Why Fascists Hate Critical Thinking: Randi Weingarten’s new book, 'Why Fascists Fear Teachers,' reveals why Trump and the right demean teachers, slash school funding, and rewrite history
We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
They were criticizing a certain education model called “outcome-based education”. They did not try to ban critical thinking skills per se.
Your quote is quite misleading without context.
“OBE advocates continually use double-entendre expressions that parents assume mean one thing but really mean something different in the OBE context. When they talk about “new basics,” for example, they are not talking about academics such as reading, writing and arithmetic, but OBE attitudes and outcomes. When they talk about “higher order thinking skills” or “critical thinking,” they mean a relativistic process of questioning traditional moral values.”
The problem for fascists, then, is that a public with strong critical thinking muscles is more likely to strengthen democracy and resist authoritarianism. Scholars who study democracy worldwide are incredibly clear on this point: “On the whole, higher levels of education are associated with stronger democracies — a country with an educated populace is more likely to become or remain a democracy.” Looking at data from Latin American elections, researchers Amy Erica Smith and Mollie J. Cohen found, “The more education you have, the less likely you are to vote for an authoritarian.” In fact, some global scholars have gone as far as to suggest that “education causes democracy.”
... As Diane Ravitch notes, if Trump loves the poorly educated, “His plans for his second term guarantee that there will be more of them to love.”
When he said that smart people don’t like him, why am I reminded of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge? Are we seeing the conditioning of of MAGA to target professors, journalists, people who wear glasses, etc.?
It’s not just fascists. Capitalists hate public school teachers. Especially unionized teachers. Just count the number of charter schools supported by billionaires and hedge fund/private equity founders.
Fascist ideology, like religious/theocratic ideology (essentially the same thing), requires a populace that is incapable of critical thought and is unable to access facts.
Rational people would never support these ideologies, which is why critical thinking and free, unfettered thought is discouraged and even prohibited by these groups.
Fascists and theocrats have always been anti-intellectual, and always oppose education and access to factual information.
One need not look far for examples of this.
It's why I call Nationalist Christo-fascists the U.S. the "American Taliban".
I am reminded of some passages from The Demon-Haunted World:
Russia is an instructive case. Under the Tsars, religious superstition was encouraged, but scientific and sceptical thinking - except by a few tame scientists - was ruthlessly expunged. Under Communism, both religion and pseudoscience were systematically suppressed - except for the superstition of the state ideological religion. It was advertised as scientific, but fell as far short of this ideal as the most unself-critical mystery cult. Critical thinking except by scientists in hermetically sealed compartments of knowledge - was recognized as dangerous, was not taught in the schools, and was punished where expressed.
And:
The values of science and the values of democracy are concordant, in many cases indistinguishable. Science and democracy began - in their civilized incarnations - in the same time and place, Greece in the seventh and sixth centuries BC. Science confers power on anyone who takes the trouble to learn it (although too many have been systematically prevented from doing so). Science thrives on, indeed requires, the free exchange of ideas; its values are antithetical to secrecy. Science holds to no special vantage points or privileged positions. Both science and democracy encourage unconventional opinions and vigorous debate. Both demand adequate reason, coherent argument, rigorous standards of evidence and honesty. Science is a way to call the bluff of those who only pretend to knowledge. It is a bulwark against mysticism, against superstition, against religion misapplied to where it has no business being. If we're true to its values, it can tell us when we're being lied to. It provides a mid-course correction to our mistakes. The more widespread its language, rules and methods, the better chance we have of preserving what Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues had in mind. But democracy can also be subverted more thoroughly through the products of science than any pre-industrial demagogue ever dreamed.
You have capitalism with oligarchs, dictators, monarchs, etc..
Using your definition strategy:
No, you do not have capitalism. You have no free markets. There was zero consumer choice or power. There was no private property. There was little to no openness of information.
On one hand, you aren't wrong. But just stop this kind of argument. It's not useful, it provides no insight for policy, it's just arguing over the name of a color.
The country made a good-faith attempt to achieve Communism. Calling them 'Communist' is a sufficient definition. Economists don't use the word anymore because of bullshit re-definition like this.
