In just four weeks, I watched teenagers rethink what they believed about rights, democracy, fairness, and empathy. They weren’t memorizing — they were unlearning, questioning, and discovering they had the right to think for themselves. Public school doesn’t give them that. My course does.
This is wonderful and a great idea. Thanks for doing this and I truly hope it becomes a meaningful reward for you both in the young lives you touch and the support it brings in for you and your family!
an argument about freedom not being based on "free will" (indifference of choice) , but - instead - based on knowledge (which includes multiple choices, yes, but only those of a certain kind) was made by Herbert McCabe: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nbfr.12734
Great article. 1.6% of the population owned slaves during the period of slavery, yet propaganda has torn our society apart based on that 1.6%. It’s embarrasing.
an argument about freedom not being based on "free will" (indifference of choice) , but - instead - based on knowledge (which includes multiple choices, yes, but only those of a certain kind) was made by Herbert McCabe: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nbfr.12734
This sounds like pretty run-of-the mill right wing propaganda teaching, but under the guise of “objectivity”. Using the idea that “we’re just talking about rights” to entrench the values of “private property rights” to students without offering any critique or varying viewpoints? Saying “we’re just discussing democracy” to convince them that everyone using the term is misunderstanding it compared to them, and to question the idea that “democracy”, not only as we know it, but in whole is a silly thing to believe in?
I really feel for the existential crisis these students are headed for once they realize what this class normalized and hid from them lol.
PS: it is an objective FACT that teens are being targeted with biased messages constantly, for political purposes, from ALL sides of the so-called "aisle." That's not debatable. These words are used by a broad spectrum of people in ways they are not prepared to *understand* b/c they've only been exposed to very shallow, one-sided, or politically-charged definitions of these terms.
There's nothing right-wing about anything I've said here, and yes, our liberty -- as INDIVIDUALS -- depends upon having a population who can THINK for themselves, as individuals.
I'm "cool" with people replying, but you're not replying to "it" (if by "it" you mean the course, or even. my comment about the course in the note).
You used your comment to state an opinion--or rather draw a conclusion about the course based on limited information, and with zero evidence impugned my character. Why would I be "cool" with that?
Have the "one" you deserve and maybe have some manners when you comment on things people write--this isn't X. Pro-tip: ASK how the course is run. ASK what readings are assigned. Be curious, don't assume you know, or that you know ME.
I found reading Ayn Rand to be an illuminating piece of my own education. Might not be the biggest fan of her or of FDR, but not totally sure what you’re trying to say there.
You seem pretty hostile to property rights. What’s your argument against them? The bottom line is you haven’t seen my syllabus, nor have you sat in on the class, and yet you came here with your snarky insults, presuming I run the class as “right-wing” indoctrination, which is hilarious: property rights are “right-wing” now? I read your comment, and it was rude. Did you expect a *polite” response to your presumptuous snark
I guess you didn’t read my comment? I was pretty specific. Not really sure what is meaning of “triggered” here, trying to reply to a conversation about ideas lol
Great idea! I used to spend a lot of time with my college students discussing individual words. I'd always start by talking about Thomas Sowell and "fairness": He said, "If there is ever a contest to pick which word has done the most damage to people's thinking, and to actions to carry out that thinking, my nomination would be the word "fair." It is a word thrown around by far more people than have ever bothered to even try to define it. This mushy vagueness may be a big handicap in logic, but it is a big advantage in politics. All sorts of people, with very different notions about what is or is not fair, can be mobilized behind this nice-sounding word, in utter disregard of the fact that they mean very different things when they use that word."
That's one of my all-time favorite quotes. I'd then have students do a writing project on a word in the culture that causes a lot of confusion. I also used to do a writing assignment giving closer examination to the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the Dec. of Ind. These activities that you're describing and I've done with college students really force kids to take a closer look at the words we too flippantly use.
Glad your students found this useful--individual words and definitions matter!
"When we discussed democracy, students admitted they’d always wondered why we didn’t just use a popular vote for president or decide every issue directly—until reading Madison’s Federalist 10. One even said the idea of direct democracy now scared her, when before she’d thought it sounded perfect."
