The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

One of the most insulting cults that exists in our society today is the religion that has as its object of worship the common man. You hear people say, "Oh, he’s just a common person; you will like him."

What a pathetic distinction to be known as a person who can’t compete with the best, to be known as a common man who is to be classified with the most mediocre, the least informed, the least tal­ented, the most common of society. The word common means: "crude; without distinction; second rate; inferior; cheap; trite; below nor­mal; unrefined; inelegant." Can you imagine any greater insult than to be called a "commoner"?

What a paradox we are! We praise commonness, the common man. Yet, if you have need of highly sk**led surgery, you want a very uncommon doctor, not one who is average, inferior, second-rate. If you have need for your life to be defended in court, you want a very brilliant, educated, alert, sharp, talented, very un­common lawyer. You certainly don’t want your life in the hands of a cheap, second-rate, inferior lawyer. In war time you certainly don’t want to be in a company commanded by a common, second-rate, average, or inferior officer.

Too many have become common. Our community, our nation, and world are crying desperately for uncommon men and women who are excellent, talented, trained, competent, alert, distinguished. Ernest Hemingway called this "the millennium of the untal­ented." He said: "We are sur­rounded by actors who cannot act, authors who cannot write, teachers who cannot teach, singers who cannot sing, speakers who cannot speak, painters who cannot paint."

Charles Conrad, Apollo 12 Com­mander, had a recent comment on this subject:

"If teachers fail to get through to you, you’ve had it…. I had my mind paralyzed by dull teachers, my wits numbed by uninspired teaching. One glance at my report card under such teachers and you would have washed me out as a failure.

But then my parents t***sferred me to a private school in upper New York; and there they grabbed me hard, those teachers. They demanded excellence from me. They let me know that we were not playing games, that we were seriously in­volved in a thing called education. They had an honor roll — a real hon­or roll — and rewarded honor roll standing with privileges that made staying on the honor roll a real hon­or and worth the effort. I graduated at the head of my class, and those two years there changed my entire life."

What we do too often is excuse commonness, mediocrity, regard­less of where it is found, if the commonness is sincere. We have this ludicrous belief that if a per­son is sincere, it excuses every­thing. But few things are cheaper than sincerity, and few things can be more vicious. Let me illustrate: Hitler sincerely desired to get rid of the Jews. That didn’t make him nice. Stalin sincerely endeavored to send off to the Siberian death camps any friend of liberty. That didn’t make him admirable. Who is more dangerous than a sincere fanatic? Who is more exasperat­ing than a sincere fool? Robes­pierre was most sincere, even to the point of crying. He wept at the sight of blood, while sending thousands to the guillotine in per­fect sincerity. George Bernard Shaw tells us that the devil praises sincerity.

Well, where does the common man come from? This worship of the common man permeates and saturates our schools and our cul­ture and our homes. Seniority re­places creativity and talent. Medi­ocrity replaces excellence. Slothful­ness is rewarded or overlooked. The common student and common person is rewarded, so much so some times that excellent students are punished, handicapped, and held back by common parents and by common teachers who resent having an excellent pupil or child.

Eric Hoffer put it this way:

"Those who lack talent expect things to happen without effort. They ascribe failure to a lack of in­spiration or of ability, or to mis­fortune, rather than to insufficient application. At the core of every true and great talent there is an awareness of the difficulties inher­ent in any achievement and the confidence that by persistence and pa­tience something worthwhile will be realized. Thus, talent is a species of vigor."

Why do we fear demanding ex­cellence? In his latest book, No Easy Victories, John Gardner says it well:

"Keeping a free society free, vital, and strong is no job for the half-educated and the slovenly. The man who is excellent tones up society and the man who is slovenly, be he jani­tor or judge, lowers the tone of so­ciety. One does not achieve excel­lence by just "doin’ what comes nat­urally." People don’t stumble into excellence. All excellence involves ap­plication and tenacity of purpose. An excellent plumber is infinitely more admirable than an incompetent teacher or doctor or lawyer."

A recent publicity film of a large chemical company showed a group of workers in a laboratory, and the announcer said this in his com­mentary: "No geniuses here, just a bunch of average, common Americans working together." Here is the problem, may I sug­gest to you: too many want to be a bunch of "average Americans," just a bunch of "common" people. Far too many of us today aspire only to be just one of a "bunch of average Americans."