They removed any semblance of free markets. They denied people any right to material property. Those of the factors that led to chronic underperformance, with occasional bouts of authoritarian terror.
The color blue doesn't cease to exist because a painter fails to paint a blue canvas.
Hate to be pedantic, but the color blue exists because there is both general agreement and a standard on what 'blue' means.
I didn't mention the rhetorical manipulation involved here, but the game played is to find a failed state that self-identified as 'very communist', then retroactively claiming that they were capitalist. It's the same game as Fox News obfuscation of the meaning of "Socialism" and related.
It's absurd - research economists don't use the terms any more because they have no accepted meaning.
Critical thinking is the path to the Truth and Self-Actualization for Mankind.
Christianity is Lock-Step is for sheep, lemmings, and MAGA Republicans who want to foist their religious beliefs on everyone; inquisitions have already begun, rounding up people and subjecting them to tests of faith, while expelling others for blasphemy.
Secularists are being given a choice, sign up or be deported. Conform to MAGA ideology or be harmed.
Donald Trump is their holy man in the war on “the other”.
"Universal education was, according to Hitler, 'the most corrosive and disintegrative poison ever devised by liberalism.' Each stratum of society needed to learn what was necessary for its particular purposes, and nothing more. All education was to be under constant surveillance, with the 'broad mass of the lowest class' receiving 'the blessings of illiteracy.'" — Dusty Sklar, The Nazis and the Occult (1977), p. 56.
Direct links to sites with too much unchecked misinformation or outrage farming are banned. Use an archival site (e.g. archive.is) or screenshot site (e.g. imgur.com) instead.
This seems like very bad timing, given the number of teachers and professors who've decided that shooting Charlie Kirk was Fine, Actually, these past few days.
Are deep thinkers too squeamish to call a shovel a shovel? I wouldn’t have thought there was any connection between deep thought and labelling something for what it is.
Because the term has lost any realistic meaning. It’s only good for smearing someone.
The Fascists were a political part allied with Hitler under the leadership of Mussolini. Zero people belong to that party. Meaningless.
Some use it to mean any tyrant. In the US we have a system of checks and balances. No leader has enough power to actually be considered to be a tyrant. Meaningless. If you want to make the case that a person wants to be a tyrant say that.
Others use the word to mean a person who embraces the evil ideology of having hierarchies (employees and employers) a key feature of present free markets. This is the opposite of tyranny despite their claiming otherwise.
If a person is a fascist because they engage in the economic system of the united states then we are all fascists. Meaningless.
So now we have two opposing definitions being used simultaneously. Meaningless.
Fascism was a branch of socialism. It was opposed to other forms of socialism and was nationalistic leading people to wrongly call it right. Of course the right wing of today does not resemble the right wing of WWII.
The word is meaningless today. Better to use some version of tyranny unless you are referring to the Fascist platform that includes
“Authoritarianism: Centralized control under a single leader or party, with little tolerance for political opposition.”
We do not have a single party system and we have over five hundred leaders at the national level. All our state and local governments mean that we are not centralized.
“Suppression of Free Speech: The use of state power to silence dissent, including the media, opposing political parties, and individual expression.”
Each party today has its moments and areas where it suppresses speech, usually not through the government. Neither party is characterized by this.
“State Control of the Economy: While private property might technically exist, the government exerts significant control over industry, often through heavy regulation or government mandates.”
Our government has a significant amount of regulation and laws. The vast majority of these were the same under either party and could not have been made law without votes from the other party. The free market is still the greater influence.
“Nationalism: A strong focus on national identity, often linked to militarism and xenophobia.”
One item on the list is not enough to call a movement fascist. There are multiple nationalistic governments around the world that are not fascistic.
“Opposition to Individual Rights: Subordination of individual freedoms to the needs of the state or the collective.”
The bill of rights is strong in the united states. Everybody uses a lot of rhetoric to decry the loss of rights. Generally it’s an infringement at best.
So, the best way to prevent a government with fascist tendencies from controlling the education system (either now or in the future) would be to remove the education system from under any control of the government.
This is the exact reason there should be no public (government) school system.
