Junk Thought, Part 1: Why isn't being smart cool?

Recently I heard an interview with Susan Jacoby, the author of The Age of American Unreason. I haven't read the book, but the interview was interesting. As I understand it, Jacoby is concerned that most Americans not only avoid much serious thought themselves, but actively mistrust 'intellectuals' (people who are highly educated and do lots of thinking) and 'rationalists' (people who think, and seek evidence and proof of ideas). She is concerned (well, OK, this is my interpretation) that our culture and education system are producing citizens who may not hesitate to exercise their right to free speech, but generally fail to engage in reasonable thought beforehand.

I believe it was back in the campaign before Reagan was elected President that I first noticed a politician scoffing at highly educated people. It annoyed me then, and it continues to annoy me when I hear it today. It reminds me of the 50's when 'intellectual' was equated with 'pinko un-American commie'. I will grant that there WERE some vocal intellectual Communists around, but that doesn't mean the majority of the educated citizenry were in cahoots with them. At least one of the Presidents Bush echoed this anti-intellectual sentiment on the campaign trail, and political commentators seemed to feel that President Clinton's stint as a Rhodes scholar was a political liability.

I have been teaching, mostly in the public school system, since 1982. One of the first things I realized when I started teaching elementary school was that, to kids, it was not cool to be smart. It was especially not cool to be a smart boy, but by about sixth grade, the social pressure was also building on girls. It was cool to be athletic, nice-looking, funny, well-dressed or popular - and a mediocre student. Nobody wanted to be really stupid, or to fail, but only a few girls and even fewer boys wanted to be at the top of their class. I might not have noticed this so quickly except that in my second year of teaching fifth grade, I was fortunate to have a remarkable class. It was a large class - over thirty - but fully a third of the students would have qualified for a gifted program if our district had offered such a thing, and only one of the students was functioning much below grade level. There were enough bright, motivated students together that they created a culture where it WAS cool to be smart, and the whole class benefited. Halfway through the year, the brightest boy in the class moved away, and a week later, a boy moved in who was quite social but completely disinterested in schoolwork. For the rest of the year, the atmosphere in the class was not as friendly to learning. It was still an excellent group, and some of them had made huge gains in achievement by the end of the year - but the boys, especially, pulled back.

At parent-teacher conferences every year I taught elementary or middle school, I periodically had a conversation that went like this:
Me: "Jared is doing pretty well in most subjects, but he seems to have a hard time with ______ (math or reading or English)."
Parent, giving child a fond look: "That's OK, Jared. I was never good at ________, either."
Now, I'm sure the parents meant no harm. They were sympathizing with their children, or possibly trying to salve the child's self-esteem (someday I'll do a blog about self-esteem). However, the message the child got was something like this: It's OK to be mediocre at math (or reading, or English). Also, you probably can't do any better because you're like your parent, who couldn't do it. Therefore, you don't need to work harder at it. This, I submit, is what SHOULD be regarded as an un-American attitude!

It is a cliche these days to observe that Americans hold sports and entertainment celebrities in higher esteem than, well, anybody else. Our schools mirror these attitudes. How many pep rallies did your local high school have for sports teams? how many pep rallies did they have for the math team, the debate team, or students about to take their SAT tests? How many assemblies did they have to see the school play, drill team, or to hear the choir or band perform? How many for poetry readings, science demonstrations, or a discussion of a historical controversy? How many hours outside of regular school time does a coach or parent help groups of students with football or soccer, or rehearsals for the musical? How many hours outside of school does a coach or parent help groups of students with math? One more example: What incites more community involvement - a great (or terrible) basketball coach, or a great (or terrible) English teacher? [Note: I'm not opposed to sports, or music, or drama. I'm just pointing out the common attitude.] Achievement in sports or, to a lesser degree, music is regarded as a matter of team and community pride. Achievement in math or English is regarded as individual and private - and if you are a high achiever, you are encouraged to be modest and keep it private.

Why is this important? Because until we, as a culture, value education, intelligence, and serious thought more than athletic prowess or entertainment, any education funding, better teaching, or reform are going to be fighting an uphill battle, and wondering why it's so tough. Because if we want to be world leaders in something besides pop music, we need to be raising smart kids who are eager to be the best in math, or science, or languages. Because if we want to be a democracy, we need citizens who think hard about the world's problems.

Inauguration Day, 2009

The two most striking bits of news coverage I heard about the results of the 2008 election both came from overseas. The first was an interview with two young women from Iran, who expressed astonishment at the fact that not only did McCain concede that he had lost to Obama, but also made the statement that Obama "is my president, too." The second was a few days later, after a meeting between high-level officers of the Iraqi and US armies. One of the Iraqi officers asked, "Is President Bush going to just allow this to happen?"
I had never really given much thought to the matter-of-fact way we Americans accept the results of elections, whether or not we are happy about who won. Even back in 2000, when the vote was split essentially 50/50 and many Democrats felt that Gore had really won the election, we didn't have to worry about a coup, and nobody carried out nation-wide strikes to cripple the new administration. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and though many conservatives are horrified at the results of the election of 2008, they are preparing for a political rather than military response. Once again, it was the international reaction to the election that opened my eyes - the astonishment and jubilation about the fact that the United States had elected a minority President made it clear that many around the world had not understood we have a democracy that works - those in power really can be voted out of power. No matter whose side you took in this election, you should be proud to be part of that process.
Watching video of President Obama's inauguration brought home to me that I am getting older in a way that the birth of my first grandchild, last month, did not. For the first time, I watched a President who is younger than I. He may not be as young as he looks, but he doesn't remember the assassination of President Kennedy, or elementary school air raid drills, or the craze over the first Beatles albums. He didn't search the newspaper the day after draft numbers were assigned to find his and his friends' birthdays. His children are closer to the age of my grandchild than of my children.
I don't think it was possible to watch today's ceremony without some feeling of wonder at the exuberance of the crowds. You may have been annoyed or exhilarated, horrified or cautiously optimistic, but you couldn't miss the joy of the crowd. It is clear that Barack Obama can never be as big a success as some of his supporters hope, (or as big a disaster as some others fear), but in some ways he is already a legend, and legends can acquire a power of their own - for good or for ill. No living president in my memory held the status of a legend. President Kennedy came the closest, and more after his death than during his life.
In my memory, we Americans haven't been kind to politicians who confronted us with unpleasant facts and asked us to make sacrifices. Think Jimmy Carter. President Obama has, maybe, a better window of opportunity - first, because he is following a president who has become very unpopular; second, because he has not needed to be the messenger of doom. Nevertheless, Americans are notoriously short on patience, and three years from now may be quite ready to blame our new President for on-going problems.
The section of the inaugural speech that is clearest in my mind is the part about how we need to 'put aside childish things'. A news commentator suggested that was meant as a rebuke to Congress. I heard it as a rebuke to all of us, as part of his call to personal responsibility. It isn't the fault of Congress or our recent Presidents that Americans have run up huge personal debts buying fancier cars or televisions than we could really afford. Nobody in government forced us to use our credit cards instead of waiting to save enough money to buy something we wanted but could have lived without. No branch of government pushed us to neglect our health or our children's education in favor of playing video games, sitting in front of the TV, or whatever is our personal favorite way to relax.
I am in the 'cautiously optimistic' camp. I don't expect to agree with everything President Obama does, and I am keenly aware that the Constitution, Congress, the courts, and the people actually hold more power than the President. However, I believe that he is an intelligent and well-meaning man who is going to work very hard to try to do what will benefit our country at a very difficult time in history. If you don't wish him well for the sake of our country, shame on you.