John Stuart Mill made the ob­servation about England that can, no doubt, now be said for Amer­ica: "England now appears only capable of doing things by groups, by combining; but it was individ­ual men of another stamp than this that made England what it has been, and individual men of another stamp will be needed to prevent its decline." William James told America the same thing, at Stanford University in 1906: "The world is only begin­ning to see that the wealth of a nation consists more than in any­thing else in the number of su­perior men that it harbors."

How we escape, too many of us, into the sanctuary of groups and hide there! As common men do, we say, "I’m with them. I’ll v**e with them. I belong to them; what they do is good enough for me, even if they are i***ts. I’m with the city group. I’m with the businessmen." Even if they are wrong, we say: "I’m with the rural group, the farmers. I’m with the Legion, the ADA, AMA, NEA, or NAACP. Right or wrong, honest or false, I’m with them. Democrats, Repub­licans, Presbyterians, what they think is good enough for me be­cause I still want to be told how to v**e, and how to act, and how to think by someone else."

I can hide in the group, and never have to stand as a man who can think creatively on his own, with only his God as Lord of his conscience. Common men seek the security of the group, the escape of excessive group identification. The group, you see, can save one from the agony and pain and dis­cipline of having to finally face up to knowing oneself and assuming responsibility for one’s own thoughts.

The common man surveys the group and the polls to get his be­liefs, to see what everyone else is doing, to see what he is supposed to be doing. What everybody else is supposed to be doing sets the precarious standard for the living of his days. As St. Paul put it: "They compare themselves by one another, and measure themselves by one another, without under­standing."

Oftentimes we repeat meaning­less clichés for so long that we be­lieve them. I think one such is this: "moderation in all things." A friend suggested to me last week that "moderation" is the key to mediocrity. The uncommon peo­ple who are memorable, who use their time here on earth to the full­est, have usually been most im­moderate, in love, in giving, even immoderate in anger as was Jesus, immoderate in their joy of life.

The Sadducees and Pharisees, within "accepted limits," loved and lived moderately. Jesus did nei­ther; he immoderately loved those whom the church leaders h**ed, and he immoderately lived by shattering a great many of their rules and traditions. Socrates was not moderate. Buddha was not moderate. The greats of the world — in religion, science, literature, music, art, education — have not been moderate persons. But they have often forgotten themselves into immortality by vast immod­erate creativity and contribution and living. The creative never stay within "accepted limits." That’s why they are creative. The defini­tion of "moderate" is "accepted limits."

A man looks back and too often sees a lot more moderate, medi­ocre quantity than quality in his life. Somewhere along the line he has sold himself for a measly, trifling thirty pieces of silver —even like Judas — into commonness and mediocrity. The life of Judas is proof of one thing! Men and nations and groups who have sold themselves cheap, proceed to be their own hangmen.

The problem of how to dispose of time so that it will yield a sense of fulfillment instead of a sense of emptiness is as old as time itself. We say, too often, "Just give me a little more time" to get my life, my goals, my ambitions, my aims squared away. But time runs out. We quit growing, we quit striving, we quit climbing, we quit think­ing, we quit our ideals, and won­der why life has lost meaning. Too many of our lives are stuck in common grooves.

What groove are we stuck in? We have the same brains as our neighbor, the same thoughts, the same car, the same clothes, the same type house, the same type furniture, the same personality. We are all interchangeable and yet, we talk about being individ­uals, we talk about being original, we talk about being creative, we talk about being unique, uncom­mon individuals.

Federal Judge Learned Hand prophetically observed forty-five years ago:

"The mass of us take our virtues and our tastes, like our shirts and our furniture, from the limited pat­terns which the market offers.

At the disposal of those who seek mass production of ideas, tastes, morals, and habits are the press, the tabloid, the weekly, the radio, the moving picture: these are the great engines of our modern levelers. Along with them are sales cata­logues, advertisements, posters, fic­tion, timid, fearful preachers and teachers.

Since our ancestors fully straight­ened their knees and rose upon their hind legs to become Homo sapiens, there has never been one-tenth as many people in the world who felt alike, ate alike, slept alike, h**ed alike, loved alike, wore the same clothes, used the same furniture in the same houses, approved the same sentiments, believed in the same God, and were all confidently assured that nothing was lacking to their com­plete realization of the human ideal.

