, not collective culture; its unity is one of function, not of being. Politics is performance, not existence" (Niemeyer, Law 127). The " . . . behavior that corresponds to the scheme of order must not only be decided upon, but also must actually be provoked and arranged for by practical acts and personal contact." A greater spiritual and social homogeneity facilitates a people's understanding of aims of the political institution. There ". . . must be some community of intention in a collectivity, if there is to be an organization" (Law 128-130). The chief difference between the polity that Niemeyer envisions and the ones created by Hitler and Mussolini is that, in the former, the political organization acts upon a community's preconceived ideas, whereas in the latter, the State sets the reasons for which the State operates. In the former, the uniformity of purpose is present; in the latter, the State imposes the uniformity of purpose (Niemeyer, Law 131). The way 53 people regard the nature of human existence comprises the scheme of order acted upon by political organizations. Achieving that unity of purpose and scheme of order is left to another device--religion. He introduces this instrument first by reiterating his disassociation from others having designs for a unified social order and then by substituting a metaphysics rooted in classical philosophy. Niemeyer, in Between Nothingness and Paradise, reiterates his criticism of totalitarian ideologies and communism for reputedly not wanting to preserve anything of the past or present (Niemeyer, Between 136-140). He then outlines his "Ethics of Existence" that provides the common purpose to be orchestrated by the State. Conservatives want to preserve the past, and, as Niemeyer says, "A political community abides in time, stabilizing the sameness of truth in the flux of temporal vicissitudes and thus, as we have seen, 'imitating eternity'" (183). "Eternity," the reader is told, means "participation in the divine ground" (184). As reflected by the Declaration of Independence's words "We hold these truths to be self evident" (189-191). Myth, ". . . any set of symbols through which a multitude of people, living together, symbolically 54 secure the transparency of life and awareness of participation in the divine ground," holds the polity together. Niemeyer then justifies an authoritarian order by indicating that critical thinking would destroy the polity. He states that the average American is "uncritical in the ways of myths;" without myth, there would prevail "the universal assumption of hostility," that is, anarchy (Niemeyer, Between 191). People bear a myth and "serve as the organ of representation of the public truth which is what gives authority to the vox populi." The public truth is subject to "laws of vitality" that "pertain to the area of complex tensions between consciousness and the divine ground, psyche and nous, and to the general relation of things mutable to eternity (193). Quoting Aristotle, Niemeyer says the nous is "the best part of us . . . whether it is itself divine, or the most divine thing in us" and is "the source of order through the participation in the divine ground . . ." (Niemeyer 195). The edifice of political order, says Niemeyer, rests upon Aristotle's notion of friendship as related to "noetic consciousness of participation in the divine ground" (196). A person constantly thinking 55 critically about the prevailing myths, divine order, and so forth would be seriously out of place in Niemeyer's ideal society. Human beings, so that life will be attractive, must recognize that unity is composed of the rational and the irrational and balance the two. A "vital power" sustains the "psychology of memories, mutual attractions, unified feelings, and hopeful impulses." The intellectual element of friendship is "the consciousness of a higher ineffability through which man is rightly ordered." To have a political community everyone must be equal in that their souls are "open to the divine and, for the sake of the divine, open to those who are equal." Carrying the critique of critical thinking further, he says that political aspirations mean that "friendship cements an entity of political existence and engenders the wish to preserve it, 'whatever it may be.'" Sustaining a political tradition is "homonoia, the capacity to be of the same mind, which renders possible the making of laws and taking action in history" (Niemeyer Between 197). Niemeyer is very clear about what that same mind focuses upon. He sympathizes with Aristotle in saying that ethics means centering ". . . man's orientation towards the 56 divine and love of that in man which is closest to God and through which men participate in the order of being (Niemeyer, Between 198). This consciousness of the divine is the highest political value, followed by group preservation, similar judgments and attitudes, and finally, "the enjoyment of common existence" (198). Niemeyer vehemently deplores modern religion ("modern civil theologies") for de-emphasi2ing "human participation in the divine." These theologies merely give ideological postulates and propositions that "totally lack the existential virtues of friendship, communal solidarity, and public goodwill" (200). In these writings, Niemeyer argues for a State which is the instrument of a common theological purpose. Every action, every thought, every appearance, if not in accordance with the ruling theocrat's idea of "divine participation" is inimical to the well-being of the polity. Niemeyer says without qualification that every "individual soul . . . knows the tension of the person towards God, and of the soul as the 'sensorium of transcendence'," meaning that he does not acknowledge persons not recognizing a god (atheists) and those not agreeing with the notion of a transcendent entity (Niemeyer, Between 192). 57 When the legislature says school teachers shall practice "every Christian virtue," non-Christian teachers, such as Moslems, Jews, or atheists, would be violating the law by refusing to abide by that theocratic mandate (Florida Revised Statutes 233.09). Yet, to Niemeyer, the legislature would be "righteous1 because it requires the teachers to participate in his "divine ground" of being by teaching Christian virtues. The extant A.V.C. law evidences the Florida legislature's support for Niemeyer's claim that "people are uncritical in the ways of myths" and that the State should coordinate the behavior of individuals. Despite his apparent wish that everyone should march lockstep in pursuing a divine order, Niemeyer does not characterize his view of an ideal polity as a totalitarian theocracy. His avowed staunch opposition to ideology, advocacy of philosophy in the A.V.C. program, and subscription to Aristotelian ethics might lead one to believe that he would be comfortable with Athenian democracy insofar as having everyone equally participating in a divine order of being is concerned. Yet, Niemeyer avoids using the word "democracy" in reference to Athens or in his recommendations for an ideal society, while other conservatives freely use it. 58 A discussion of democracy is useful in understanding why Niemeyer really argues for authoritarianism while claiming to support critical thinking in the D.O.E. program and why other conservatives with views similar to Niemeyer's argue for democracy. The opposite of an authoritarian workplace is a democratic one, and effective workplace democracy means practicing critical thinking. That is so if democracy means each individual should participate in deciding how society should be run and if effective participation means the individual must be-well informed and willing to keep an open or critical mind. The way conservatives qualify their use of the word "democracy" shows how they view the workplace and justify the current system. Classical Foundations of the D.O.E. Ideology Both the D.O.E.'s political A.V.C. and economic F.E.A. curricula emanate from Niemeyer's philosophy about why societies exist and who should decide policies. To elucidate this statement, it helps to discuss how the D.O.E. ideologues characterize the U.S. system. Behind the words they use lies the philosophy 59 that goes into shaping the indoctrination program. The D.O.E. economic material refers to the U.S. as "capitalistic" or "free enterprise," that is, reflecting the classical liberal economics of the writings of John Locke. However, the philosophy of the economic system is further clarified by the manner in which the ideologues say people should behave politically. Niemeyer concentrates heavily on Aristotelian ethics without mentioning democracy. D.O.E. ideologues are ambivalent about using the word, and how they discuss it suggests a starting point for discussing the philosophy of the D.O.E. ideology. The D.O.E. itself conspicuously minimizes its references to democracy. Frank S. Meyer, a conservative author on the A.V.C. reading list, says that the "Liberal's faith is in 'democracy'" and insists upon calling the U.S. only a republic (Meyer, "Consensus" 230). Others on that list, like J. Edgar Hoover, interrupt this trend by frequently referring to the U.S. system as a democracy (Hoover 320). Communism is contrasted in the A.V.C. law not to "democracy" but to the "principles of Constitutional Government . . . as epitomized in its National Constitution (Florida 60 Statutes 233.064(a)). The Declaration of Independence and Constitution use "Republic" but not "democracy." One theoretically may find "democratic processes" within Americanism, but Americanism, itself, is not necessarily considered democratic by the conservatives involved in formulating the D.O.E. program. Only when one examines the social studies texts on the D.O.E. adopted textbook list do the copious references to "democracy" appear. Magruder's American Government is a widely used text both nationwide and in Florida (McClenaghan). Besides discussing direct democracy and representative democracy, the text mentions the debate between those who claim that the United States is a republic rather than a democracy. In a republic, those in power are representatives of the people as electorate. People in democracy decide issues directly. As used by Magruder and "To most Americans the terms democracy, republic, representative democracy, and republican form of government generally mean the same thing" (McClenaghan 28). Democracy and republic are philosophically different, and while conservatives disagree about when to use the terms they are united in supporting the D.O.E. doctrine when it comes to the participation in 61 Niemeyer's divine order. One writer on the A.V.C. book list calls it an "organic moral order" but governed by people "subject to the effects of original sin" (Meyer "Consensus" 14-16). This unity of support despite the division over theory is clarified, first, by exploring the classical democracy and republic, second, with the views of several conservative writers on the D.O.E. A.V.C. bibliography, and, third by what other conservatives say about the nature of democracy. In describing the classical republic, Plato says tyranny emanates from democracy and warring among economic classes. Only if ruling people possess virtue can it thrive in the State. Rulers acquire the ability to rule by education and intense preparation. Training the guardians of the State must begin from youth and culminate with leaders endowed with the philosophical perspective and ability to guide society smoothly (Plato 564b). The common person does not have a role in running the affairs of state. Each person in society is consigned his or her work in accordance with training and background. Aristotle mentions five types of democracy: one based on strict eguality--the poor having the same advantages as the rich and everyone sharing power in the 62 government; another where magistrates are elected according to minimal property qualifications; a third which requires that the law be supreme over the citizens who share equal power in the government; a fourth, where admission to the government occurs only if one is a citizen and is subject to the law, and, finally, one where the majority rules in all respects and rules by decree (Aristotle 1291b 30 to 1292b 38). The type to be emphasized depends upon the aims of the State. People band together in a community, or constitution (the partnership being the State), which must work its way to perfection, or, in Niemeyer's sense, participate in the divine ground of being. A state's purpose is for the "good life," making sure that citizens do not do injustice to each other and promoting virtue (Aristotle 1880a). When every member of the community, that is, every citizen, practices virtue, then the whole State can be perfect (virtue being every individual doing the best he can) (1276b 30). This is not unlike Niemeyer's saying that the State coordinates the people's behavior. Upon Aristotle's notion of who can be virtuous and be a citizen hinges the real meaning of classical democracy, a democracy quite compatible with that promoted by the D.O.E. program. 63 Aristotle in Politics says, "He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state" (1275b 19). The virtues of a citizen are to be capable of ruling and obeying "like a freeman." Not all people can be citizens, for "we cannot consider all those to be citizens who are necessary to the existence of the state" (1278a 2). "The necessary people are either slaves who minister to the wants of individuals, or mechanics and laborers who are the servants of the community" (1278a 7-10). To be a citizen in a democracy one must be virtuous, but Aristotle says, "No man can practice virtue who is living the life of a mechanic or laborer" (1278a 20). Citizenship and the opportunity to attain power were functions of class status. If one argues that the present political system is rooted in Aristotle's concepts of democracy, it is understandable why wage workers are barred from policymaking positions as they do not constitute a proportionate part of Florida's legislature. Niemeyer is not arguing for democracy and is not saying that people should not be disenfranchised because of a tenet of classical democratic theory. His 64 concept of a person's role in society is founded in a special type social cohesion centered about a theocratic purpose. Niemeyer faults Athens not for barring workers from the political process but by saying that Socrates demonstrated ". . . that not man but God is the measure of human thoughts and actions" and " . . . that political order is a matter not of wealth and success but of participation in the order of being as well as participation in the concrete reality of Athens," Socrates was "admonishing Athens in the name of God" to "return to the divine ground of being . . (Niemeyer, Between 213). Like Plato and Aristotle, Niemeyer does not see the average person as inherently fit to govern, and neither a republic nor a democracy is enough to sustain his ideal of universal participation in a divine ground of being. Socrates' criticism forms the basis of what Niemeyer and other like-minded conservatives want. Alexis de Toqueville, the often-quoted critic of democracy from the last century, articulates many of the conservative ideas shaping the thinking behind the D.O.E. program. De Toqueville states ". . . if a democratic republic . . . had. . . sunk deep into the habits and laws of the people . . . a more insufferable 65 despotism would (not) prevail . . . in any of the absolute monarchies of Europe" (de Toqueville 123). Democracy requires a thoughtful population, but he says that "studies of this nature (of philosophy) are far above the average capacity of men" (150). Views like these, coupled with Niemeyer's assertions that people are "uncritical in the ways of myths," help show the anti-critical nature of the D.O.E. program. The Authoritarian Basis of the D.O.E. Program De Toqueville said, "Fixed ideas about God and human nature are indispensable to the daily practice of men's lives." Religion is necessary because it justifies the system and establishes the principle of authority. "When the religion of a people is destroyed, doubt gets hold of the higher powers of the intellect and half paralyzes all the others" (de Toqueville ISO151 ). People are not philosophically sophisticated and de Toqueville's statement would justify Niemeyer's argument that a humans being's main function in society is to participate in a divine order of being rather than to create his own well-thought-out order. Niemeyer states, "Man's nature, created good, has been vitiated 66 by his sinful opposition to the Creator . . . the resulting distortions of body, mind, emotions and soul . . . impart . . . a yearning, a return to God" (Niemeyer Between 218). D.O.E. reflects Niemeyer's view that humanity depends upon religion by saying that the principle of human dignity comes from "a living and merciful God" (Florida State 2) and that love and respect for one's country comes when "children and teachers engage in daily Bible reading" (5). J. Edgar Hoover in Masters of Deceit, on the A.V.C. book list, said that "The very essence of our faith in democracy is rooted in a belief in a Supreme Being" (Hoover 320). Religious dogma stands behind the authoritarian character of the conservative views of the State and the D.O.E. program, itself. Frank S. Meyer, also on A.V.C. book list, faults the libertarian (a type of conservative, according to Meyer) for the "confusion of the temporal with the transcendental" in that he could not distinguish between the human authority that suppresses freedom and "the authority of God and truth." (emphasis included) Nineteenth century conservatives, while "They respected the authority of God and of truth," gave human institutions "the sacred aura of divine authority." 