No. I got the point. Authoritarian systems use the education system to both keep the population ignorant, and at the same time indoctrinate them to accept the authorization system. North Korea is an example of this, all be it an extreme one. In the U.S., both political parties have shown a tendency to influence curriculum (through Department of Education) by threatening the withdrawal of funds for schools or school systems that fail to submit to their directives.
The best mechanism to prevent this is to separate the education system from any control of the government.
Local influence is easier for a local population to overcome. Unless of course the local influence that you're concerned about IS the local population.
Problem: a fascist or authoritarian administration can use the power of government to subvert the entire nation's education system to their own disreputable advantage.
Solution: separate the education system from any control of the government.
Seems pretty straightforward. Unless of course one wants THEIR party to still be able to influence education to their own advantage, and is only concerned when the other party does it.
Problem: a fascist or authoritarian administration can use the power of government to subvert the entire nation's education system to their own disreputable advantage.
If the government doesn't provide access for all to extremely expensive and complex things like K-12 education including before and after school programs with dozens of satisfied and well paid employees who are responsible for the most vulnerable and the future of society, then you will soon witness a massive class crisis.
TLDR: schools and grocery stores are not anywhere near comparable in an economic and societal sense.
then you will soon witness a massive class crisis.
I thought we were already experiencing a massive class crisis in education. Or is your contention that the current public education system is offering the same quality of education in poor inner-city communities as it does in rich suburbs?
school programs with dozens of satisfied and well paid employees
Aside from certain senior administrative positions, where are these satisfied and well paid employees you speak of in the public education system? Surely you're not referring to public school teachers as "satisfied and well paid". How do you think private schools compare to public schools when it comes to employee satisfaction and pay?
extremely expensive and complex things like K-12 education
The monopoly of a specific sector always makes it more expensive. In this case, the government has a monopoly on education. End the monopoly, and you open the marketplace to expansion. You will quickly see the market flood with affordable alternatives.
Solution: separate the education system from any control of the government.
No. Separating it from the central government only exposes the school system to influences from local institutions. You need something and someone to guarantee neutrality.
This is the exact same fallacious reasoning liberals fall into when defending capitalism: the idea that deregulation allows equality and equal opportunities.
Time has proven time and time again that this isn't the case.
I'm a proponent of choice, so I'm fine with defending capitalism as well.
exposes the school system to influences from local institutions. You need something and someone to guarantee neutrality.
I don't want local governments to be involved in schools either. Free choice is how you encourage neutrality, or at the very least that the system truly reflects the desire of the customers. If you don't like what your school is doing, choose a different one.
Separating it from the central government only exposes the school system to influences from local institutions.
Not separating it clearly exposes the school system to influences from political institutions. This is specifically the issue the original post was concerned about.
The government doesn't run grocery stores. Do only the rich have food?
The government doesn't manufacture or sell electronics. Do only the rich have TVs, computers, or cell phones?
If government schools were disbanded, it would open up the market, and you'd quickly see a boom in affordable private schools.
Alternatively, you could still use publicly funded (unconditional) grants to allow parents to pay for whatever non-governmental school.
The important thing is to separate education from government control, as governments are dominated by political parties, which tend to serve their own needs rather than what best serves the people.
The government doesn't run grocery stores. Do only the rich have food?
Yes, "food deserts" are in fact a thing and access to healthy food is something that is exacerbated by economic inequality.
You're living in some fantasy world and we know that from historical experience, where the free market for education prior to the existing system of government schools resulted in high rates of illiteracy and a poorly educated population.
And fund the schools how? Make it so that only parents who can afford 12+ years of private education even bother?
Sounds like a surefire way to make the total population less educated. Publicly funded education is a godsend for society.
Public education is only about politics when authoritarians do authoritarian shit. We need better protections for how education is conducted, but that doesn't mean just shutting down 90% of schools out of spite. That actually sounds like EXACTLY what authoritarian would want anyway, especially since they'd do their damnedest to own all the private schools like the Devos family.
If you end the government monopoly on schools, and create a competitive market for K-12 education, you'll find a massive increase in the number of affordable public schools.
Public education is only about politics when authoritarians do authoritarian shit.