The amount of adults that I've had to explain this to is worrisome. Great work teaching young people this concept.
So you have explained Democracy? The Federalist papers? How have you explained them? The Constitution was written into law and signed by 32 people behind closed doors. It has never protected our “god given rights” ever. It’s a rag. The articles of confederation were working. But tyrannical rulers don’t like freedom. Not for us peasants.
Fair point on discussed v explained. I am calm. The document was the beginning of the complete federalization of our government. Not an opinion. Ask the families of 300,000 dead Southerners who wanted to secede. Peacefully.
Also just to be clear--I have arrived at my opinion after many, many years of study and independent research, including reading primary source documents. Don't mistake me as someone reflexively repulsed by confederate apologetics. I’ve come by this view using reason.
I wouldn't call firing in Fort Sumter “peaceful,” never mind continuing to hold human beings in bondage. There’s literally nothing remotely rights-respecting about that, but thanks for identifying yourself as someone who thinks it’s ok to enslave others as long as a simple majority approves.
Firing on Ft Sumter. You may want to independent research how and why that happened. It did not happen per the mainstream story.
You may not agree with bondage, but you currently are a wage slave handing over 50% or more of your labor to the Government. That’s not freedom. I appreciated your article and made some fact based comments, and you have made it personal. Wish you well…. Bye.
You don't know me or what I do, but people who work for wages are not "slaves." They can quit, start businesses, learn a trade and sell their services independently. Don't try to sell chattel slavery. That's disgusting.
This is wonderful and a great idea. Thanks for doing this and I truly hope it becomes a meaningful reward for you both in the young lives you touch and the support it brings in for you and your family!
Thank you so much! It is a labor of love, that's for sure. I hope I can generate enough interest to run a fall session!
I think your course would be valuable for adults as well. Thoughts on opening it up to anyone?
This is brilliant. Wish you had an online course for everyone!
an argument about freedom not being based on "free will" (indifference of choice) , but - instead - based on knowledge (which includes multiple choices, yes, but only those of a certain kind) was made by Herbert McCabe: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nbfr.12734
I have a minor correction to make:
Andor only has two seasons; the quote is from Andor's Season 2.
Oops, thanks! I’ll fix that.
Fix K-12
https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/forget-free-college-how-about-we
Preach! Are you a fan of Marva Collins by any chance?
Indeed.
Great article. 1.6% of the population owned slaves during the period of slavery, yet propaganda has torn our society apart based on that 1.6%. It’s embarrasing.
Students are wired to be relevant.
This way of learning gives them substantially more than the rinse and repeat of textbook education.
Knowing why you believe what you believe opens a whole new world to encouraged kids.
Excellent! I am going to show my incoming college freshmen this and delve into the readings.
an argument about freedom not being based on "free will" (indifference of choice) , but - instead - based on knowledge (which includes multiple choices, yes, but only those of a certain kind) was made by Herbert McCabe: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nbfr.12734
This sounds like pretty run-of-the mill right wing propaganda teaching, but under the guise of “objectivity”. Using the idea that “we’re just talking about rights” to entrench the values of “private property rights” to students without offering any critique or varying viewpoints? Saying “we’re just discussing democracy” to convince them that everyone using the term is misunderstanding it compared to them, and to question the idea that “democracy”, not only as we know it, but in whole is a silly thing to believe in?
I really feel for the existential crisis these students are headed for once they realize what this class normalized and hid from them lol.
Well you sure do presume a lot. What was it that triggered you? Ayn Rand was actually offered as a reading as well as FDR?
Woah. Yeah, honestly surprised you’re cool writing this stuff but not with people replying to it. Have a good one ✌️
PS: it is an objective FACT that teens are being targeted with biased messages constantly, for political purposes, from ALL sides of the so-called "aisle." That's not debatable. These words are used by a broad spectrum of people in ways they are not prepared to *understand* b/c they've only been exposed to very shallow, one-sided, or politically-charged definitions of these terms.
There's nothing right-wing about anything I've said here, and yes, our liberty -- as INDIVIDUALS -- depends upon having a population who can THINK for themselves, as individuals.