67 Classical liberals were not aware of "the reality of original sin" and looked to the state to promote virtue. Collectivism challenges a person's "transcendent dignity . . . and common faith" (Meyer, "The Common Cause" 1619). All conservatives, says Meyer, accept implicitly or explicitly, the existence of an objective moral order . based on the existence of immutable standards by which human conduct should be judged." The objection to ideology means that "the existence of immutable laws are not susceptible to ideological reconstruction." Ideology, then, is not the existing dogma of "ordered liberty" but the attempt to change that dogma with a new set of ideas" (Meyer, "Consensus" 230-231). Hoover refers to one of the "aspects of our democratic faith" (sic) as "belief that life has a meaning that transcends any manmade system." It is independent of any such system, and "outlasts any such system, a belief diametrically opposed by the materialistic dogma of communism." J. Edgar Hoover said that communism is opposed to religion and "poses today a crucial problem for every patriotic man and woman in America. If allowed to develop, it will destroy our way of life" (Hoover 320-321). "Out of the deep roots of 68 religion . . . is the source of strength for our land if we are to remain free" (330). Hoover hypothesized, "Suppose every American spent a little time each day, less than the time demanded by the communist, in studying the Bible and the basic documents of American history, government and culture?" The late F.B.I. director, not making any distinction between democracy or republic, restates Niemeyer's vision by calling for "a new America, vigilant, strong, but ever humble in the service of God. " Echoing de Toqueville, Hoover remarks at the end "All we need is faith, real faith. . . . With God's help, America will remain a land where people still know how to be free and brave" (emphasis included) (Hoover 334-337). The thinking behind the widespread ideology of which that of the D.O.E. is representative is elucidated further by how other conservatives argue that religion forms the basis of the State. Russell Kirk asserts that "Civilized man lives by authority; without some reference to authority, indeed no form of human existence is possible." That authority is a deity, the Judeo-Christian God, . . . understood through the human conscience. "Genuinely ordered freedom is the only sort of liberty worth having" (Kirk 23-25). Liberty is 69 ordered freedom, and freedom is that granted by a deity. Kirk justifies the Republic by referring to "a government which prefers principle to ideology," and by saying "the philosophical and moral structure of our civil order was rooted in the Christian faith, not in the worship of Reason" (Kirk, 37). Faith, rather than philosophical understanding, explains and justifies events and institutions. According to M. Stanton Evans, the conservative agrees with authoritarians in that people cannot be trusted, and wants "to restrain the destructive tendencies he discerns in a fallen humanity" (Evans 74). Fallen humanity refers to Adam and Eve committing "sin" by eating from the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden myth. Fundamentalist Christians refer to the "Fall" in supporting their claim that people are inherently evil. Evans has little disagreement about this view of "human nature." Quoting conservative writer Ortega y Gasset, Evans says that people are "forced by (their) nature to seek some higher authority" (71). The freedom granted by higher authority gives people the right to choose according to how one affirms a "transcendent order" (69). 70 The Role of Religion and Faith in the D.O.E. Ideology Religion and faith are called upon frequently to rationalize the political-economic system. Examples abound, ranging from what Florida's D.O.E. is doing to impose religion to pronouncements made by national leaders. In Florida, the A.V.C. curriculum handbook says that the principle of individual dignity comes "from the acknowledgment of a living and merciful God and recognition of man's immortal soul." Further on, readers are told, "It is easier to distrust than to have faith. The fight against the communist conspiracy" demands an appropriate perspective; it is a battle where one is "fighting for faith." A very important lesson one learns in fighting communism, says the D.O.E. "is that of faith" (Florida State 2, 11, 16). Christianity is the official religion in Florida. Legislation entitled "Duties of Instructional Personnel" mandates that teachers set an example for pupils, mainly by practicing " . . . every Christian virtue" (Florida Statutes 231.09(2)). The 1980 law "permitting study of the Bible and religion," and where, U.S. Supreme Court in 1963 ruling to the contrary, the "The school board 71 may provide that a brief period for ". . . the purpose of silent prayer or meditation" was still in effect in 1988" (Florida Statutes 233.062). Public advocacy of the injection of religion into government on a national level reinforces D.O.E. philosophy. In a 1984 prayer breakfast speech President Reagan said that the church ", . . has had a strong influence on the state," that ". . . the bedrock of moral order is religion," and " . . . politics and morality are inseparable." Because the foundation of morality is religion "religion and politics are necessarily related . . . And our Government needs the Church because only those humble enough to admit they are sinners can bring democracy the tolerance it requires in order to survive." Although Reagan claimed that the was not trying to establish religion in the U.S., he vowed that ". . . w e poison society when we remove its theological underpinnings" ("Remarks by President"). In 1983, he said that the Soviet Union was the "focus of evil in the modern worldd." (Clines) Webster's dictionary gives several general synonyms for "evil," and the context of each of these usages suggests that the word means "Satanic." Besides the persistent references to "God" in the Declaration of Independence, 72 the U.S. currency is constant reminder that "In God We Trust." "Under God" was put into the pledge of allegiance in the 1950s. Faith as a rationale for political and economic policy carries far-ranging structural consequences for the system. Patrick Buchanan, Reagan's communications director and President Nixon's assistant, is quite unequivocal in his call for a U.S. theocracy. In a column "The Crisis of Godlessness," he calls the U.S. "a supposedly Christian country" and regards as mere "taunts" the view that Christian values may be imposed upon others "The Old and New Testament are not only infallible guides to personal salvation; they contain the prescriptions for just laws and the good society for building a city set upon a hill." For that society, "Religion is the root of morality, and morality is the basis of law." In asking, "Whose country is this, anyway?" Buchanan says the only thing the traditionalist and the conservative can do "is never to cease struggling- until we have recreated a government and an America that conforms, as close as possible, to our image of a good society, if you will, a godly country" (Buchanan). Conservative policy makers create and sustain a social hierarchy that oppresses workers on the job. Such 73 conservatives as those setting up the D.O.E. program hold that religion (formulating ideas out of faith) is inseparable from political-economic decision-making and that the majority of people make decisions based on faith rather than critical thinking. Individuals taught think critically rather than to rely upon faith alone are more likely to question social arrangements. The conservatives are willing to suppress efforts to change an authoritarian system while still advocating "freedom" because of their conception of freedom and liberty. How Freedom And Liberty Help Shape the D.O.E. Ideology In political science terms, freedoms (as expressions of rights) are human actions resulting from a person's will to act, as opposed to liberties, or the individual's ability to act within societal constraints (Dye). This nice distinction introduces some very fundamental assumptions about the role of government and how the power for an individual to act is derived. With freedom, the power to act comes from natural rights granted from outside the society, and in the case of liberty, the state determines the limits of human action. The H.U.A.C. statement on Americanism refers to 74 natural rights, not liberties. Freedom is granted by a deity and cannot be questioned, whereas liberty, being defined by human society, can. When the Constitution speaks of liberties in its Preamble it talks of what the State allows people to do and not their "natural" godgiven freedoms. The D.O.E. literature treats "freedom" and "liberty" as synonyms. In the application of their theories, however, the definition of these terms is obviously that of political science as discussed in Power and Society by Thomas Dye. Freedom is an inherent right to act in a manner prompted by a person's will. It is natural and derived from a source outside society, from the deity. Liberty, on the other hand, represents society's definition of a person's right to act within the concept of the group. This nice distinction may be observed historically in the Declaration of Independence in which the rights granted by the Creator are freedoms justifying revolution, and rights of the Constitution are legally defined permissions to act granted by the State. The H.U.A.C. lists freedom of worship as a natural right (i.e., a right granted by God). The exercise of that freedom, however, becomes subject to State control when 75 the State defines what is acceptable religion. In a theocracy, a State which defines itself as being subject to a particular god and no other, the "freedom" to practice religion becomes the "liberty" to behave publicly in a manner acceptable to the worship of that god. Freedom becomes indistinguishable from liberty since both are subject to the sacerdotes' whims. Freedom allows critical thinking and resulting action without limit, while liberty imposes restrictions to actions. In an oppressive state, where there is very little liberty, the presumption is that while people may criticize the state in private they should not accompany the thoughts by appropriate deeds. A leadership with specified ends in mind will act in its best interests by emphasizing liberties. Religion acts as a convenient device for allowing an advocacy of freedom but excusing its curtailment. On one hand, a theocratic regime is liberal because of that advocacy but autocratic in deferring to a deity's commands restricting liberties. While one does not find this degree of sophistication in the D.O.E. program, because that agency uses "liberty" and "freedom" interchangeably, the authoritarianism exists because of religion's role in restricting both, as in legislating morality. If 76 students are to think critically, the program's ideologues would like to have them do so only within certain bounds, such as those set by Niemeyer's theocracy. This is demonstrated by the repeated references to "critical" in its A.V.C. curriculum handbook. For example, teachers are implored to "stir up student's interest and critical faculties . . . . " However, teachers must emphasize the "evils, fallacies and contradictions of communism" (Florida State 13-14). Students must learn, according to the A.V.C. statutes, that the U.S. system is the best on earth. Critical Thinking As A Part of the D.O.E. Program Given the D.O.E. ideologue's view that faith underpins the polity and that liberty circumscribes freedom of discussion, promotion of critical thinking and philosophy is not the real aim of the program mandated in Florida schools, even though lip service is paid to it. No process of critical analysis is implied when the conclusions of instruction are predetermined. As recently as 1987, the D.O.E. iterates that the "free enterprise" U.S. economy provides "the highest standard of living of any nation in the world" and requires that 77 it should be defended against all others (Goddard et al., CH-310 35). The educational material thus defines not only the premise to be studied but the conclusion which must be reached. Any debate under such circumstances has to be a sham. Even the criteria are prescribed. That is best which provides the most goods and services in the marketplace in which the individual is free to exercise choice. There is no opportunity to define terms. It should not be necessary to do more than point to these obvious flaws in the D.O.E. program to know its weakness. However, there are issues involved in any society's efforts to achieve the best lives for its citizens that are eliminated from consideration in the Florida Schools, either directly or tacitly. The D.O.E.'s insistence that critical thinking is necessary for human dignity suggests that the standards for judging the quality of an economic system must include the power of a person to think and act accordingly in the workplace. "Critical" means being "more imaginative" but thinking critically and making decisions have special meanings apparently in the economic arena. Much is made throughout the instructional program of the freedom the student will have to make choices 78 when he has graduated. To teach that he will have the right to many choices is perhaps misleading. It would be easy to offer long lists of what he is not free to buy: methanol is not a choice at most service stations, for example, nor are parts for many otherwise reparable machines. His freedom to choose his work is limited by the positions employers offer. Steel workers have few chances to make steel in 1988 America. These are not the most important exceptions to the opportunity to make critical choices. A major part of the ideology's rationale seems to be that the average worker should not participate in making decisions about what is to be produced, who shall get paid what, or how enterprises shall be operated. The curriculum's version of free choice centers primarily about choosing goods and services, pursuing careers, and the opportunity to sell goods for a profit {Goddard et al., CH-310 33-34). When the students encounter the workplace, they often work without the opportunity to participate in meaningful decision-making. The majority of workers then must work for an already established concern. Taking a position that they did not help define, they give up some control over their own lives (Bowles 90). Giving up control over one's life for a third of one's waking 79 hours is counter to the idea that one should think and act critically. A major part of a person's identity as a dignified individual is, as the D.O.E. admits, "free access to all different competing viewpoints," a liberty society should allow. Dignity also means being able to act on one's thoughts, or the freedom conservatives consider as a divine right becomes meaningless. The D.O.E. translates this into political terms, that is, "Government is the creation of the people, and its power rests with them," but it does not clarify how freedom is to permeate the workplace (Florida State 4). The D.O.E.'s ideology of Americanism says that worker's ". . . inalienable rights . . . are . . . freedom to enjoy the fruits of his work, which means the protection of his property rights" (65). A person possesses mental power as property, including the power to think, and the way the D.O.E. says the person should use that power and for whose benefit tells one reason why the conservatives behind the D.O.E. program defend "free enterprise." In classical liberal economics, upon which much of the free enterprise ideology is based, freedom depends upon possessing property. For the D.O.E. a central difference between a capitalist system and a socialist system is the right to private ownership of productive 80 property. "This privilege is based on the belief that people are entitled to keep the rewards from their labor or their business efforts" (Goddard et al., CH-310 3233 ). The philosophical basis of this can be found when John Locke, a classical liberal political economist, opined ". . . it is very easie to conceive without any difficulty, how Labor could first begin a title of Property" (Locke 344). However, the implications of Locke's views go further than what the D.O.E. intended in adopting his arguments in favor of property. In casting aside whether a person may not receive virtually all material fruits of labor, Locke's views on property, insofar as applying to how a worker may benefit through mental labor as critical thinking, help explicate how "free enterprise" treats the dignity of the individual as a function of thinking and acting freely in the workplace. Locke said that a worker mixes his or her existence, or life, with objects in order to transform those objects into useful things. When produced solely by the individual in this society, these objects become the person's property (Locke 330-332). Life, if one is to accept Aristotle, involves individuals being inexorably linked with property, and if that property is 81 taken away from them without due compensation, part of that person's identity is lost. There exist many questions concerning property and "rights" which are ignored in the D.O.E. program, possibly because critical thought about them could lead to questioning of the justice of the U.S. system. Karl Marx said "the secret of the self-expansion of capital resolves itself into having the disposal of a definite quantity of other people's unpaid labor" (Marx 500). An equally succinct modern admission of surplus value can be found in an item in the business publication, Security World: "You hire someone because you will earn more from his labor than you will pay him in wages" ("Honesty Testing" 71). Gerhart Niemeyer freely admits that surplus value is an integral part of any economy; "all civilization depends on it" (Niemeyer U.S. Congress 36). What the worker produces is sold, and the employer accumulates wealth as a result of mixing the hired labor with the capital of machines. The presence of capital in the mix has been used to deny that the workers share of the value of the product is any more than the wage he has received. Increasing automation and concurrent demands to increase the worker's responsibility for the product suggest that 82 surplus value should be a continued topic for critical thought. The central question of an economic system's quality is how freely a person may think and act. Niemeyer says, "Those who collect it [surplus value] undoubtedly have some power in the social system." However, he says the political system mitigates that power. This does not answer the question about the role of a critically thinking worker who does not collect surplus value. In most manufacturing facilities persons are divorced from the objects they produce, but for the sake of argument, let us assume that they receive appropriate compensation. After compensation, the only thing left for the worker after labor power is the ability to make decisions. Yet, this is taken along with labor power. Both life and property are placed under the employer's domain as soon as the individual becomes an employee. With service industries, a person's life is expressed by activity, the content of which is determined by the employer. Even if a worker is adequately compensated how does one reconcile the admonitions to think critically with the authoritarian workplace? 