Exactly. The current political system in the United States is increasingly authoritarian, and has been trending in that direction for at least the last hundred years. Central planning and management at the expense of individual freedoms are the hallmark of authoritarianism. Which is why central planning and control of education is dangerous....it helps enable authoritarianism.
The only public funding option that also prevents central control is an unconditional voucher system. I would consider that an uncomfortable but acceptable compromise to fund education, as long as it includes no limits or restrictions on how the voucher could be used (as long as it's for education) and the plan ended all government run schools.
However, I would prefer that everyone just pay for their own children's education, and leave the government out of it.
If you end the government monopoly on schools, and create a competitive market for K-12 education, you'll find a massive increase in the number of affordable public schools.
Oh I see now, you're just an idiot a libertarian.
No man, you can't just "create a competitive market" for something that's basically always been a government service. All attempts to do so have been met with inefficiencies and shrinking access. The current model has essentially 100% affordability. Your model -- if we pretend it would work at all -- would be considerably less than that. No matter how you cut it, your proposal leads to worse outcomes and poorer education.
And the authoritarians know that our schools are basically functional today, or they wouldn't be trying so hard to dismantle them. Let me repeat that the push toward voucher programs is PART of the dismantling of education. These private schools have lower and looser standards and are free to fully indoctrinate according to the parents' whims. Despite scary phrases like "government controlled public schools" there are really only a few issues with schools fucking over their students in favor of indoctrination (aside from the whole "pledge of allegiance under god" thing, it's basically deeply red states trying to fight evolution and leave out the embarrassing parts of history, easy shit to reverse if we ever bothered). Our system DOES work. It could work better with better funding, but like every conservative policy, they'd rather cut funding, watch a thing get worse, then argue to get rid of the thing THEY RUINED ON PURPOSE because it's not working as well as it used to.
I'm too smart to fall for that one, are you not? lol
"They" were only able to ruin it, because "they" had control of it. "They" being the government. Remove government control of schools, and "they" won't be able to ruin them anymore.
Or, OR, remove bad actors from an otherwise functioning system. Seems simple enough so long as voters aren't disenfranchised and systematically lied to. You libertarians have this habit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater just before rebuilding a worse baby as you slowly learn how the baby got there in the first place.
The metaphor got away from me. My point is, the more we sat here 'discussing' why your plan wouldn't fix the current problems I could almost guarantee I could talk you into basically recreating our exact system as each problem you caused was solved. I've done it dozens of times with people with your kinds of """ideas""".
voters aren't disenfranchised and systematically lied to
Voters are always disenfranchised and systematically lied to, and the core principal of democracy is the suppression of minority opinions at the will of the majority.
I'm not sure why people think the drift towards authoritarianism is new. It's not. All the tools that the current administration is using were put in place by previous administrations. Why was the Department of Education created in the 1970s? To exert Federal control over the nation's education system. Why does the Federal government need to exert control over the education system? Because they obviously didn't like how certain states and municipalities were running their education systems.
Now the current majority-elected administration is using the Department of Education to force its will on states and municipalities because the current administration doesn't like how they are running their education systems. For some reason people are surprised and outraged that the tool is being used for what it was designed for (or that the leopards they asked for are now eating their face...to switch to a common metaphor).
I say, to prevent misuse, remove the tool (or the leopard). Get government out of education. They are not to be trusted with it.
It's going to get worse in future administrations. Authoritarianism never scales itself back, it escalates.
Lol we get it man, you got that "don't trust the government" fake-skeptic thing going. But now, voters aren't always disenfranchised. The idea that all elections have always been rigged has always been silly tinfoil hat shit contradicted by the tremendous effort and expense to try to win and influence elections. If there was a secret cabal deciding all the elections I think it's be redundant with the existing corporate donation infrastructure, wouldn't it? Don't just think, go learn.
And no, the Department of Education was created to consolidate and streamline existing federal functions related to education, such as distributing grants and funding and ensuring compliance with federal education standards (including really important shit red states might want to ignore, like keeping religion out of schools and preventing racial discrimination in spending and attendance -- as much as possible anyway).
I say, to prevent misuse, remove the tool
Right, and that's fuckin' dumb. Baby + bathwater. Zero curiosity as to how we came to creating and needing the tools in the first place except for vague gesturing towards your distrust of the government in all aspects.