Over that chorus the small voice of the individual sounds not even the thinnest obbligato, and it almost seems preposterous for him to sing at all.

The most destructive thing we can do is to compare ourselves with our neighbors and measure ourselves in relation to them. What is your standard of measurement? What neighbor, what group, what poll, what person, what book, what ideal, what philosophy, what un­derstanding of God, what t***h, what love?"

Carlyle used the best words: "The great man is like lightning; and the rest of men waited for him, like fuel, so that they, too, would flame." Have you known such a person who fed you like fuel so that you, too, could flame? If so, you are very fortunate; stay close by that person. Do you want to be around those too much who bring you down to the mediocre, or around those who stimulate you mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and raise and inspire you to be­come more truly the person you would like to be? Let some un­common one, like lightning, touch off the spark in you — and start believing in you — and watch what happens!

The uncommon man is contin­ually seeking wisdom, making an attempt to grow in his ability to make wise, independent decisions, based upon accurate facts, clear reasoning and understanding, jus­tice and rightness. The uncommon man, or woman, is excellent, su­perior, distinguished, first-rate, valuable, elegant, intelligent, re­fined. The world is crying for un­common men and uncommon women.

We can’t be all of these things, you and I, but we can start think­ing on these things. For if we, in­dividually, have no goals or ideals or thoughts that have to do with human excellence and human dis­tinction, then, we are, of all peo­ple, the most to be pitied and the most pathetic.



- The Reverend William L. Edelen is Director of Adult Education at the Plymouth Congrega­tional Church in Wichita, Kansas. This article is from a sermon delivered there February 15, 1970.

bahmer

Amen and Amen thanks for that it makes one think and that is what it intended to do. Thanks again for the article.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

You’re welcome, bahmer. Thank you for taking the time to read it, I really appreciate that. Still trying to get a grasp on the format here, playing around with the “tags” feature and such. There are so many topics about borders and citizenship, just wanted to throw something else out there. - Thanks again.

bahmer

I have already sent it to my grandson and both of my daughters for their children to read.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Awesome!!! It was my intended hope that the older generation would pass this along to the younger, to let them know it’s okay to be exceptional .... it’s as if you read my mind!!

Thanks 👍

bahmer

Your welcome.

pafret Loc: Northeast

In reading Reverend Edelen's essay I keep hearing echos of Sinclair Lewis' Babbitt, the quintessential common man. It also reminds me of Barry Goldwater, who was in his time one of the superior men needed by our nation. There is a considerable coincidence of Goldwater's thoughts and our current President's, Donald Trump.

Here are a batch of Goldwater quotes and comments on the then current political scene. I don't think I am far off the mark in the comparison of two outstanding individuals.

· I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
o Acceptance Speech as the 1964 Republican P**********l candidate. Variants and derivatives of this that are often quoted include:
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue; extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.
· Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of e******y, ladies and gentlemen. E******y, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Wow, Pafret!!!! Great connection, thank you for this... I’ll be looking into Lewis’ Babbitt...

Btw, I enjoyed both of your “vampire” reads today, in fact, I enjoy reading most, if not all, of your topics.

Thanks again for your reply.

pafret Loc: Northeast

Look up Goldwater on Wikipedia, there is much more that could not be fitted in and the correlation of the Democratic party stance at that time to the present time will convince you that Democrats have been the party of evil for a long time.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Ok, I’ll definitely look into that. And yes, I’ve known for some time now that the Democrats were the party of evil, ever since they opposed the civil rights acts of the 50’s & 60’s, and all that goes with that, but it will be good to read a few more reasons.

4430 Loc: Little Egypt ** Southern Illinory

Excellent read and it's true about teachers some are just there for the job , however many are there with a calling to make students to reach into their inter self and believe in themselves and to aspire them to reach higher creative achievements .

pafret Loc: Northeast

I will post some of these more frequently, I had almost given up due to lack of interest.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

I couldn’t agree more, 4430. I’m glad you enjoyed the article, thank you for taking the time.
___________________________________
In the examination of educa­tion in America, we find substan­tial gaps between the ideal we envision and the reality we face. Closing those gaps by construct­ing a comprehensive educational "system" seems unrealistic, not only because it is difficult to focus any system upon the individual, but also because society rejects any such attempt. We must re­member, however, that the process of education is epitomized by ceaseless questioning, even when the answers seem difficult or dis­tant. In the best sense of education, each of us must ask, and finally answer, his own questions. Ethical considerations, in the final analysis, are matters of individual conscience. Unless each of us is free to ask and answer the proper questions, matters of ethical im­port can hardly be considered, much less decided.