83 Every day the employee is saying to the boss, "You can determine what my existence will be like for eight hours. You say what I will do with my time." Effectively speaking, by not being allowed to participate in the decision-making process, a part of the worker's existence is stripped away by the employer. In other words, the worker has agreed to give up some autonomy, but gets nothing in return for part of that time, except, perhaps, the opportunity to receive material compensation. Existence is for someone else's benefit. Workers, in the employer's eyes, are worth less as persons. Denying the worker the opportunity to think and act critically reduces that person to the level of a robot or a well-trained animal. An employer having such control over workers has access to the political apparatus if wealth has been accumulated. Despite what the ideology says about a person's rights to participate equally with everyone else in politics, the businessperson has an advantage by being able to finance that participation. Because of this, the employers have an interest in carrying their pattern of restricting a worker's participation in decision-making in the workplace into the political arena (Greever passim). A person holding political power generally has 84 the ability to seek another to do her or his will. The power holder has a greater existence status than other people. In the U.S. system political power normally is a function of wealth, as Domhoff, Mills, Bowles, and Gintis have argued. This can be explained by the relationship that wealth can have with human life. The power to make decisions in society is a function of accumulating wealth. Power over oneself, or the ability to direct one's own activities also is a function of individual dignity, as the D.O.E. has stated (Florida State 4). Employers deny workers this ability of self-control in exchange for material compensation. The ability to control workers' lives is represented by accumulated wealth, which facilitates access to political power in the case of financing campaigns or buying office. Political power often means that a person wielding a great deal of it has a greater existence status than a member of the general population. An accumulation of a large amount of wealth is evidence that contrary to Niemeyer's view that the power of wealth is effectively regulated by government, those possessing wealth often constitute the government (Bowles, Greever, Domhoff). Those imposing authority in the workplace and 85 discouraging worker participation in decision-making often are the same ones who serve often generously, on boards and councils advising the D.O.E. Without consciously injecting bias, it would be natural that they make recommendations which in effect advocate a democracy and exclude workers as citizens. Thus, the D.O.E. can come to demand that people think critically but find ways at the same time to make them more obedient to a theocratic order. A primary purpose for preparing individuals to think critically is so they can participate effectively in deciding what happens in the political and economic systems of their country, that is, to make them good democrats. Although the curriculum presents a distorted view of the U.S. system, the U.S. social reality reinforces the D.O.E. philosophy. A failure to talk about the values being imposed on U.S. working people will likely block the success of a program designed to teach people to think critically about their society. The next chapter describes the values that need criticism. CHAPTER SIX THE D.O.E. IDEOLOGY AND SOCIAL REALITY How Students Are Told They Must Act in the Workplace Despite the D.O.E. claims that students should think critically and philosophically, the conservative mentality behind Florida's cold war program is that the average person is not philosophical and should accept things on faith or, as Niemeyer says, " . . . what is new under the sun cannot come from men or nature but only from God" (Niemeyer Between 168). The D.O.E. argues that "It is easier to distrust than to have faith." The fight against communism is "fighting for faith" (Florida State 11). A work force which has been taught faith rather than critical reasoning tends to be docile and easily governed. What students are told about their role in the workplace seems to reflect this philosophy. Florida grammar school students learn that while "decision-making" means "The act or process of arriving at a solution to a problem, especially by giving judgment," there is no suggestion that decision-making should apply to the operation of a workplace (Goddard et al., CE-131 3, passim). The role of decision-making is clarified further in high school in that 86 87 not only does management organize and direct resources but that it is "the administrative aspect of an industry as opposed to labor" (Goddard et a l ., CH-310 8). Vocational orientation materials say that "decisionmaking " and critical thinking are only meant to improve worker performance and not to establish the workers' control over the economy (Dresner 19). Business leaders do complain that such a condition requires too much supervision, and, although attempts are being made to bring labor into management levels, the overall pattern is labor's exclusion from decision- making ("Management-Labor"). Half the solution to the problem of establishing a critical thinking program or democratic workplace is recognizing that the ideology of Americanism depend upon a philosophy that reinforces a social reality beneficial to those in power. Further, students are being taught that obedience at work has the greatest material rewards. If "free enterprise" is the best on earth because of the quantity of goods it provides, teaching obedience to those controlling the system is a way to sustain the Florida legislature's judgment. Florida students learn how to behave properly in the U.S. workplace. All of the following nationally 88 used materials have been found frequently in Florida's schools. In It's Up to You, a contemporary, frequently used "job survival skills" booklet, the workplace parameters are clearly described in what that publication calls a "no-nonsense" style. The teacher instructs the students " . . . what kinds of answers are acceptable for an interview" (Dresner 4). The students ". . . need to convince the employer that they meet the requirements for the job (Dresner 19). The student's wishes for job security, career goals, and stability create the motivation to become assimilated into the workplace. A job the person likes to do for which he has appropriate skills, and a cooperative attitude contribute towards worker contentment. Hardly would a worker want to be situated in an intolerable workplace. Comfort, however, carries a double-edged sword. Too much comfort tempers criticism or a desire for change. Stability depends upon satisfaction. On the other hand to attain that happiness, workers often become demanding, a condition not tolerated by workplace supervisors. It's Up to You says the workers should have flexibility, cooperativeness, dependability, assertiveness, and decision-making ability. The last 89 does not mean that the workers should participate in decision-making, but that workers should obey the boss, abide by stipulated workplace conditions, and otherwise act suitably. These elements are taught as being necessary for the political economy to function smoothly. Decision-making for the worker does not mean participatory democracy, but rather "choosing what to do," or more precisely defined by the example, "The company offered him two different jobs. He has to make a decision about which job he wants" (Dresner 19). But, a ". . . person who gives instructions makes more decisions. . . . " A worker comes by such authority because the boss gives it (Dresner 21). Ranking is done by superiors, managers, and bosses of all types, to each of whom the employee is beholden in varying degrees. Decision-making occurs within a carefully defined structure. To what end is decision-making directed? More succinctly, the question is: "How does the interviewer decide if someone will be a good investment? Why are new employees investments for the company" (Dresner 92)? In the answer portion of the booklet, the "personnel director" states, "If they have definite career goals, it is much easier for me to see if they will fit in 90 here." If they . . know what they want in their future," they will likely know now, so the interviewer will know " . . . they'll be happy here" (Dresner 92). The workers are investments because a lot of time and money is spent in training them. Employees are resources for production; for them to remain on the job, they should be happy. In a mock interview with a factory worker, decision-making means " . . . keeping the machines in good working order," .pa an indication of the limited thinking expected of the employee (Dresner 117). Nowhere does the unsettling question arise about who owns or controls the means of production, what shall be produced, who should decide how the productive surplus shall be distributed, or how the situation got to be where it is. In virtually every instance, it is assumed the existing economic order of private enterprise should prevail. Implicit in this material is the idea of subordination, or keeping one's place. Tasks are parceled out among workers at various levels. Interaction among those levels, save for the upper levels (those having more authority) telling lower ones what to do, is discouraged. Workers with less 91 "responsibility" and authority look up to and not across to supervisors. In Getting a Job, after proper dress and manners, workers learn where they find specific information on the job. Students aspiring to be workers should choose among "supervisor, co-worker, and no one" (Knox 33). Quickly, the student discovers that one does not ask the supervisor where the restrooms are, how much weekly pay is, whether one can eat lunch with the supervisor (much less, where to buy lunch), or why one is leaving early. Most significantly, the worker does not ask or tell the supervisor how the former is liked. Special people divulge particular information. Only certain classes of people may associate with other classes. As the boss does not sit down to lunch with the employees, so the teacher does not sit down with the student (Knox 33). This latter comment is not as extraneous as it first appears, for some school structures do not differ significantly from the workplace, if one likens the teachers to bosses, the report cards to paychecks, the curriculum to workplace rules and instructions, and the bells to timeclocks. When the student graduates from school, he meets the world of work. In another widely used publication, 92 Don't Get Fired, Mike cleans up a large office building. The boss enters, carelessly allows cigarette ashes to fall on the floor Mike has spent so many hours cleaning, and then orders Mike to clean them up. The boss gets angry when Mike criticizes the demand, saying "Young man, when you work for someone, you obey orders." There is trouble, "Because Mike hasn't learned that it is not wise to talk back to the boss, even when the boss is wrong" (Anema 53). Bosses have help in maintaining a straitjacketed workplace. In a recent report on technology in U. S. industry, readers learned how "millions of blue collar and white collar employees are working under the even more watchful and relentless scrutiny of the computer." Computer-generated performance reports "are being used to structure piece-rate pay systems and to form the basis for disciplining, demoting or even firing the slow or under-skilled employee ("Management-Labor" 124). What apologists for U.S. industry say actually happens in the workplace confirms the norms taught by vocational course material. A 1984 Business Week editorial admitted that "In the auto industry, as in many work situations elsewhere, workers are traditionally expected to do what they are told and 93 leave the thinking to the boss ("Management-Labor"). Various restrictions in the workplace such as timeclocks and performance quotas tend to stifle critical thought and dissent. Nothing in the basic values held by the business community encourages the sharing of authority with workers. Business Values Underlying the Curriculum Central to shaping the D.O.E. curriculum are private businesses, and their purpose of "adding economic values to human resources" is expressed by one of their professional organizations, the National Institute for Work and Learning. In its recent study sponsored by the U.S. Office of Education, the institute says: The bottom line for all activities associated with these functions is whether, collectively, they produce material respect, trust, reliability, and demonstrated results meeting the specific needs of individual businesses, higher educational institutions, and adult learners. (Gold 14) Learning needs are articulated within a certain system. First, students must be motivated to acquire skills while developing positive attitudes towards society. Skill and attitude need to be ". . . linked in 94 the learner's mind to relevant people, places and opportunities in the immediate community and larger society. Improved motivation, in turn, reduces both anti-social behavior and the need for costly remedial programs." The curriculum must instill democratic and capitalist values in the minds of students. To do this "requires the participation of employers, workers, and other citizens." In producing cost effective "labor supply aligned with the market demand for labor" every social sector interested in the system should take part in training students. Workers must be kept motivated, socialized, and "positive," while social order is preserved and enough workers are made available when the "market" demands it (Gold 3). As shown above, "democracy," as used by business people, does not necessarily mean that workers run the workplace. Instead, it usually implies that workers should use decision-making to select the best consumer goods and to find better ways of making the "free enterprise" system work. The worker's central role in the system, according to such words as "meeting the specific needs of individual businesses," is that of consumer and element of a labor pool, a pool that is an instrument of a profit-making machine. Rather than the 95 economic system serving the workers, the workers serve the economic system. That these views have wide currency is evidenced by what other major business groups say. The American Vocational Association says that vocational education should only help "the private sector with a suitably trained work force that is productive and competitive in the marketplace- in essence, helping the private sector to be profitable" (Paul 3). The National Association of State Directors of Vocational Education described " . . . what they perceive to be the main purposes of vocational education" ("Position Statement" 11). There are two: "Provide individuals with the skills they need to attain economic freedom. Enhance the productivity of local, state, and national economies." More specific aims are to give individuals information about the nature of work and work opportunities. Vocational education also trains people to make decisions, but only for enhancing production and business profits. Organizational leadership skills also must "promote and support the values of free enterprise in a democratic society" ("Position Statement" 3). In other words democracy must contain "free enterprise." This special brand of democracy, by incorporating the 96 "free enterprise" workplace values, such as not talking back to the boss "even when the boss is wrong," is like Aristotle's view that democracy excludes non-citizens, among whom are workers. Endorsement of free enterprise type programs from national organizations (as indicated on the Council for Economic Education advertisements), public and private, lends credence to the assertion that the D.O.E. program in Florida cannot be treated as an isolated phenomenon. The Free Enterprise Act is typical, as exemplified by Arizona and Louisiana, which have mandatory free enterprise courses consisting of the same type of material as used in Florida. Like those in Florida, students in these states must pass the free enterprise course in order to graduate from high school. The purported economic values are hard work with expectation of a reward, but what actually happens on the job militates against a critically thoughtful work force. Not being able to "talk back" to the boss "even when the boss is wrong," threatening workers by monitoring their every keystroke, and admissions from some employers that "employees leave thinking to the boss" show that the authoritarian workplace is common (Anema 53, Perl, "Management-Labor"). Freedom of opportunity, 97 participatory democracy, and critical thinking still are mere ideals. What the Business Values Mean In addition to enjoining deviant behavior in the workplace and ignoring fundamental problems in the U.S. economic system, the workplace orientation material discussed above calls for a society with specific features. It is a system involving everyone as productive, competitive workers. Competition means that bosses will hire workers willing to produce for the lowest wage. A business person gains advantage by aggressively selling as many goods and services as possible, regardless of whether the environment is destroyed or human safety is jeopardized. The American Vocational Association's statement indicates that both productivity and competition serve private profitability (Paul 3). Profitability measures the success of both. "Economic Freedom," couched in the values of private competitiveness and productivity becomes linked to the "nature of work, " along with opportunity ( "Position Statement" 11). Work and opportunity are supposed to make business profitable, and profitable businesses enable the worker 98 to prosper. However, material prosperity is not the only way of gauging an economic system's success if the society values critical thinking. In using the term "democracy," those advocating critical thinking must go beyond "decision-making" merely as selecting the best thing to do and say that democracy .pa means using critical thinking in every aspect of life, including the workplace. A person like Dresner (who says Mike should not