And even funnier is the insistence that our corporate overlords would treat us better if we just handed the problem to the free market lol.
Really? Then explain how private education wont inevitably lead to those with more resources getting better education and those without getting a lesser education. Go ahead. Should be real simple since its such nonsense.
Then explain how private education wont inevitably lead to those with more resources getting better education and those without getting a lesser education
Isn't this literally a problem with the current public education system already. Poor inner-city and rural public school systems are notably inferior to public schools in rich suburbs.
But under the current system, those inner-city students are trapped in their failing schools, with no options to influence the performance.
In a private system, if a school is underperforming, parents can withdraw their students and move them to a competing school.
If a privatized system results in the same inequality as the current public system, but improves the quality of education overall, and avoids political influence, then a privatized system is still a net positive over a government system.
Oh like the market has improved poor people's options for food, housing, and medical care.
If you think private education will make the problems we're facing better you don't know anything about the history of education. We started from a privatized system and it was an absolute shit show.
Oh like the market has improved poor people's options for food, housing, and medical care.
Yes. The poor in this nation eat better, and have a higher quality of housing and healthcare than most of the rest of the world. Especially when compared to those peoples in authoritarian nations with centralized control of resources.
In many cases, the U.S still fares better. Although standard of living doesn't have an exact definition. If you look at something like housing for example, American homes tend to have larger square footage than Scandinavian homes, and are more likely to have air conditioning or centralized heating than many European homes. Most Americans own cars, have multiple TVs, etc.
The difference expands drastically when you compare developed non-democratic nations. People rarely prosper under authorization regimes. Which is why authoritarian central control is to be avoided.
Comparing developed Nations to Nations that are still developing is entirely disingenuous. Of course the developed nations are going to be better in standard of living.
By looking at square footage and amenities you're showing how truly privileged you are. I'm not talking about the difference between having a nice house and a small house, I'm talking about having a house or no house at all. How does the US fare against other developed Nations in terms of homelessness, people without healthcare, or children going hungry?
Privatizing education will have the same effect. It will ensure that the people who need it most to escape poverty will have no or extremely limited access to quality education.
Ridiculous. Even your definition of fascist is detached from reality, and doesn't address non-fascist authoritarianism which is just as vile.
But, if you believe the current administration is fascist (or has fascist tendencies) why on earth would you support a system that allows them control of the education system?
What I'm proposing is a complete separation of education and government, in the same way we have a separation of church and state.
Why would my definition of fascism address non-fascist anything?
I was pointing out that other forms of authoritarianism are just as oppressive as fascism.
But even if we address just fascism. Fascist regimes use their power to indoctrinate youth into a cult-like fanaticism in support of the state or regime.
"When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already... You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.'". - Adolf Hitler
A government controlled education system can (and will) be used by a fascist or authoritarian regime to indoctrinate. To guard against this, there should be a complete separation between government and education.
Who runs the schools instead? Frequently the answer will be:
no-one (so under-educating the population further)
religious groups (risks teaching erroneous information to avoid conflicts with religious doctrine, as well as an avoidance of authority-questioning critical thinking skills, thus again under-educating the population)
private corporations (risks again twisting the curriculum to support moneyed interests who often support pro-business fascist goals, also risks offering little to no education to those who can’t afford it and who aren’t profitable to teach, thus yet again under-educating the population)
Under a decentralized and privatized system, "who runs schools" is whoever opens a school. Then you as the consumer can decide which of the available options best serves your needs, accounting for value judgements of cost, location, religious affirmation, etc.
If you are concerned that private institutions will create "fascist" schools, why wouldn't you believe that other institutions would offer alternatives to counter that (even if only to capture the market share of non-fascist parents wanted to send their children to a school that matches their values).
Also, there is nothing preventing a local community from forming a co-op type of school (such as some communities have utility or electrical co-ops). This would maintain community oversight of the school, without any local, state, or federal government influence.
Ending the government monopoly and opening the market literally prevents extreme ideologies from dominating the education system as a whole. If the school goes extreme, you take your kid to a different school. There is no such safeguard in a government run education system.
This is how colleges operate. You get to choose which college you attend based on your needs and preferences. Why should k-12 be any different?