Furthermore, none of us can accurately gauge the mind of an­other. Those with least apparent promise often come forth with astounding creativity. Education must offer challenge and variety to awaken the individual con­science and draw forth unique qualities and capacities. Looking for the best in others and allow­ing their free development, letting people be themselves, affords each the opportunity to achieve his own potential. Such a view of educa­tion implies no "system," no "es­tablishment," in the usual sense.

The central fact of our present educational structure is its failure to allow for individuality. In­creasingly institutionalized educa­tion emphasizes the collectivity over the individual, denies the significance of religious sanction in the lives of men, insists upon relativity as the highest standard of morality. The result has been a lowering of standards and an erosion of the dignity and worth of the individual—the very anti­thesis of genuine education.

The task of the educator is primarily that of liberation. The individual needs to be freed from his limitations in order to de­velop his potentialities and be­come a better man than he would otherwise have been. This is the most radical presumption of all. If we assume that the individual can develop his unique potentiali­ties only in freedom, implicit in that assumption is that different people have different capacities and varying rates of progress. Thus, genuine education implies discrimination and difference as distinguished from the dead level of e******y.

Once this individual quality of education is understood, it be­comes apparent that "social util­ity" is not an appropriate measure of the student’s achievement. Re­spect for the individual requires that his education be measured in terms of his growth, his becoming. The object and the measure of genuine education remains the in­dividual. Development of individ­ual personality, not social con­formity, should be education’s concern. Education is the process by which the individual gains pos­session of his soul and becomes a human being fully responsive to his capacities.

In a practical sense, genuine education trains students to think for themselves. Mere indoctrina­tion will not suffice:

”Cannot we let people be themselves, and enjoy life in their own way? You are trying to make that man another you. One’s enough.¹”

If education is to provide the opportunity for the full develop­ment of personality and independ­ent thought, it must also provide a frame of reference giving mean­ing to that independence. Rever­ence for t***h is quite as impor­tant as development of personal uniqueness. Thoreau’s remark that "in the long run men hit only what they aim at," should serve to remind us that education must also give status and direction to man’s moral existence, convincing the individual that man is more than merely animal and therefore possesses correspondingly higher obligations and aspirations.

”We may now define in a more pre­cise manner the aim of education. It is to guide man in the evolving dyna­mism through which he shapes him­self as a human person—armed with knowledge, strength of judgment, and moral virtues—while at the same time conveying to him the spiritual heritage of the nation and the civili­zation in which he is involved, and preserving in this way the century-old achievements of generations.2”

Emerson once criticized the uto­pian quality of his own work, say­ing, "I found when I had finished my new lecture that it was a very good house, only the architect had unfortunately omitted the stairs." Such a demanding view of educa­tion as outlined in these pages runs the risk of being a "house without stairs." Especially in view of the present institutional struc­ture, what educator can perform such a demanding task?

Fortunately, we need not wait for institutional reform if we wish substantially to improve the education of our young. Not all education occurs in the school. Ed­ucation, like charity, begins at home. If the task of reforming a giant educational structure serv­ing millions of children seems too large, could each of us at least as­sume responsibility for the proper mental and moral development of a single child? The individual need not feel impotent when he has be­fore him a task on a scale which he can comprehend as an individ­ual, especially when that task is the development of human person­ality, surely the single most im­portant undertaking in the world. There is one catch: If the effort is to have the chance to succeed, the individual educator of the in­dividual child must want to meet the challenge.

”… people, I am certain, greatly un­derestimate the power of men to achieve their real choices. But the choices must be real and primary, not secondary ones. Men will often say that they want such and such a thing, and true, they do want such and such a thing, but it turns out that they want something else more. It is what they want most that they will be most active, ingenious, imaginative, and tireless in seeking. When a person decides that he really wants some­thing, he finds he can surpass him­self; he can change circumstances and attain to a goal that in his duller hours seemed unattainable. As an old teacher of mine used to say, "When you have done your utmost, something will be given to you." But first must come the honest desire.3”

Unfortunately, many parents have been unwilling to assume primary responsibility for their offspring. It is true that the mod­ern school has tended to assume functions for which it was ill-suited, thus becoming a poor sub­stitute for the parent, but the primary blame must rest with the negligence of many parents.