I'm "cool" with people replying, but you're not replying to "it" (if by "it" you mean the course, or even. my comment about the course in the note).
You used your comment to state an opinion--or rather draw a conclusion about the course based on limited information, and with zero evidence impugned my character. Why would I be "cool" with that?
Have the "one" you deserve and maybe have some manners when you comment on things people write--this isn't X. Pro-tip: ASK how the course is run. ASK what readings are assigned. Be curious, don't assume you know, or that you know ME.
I found reading Ayn Rand to be an illuminating piece of my own education. Might not be the biggest fan of her or of FDR, but not totally sure what you’re trying to say there.
You seem pretty hostile to property rights. What’s your argument against them? The bottom line is you haven’t seen my syllabus, nor have you sat in on the class, and yet you came here with your snarky insults, presuming I run the class as “right-wing” indoctrination, which is hilarious: property rights are “right-wing” now? I read your comment, and it was rude. Did you expect a *polite” response to your presumptuous snark
I guess you didn’t read my comment? I was pretty specific. Not really sure what is meaning of “triggered” here, trying to reply to a conversation about ideas lol
This is just both rude and presumptuous. You have no idea who I am, how I run my class, or (apparently) what socratic discussion are.
"I really feel for the existential crisis these students are headed for once they realize what this class normalized and hid from them lol."
Great idea! I used to spend a lot of time with my college students discussing individual words. I'd always start by talking about Thomas Sowell and "fairness": He said, "If there is ever a contest to pick which word has done the most damage to people's thinking, and to actions to carry out that thinking, my nomination would be the word "fair." It is a word thrown around by far more people than have ever bothered to even try to define it. This mushy vagueness may be a big handicap in logic, but it is a big advantage in politics. All sorts of people, with very different notions about what is or is not fair, can be mobilized behind this nice-sounding word, in utter disregard of the fact that they mean very different things when they use that word."
That's one of my all-time favorite quotes. I'd then have students do a writing project on a word in the culture that causes a lot of confusion. I also used to do a writing assignment giving closer examination to the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the Dec. of Ind. These activities that you're describing and I've done with college students really force kids to take a closer look at the words we too flippantly use.
Glad your students found this useful--individual words and definitions matter!
"When we discussed democracy, students admitted they’d always wondered why we didn’t just use a popular vote for president or decide every issue directly—until reading Madison’s Federalist 10. One even said the idea of direct democracy now scared her, when before she’d thought it sounded perfect."
The amount of adults that I've had to explain this to is worrisome. Great work teaching young people this concept.
So you have explained Democracy? The Federalist papers? How have you explained them? The Constitution was written into law and signed by 32 people behind closed doors. It has never protected our “god given rights” ever. It’s a rag. The articles of confederation were working. But tyrannical rulers don’t like freedom. Not for us peasants.
*discussed is different from "explained."
Calm down. It's imperfect, but hardly a "rag."
Fair point on discussed v explained. I am calm. The document was the beginning of the complete federalization of our government. Not an opinion. Ask the families of 300,000 dead Southerners who wanted to secede. Peacefully.
Also just to be clear--I have arrived at my opinion after many, many years of study and independent research, including reading primary source documents. Don't mistake me as someone reflexively repulsed by confederate apologetics. I’ve come by this view using reason.
I wouldn't call firing in Fort Sumter “peaceful,” never mind continuing to hold human beings in bondage. There’s literally nothing remotely rights-respecting about that, but thanks for identifying yourself as someone who thinks it’s ok to enslave others as long as a simple majority approves.
Firing on Ft Sumter. You may want to independent research how and why that happened. It did not happen per the mainstream story.
You may not agree with bondage, but you currently are a wage slave handing over 50% or more of your labor to the Government. That’s not freedom. I appreciated your article and made some fact based comments, and you have made it personal. Wish you well…. Bye.
You don't know me or what I do, but people who work for wages are not "slaves." They can quit, start businesses, learn a trade and sell their services independently. Don't try to sell chattel slavery. That's disgusting.