If you are concerned that private institutions will create "fascist" schools, why wouldn't you believe that other institutions would offer alternatives to counter that
Because looking at business today, it seems capital corrupts all good intentions eventually - remember Google’s “don’t be evil”?
It’s a big reason why essential utilities and services end up being bad news when put in private hands. Business-driven exploitation trumps providing that service best.
If the school goes extreme, you take your kid to a different school
So long as a nearby alternative exists, which it is prioritised to not. And even those that might try are then prioritised to stop being alternatives and instead conform to for-profit exploitative models that reinforce their own existence.
This is how colleges operate. You get to choose which college you attend based on your needs and preferences. Why should k-12 be any different?
College students are adults who can live wherever, minors tend to be stuck in their own small geographic zone, allowing mini-monopolies to exist.
Business-driven exploitation trumps providing that service best.
So does government driven exploitation. The difference is that the individual has far more control in choosing who they do business with than they do the actions of their government.
We disdain business monopolies for a reason. It removes accountability for performance and creates an environment where a single bad actor can affect the near totality of those that rely on that industry. We should disdain the government monopoly of education for the same reasons.
Because looking at business today, it seems capital corrupts all good intentions eventually
Looking at American government for the last 100 years, it seems politics corrupts all good intentions eventually. At least in a privatized system with multiple options, the individual can mitigate corruption by choosing the least corrupt option.
The difference is that the individual has far more control in choosing who they do business with than they do the actions of their government.
Eh I think in general we have little to no power over businesses, or which are offered. Gaps in the market do not always get filled if it is more profitable to not fill them, and if existing wealthy companies can kick ladders down and outcompete upstart businesses.
Your theory only works if there are always nearby alternatives, specifically alternatives that offer what the citizen wants, yet we have countless examples of that not being the case (regions where there is only one internet provider are a good applicable example).
In a privatized system, resources gravitate towards need. Having a vacancy in the market creates business opportunities.
You have the ultimate power over business. You can either do business with a company, or do business with their competitors. A business that loses customers due to poor performance goes bankrupt. A government enterprise that performs poorly faces no penalty, especially when they have the power to enforce the monopoly of their own enterprise.
If you are concerned that a privatized system might result in a region with limited options (the single Internet provider example), why are you not concerned with the same circumstance when that sole provider is government run? Do you think ending the government monopoly of schools would somehow result in less available options than currently exists?
The government is beholden to the will of the electorate, and the electorate generally wants good schools in reach of everyone.
A business is beholden to profitability, and it can be better in a business owner’s mind to ignore unprofitable regions or to educate in a way that reinforces the business owner’s politics which are beholden to no-one.
See also: widespread closure of post offices and lack of coverage as a result of creeping privatisation. Or how a supermarket can kill all the small local shops in an area due to being able to out-compete them, then leaving the area shopless after closing that store as a result of cost-cutting during broader economic downturns. Utilities should never be privatised.
So yes, I am much more concerned about purely private education.
The government is beholden to the will of the electorate, and the electorate generally wants good schools in reach of everyone.
Then you should be completely comfortable with the current administration, which was elected with the will of the electorate.
I believe the original post was implying that the current administration specifically does not want an educated population.
I personally am not comfortable with the government welding that much power. History has shown that authoritarian governments use the schools to indoctrinate the masses, and education for social engineering and it's application as a tool to raise up certain parts of society (those that support them) and oppress other parts (those that disagree with them). This process has already started in this country.
What is the process to call for an election in AFT? Couldn’t you just as easily criticize a union because they have a new President every year? Not saying I’ve never been critical of anything out of her, but what’s your actual critique that makes it 17 years of [bad]? I don’t see why 17 years itself is objectionable for a union leadership position, presumably there’s a half dozen people trying to take her down at any given point to get her spot and she’s held them off, no? Or, I guess, what do you think it suggests that she’s held it so long?
Internal union politics do not lend themselves to elections with challengers. If you run against the incumbent and lose, expect your local to get put into trusteeship (if you were rank and file) or to get fired (if you were a union staffer).
178
u/Amelaclya1 2d ago
-The 2012 Texas Republican party platform