”The selfishness of more and more of our contemporary parents also manifests itself in neglect of chil­dren. Parents all too often pity them­selves, run away from their plain duty, their chief job, their greatest avenue to the respect of God and of honest men. They place their own wel­fare, even their amusements ahead of the well-being of their sons and daughters. They may, and usually do, see that the boys and girls are clothed, fed, washed, have their teeth attended to; but to make pals of them, to live with them, to laugh and cry and work and play with them, loving­ly but firmly to discipline them, this takes too much time and effort alto­gether. The American parent tends increasingly to pamper himself or herself. In consequence little is taught to the children by precept and less by example. Then the parents dump their progeny at the feet of the schoolmaster and schoolmistress and say, "Here, we have no time to bring these youngsters up, nor have we any stom­ach for the job. You take them over, as totally as possible, and do what we will not do for our own. Train them in character; that is what you get paid for."4

Before we can impart self-dis­cipline to our children, we must first possess that quality ourselves. We cannot solve the problem of raising children by pretending to make the schools responsible; nor can we solve the problem of ex­ercising authority by t***sferring that authority to the children themselves.

”Let us have a little severe hard work, good, clean, well-written exer­cises, well-pronounced words, well set-down sums: and as far as head­work goes, no more…. Let us have a bit of solid, hard, tidy work….

And one must do this to children, not only to love them, but to make them free and proud: If a boy slouches out of a door, throw a book at him, like lightning; don’t stand for the degenerate, nervous, twisting, wistful, pathetic centreless children we are cursed with: or the fat and self – satisfied, sheep – in – the – pasture children who are becoming more com­mon: or the impudent, I’m-as-good as-anybody smirking children who are far too numerous.5”

How many parents would face up to such a responsibility in their own home? How many would tol­erate, much less encourage, a school operated on such "old-fash­ioned" principles? The process of character building is a demand­ing, day-by-day job. The job im­plies great expectations in the child, plus the parent’s willingness to give the sustained time and ef­fort to insist that the expectation is fulfilled.

Not only must the parent be prepared to give of himself to ac­complish the task, but he must be prepared to set the proper exam­ple. Does this demand a great deal of each of us? Yes, indeed! And no amount of tax collection and PTA activity can serve as a substitute. Any area of life where we achieve success demands time, energy, patience—expenditure of self. Surely the building of a fam­ily and the raising of children can be no exception. It is not enough to know what is right; we must also live that knowledge. "If one’s wisdom exceeds one’s deeds, the wisdom will not endure." This is a highly individual task, one which cannot be successfully collectivized.

Does such parental responsibil­ity rule out the importance of the teacher? Indeed not. The dedicat­ed teacher, who has mastered him­self and who would spend his life in helping the young to master their lives, is engaged in one of the highest callings. Without such men and women, the school as an extension of parental responsibil­ity would be impossible. In fact, it has been the devotion to duty of many teachers and administra­tors which has enabled our educa­tional system to keep operating successfully, despite bureaucratic rigidity and parental flight from responsibility. Still, the good teacher is fighting a losing fight unless the home enforces the dis­cipline and standards necessary to support the learning experience of the classroom. Ultimately, failures in education rest with the individ­ual parents who are willing to ac­cept less than the best, and un­willing to fulfill their own respon­sibilities. Our children finally re­ceive an education which is an accurate reflection of the princi­ples accepted by adult society.

The Bundy Report on urban ed­ucation, financed by the Ford Foundation, has described the current educational bureaucracy as "a system already grown rigid in its negative powers," and has warned that power and respon­sibility must go hand in hand. This was to have been achieved by the now famous "decentralization." In practical terms, the re­sults of decentralization in New York City Public Schools have been a resounding failure. The en­tire nation has watched public ed­ucation in Ocean Hill-Brownsville literally come to a halt. But this is not the failure of a genuine at­tempt at decentralization. The people have insisted that schools be publicly funded, and yet pre­tended that somehow this would not affect the decision-making process in neighborhood schools. Power and responsibility have not been allowed to flow together. The individual parents in Ocean Hill-Brownsville should have a say in the education of their children; they also should pay for that ed­ucation. So long as they lack that responsibility, it is not surprising that they act irresponsibly.