talk back to the boss, even when the boss is wrong) promote a society where bosses, analogous to Aristotle's "citizens," discourage workplace democracy for workers as non-citizens. Within this special democracy is a workplace where there are specific relationships defined in terms of public and private sectors, buyers and sellers of labor power, a cutthroat marketplace, leaders and followers, and employers and workers. Such distinctions separate people and discourage participation in decision-making. Without this participation, people have little need for critical faculties, especially if they are told what to do all the time. It is consistent for students to be told that they must follow orders blindly in the workplace on one hand 99 and be told, on the other hand, that they are living in a democratic society and they are free to choose what will happen in their own lives. To get a balanced view of U.S. society they should be shown the system's benefits, but they also should be aware that health care is not provided to most people, that millions are homeless, or that businesses fire workers if they protest hazardous working conditions (Freudheim, Carmody, "Ousted Worker Wins"). People who have scant opportunity to criticize their orders, and decision- making skills do not generally become developed. This happens when those having an interest in maintaining power benefit by an oppressive ideology which says the workers cannot and should not have a say in how the workplace should be run. A voice from the private business sector expresses concern that workers are being turned into robots without any thinking skills. However, programs to involve workers in making decisions about how the workplace is run often falter without continued support from management ("Management-Labor"). Besides the lack of such support, there is the problem of getting people to participate in decision-making. Even within a supportive environment, people are reluctant to take time and effort to get involved. Business leaders 100 are thrust into a highly destructive competition, one not unlike a war. They are caught between the perceived need for running the business like an army division and allowing a workplace alongside the alleged political democracy on the outside. A business person's mistrust of governments stems not only from a realization of what well-heeled organizations can do, such as efficient cutthroat businesses, but from the enormous inefficiencies attendant with all bureaucracies. When schools use material like Don't Get Fired, teachers are caught in a dilemma in teaching critical thinking and philosophy. Thinking critically is detrimental to a person's well being in the U.S. economic system where someone like Mike does criticize the boss. A critically thoughtful worker may not encounter this rigid a workplace; instead that person can meet more subtle ways that critical thinking is discouraged. A recent business publication contained a report, "Bottom Line Personal- The Many New Measures of Intelligence," which cited an article in The New York Times about ". . . psychologists [who] see the art of persuasion as essential to success in much of life." Being an academician, having a great deal of intelligence, and " . . . success have little to do with 101 each other" according to a psychologist quoted in the article. One must be "practical" because " . . . academic intelligence has little to do with success in life." What makes a successful person is the ability to sell something, namely, " . . . the habits of mind that foster productivity" (Boardroom Reports). The virtuous traits of an academician, critical thinking and philosophical thinking, militate against being a salesperson, for selling something more often than not means telling partial truths. The Florida legislature and the D.O.E. are not unlike salespersons in indoctrinating students with the ideology of Americanism and saying, without qualification, that, its product, the U.S. "free enterprise" system, is the best on earth. If educational establishments assume that academic intelligence does not correlate with success while sales skills do, then it would be logical not to emphasize critical thinking skills but salesmanship. There is little distance from that point to arguing that a successful D.O.E. program is one which can convince students that a doctrine is true. In turn, the D.O.E.'s pedagogy establishes for students a pattern of thinking that not only is acceptable in an ostensibly objective learning environment but a pattern vital to success. 102 D.O.E.-type ideologies reinforce a workplace and social structure that says workers are tools to be used for perpetuating those in power and are not competent to join in the philosophic reasoning necessary to a citizen. The course material has significant omissions. Many realities which demand consideration are ignored. While the student is told he lives in a democracy, the average workplace is not that. These effects flow from an educational program which by its nature betrays its intent as will be shown in the next chapter. CHAPTER SEVEN THE D.O.E. PROGRAM AND PHILOSOPHY What Constitutes Reasoning and Critical Thinking To teach students how to think critically about social science the legislature and D.O.E. must find some alternative to the current program. The A.V.C. and Free enterprise courses inhibit an understanding of the world and serve only to inflame students against other systems. The D.O.E. wants students to accept philosophy in deference to the reputedly ideological communism. Philosophy is defined by the D.O.E. as an "attempt to approach the truth in which assumptions may be questioned and critically examined. (Florida State 18). Ideology is defined as the absence of questioning and critical examination. Because the D.O.E. is looking for a way to teach philosophically rather than ideologically, we need to see what constitutes philosophy in order to identify the current D.O.E. teaching methodology and what should be done to change it. The D.O.E.'s references to "reason," "critical examination", and "logic" constitute only special parts of philosophy and are not synonymous with each other. 103 104 Niemeyer faults ideologies for holding ideas merely because they cohere logically (Niemeyer, Between 73). A logic system can be constructed with a great deal of research and predicated upon a set of well thought out assumptions. In this way, thinking logically appears to be thinking critically or open-mindedly. The person constructing it may be quite willing to hold the system up to public scrutiny and even be willing to alter the assumptions. A major problem occurs when conclusions are drawn only within the confines of a particular logic system. The D.O.E. says it prefers philosophy over ideology, but the primary focus in curricular material is on thinking critically. Upon closer examination one finds that "critical," for that agency, means making a diligent effort to find arguments sustaining its anti- communist views. For example, a "critical analysis of the nature of communism" means that students are "studying the evils, fallacies, and contradictions of communism" (Florida State 12-13). To the D.O.E. being critical means giving "more than a 'yes' or 'no' answer to the questions." Students raise questions so the teacher can discuss appropriate concepts. One concept is that " freedom is denied in all phases of life in the 105 Soviet Union." To elicit presentation of this concept students ask questions about religion and culture in the U.S.S.R. (Florida State 14, 30). Lest confusion arise about how teachers present material, there needs to be a discussion about the nature of argument, critical thinking, and philosophy. Philosophy courses often attempt to show that "reason" is preferable to emotion in winning arguments. A number of writers say "reason" means consciously structuring an argument (Weddle, Scriven, Toulmin et al.). One text defines "reasoning" as "the central activity of presenting the reasons in support of a claim, so as to show how those reasons succeed in giving strength to the claim" (Toulmin et al. 13). The problem with this definition is that it is vague and circular. Precisely what "activity" is involved in presenting the reasons? Is it ordering relationships and setting standards for evaluating claims? "Reasons" is used in the definition of the word "reasoning. " This is analogous to defining a "farmer" as one who farms. A less circular definition of "reasoning" is "systematically working toward the solution of a problem, toward the understanding of a phenomenon, toward the truth of the matter" (Scriven 2). Although 106 this definition captivates a major idea in saying that intellectual effort rather than mere acceptance is used to arrive at a concept, it is assumed there is a general agreement as to the meaning of "systematic." Further, the definition assumes that once a problem is articulated, a solution or truth exists and it can be found by this "reasoning." The D.O.E.'s Resource Unit invokes this meaning of reason when it wants students "to approach the truth" (Florida State 18). Reasoning can also mean simply being able to support an argument, but one begs the question about there being such a thing as support (Weddle passim). An assertion that support exists does not necessarily constitute "reason." The standards used to judge support also are selected from bases other than what people call "reason." Often, standards of support depend upon metaphysics, but metaphysics is beyond the immediate realm of the mechanics of logic and specified methods of^arriving at answers (Feibleman 121). Support sometimes incorporates emotion. "Reason" gets pitted against emotion and is regarded more as a way that humanity arrives at a consensus of what constitutes support (Scriven 2). It is assumed here 107 that there is a human thought process called "reason" that is totally divorced from emotion and that it is universal. Different cultures and people of diverse perspectives may organize thoughts about the same thing differently. It would be rather presumptuous to claim that any single logic or way of creating a logistic system is sufficient to gain universal and unguestioned acceptance among an emotional humanity. Unambiguously defining emotion is not such an easy task. More difficult is determining the degree that emotion enters into a decision-making process. Often, human feeling is so intertwined with the facts (that are supposedly independent of that feeling) that one cannot say when "reason" is being used. The term "philosophical reason" has been used as an attempt to overcome combining emotion with reason in arriving at universal truths (Fogelin 302). Reason, to paraphrase Scriven, certifies the shortcuts to the truth (Scriven 5). Perhaps a better way of treating philosophical reason is to say that the "truth" refers to what the people see as the truth, even if emotion is involved. To say that there are "universal truths" commits one to a position not unlike a religonist claiming the existence of a perfect being or deity. How 108 close to a universal agreement a way of thinking comes is only one ingredient in "critical thinking." Critical thinking often is taught in college English and speech departments, under the rubric of "argumentation" or "debate." Understanding what is "good" versus "poor" reasoning refers to "critical thinking." Neil Postman says that critical thinking enables one ". . . t o tell the difference between lies and truth" and also means "how to think" (Postman 4). Critical thinking, for Scriven, means, "to reason better" (Scriven 13). "Critical thinking" means "identifying and describing the strengths and weaknesses of arguments." The basic instruments of this include the beginning and end of an argument, the stages the arguments must pass through, and tests for checking "whether a particular argument is fully reasoned through" (Toulmin et al. 23). One principal danger of advocating critical thinking as a way of overcoming the teaching of ideology is falling prey to the supposition that there are "neutral" truths that everyone necessarily will recognize with proper thinking. An example is the D.O.E.'s thinking that after "critical analysis" students automatically will see how "evil" communism is. 109 "The goal is the truth" says Scriven, but what if there is no "truth" but a conclusion finally arrived at by intuition or subjective means (Scriven 12)? The objectivity one is supposed to have in good argumentation means, for some people, that emotions should not be aroused (Scriven 50). It is difficult to remove emotions and bias even in computers, for the humans programming the machines have value judgments and biases. How one selects the things to be analyzed and what standards of evaluation are used reflect human biases. It is difficult to conceive how a humanity can escape itself. Even thinking that "reasoning" could exclude human feeling presupposes a judgment made by a human presumably with feelings. A synonym for lack of emotion, neutrality, often gets coupled with a historicity. When people think that the best standards of critical thinking have been maintained, a danger lurks in believing that the "reasoned" ideas are true regardless of historical perspectives. There are at least pitfalls in considering the importance of history in critical thinking. First, in denigrating the importance of history, one loses the opportunity of seeing how reasoning standards fare in different contexts. For 110 example, the standards set for good evidence during the Salem witchcraft trials are radically different from those in the 1980s. A historical perspective allows one to see the possible social consequences arising from applying those seventeenth century standards. The second pitfall involves an overreliance upon history as a way of explaining social events. Making false historical comparisons is representative of this. Saying that the U.S. working people will rise up in revolt because they are undergoing the same conditions that workers in latter nineteenth century England is deterministic and a misuse of history. Invoking historical perspective is another means for assessing a social situation and arriving at value judgments about it. Each historical period contains its modes and standards for reasoning. For critical thinking in general, the "supporting" claims, involves standards that vary with individuals, cultures, and other subjective factors. Although history is not often a major topic in critical thinking texts, some people like Belth and Toulmin et al. devote sections to the importance of placing the standards for critical thinking in historical context (Belth 126-154, Toulmin et al. 129-135). As Toulmin et al. ask, "May Ill not people in different cultures or at different times in history begin from different initial presumptions? So may not the actual course of practical reasoning go quite differently in different cultures and epochs?" (129). Qualitative assessments of what constitutes adequate support for a claim are not alone considered good critical thinking. Some of these difficulties seem to be recognized in the literature, however. As one writer of critical thinking texts remarks, . . the ways in which the burden of proof is allocated . . . have a history." No one can authoritatively say that a general kind of reasoning, along with a set of the same initial presumptions, "must be accepted as authoritative and compulsory in all cultures and in all historical epochs" (Toulmin et al. 134). There does appear to be a general agreement among persons presenting critical thinking courses that constant, open inquiry is important in arriving at ideas. Broadly interpreted, this would mean taking account of varying cultures, history, and the possibility that conclusions often are laden with multiple and even conflicting truths. Three interrelated areas of critical analysis enter into an analysis of social problems; gathering facts, 112 arranging and analyzing the meaning of facts, and drawing conclusions. Facts can be gathered in conformity with a performed argument, or an argument can be made on the basis of the facts. In gathering facts, reasoning and critical thinking texts frequently refer to "backing," "support," or "evidence." In one text, a set of exercises asks for the kinds of information that would go into backing up the given assertions (Toulmin et a l . 