Please, if you know a non-reader or you are connected to a literacy program, check out what I believe is a very important new article: 33: How To Help  A Non-Reader To Read,  on Improve-Education.org. The country is said to have 50,000,000 “functional illiterates.” Typically, these are people once trapped in Whole Word classrooms. They mange to memorize 1,000 or 2,000 “sight words.” But they can’t read phonetically, which is to say, they can’t really read. They can’t read a newspaper. Their academic and employment prospects are limited. In addition, they often suffer from a common side-effect of Whole Word—that is, dyslexia. Have you ever tried to rub your stomach and pat your head at the same time? Your brain is divided against itself. There’s confusion and anxiety. In the case of dyslexia, the brain has two strategies when it encounters a word: pull up its meaning from memory; OR sound it out.

Public schools are pushing Dolch Words at kids as young as 4 and 5. Once the child learns the strategy of treating words as graphic objects to be memorized by their shapes, that child is basically finished as a fluent reader. Sure, the smarter kids will find their way back to phonics in time; they will see the sounds inside the Sight Words. But the slower, less verbal kids are not that flexible. They try to do what they are told—guess, use context, memorize shapes, don’t sound out. Their reward is a reading disability.The whole thing seems like a sick joke….until you glance back at that number 50,0000,000. Our educators have been busy, haven’t they? This new article provides quick diagnostics for assessing the damage. The idea is that a good reader will guide a poor reader through the article, and together they will begin a journey of discovery and recovery.  33: How To Help A Non-Reader To Read.

I just reviewed an old book for Amazon.com called “The New Illiterates” by Samuel Blumenfeld. Published in 1973, this book is still amazingly fresh. How can that be? Because our elite educators still hang on to all their excuses and sophistries, still refuse to work for genuine academic improvement.

In this book Blumenfeld points out that the locus of our problem is “the teachers of teachers,” the ideologues, that is, who run the ed schools. What has changed in 35 years?? 

More and more I suspect that progress will come from radicalized teachers. To promote this idea, I’ve just added “31: Teacher Liberation Front” to Improve-Education.org. The starting point for this article is a quote in a new book titled “The Great Reading Disaster” by Mona McNee and Alice Coleman. Writing about the UK experience, they state:

“The real villains were not the victimized teachers who carried out the intellectual child abuse but the training establishments that brainwashed them into doing so.” 

 I urge teachers to savor every word in that quote…Victimized…Brainwashed…”Training establishments” are, of course, the ed schools in England.  

As you’ll see in the next post, my site Improve-Education.org says that Jay Leno is Educator of the Year, that Leno is doing more than anyone else to showcase the failures of our public schools. Isn’t it significant that our educators have managed to make Jay Leno, a stand-up comic, appear to be a major intellectual force? (See video in next post for more analysis.) 
Should I apologize for being so tough on educators (i.e., the managers at the top)? I feel they’ve earned it. I’ve been studying this field for many years, and let me tell you, it’s like walking through some bizarre lab. The goal seems to be to create unintelligent life forms. Start with Whole Word, so that most kids cannot become fluent readers. Move on to Fuzzy Math, so they can’t count. Filter out all facts from the real world, the scientific world, the historical world, the scholarly world, the industrial world…
Really, I’d like to suggest that, for teachers, the most radical thing you can do is TEACH MORE. That’s the theme of Teacher Liberation Front. Join today.  

I’ve just finished a long historical piece called “The War Against Reading” (#30 on Improve-Education.org.) The main focus is on Whole Word and why it can’t possibly work. If you are confused about any of this, please check it out.  The article mentions a second, complementary war against arithmetic. This war was waged under the banner of New Math, then New New Math, which is a derisive term for Everyday Math, TERC, etc. Some of the same rhetoric is used in both wars: fuzziness is fine; guesses are good; students should bring their own meanings to the page; and precision is no big deal.