Across this nation, those par­ents who would exercise respon­sible choice in the education of their children are penalized for their responsible behavior. Par­ents who would place their chil­dren in a private school more responsive to their values and at­titudes are advised by the tax collector, "First support the state’s educational philosophy; then, if you have any surplus re­sources, you may pursue your ed­ucational philosophy."

Education in America has be­come a reflection of the insistence that education be a function of government, cost free to partici­pating students, fully financed at taxpayer expense. What originat­ed as local schooling, supported by taxation in the immediate com­munity (and therefore somewhat responsive to local and parental wishes) has inexorably moved to­ward bureaucratic bigness—the fate of all publicly funded proj­ects. On the local level, the parent finds the system less and less responsive to his concerns. Mean­while, power has tended to gravi­tate from the little red school­house to the State House and from the State House to Washington. Control of the purse strings has brought control of education.

The remaining private educa­tional institutions on all levels face exorbitant costs as they try to compete for scarce educational resources. How are they to attract students and faculty in view of the expensive plants, research fa­cilities, salary scales, and subsi­dized tuition offered by "public" institutions? Many have suc­cumbed to the lure of state and Federal aid, losing self-control in the process.

There have been various propo­sals for relief of this bureaucratic congestion, among them the idea of "decentralization." But recent events should make it clear that no genuine decentralization can occur under public funding. The effect of socialized finance in any project, education included, is to­ward more centralized control, not less.

Another proposal is to allow the individual tax credit for income spent or given for educational pur­poses. This, too, might serve as a holding action, though it still fails to deal with the underlying moral issue. Why should the money of one citizen be taken by force to finance the education of other peo­ples’ children, any more than to finance the building of other peo­ples’ homes, the gasoline for other peoples’ cars, the payment of other peoples’ medical expenses? I have yet to hear a compelling moral ar­gument justifying coercion for such a purpose.

So long as we are willing to allow an immoral premise to dom­inate our educational endeavors, we must be willing to live with ugly results.

*Continued*

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

*continued*

The only lasting solu­tion is to remove education from the hands of government, restor­ing responsibility to the student and the parent.

The response at that point tends to be, "Why, if there were no pub­lic education, parents wouldn’t send their children to school!" I have yet to meet the person who will not send his children to school. It is always those other people who would supposedly be remiss in their duty. A parallel case may be discovered in the ar­guments of the last century con­cerning organized religion. The original argument for a state-supported church was that religion would fail if people were given their choice whether or not to sup­port organized religion. The iden­tical argument is advanced today in regard to education, despite the fact that religion thrives after more than a century of separation of church from state. Is there any compelling reason why voluntary support of education should not be given a similar opportunity?

Educational reform must begin with parents as individuals, with the recognition that better up­bringing for their children lies in their hands, not in the hands of the state. If and when enough par­ents begin living their lives self-responsibly and apply such prin­ciples to their children who are an extension of self, a new education­al day will have dawned. The an­swer, then, is not to "throw the rascals out," substituting good men for bad in the political con­trol of collectivized education. In­stead, let each act in his own small orbit, with his own children, with those whom he influences directly. If one’s example and understand­ing are of high enough quality, the educational picture will begin to change no matter what course politicalized education might take.

Those who effect great revolu­tions are always small in number. Such people need not wait to be­come a majority. No one else can do the job except those who under-stand what needs to be done. The disruptive influence of political centralization in education will continue until it has been over­shadowed and rendered meaning­less by a moral force of sufficient intensity, a force generated by in­dividuals who understand what is at stake and who serve notice by their own example that a better way exists to educate our young.

- Dr. George Charles Roche III



—FOOTNOTES—

¹ Emerson: A Modern Anthology, ed. by Alfred Kazin and Daniel Aaron, p. 363.

2 Jacques Maritain, Education at the Crossroads, p. 10.

3 Richard Weaver, Life without Preju­dice, p. 119.

4 Bernard Iddings Bell, Crisis in Edu­cation, pp. 98-99.

5 G. H. Bantock, Freedom and Author­ity in Education, pp. 175, 177.

The Critical Critic Loc: Turtle Island

Please do. At the very least, I enjoy them.