63). Students are asked what kind of documentation would be necessary to support the claim that the U.S.S.R. was a "terror society" between 1949 and 1953 (Toulmin et al. 64). Recognizing the place of statistics is a skill taught in critical courses as well. For example, students are told that the figures given in the following passage is "unknowable." "In the past 5000 years men have fought 14,523 wars. One out of four persons living during this time have been war casualties. A nuclear war would add 1,245,000,000 men, women, and children to this tragic list" (Kahane 78). The case against nuclear war would be immensely strengthened with data which could actually be found, such as figures from the Hiroshima bombing, and numbers of war dead from the previous world wars. 113 By far, the greatest emphasis in critical thinking courses is on the analysis of facts in argument form. Part of the problem, says one text, is choosing among logic, empirical analysis, analogs, and so forth (Belth 156). Some other ways of evaluating data are detecting fallacies, recognizing bad statistics, making appropriate comparisons, and assessing the quality of language used in the argument. One text has a section on comparing different national incomes. If a country's cost of living is quite low, then a low income level would not necessarily mean a low living standard (Weddle 98-99). Language can be critical in arguments. Students in this text are asked to criticize arguments based upon word usage. Some assertions contain no new information, such as the political speech quoted in Weddle. "'The real thrust of this administration . . . consists in opting where possible for programs which tend to be cost effective in meeting this institution's missions and goals'" (Weddle 69). Weddle says that "running the institution effectively" means the same. Drawing good conclusions primarily depends upon being aware of how all the elements of argument analysis come together. This means making an effort to discover any errors in argument construction. Toulmin et al. 114 establish six elements entering into an argument analysis. Claims and their grounds (facts used to support the claims) must be established. The type of argumentation used must be presented. Support, or the way the evidence is used to back the claims, is needed. The modalities, or conditions under which the argument holds have to be established. Finally, the argument must withstand possible rebuttals (Weddle 25). Other text writers try developing a sense of good argumentation by categorizing the type of problems encountered in argumentation and discussing them separately. Identifying fallacies, questioning the authority behind sources, making generalizations, evaluating comparisons, and examining the meaning of causality comprise the problem areas for Weddle. These problem areas, however, overlap greatly with what is covered in logic courses. What Logic Is Philosophy departments offer logic courses ostensibly designed to develop critical faculties. Standard beginning logic texts, such as Logic by Robert Baum and Irving Copi's Introduction to Logic say that 115 logic sets standards for the way people reason and forms the basis for clear and critical thinking. These logic courses often are divided into two parts: deductive and inductive logic. Students symbolize arguments and ascertain whether they are deductively valid, i.e.; if the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily must be, as well. Deductive logic is the study of formal relationships among already established truths. Inductive logic involves informal fallacies, enumerative induction, and some theories about scientific method (Copi, Baum, Weddle). These logic courses often are quite structured and do not, in the main comprise what non-philosophy departments, Niemeyer, the D.O.E., and others seem to have in mind for their reasoning and critical thinking programs. For example, logic is taught in English and speech departments, where oratory and rhetoric traditionally were taught in order to have the speaker present arguments as forcefully and convincingly as possible (Brock). Voice control, command of the language, and argument structure comprised these skills. However, these departments recognized that students as listeners needed to "describe, interpret and evaluate" the oratorical content (Brock 19). 116 Symbolic logic attempts to translate ordinary language arguments into an analyzable form. However, it is highly debatable whether this can be done. There is reason to believe that the original intent of symbolic logic was to symbolize mathematical relationships. J. Barkely Rosser, originator of the system commonly used in symbolic logic texts such as Copi's, says Politics, salesmanship, ethics, and many such fields have little or no use for the sort of logic used in mathematics, and for these our symbolic logic would be quite useless . . . no adequate symbolic treatment of the relationship involving cause and effect has yet been devised. (Rosser 6) James K. Feibleman states that logic texts are more interested in proving theorems and doing applied logic rather then exploring the assumptions made in logic. If the reasons for accepting the assumptions are not examined, what follows is merely mechanical (Feibleman 119 et seq.). Informal logic includes a study of fallacies, or faulty modes of reasoning, partly by wrong uses of the language. The fallacy of amphibole, for example, presents an argument as being deductive with purportedly true premises, while playing upon a multiple meaning of a word or phrase (Baum 138). 117 Other components of the typical basic logic course are scientific method and probability. No one scientific method is usually discussed, and the section on probability is usually mechanical in nature. Both are treated as inductive logic and it is not uncommon to arrive at conclusions qualitatively. Formal logic does serve to discover new relationships among elements that would not have otherwise been found. Inductive logic is open in that it does not have a regularly established procedure for arriving at a conclusion based upon a set of premises. However, there are problems with using logic to explore and understand the world, as well as using logic as a substitute for philosophy. Logic presupposes the existence of structure and order, arrangements that are made by human invention and imposed upon the world. Another common denominator among all aspects of logic is the supposition that there is a psychological process called "inference." Humans will be able to conclude things given certain arrangements of things. A simple example is transitivity. If x is larger than y, and y is larger than z, then x is larger than z. A problem occurs when there is no universal agreement about the conclusion, as when different cultures enter the 118 picture. Here, one must go beyond logic, and mere critical thinking. Philosophers like E.A. Burtt offer a useful insight into critical thinking. Burtt says people must "freely learn from each other" (Burtt. 32). In critically held views, differing points of view must be accounted for. Even so, ideas are subject to change due to circumstances upon which the idea is based, or a change in the purposes for which the idea is fitted. An essential criterion for determining if an idea has been generated and held critically is whether the idea can withstand challenges. More than simply accounting for opposing views, one asks whether the person holding the idea generates ways of successfully discussing the idea's weak points. Broad says that an idea must be subjected ", . . t o all the objections that we can think of" (Broad 19). Reasoning, critical thinking, and logic are not adequate for this task. What It Means to Think Philosophically A vast gap exists between ideology and philosophy. Ideologues merely accept and hold ideas irrespective of what others say or present as refutation. Persons 119 holding views uncritically ignore internal contradictions, while the ideas are not subject to change and tend to be simplistic. These people are the fanatics who talk about the ". . . certitude of holy writ" (Hoffer 128), Critical thinking does address what is in the here and now and deals with it in an openended fashion. With philosophy, however, there are not just problems with answers, no matter how critically held. Critical thinking stands against the backdrop of philosophy, be it a guess at the truth, the metaphysics of logic, or just meditating without being aware that there is something called "reason." A philosopher ". . . delights in the clash of thought and in the give and take of controversy" (Hoffer 8). When the D.O.E. says philosophy means approaching the truth while questioning and critically examining basic assumptions, that is not enough, as a logical truth can be reasoned out by carefully relating elements according to critically thought out rules. Philosophy also is an inquiry into the nature of human purpose and uses a variety of means, such as critical thinking and logic. C.D. Broad suggests that Speculative Philosophy involves guesses at the truth, which then are subject to critical analysis (19). 120 While the particular meaning of philosophy differs for each individual, it still directs a person to keep an open mind. One common denominator seems to be present among all philosophy texts. There is an ongoing process of holding ideas up to challenge. No idea is considered as absolute. Philosophy is a process, and many ingredients and evaluative techniques enter into it. It involves numerous elements ranging from formal logic to a subjective evaluation of how language is used. Philosophy as a process enters into all phases of instruction. The accumulation of facts never ends, no one mode of their presentation exists, and no one set of conclusions can be drawn about what people learn. This does not mean that philosophers carry no biases. As noted,above, just the selection of standards for good thinking is biased and has built-in value judgments. On the other hand, if the bias is recognized, a person who thinks philosophically will be all the more cognizant of the need to entertain other ideas. Ironically, for Niemeyer, Marx, in his preface to the 1859 edition of Kapital, stated that his work would never be complete. Instead of Marxism being a set of beliefs, it could be considered a method of inquiry, a method which says that inquiry must continue forever. 121 It is persistent inquiry with an open mind, after all, that Niemeyer wants in a good D.O.E. program. That the D.O.E. omits several vital features in its definition of philosophy explains why the D.O.E. can claim it is teaching philosophy but is nevertheless using only a highly structured component of philosophy, such as logic. A closed system of thinking often will exhibit an extensive variety of ideas appearing to emanate from open minds, but as long as the assumptions shaping that system are not open to question, an ideology exists. The next chapter examines how the D.O.E. uses the method of logic to make its curriculum ideological. CHAPTER EIGHT HOW THE D.O.E. PRESENTS ITS COURSES The D.O.E. System of Logic Gerhart Niemeyer objects to the logical basis of an ideology because the lack of critical analysis does not admit any new truths into the system of ideas. In a society ideologically based, "Its core is an ideological faith that the inherent logic of concepts can contain the measure of right living" (Niemeyer, Between 134). Niemeyer says that values in an ideologically based system are not arrived at critically and are accepted as if they were real (133). He faults ideology for being logically based and says an ideological social order is one ". . . based on deprivation rather than participation" (134). Niemeyer refers to the deductive or closed argument. A deductive argument means if the premises are true, a necessarily true conclusion follows. The argument is truth preserving and operates strictly according to a set of rules. Rigid ideologies are cast as deductive arguments and are "closed systems." An axiom is a truth that cannot be questioned. It is a 122 123 principle or set of principles upon which all other statements and arguments within a deductive system rely for integrity (Hempel 495). Axioms may or may not describe the world, but as long as they are accepted as being true everything that follows from them is true if the argument is to be deductive. For example, let us say that all dogs are chipmunks and that all chipmunks are elephants. If we accept the first two statements, then "all dogs are elephants" is true. This argument is tautologous because the conclusion is grounded solely on the first two statements. Physicist Werner von Heisenberg recognized this type of problem in what is now known as the uncertainty principle. Observations made by a scientist are going to be shaped by what the experimenter establishes as a standard for observation. The observer "contaminates" the observation, and the values built into the premises will be carried noncritically over into the conclusion. Deductive truths within an ideology may be specious in the real or inductive world because the axioms themselves often are not subjected to critical analysis. As shown in the previous chapter, arguments that say it is true because it is true do not contain any new information, do not rely upon critical thinking, and 124 represent what Niemeyer says he is trying to avoid in a curriculum. A deductive argument's principal value lies in producing a new way of looking at the same set of information. The D.O.E. ideology and the means used to teach it are deductively based because the system the D.O.E. justifies is closed, the premises are advanced in the curriculum as unquestionable, and the D.O.E. requires specific teaching methods. The House Un-American Activities Committee statement on Americanism, which the D.O.E. relies upon in its A.V.C. and F.E.C.E.A. curriculum, says that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution provide the basis for Americanist principles, analogous to axioms in logic (Florida State 65). Curricular material fails to question that truths are "self-evident" as asserted in the Constitution. Whether it is truly a flexible document can be judged by what type of order, rigid or flexible, it seeks to preserve or foster. The U.S. system was born of political economic revolution; it radically separated itself from the old order of British monarchy ". . . i n order to establish a more perfect union . . . " a s the Constitution states. By making this break, the revolutionaries clarified what would be allowed inside the system and what would be 125 prohibited. Titles of nobility, for example, are not permitted, as well as billeting troops without a homeowner's consent. The Constitution declares what will be permitted legally inside the system, both with respect to functions and structures. Americanist principles, then, operate according to specific rules. Much in the same manner that truths are derived "naturally'1 in a deductive logic system (often referred to as a "natural deduction system"), the Declaration alludes to "natural" rights in explaining how truths are derived in the U.S. system. Anything destructive of those rights the people have a right to abolish, but only certain people. Despite its pronouncements about liberty, justice, and general welfare, but in keeping with the spirit of Aristotle's democracy, the 1789 Constitution applied only to a minority. Fifty percent of the population- women, blacks, native Americans, and the propertyless--could not vote, according to the original Constitution. A rigid deduction system does not change with the times. An ideologue's view of the world is similar; it is also ahistorical and places that person in a position of arguing for outdated ways of thinking. Keeping people in their places is what happened after the 126 British monarch was overthrown two hundred years ago, but the traditionalist ideologue with an eighteenthcentury mindset would argue that everyone should be kept in his place today in a similar manner. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right of a worker to have a say about what happens on the job or enjoins businesses from abusing the peoples' trust. Statutory law often shapes the relationships between business and society, as in the anti-trust statutes and minimum wage laws. Laws many times are reactions to problems long overdue for action, and today, workers still do not enjoy the right to a dignified adequately-paying job with the power to exercise democracy on the job. It is non-legal circumstances, though, that often act to restrict a person, at least as much as any law. Chapter Six showed what students are really being told about how to behave in the workplace and how that contrasts with how the D.O.E. portrays the U.S. economic system in its free enterprise courses. Workers often are kept in the workplace because of what is demanded of them on the "outside," especially if the demands are shaped by social constraints. For example, making abortion illegal, positive reinforcement of childrearing and "family values," and social disdain for 127 childlessness act to maintain the economic system by requiring people to be tied to a job in order to earn a steady income. The boundaries of the system are circumscribed in this instance by physical necessities imposed by prevailing ideas of how people should behave. If a woman has to pay at least $10 a week for pantyhose because the boss demands she wear them, this worker is tied to the workplace even more. Being a whistle blower or severe social critic entails risks of losing a job or social ostracism. Thus, social systems are not rigid just because of what a government allows. By implication the system is to be a lasting one, that is, in a state of equilibrium. It is to maintain itself against all other systems. One F.C.E.E. course booklet presents "pure/perfect competition" as " . . . a n idealized market" where all goods are of the same quality, no one person can disproportionately affect the market, and the right quantities of goods are always offered for sale. (Florida State 40) The bias enters in offering this as a desired model, when, in fact, inflexible support for the so-called market economy acts to restrict the ability of governments to plan and act where the economy fails. 128 Such a rigid model is like a deductive system being used as the sole device to describe and analyze social phenomena. One cannot account for unlimited social variety with these limited devices. Looking at systems deductively--that is, deriving conclusions from a dogmatically-held set of premises- may be likened to imprisoning social policy. For example, when business people say that only the "market" should determine who should be employed. "The market," as one prominent political scientist says, "might be characterized as a prison." Charles Lindbloom says that "it imprisons policy making, and imprisons our attempts to improve our institutions" (Lindbloom 329). In order for the system to be self-maintaining, the system normally does not tolerate anything contradictory to the principles upon which that system reputedly is grounded. David Easton describes an equilibrium-seeking system as one in which "all elements or variables in a political system are functionally interdependent; and second, that they will tend to act and react on each other to a point where a state of stability, if even for a moment, obtains" (Easton, The Political System 268). W. Ross Ashby terms these self-maintaining or static systems as "homeostatic," likening them to how 129 the human body keeps itself stable (101). A system depends upon feedback for its survival so it can assess what outputs are acceptable. Nadel states that output, or ". . . any conduct in accordance with the social norm . . ." comes back partially as input (401). This type of feedback justifies the output. The system's ability to ascertain acceptable output partially determines survivability. Adaptability means the ability of the system to change in conformity with what it takes to survive. Systems models accounting for adaptability often assume that political economies try ". . . to persist in a world of stability or change" (Nadel 407). Easton says that a system manipulates the environment and controls disturbances in order to maintain itself. In the process, even the system itself can change. Nevertheless, the political system, ". . . those interactions through which values are authoritatively allocated for a society," tries to persist and does so if it allocates values to the acceptance of the society's members (Easton, Systems 428). Of course, it is those members who have authority. Even though the process of maintaining a system may appear to be democratic, the system still is a static entity merely maintaining itself for the 130 benefit of those in control (Systems 432). The best political theory Easton says he can present is to impute to a political system a "theoretical norm" or point of reference against which any set of empirical relations can be contrasted or compared (Easton, Political System 278). Advocating that a system should remain the same and maintain itself is an appeal to deduction. Deduction is, after all, a closed system which does not allow the admission of any new elements (Rosser 6, Feibleman 15, Copi 51-54). The D.O.E. s Deductive Methodology A close examination of the A.V.C. and Free Enterprise courses shows three major ways the D.O.E. exercises its deductive teaching methodology: the vagueness of terms and concepts, faulty parallel comparison of systems, and dictation to teachers and students the "truths" to be used in discussion. These problems, however, do not exhaust the reasons the D.O.E. program is a poor way to teach economic awareness and international understanding, but they illustrate the need for the D.O.E. to use a different approach to teaching social science. 131 By making generalizations and using vague terms it is easier to frame premises which people accept as being true. This is the principle behind the fallacy; one introduces false or ambiguous premises into a deductive argument so as to "demonstrate" a dubiously sound conclusion. For example/ a fallacy of equivocation is "All giraffes are tall animals. Therefore a short giraffe is a short animal." While all giraffes are animals, one cannot by transitivity say that a giraffe is a short animal. The A.V.C. legislation, itself, says that the U.S. political economy is "the one which produces higher wages, higher standards of living, greater personal freedom and liberty than any other system of economics on earth." Furthermore, "No teacher or textual material assigned to this course shall present Communism as preferable to the free-enterprise economy indigenous to the United States" (Florida Revised Statutes 233.064). The words higher standards of living, "freedom," and "preferable" are unqualified in the legislative language. Minimally, we find a picture that is much more complicated than the legislation would have us believe. 132 For example, the D.O.E. approved curricular material says "The results of the profit motive and competition in the American economy has (sic) been the highest standard of living of any nation in the world" with "a constant economic growth that has left each generation of Americans considerably more well off than their parents were" (Goddard et al., CH-310 35). Even if material well being was the only criterion for judging the worthiness of an economy, "highest standard of living" needs qualification. While U.S. workers do have relatively higher wages than comparable workers throughout the world, they are not guaranteed a minimum standard of living. Higher standards of living might be gauged by a car in every garage, but that is mitigated by the absence of public transportation (Weddle 92). If car repair costs are significantly greater than the cost of public transportation, then the number of cars a family has may not be a good indicator of living standards. Factually, the U.S. has not experienced constant economic growth, as evidenced by the 1930s' Depression, and the numerous recessions since that time. In addition, discussion needs to include the quality of life most Americans have. Poverty levels, environmental 133 contamination, and mounting personal debt may be considered factors qualifying the phrase "well off" (Rodgers and Harrington 406-411). In using still another sweeping generalization, the legislation states that communism is not preferable to the U.S. free enterprise economy. This means that there are no aspects of communism that are preferable to those of the U.S. economy. Even by correcting the D.O.E. by saying that the U.S. has a mixed rather than a "free enterprise" economy, it is difficult to imagine that there is virtually no feature in the Soviet system that is preferable to what the U.S. system has. Under the D.O.E. legislation, one cannot argue favorably, say, that the universally available health care in the Soviet Union, however minimal, is preferable to the lack of it in the U.S. For the D.O.E., nothing in communism can be found "preferable" to that in the U.S.; there can be no criticism on this point (Florida Revised Statutes 233.064). The second problem area with the D.O.E. methodology is faulty parallelisms. Besides using vague terms, teachers must compare systems according to a few selected criteria. Communism and Americanism are so disparate that one can not compare them sensibly 134 according to a single set of standards. If a curriculum portrays only the positive aspects of the U.S. political economy and the negative aspects of competing, systems, an expected conclusion would be that the U.S. system is the best one on earth. As another example of faulty comparison, the H.U.A.C.'s definition of "Americanism," adopted by the D.O.E., makes no mention of an economic system; it is only a political declaration. "Free enterprise" is an economic system only in the Free Enterprise and Consumer Education Act. In the 1962 A.V.C. law, "Communism" is defined as a "political ideology" and D.O.E. approved Center for Economic Education course material calls "communism" an economic system as well as a political one. It is economic in that it "uses the commands of a central planning agency to decide how collectively owned resources of a society shall be used." It is political in that it wants to abolish "private property and individualism" through "the replacement of the market system with collective planning" (Goddard et al., CH-310 4). Because allocation of resources is the focus of definition of both the Soviet political and economic systems, which aspects of "communism" are to be used for comparison with "Americanism?" Later the C.E.E. course 135 booklet contradicts itself somewhat by saying that "Communism is not really a type of economic system, but a utopian and non-attainable ideal where there is neither private property nor government and coercion (Goddard et al., CH-310 14). When the C.E.E. defines "Free enterprise" as "An economic system where individuals and businesses risk their own investment in competition with other individuals and businesses to produce and distribute goods and services for profit" to what degree does this exist (Goddard et al., CH-310 6)? Every economy is a "mixed economy," says the C.E.E., but each emphasizes control differently. However, aspects of the Soviet economy may be more controlled than in the U.S. and vice versa (Goddard et al., CH-310 8). The method of describing the political economies of the Soviet Union and the U.S. is too restrictive because the descriptive categories are so limited. Certainly, the third major area of concern of the D.O.E. methodology, telling students and teachers what to think, violates the whole injunction to promote Niemeyer's critical thinking. Using the deductive method of teaching means instilling in the minds of students the A.V.C. axiom that only "free enterprise" is 136 the world's best system. In the free enterprise curriculum high school teachers are told to "Identify elements of the American economic system to include: freedom, opportunity, justice, efficiency, growth, and security." Also, the teachers must "Identify the categories of economic systems: traditional, command, and market" (Goddard et al., CH-310 72). While students learn that "It's not possible to say which system is best without considering the relative importance of different economic objectives," the material, in keeping with the A.V.C. mandate, tells students that under "centrally planned or socialist economies" people cannot freely choose consumer goods, pursue their careers freely, or sell goods freely (Goddard et al., CH-310 9). Although students are asked, "Under what conditions would communism be successful or desired?" students also learn that about half the world that is communist wants to destroy the U.S. (Goddard et al., CH-310 21). The "American Free Enterprise System" reputedly values the individual, whereas other systems, by implication, do not (Goddard et al., CH-310 34). The obvious conclusion, given these premises, is that if one values "freedom" then he is to select "free enterprise." If the D.O.E. insists upon a 137 logical approach to teaching its curriculum, it is dishonest to say that using logic, alone, is teaching critical thinking. Still, logic does have a useful role in the classroom. Other Logical Approaches Idealizations are useful in the physical and social sciences. Deductive systems do precisely this. Even Easton never states that a system ever is permanently stable, but "real moments of equilibrium are part of the political pattern." He compares the equilibrium condition to an ideal, such as the ideal of frictionless bodies in physics (The Political System 278-280). Problems arise, however, when that idealization is mistaken for reality. One way to avoid these problems is to admit imperfections regardless of what type of logic is used. A person who says the U.S. system is not perfect, but that it is the best we have, shows a willingness to overlook imperfections in the system. However, criticisms of the Soviet Union center about how "Marxism" or "communism" does not measure up to the ideals. The C.E.E. material defines "communism" as "the final utopian goal" that "is not yet achieved" while it 138 does not subject capitalism to similar tests such as meeting the ideologue's claims of freedom and opportunity (Goddard et al., CH-310 10). A disparity exists in accepting imperfections in the U.S. system while demanding that the Soviet system measure up to some ideal. The D.O.E. is biased in narrowly selecting elements for analysis, and shaping the analysis for some end purpose. For example, the C.E.E. acknowledges that in the U.S. everyone is not guaranteed work, people may not choose the right job, and job changes might cause much disruption in family life and income loss. Such shortcomings are evidenced by the millions of homeless roaming the streets. Although these gross imperfections are allowed in the U.S. economy, similar problems warrant condemnation by free enterprise ideologues, such as "freedom is not available in many centrally planned economies. In the Soviet Union," they say, "individuals may be assured of a job," but they cannot work where they want in their own field of endeavor (Goddard et al., CH-310 33). Of course, if a person in the U.S. is forced to support a family, job mobility usually is not possible. Ideologues expect the opposing system to change because it does not solve the problems of the 139 type that exist in the ideologue's own country. The ideologue's country is supposed to remain in equilibrium while the other country must alter its system. Showing the U.S. system is one of equilibrium and with feedback logic is too limited a way to get a comprehensive picture of a social system while meeting Niemeyer's standards of a satisfactory D.O.E. program. Other more instructive ways exist to teach an understanding of systems. Logic is useful in seeing how social entities do relate to each other. Even if these entities are selected arbitrarily, new interrelationships among social events can be discovered and new questions can be posed about what is happening in society. In effect, logic could be used as a pedagogical brainstorming device to raise questions and criticisms about the issues raised in the D.O.E. courses. Logicians do this in creating what would appear, at first, to be outrageous models of how they think the world could be. A somewhat tongue-in-cheek example of an equilibrium system is a computer program designed as an "ideology machine." This artificial intelligence program relies upon a hierarchical data base in which elements are combined to form atoms which, in turn are combined to 140 form plans. Plans comprise themes which make up scripts of how ideologies might act out world affairs dramas. The major instructive point is that a rather coherent set of principles put together in a system can result in correspondingly coherent behavior which can be called "ideological" (Boden 75-76). Science fiction writers do the same thing by imagining how things could look, given what technology and scientific knowledge exists. Logic uses models which highlight problems not normally perceived in ordinary discourse. Each model type focuses upon the type of problem being studied. It ". . . mirrors only certain aspects or facets of reality" (Bertalanffy 13). Logic can be critical in that no claim has to be made which says that any one method or model must always necessarily dominate all the rest. An inductive system is likened to a system based on critical thinking in that the open system may have true premises but not necessarily true conclusions. In other words, the conclusion follows only with a degree of probability. That a principle could be admitted which seemingly contradicts already established truths suggests that open systems are not compatible with ideological thinking. A few axioms held by the 141 ideologue do not necessarily lead to other truths in the open system. The closed system is more difficult to keep viable in a changing environment, for encountering new challenges requires the consideration of assumptions possibly not acceptable to the ideologue. Some inductive logic methods include an interdisciplinary problem-solving approach by separating the whole society into analyzable components. A number of models may be constructed of how this whole operates. Cybernetic systems models study the manner in which a society seeks goals while maintaining itself. Competitive relationships among individuals and groups within a system, or among systems themselves, is the subject of game theory. Here, some fundamental questions are being asked about the intellectual relationship between the individual and the State. While these methods have their utility they are not sufficient to overcome the flaws in the D.O.E. program. Criteria for Analyzing Social Systems Many issues can be raised about problems for which the courses fail to account and for which a critical analysis is needed. Opposing ideas have a chance to be fully aired when a number of analytical methods are used 142 together. At least as important as the issue of logic being open-minded is whether the D.O.E. courses can deal with the objections and challenges that a logical method presents. The D.O.E. states that students must fit into society according to state-prescribed educational standards, but this does not avoid the charge of being rigidly ideological and non-critical. If social systems are to be discussed in the manner that Niemeyer proposes, that is, in a philosophical way, some non-ideological method should be found to do so. A mere description of a political economy often results in a hodgepodge of isolated facts and unsubstantiated generalizations. Although a structural device to defend a system may be biased, at least it is a framework within which theory can be articulated, criticized, and improved. Theory provides reasons for why events happen and enables one to take actions to forestall unfavorable circumstances and enhance favorable ones. This is especially important when a major goal is to preserve a political economy as Niemeyer appears to want to do. However, fostering international understanding requires a different approach from saying uncritically that the U.S. system is the best in the world and that it is a competitive 143 organism which has beaten out all the rest. More than good logics are required to overcome this narrowminded assumption. The next chapter explores some alternatives to the D.O.E. program. CHAPTER NINE CONCLUSION: ALTERNATIVES TO THE D.O.E. PROGRAM Whv Change is Needed One requisite for changing the D.O.E. curriculum is a heightened consciousness on the part of educators about the role institutions play in limiting academic freedom and critical thinking. The A.V.C. and Free Enterprise acts, because of the well defined ideology they mandate and the elaborate apparatus established to teach the ideology, provide a paradigm of how government and business operate together to maintain a system and discourage any challenges to it. If general public school policy dictates the teaching of ideology, then instructors at all levels need to take stock of what they are doing and decide in conscience whether they should help perpetuate the teaching of a state doctrine. The policy has not been clarified for universities, but there are warnings that it could be. That the Board of Regents is on the Florida Council of 100 and the state universities are helping to prepare the D.O.E. curriculum in conjunction with the Florida Council on Economic Education suggest that the universities condone 144 145 the teaching of ideology. Besides university sponsorship of the curriculum, academicians should be wary because legal force still exists for what the D.O.E. is doing (Florida Revised Statutes 232.246(1)(b)(5)). Heightened consciousness also means the willingness to assess critically what happens in U.S. society. Critical thinking can play a vital role in making this country a better place in which to live. Here, goods and services are generally available, whereas in other countries they often are not. People, for the most part, can choose where to live without formal governmental approval. Freedom of expression is not as restricted by the government as it is in many other places. These and many liberties can be exercised, but governmental authority is not the only form of restriction. Materials for the economics portion of the D.O.E. program repeatedly make the comparison between a "capitalist and socialist system" (Goddard et a l ., CH310 passim) . In appearing to offer a balanced presentation between the two economies the D.O.E.sponsored Center for Economic Education booklet The American Free Enterprise System says that the price for "freedom of consumer choice" is choosing goods which are 146 "disappointing or even harmful." Government regulations are said to be the answer. The material claims that U.S. people can pursue careers freely, but there may be considerable disruption or loss of income. In socialist countries, claims the text, people cannot choose jobs freely, or buy what they want (Goddard et al., CH-310 32-34). D.O.E. assertions often made with emotionallycharged labels such as "free" or "dictator." Merely labeling ideas as "socialist" or "atheistic" and giving only one side of the story not only defeats Niemeyer's mandate for critical thinking but denies students the opportunity to become effective citizens by being aware of urgent problems. There are many features of this economy that if not addressed may cause serious disruption in the U.S. Without money, people cannot buy the things they want or go to just any place. In many areas of the country, the "free enterprise" and religionist ideology is so pervasive that peer pressure often will stop free expression. Most people either do not have comprehensive health care or are made financially destitute with a major medical treatment, thus forcing them into poorly maintained charity hospitals (Freudenheim). Superfluous variety in goods and 147 services often causes people to waste as much time in selecting what they "want" as standing in the longest line in the Eastern Bloc countries. Waste in production also poses serious environmental risks, and if people do not rethink this issue, there may be no planet to support humanity. The supply of individuals competing with each other for the same job or educational opportunity too often exceeds the demand. Lack of affordable housing makes thousands homeless. The basic assumption that workers are paid the full value of their contribution to their product is not a regular topic of public controversy. D.O.E. courses do not present collective ownership and control of the workplace as a viable alternative despite examples of plants purchased and operated in the U.S. by employees. Neither does the public see this debated frequently in the general media. Severely criticizing the system, followed by proposing serious alternatives to the established order, does not automatically imply that a soviet-style system is preferable. What works in the Soviet Union may or may not work here. Cuba, for example, has its unique committees for the Defense of the Revolution, something not found in the U.S.S.R. Human life, if it has any value, cannot be measured 148 materially. A humane society is predicated upon the idea that human dignity means that a person is encouraged to think philosophically. That, even the D.O.E. says. More poignantly, failing to think critically about world affairs may result in a nuclear holocaust for us all. Alternatives to wasting human life surely exist. Critical examination and willingness to try other systems often provide answers. Different methods of education and social organization have been tried, with varying degrees of success. Others have addressed the cold war issue by attempting to form alternative programs and societies. Alternative Educational Programs A central ingredient of an educational program that promotes peace and understanding is critical thinking. The D.O.E. program does precisely the opposite through promoting rigidly-held ideas that can at best be described as antiquated. As John Dewey said " . . . some attitudes. . . central in effective ways of dealing with subject matter . . ." are ". . . directness, openmindedness, single mindedness (or whole-heartedness), and responsibility" (173). Through education, people can 149 become aware of how to be effective citizens capable of assuming responsibility both in their own lives and in the workplace. Bowles and Gintis have shown that "Essential to the success of the program would be a coalition of students, teachers, community groups, and worker's organizations" (250). Some attempts at achieving these ideals have been tried. Sumemrhill is a school in England founded in 1921 that, at first glance, would seem to accomplish Niemeyer's goal of producing critically-thinking citizens and address the concerns of Dewey, Bowles and Gintis and also be an effective remedy against cold war hysteria. The school is designed to counter schools for ". . . uncreative citizens who want docile, uncreative children who will fit into a civilization whose standard of success in money" (Neill 4). Children are assumed to be capable of thinking and, given a chance, will make wise and realistic decisions. All school rules are voted upon by students, and a general principle of behavior is that anyone can do as she or he wants as long as others are not hurt. "Is what Mr. X doing really harmful to anyone else?" (Neill 344) If the answer is no, then objectors to Mr. X are acting anti- life. 150 However, the Head-Master ultimately approves the regulations but with the stipulation that they are beneficial to the children. Class attendance is not mandatory, but as children grow older, they go more regularly. Quality of the courses sometimes is in doubt at various levels, but a British education commission concluded that ". . . valuable educational research is going on here which it would do all educationist good to see" (Neill 85). Summerhill's advocates appear to be promoting Niemeyer's ideal of critical thinking by raising a child with the values of mutual self respect and a happy "genuine" individual who will not be a "misfit" (Neill xiv). The school's founder, A.S. Neill, says, "My view is that a child is innately wise and realistic. If left to himself without adult suggestion of any kind, he will develop as far as he is capable of developing" (Neill 4). In this laissez-faire environment, Neill assumes that children will develop a sense of self-government, criticism, and fair play. Another supporter, Eric Fromm, admits to the ". . * remarkable success in teaching achieved in the Soviet Union." In the same paragraph, though, the seeds of cold war antagonism are sown by his accusation that 151 "old-fashioned methods of authoritarianism are applied in full strength" (Neill i). Neill lends credence to this view in saying "The very nature of society is inimical to freedom" (122). The implication is that advocates of Summerhill, also the advocates of freedom, should oppose the Soviet Union. While Summerhill may seem to favor the critical thinking that Niemeyer seeks, Neill's saying that "Society- the crowd- is conservative and hateful toward new thought" would have that school's proponents go even further than those of the A.V.C. in opposing the Soviet Union (122). All societies for Neill are rejected; he does not like any of them. Places like Loblolly School in Gainesville, Florida, for young children, and The Center for Participant Education in Tallahassee, Florida, for adults, still offer themselves as alternatives to the public school system, but if they subscribe to Summerhill's anarchy, one cannot expect a radical turnabout from the cold war mentality that shaped A.V.C. On a larger scale attempts have been made to create cooperative economic systems that promote popular decision making. Numerous examples exist, such as the Mexican Ejido cooperatives and the Israeli Kibbutzim (Infield passim). The Miccouskee Land Cooperative, and 152 the Leon County Food and Vegetable cooperatives in Tallahassee, Florida, have proved to be thriving examples of how collective decision-making works (Felder passim). While the lack of ideological direction may be compatible with critical thinking, the resulting anarchy can inhibit effective directed action and result in the same cold war mentality engendered by Summerhill-type schools. Any attempt to make changes nationwide also would fail with the same mentality. Advocates of the D.O.E. program are quite right in asserting that the ideological program must be total in scope touching every aspect of the student's life. Michael Apple says that educational theory hardly can be neutral. It must " . . . have its roots in a theory of economic and social justice." The criteria used to characterize justice Apple puts in terms of "increasing the advantage and power of the least advantaged" (158). A more fundamental approach to establishing social justice would be to say that the quality of life is dependent upon whether persons can have control over their lives, and this means people are generally recognized as individuals having the capacity to do so. The D.O.E. talks of philosophy versus ideology, and this distinction should be used to find out how this 153 basic principle of justice can be extended to everyone in society. Dewey says that philosophy may be regarded ". . . a s thinking which is conscious of itself . . . " and that " . . . is the theory of education as a deliberately conducted practice" (332). All of the above models for social change may have their advantages, but each is faced with the same mentality that helped spawn the U.S. responses to communism and the Americanism versus Communism program in Florida and so many other states. What An Education Program Must Address There are three ways the United States has dealt with the U.S.S.R. since the end of World War Two (Compton passim). First has been the Truman Doctrine of containing what the U.S. and its allies refer to as "communism," expressed in a speech 12 March 1947. Winston Churchill, in a Fulton, Missouri, speech on 5 March 1946, promoted the idea of containment by claiming that the Soviet Union had dropped an "iron curtain" between western and eastern Europe. By lending support to countries ringing the Soviet Union, communism would not spread. On 4 April 1949 Truman signed the North 154 Atlantic Treaty Organization act, specifically designed to "contain" communism. The second cold war response was telling the world how loyal the American people were to their country and the ideals of capitalism. This response encouraged others living in socialist countries to reject communism and adopt capitalism as their system. Sponsors of Radio Free Europe hoped people living in eastern European socialist countries would revolt and call for U.S. assistance. Inside the U.S. numerous congressional investigations, motivated by Senator Joe McCarthy, questioned the loyalty of dissenters. The effect was to silence opposition and create a facade of unity against world communism. The third way of responding to communism has been with detente. Various nuclear test ban treaties, such as one of 25 July 1963, and summit talks evidence attempts by the superpowers to keep peace while standing apart from each other. None of these strategies has fostered world peace and understanding, as evidenced by the bloated military budgets sustained by both countries. Certainly, Florida's repeated affirmation of A.V.C. does not foster that understanding either. 155 There must be a willingness on the part of educators to change this cold war environment if educators are to bring about changes like those envisioned by Apple (156). However, the United States is not undergoing a fundamental change in attitude towards its chief rival, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Summit conferences and test ban treaties, while helpful, are only window dressing as long as national leaders talk about "evil empires," students are required to take A.V.C.-type courses, and nationally used social studies texts insist that students uncritically accept that the Soviet Union is the aggressor against the "free world." For example, McGruder's American Government accuses the Soviet Union of aggression by relying upon U.S. State Department interpretations. There are no notes or discussions indicating a legitimate opposing view, such as the United States being the instigator of some major world conflicts. One would expect an opposing view in using a critical thinking approach to social studies (McClenaghan 493-498). If a world understanding is to be created and is to be lasting, there must be lasting world peace. World 156 peace can come about through a mutual and fundamental change in attitude towards each other. For the U.S.'s part this includes appropriately referring to eastern European countries and friends of the Soviet Union as "socialist" and not "communist," or captive nations. Moreover, it involves an understanding of not only how the cold war mentality arose but why past relations with the U.S.S.R. have failed. Aside from the fact that the U.S. policymakers have mistakenly referred to the "spread of communism," these three strategies have not worked. Instead of "communism," many more peoples have opted for socialism since the end of World War Two. A great portion of the gross national products of the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. is consumed by bloated war budgets. Clearly, the traditional cold war mentality and strategies have not worked. One answer to this problem is a different curriculum having a truly critical philosophy. The California Program California adopted a program in 1985 that goes a great distance in fulfilling Niemeyer's criteria for a critical social studies curriculum while, at the same 157 time mitigating the elements which helped spawn Florida's A.V.C. program. As a response to calls for upgrading academic standards, the Model Curriculum Standards were designed to have all students ". understand and appreciate our culture and our political and ethical ideals." The core curriculum centers about ". . . our sense of history, our membership in groups and institutions, our relationship to nature, our need for well-being, and our growing dependence on technology" (California State 1). After being reviewed by numerous teachers, advisory committees and field review groups of that state adopted the standards to be used as a guide for preparing courses of study in the high schools. California standards say that "Integral to the study of History-Social Science is the examination of issues chosen to teach critical thinking skills." This includes reporting, analyzing, interpreting, speculating and writing " . . . critically, using a variety of resources." As further evidence of the open-mindedness of the California curriculum the report on standards states, "Students should be sensitive to the pluralistic and diverse nature of today's world. They need also to realize that history does not only deal with white 158 males, nor is it only an artifact of Western civilization" (California State HS-6). In particular, a social studies course should "present the history of the West in a world context, stressing the developing interrelations between Western societies and other peoples. Western history and world history are not synonymous. It should avoid compartmentalizing of historical chronologies of either the West or the other major civilizations." A course should . . . consider both capitalism and its critics besides familiarizing students with such terms as "capitalism, communism, industrialism, . . . mercantilism, and socialism" (California State HS-33). California urges teachers to present students with varying views on nationalism, liberalism, socialism, and popular democracy, as well as the "Ideologies of democracy, socialism, communism, and fascism" (California State HS-40 HS-41). The catalog of standards occasionally slips into questionable mandates such as "A course should show that the United States has an economy characterized by . . . competition and market structure, freedom of choice" and assertions that income distribution in the U.S. . . is a result of an interaction of market forces and government policies" 159 (California State HS-54). While it also refers to the " . . appreciation of modern democratic values in comparison to other political ideologies, including totalitarianism and dictatorships," no modern country is named, thus avoiding the cold war name-calling (California State HS-35). There are vast sections on labor history, roles of women, the environment, and common people, such as farmers, slaves, laborers, women, and children (California State HS-18 HS-22). Also, teachers are to spend time on civil rights, political corruption (such as Watergate), imperialism, native Americans, and different religions. The standards say that a social studies course should teach "An ability to examine controversial public issues openly using the most rigorous intellectual standards" and the critical thinking skills specifically include defining problems, judging information, and solving problems (California State HS-24). There is none of the Florida D.O.E. rhetoric about the U.S. economy being the best in the world or that the benefits of other systems should not be taught. There is a concern for the cold war and California urges serious discussions about the war budget and the " . . . 160 continuing post-war preoccupation with security" resulting in Vietnam, Central America, and the arms control debates (California State HS-50). While it may be expected that there is to be an undercurrent of advocacy for the U.S. system, students are encouraged to think critically about all systems and current governmental policies, including those in the foreign policy arenas. California may not have a guaranteed solution for eliminating cold war hysteria, but it points the way towards a more tolerant U.S. population. Students hardly can understand other social systems if the D.O.E. curriculum is used, especially if they are told that in no way is the Soviet system to be preferred over that of the U.S. We should accept the Soviet system for what it is- that is, a system that has much to offer in the way of solving some urgent U.S. socioeconomic problems. The Soviet Union already is taking this approach by glasnost and perestroika, in adopting some practices used in the U.S. such as decentralization of some state factories. If we adopt and teach the view that both countries can work together in solving the world's problems, we can talk more seriously about alternative social orders. In space, as well as on earth, both Soviet and U.S. 161 peoples can further the whole human race by working together. On the other hand, as long as states like Florida continue with their hard-line, puerile cold war rhetoric, we cannot hope for much change. it is 1988, but Americanism versus Communism is still Florida's law representing that state's institutionalized ideology. APPENDIX A THE AMERICANISM VERSUS COMMUNISM ACT 233.064 Americanism vs. Communism; required high school course (1) The Legislature of the state hereby finds it to be a fact that: (a) The political ideology commonly known and referred to as Communism is in conflict with and contrary to the principles of Constitutional Government of the United States as epitomized in its National Constitution, (b) The successful exploitation and manipulation of youth and student groups throughout the world today are a major challenge which the free world forces must meet and defeat, and (c) The best method of meeting this challenge is to have the youth of the state and nation thoroughly and completely informed as to the evils, dangers and fallacies of Communism by giving them a thorough understanding of the entire communist movement, including its history, doctrines, objectives and techniques. (2) The public high schools shall each teach a complete course of not less than 30 hours, to all students enrolled in said public high schools entitled "Americanism versus Communism." (3) The course shall provide adequate instruction in the history, doctrines, objectives and techniques of Communism and shall be for the primary purpose of instilling in the minds of the students a greater appreciation of democratic processes, freedom under law, and the will to preserve that freedom. (4) The course shall be one of orientation in comparative governments and shall emphasize the freeenterprise -competitive economy of the United States as the one which produces higher wages, higher standards of living, greater personal freedom and liberty than any other system of economics on earth. 162 163 (5) The course shall lay particular emphasis upon the dangers of Communism, the ways to fight Communism, the evils of Communism, the fallacies of Communism, and the false doctrines of Communism. (6) The state textbook council and the Department ofEducation shall take such action as may be necessary and appropriate to prescribe suitable textbook and instructional material as provided by state law, using as one of their guides the official reports of the House committee on Un-American Activities and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee of the United States Congress. 1988 Revised Florida Statues APPENDIX B THE FREE ENTERPRISE AND CONSUMER EDUCATION ACT 233.0641 Free enterprise and consumer education program (1) This section may be known and cites as the "Free enterprise and Consumer Education Act." (2) The public schools shall each conduct a free enterprise and consumer education program in which each student shall participate. (3) Acknowledging that the free enterprise or competitive economic system exists as the prevailing economic system in the United States, the program shall provide detailed instruction in the day-to-day consumer activities of our society, which instruction may include, but not be limited to, advertising, appliances, banking, budgeting, credit, governmental agencies, guarantees and warranties, home and apartment rental and ownership, insurance, law, medicine, motor vehicles, professional services, savings, securities, and taxes. The program shall provide a full explanation of the factors governing the free enterprise system and the forces influencing production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. It shall provide an orientation in other economic systems. (4) In developing the consumer education program, the Department of Education shall give special emphasis to: (a) Coordinating the efforts of the various disciplines within the educational system and activities of the divisions of the Department of Education which are concerned with consumer education. (b) Assembling, developing, and distributing instructional materials for use in consumer education. (c) Developing programs for inservice and preserves teacher training in consumer education. (d) Coordinating and assisting the efforts of private organizations and other governmental agencies which are concerned with consumer education. (5) The commissioner of Education shall, at least 30 days prior to the 1975 session of the Legislature, 164 165 transmit to members of the State Board of Education, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the chairmen of the Senate and House Committees on Education a statement of the overall free enterprise and consumer program, together with a recommended method of evaluating student understanding of the program. Each year thereafter, the commissioner shall transmit to the above named persons an appraisal of the overall consumer education program as to the effectiveness as shown by performance-based tests, efficiency and utilization of resources, including there with a statement of the overall consumer education program for the coming fiscal year and any other recommendations deemed by the commissioner to be appropriate. 1988 Revised Florida Statues WORKS CITED Anema, Durlynn. Don't Get Fired 1 Baltimore, MD: Media Materials, Inc., 1980. Apple, Michael W. Ideology and Curriculum. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 197 9. Aristotle. "Politics." The Basic Works of Aristotle. Ed. Richard McKeon. New York: Random House, 1941. Ashby, W. Ross. "Principles of the Self-Organizing System." Modern Systems Research for the Behaviorial Scientist, A Sourcebook. Ed. Walter Buckley. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1968. 108-118. Baum, Robert. Logic. 2nd. ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978. Beck, Melinda. "Could It Hap en In America?" Newsweek. 17 December 1984: 43. Bell, Daniel. "The End of Ideology Debate in the West." The End of Ideology Debate. Ed. Maurice Waxman. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, Publishers, 1968. 87-105. Belth, Marc. The Process of Thinking. New York: David McCay Co., Inc., 1977. Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. "A General System Theory A Critical Review." Modern Systems Research for the Behaviorial Scientist, A Sourcebook. Ed. Walter Buckley. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1968. 11-30. Boden, Margaret. Artificial Intelligence and Man. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1977. "Bottom Line Personal." Boardroom Reports. 30 May 1988, sec. 1:3. Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis. Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books, 1976. 166 167 Broad, C.D. "Critical and Speculative Philosophy." An Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry: Classical and Contemporary Sources. Ed. Joseph Margolis. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1968. 9-21. Brock, Bernard L., and Robert L. Scott, eds. Methods of Rhetorical Criticism, A Twentieth Century Perspective. Detroit, Mi.: Wayne State University Press, 1980. Buchanan, Patrick. "A Crisis of Godlessness." The Arizona Daily Star. 15 May 1988, sec. C: 1. Burtt, Edwin A. In Search of Philosophic Understanding. New York: Mentor Books, New American Library, 1967. Butcher, Lee. Florida's Power Structure. Tampa, Florida: Trend Publishers, 1976. California State Department of Education. Model Curriculum Standards, Grades Nine Through Twelve (Pagination done by two letters, followed by a number). Sacramento, Cal.: State Department of Education, 1985. Carmody, Diedre. "Study Blames Poverty for Most Homelessness." New York Times. 2 November 1984: Sec. B2 . Center for Economic Education. "Florida's Free Enterprise and Consumer Education Program." Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida, undated. Clines, Francis X. "Reagan Denounces Ideology of Soviet as 'Focus of Evil.'" New York Times. 9 March 1983, sec.1: 1. Compton, James V. "Anti-Communism in American Life Since the Second World War." Forums in History. St. Charles, Mo.: Forum Press, No. FA-035, 1975. 2-15. Copi, Irving. Introduction to Logic. 6th ed. New York: Macmillan Publishers, 1982. Cornforth, Maurice. The Theory of Knowledge. New York: Little New World Paperbacks, 1971. de Toqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. Ed. Richard D. Heffner. New York: Mentor, New American Library, 1956. 168 Dewey, John. Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan Paperbacks, 1961. Domhoff, William. Who Rules America? Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1967. Dresner, Joanne. It's Up to You. New York: Longman, Inc. Dye, Thomas. Power and Society: An Introduction to the Social Sciences. North Scituate, Mass: Duxberry Press, 1979. Easton, David. The Political System. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1965. "A Systems Analysis of Political Life." Modern Systems Research for the Behaviorial Scientist, A Sourcebook. Ed. Walter Buckley. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1968. 428-436. Evans, M. Stanton. "A Conservative Case for Freedom." What Is Conservatism? Ed. Frank S. Meyer. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. 67-77. Feibleman, James K. Assumptions of Grand Logics. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 1979. Felder, David. The Best Investment: Land in a Loving Community. Tallahassee, FI.: Wellington Press, 1983. Florida Council on Economic Education. "1981-1982 Annual Report." Tampa, Florida: Author, 1982. Florida Council on Economic Education. Why? The Free Enterprise Development Fund. Tampa, Florida (undated). Florida Revised Statutes, 1988. Florida State Department of Education. "A Resource Unit: Americanism vs. Communism." Tallahassee, Florida: Department of Education, 1962. Florida Statistical Abstract. 17th ed. Gainesville, Florida: University Press, 1983. 1980. 169 Fogelin, Robert J. Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1978. Fraser, Stewart E. "Americanism vs. Communism: A Historical Document." School and Society, 9 (1966): 355357 . Freudenheim, Milt. "Doctors Finding Cost-Cutting Rules Hard to Accept." New York Times. 1 July 1984, sec. 4, 8E. Fuer, Lewis S. "Beyond Ideology." The End of Ideology Debate. Ed. Maurice Waxman. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, Publishers, 1968. 64-68. Goddard, Frederick; Glenna Carr; Christine A. Randall. A Curriculum Guide for Teaching Economics and Consumer Education: High School, The American Free Enterprise System (Guide No. CH-310) Center for Economic Education, Gainesville, Florida: Florida College of Business Administration/College of Education, 1987. _ _ _. A Curriculum Guide for Teaching Economics and Consumer Education: Productivity, Middle School (Guide No. CM-202) Center for Economic Education, Gainesville, Florida: Florida College of Business Administration/College of Education, 1981. _ _ _. A Curriculum Guide for Teaching Economics and Consumer Education: Public and Private Property, Grade Two (Guide No. CE-102) Center for Economic Education, Gainesville, Florida: Florida College of Business Administration/College of Education, 1981. Gold, Gerard G. Industry-Labor Collaboration: Designing Mechanisms for Sustained Impact. (ERIC, April 1981) 4. (ED-201-743). Governor's Commission on Secondary Schools-- "Recommendations for Strengthening Secondary Education." Tallahassee, FL: 26 July 1982 (Unpublished xeroxed report). Greever, Barry. Tactical Investigations for People's Struggles. Washington, D.C.: Citizens Action Group, 1983. 170 Haber, Robert A. "The End of Ideology As Ideology." The End of Ideology Debate. Ed. Maurice Waxman. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, Publishers, 1968. 182-205. Harrington, Michael. "The Anti-Ideology Ideologues." The End of Ideology Debate. Ed. Maurice Waxman. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, Publishers, 1968. 342-351. Hempel, Carl. "On The Nature of Mathematical Truth." An Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry: Classical and Contemporary Sources. Ed. Joseph Margolis. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968. 484-497. Hodges, Donald C. "The End of 'The End of Ideology."' The End of Ideology Debate. Ed. Maurice Waxman. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, Publishers, 1968. 373-388. Hodgetts, Richard M., and Terry L. Smart. Fundamentals of the American Free Enterprise System. Menlo Park, Cal.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1978. Hoffer, Eric. The True Believer. New York: Harper Row Publishers-The Perennial Library, 1966. "Honesty Testing." Security World 8 (1984): 71. Hoover, J. Edgar. Masters of Deceit. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1958. Infield, Henrik. Co-operative Communities at Work. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., 1947. Kahane, Howard. Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1976. Kastner, Harold H. Jr. "A Report: Economic Terms for Economic Education." Florida School Bulletin. 25 (1983): 33-34. Kirk, Russell. "Prescription, Authority, and Ordered Freedom." What Is Conservatism? Ed. Frank S. Meyer. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. 23-40. Knox, Carolyn W. Getting a Job. Baltimore: Media Materials, Inc., 1980. Lilienfeld, Robert. The Rise of Systems Theory. New 171 York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1978. Lindbloom, Charles E. "The Market as Prison." The Journal of Politics 2 (1982) 324-36. Locke, John. "The Second Treatise of Government." Two Treatises of Government. Ed. Peter Laslett. New York: Mentor Books, 1965. 307-477. "Management-Labor Cooperation Pays Off." Business Week 30 July 1984: 124. Mannheim, Karl. Ideology and Utopia. Trans. Louis Wirth and Edward Shils. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1936. Marx, Karl. Selected Works. 3 vols. Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1973. McClenaghan, William A, e d . Magruder's American Government. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1981. Meyer, Frank S. "Freedom, Tradition, Conservatism." in his edition of What Is Conservatism? New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. 229-232. . "Consensus and Divergence." in his edition of What Is Conservatism? New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. Mills, C. Wright, The Power Elite., New York: Oxford University Press, 1956. Morris, Samuel, compiler. The Florida Handbook. Tallahassee, Florida: Peninsular Publishers, 1984. Nadel S.F. "Social Control and Social Regulation." Modern Systems Research for the Behaviorial Scientist, A Sourcebook. Ed. Walter Buckley. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1968. 401-408. Neill, A.S. Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing. New York: Hart Publishing Co., 1960. Niemeyer, Gerhart. Between Nothingness and Paradise. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press, 1971. 172 . Law Without Force. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1941. North American Congress on Latin America. NACLA Research Methodology Guide.New York: North American Congress on Latin America, 197 6. "Ousted Worker Wins a Suit Under Toxic Chemical Law." New York Times. 19 August 1984, sec 1: 42. Paul, Krishan K. Vocational Education for Job Creation. {ERIC, April 1981). 3. (ED 201-779). Perl, Peter. "Some Say Computers Creating 'Electronic Sweatshops.'" Sunday Advocate (Baton Rouge, La.) 23 September 1984: 24-A. Petersen, Craig. Business and Government. New York: Harper Row Publishers, 1981. Plato. "The Republic." The Collected Dialogues. Eds. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. New York: Bollingon Series LXXI, Pantheon Books, 1961. "Position Statement of the National Association of State Directors of Vocational Education." Florida Vocational Journal 5 (1981): 11. Postman, Neil. "Critical Thinking in the Electronic Era." National Forum 1 (1985): 4. "Remarks by President at Prayer Breakfast." New York Times 24 August 1984, sec. 1: 11. Ries, Raymond E. "Social Science and Ideology." The End of Ideology Debate. Ed. Maurice Waxman. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, Publishers, 1968. 281-290. Rodgers, Harrell H., Jr., and Michael Harrington. Unfinished Democracy. Glenview, 111.: Scott Foresman and Company, 1981. Rosser, J. Barkley. Logic for Mathematicians. 2nd ed. New York: Chelsea Publishing Company, 1978. Scriven, Michael. Reasoning. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976. 173 Skene, Neil. "House: Keep 'Americanism' Course Alive." St. Petersburg Times, 1 June 1983, sec B:l. Toulmin, Stephen, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik. An Introduction to Reasoning. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1979. Turner, Fred. "Florida's Americanism vs. Communism Course." Florida's Education 2 (1962): 7. U.S. Bureau of Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1984. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984. U.S. Congress. House Committee on Un-American Activities. Facts on Communismf The Communist Ideology. Vol. 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960. Weddle, Perry. Argument: A Guide to Critical Thinking. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1978. Wit, Daniel, and Allan Dionisopolous. Our American Government and Political System. River Forest, 111: Laidlaw Brothers, Publishers, 1973. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Upon graduating from Kennebunk (Maine) High School, Jeremy Horne attended Nasson College in Springvale, Maine, later receiving his A.B. degree from Johns Hopkins University in international affairs in 1967. He completed his master's degree in political science from Southern Connecticut State University in 1969. Based on classified archives in Washington, he concluded in his thesis that the U.S. State Department and U.S. War Department from 1931 to 1947 formulated well-articulated but contradictory policies on how to use Viet-Nam to the U.S.'s advantage. Besides being a reporter for several newspapers and working as a VISTA volunteer in the early 1970s, Horne taught extensively both in public schools and community colleges in numerous states. More recent university and college experience includes graduate assistant teaching in logic at University Florida from 1982 to 1984 and a year teaching beginning, intermediate, and advanced logic at Louisiana State University from 1984-1985. Currently, Horne is teaching logic at Cochise Community College in Douglas, Arizona. 174 175 The widespread rigidity in school curricula, especially the Americanism versus Communism, and Free Enterprise laws, made him determined to take advantage of the University of Florida philosophy department's applied philosophy program in preparing a document to be used in helping to change Florida's program and programs like it. I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. w/ i f --------------Richard P. Haynes, Chair Associate Professor of Philosophy I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. S i . Ellen S.1 Haring Professor of Philosophy ' I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. J.Robert D'Amico Associate Professor of Philosophy I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Norman N. Markel Professor of Speech I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Philosophy in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Samuel D. Andrews. Associate Professor of Foundations of Education December 1988 Dean, Graduate School