 In thinking over this piece, I realized that there was a third front to the war, which was almost as important as the other two. Namely, the war against memorization and facts. Educators for 100 years have criticized requiring students to know—i.e. actually be able to recall—anything! I tell you, if you are idealistic and assume other people are, you are going to be in for a shock as you peer into this swamp. Left to their theories and tendencies, our educators would guarantee that students could hardly read; could do simple arithmetic only with a calculator; and be utterly ignorant of even the most basic information. Which is why there’s a TV program called Are You As Smart As A Fifth Grader? Imagine that being asked 50 years ago! Late News: And there is Jay Leo and Jaywalking. I believe Leno is doing more than anyone else to make the country aware of our educational decline. Accordingly, my site Improve-Education.org named him Educator of the Year for 2008. If you are not familiar with Jaywalking, you can check this short video: Educator of the Year—Jay Leno    

One of the big unreported stories in this country is that a whole industry has grown up around dyslexia—to excuse it, blame it on any cause but the real one, and find reasons why it’s not really so bad. Dip into any of this and your head will spin. The following comment (left by a reader in response to one of my articles) contains every premise and platitude now popular in that industry….

 ”To say that “Whole Word” language learning causes dyslexia is completely absurd! Dyslexia is a brain function style - is not actually a disorder since it also comes with a whole host of positives and giftings. Not to mention the fact that most dyslexics learn to read much more effectively with “whole word” than with phonics as they are global “whole concept” learners. Phonics with it’s disjointed teaching of sounds only increases their confusion.” 

 But what if Whole Word can’t teach anyone to read?? What if Whole Word causes the dyslexia and will make it worse?? The following is my response to the reader’s comment….

“Rudolph Flesch and Samuel Blumenfeld, both extraordinary minds, concluded that dyslexia, in the vast majority of cases, is an artificially induced disability. Totally, tragically unnecessary. Caused by the unworkable reading pedagogy called Whole Word. All of this is bad enough. But our educators, in a desperate bid to buttress Whole Word, have allowed a second twilight zone, a second mythology, to grow up around dyslexia. All the way back in 1928 Dr. Samuel Orton, one of the first to investigate the harm caused by Whole Word, anticipated what we are still dealing with today: “…faulty teaching methods may not only prevent the acquisition of academic education by children of average capacity but may also give rise to far reaching damage to their emotional life.” It’s sad to see a positive spin attached to such damage. A lot of my work is aimed at helping people to grapple with the dark side of Whole Word. Once people see that it cannot possibly work and should never have been used, then they can migrate toward seeing that dyslexia is, for the most part, the affliction that should not be. Flesch concluded that a cure is possible. The victim must learn to read from scratch, and learn to read phonetically, as a two-finger typist -must start over to learn proper typing.”

———-I made a great little video for YouTube that looks at some of these issues; the title is Phonics vs. Whole Word. 

New software lets me create some very useful videos (actually they’re more like highly animated slideshows). Here are the titles you can find on YouTube:

Phonics vs. Whole Word

World’s Easiest Test

Once you find one, you’ve found them all! Many of the themes discussed in my posts on this blog are dealt with in these videos. The longest is less than 6 minutes.

As I’ve written about the reading wars—Whole Word vs. phonics—and argued that Whole Word was never anything but a sophistry, I’ve become increasingly fascinated by a collateral question: how were our educators able to get away with their scam?? (If that sounds harsh, please Google: “A Tribute to Rudolph Flesch,” which is on Improve-Education.org.)

Here’s the answer that is haunting me. Whole Word could be pushed upon the country, and phonics driven out of the schools, because our media and academics stood silently by and let it happen.

Remember, Flesch wrote his first Johnny-can’t-read book all the way back in 1955. Everything you need to know is in the first chapter. But educators mobilized against him. Who came to his defense? The media, who should be reporting the truth and the news? NO, not that I can discover. Academics, who should be protecting standards and literacy? NO, not that I can discover. A shameful silence spread across the land.

Please, if you know of examples where media or academics did rally to Flesch’s side, I’d like to know. Any year, any publication, any college. Leave a comment.

****announcing an important new article****

Here’s a summary of my school years: all my schools were highly-rated, but not one class was taught as well as it could have been. Why?! I’ve been totally intrigued by this question for a long time.

Here’s my suggestion: we need to look at classrooms the way an engineer looks at problems. How, in short, do we teach the most info in the fastest time with the least effort? That’s the ergonomic question.

I’ve finally condensed all my notes into an article titled “How to Teach History, Etc.” (#26 on Improve-Education.org). Here’s the main points:

1. School and teacher must commit to subject.
2. Use every teaching aid, every trick or technique that will make classes more memorable and effective.
3. Repeat, repeat, repeat. And then say it again some other way.
4. Every course is ideally a gigantic mnemonic device, a cluster of interconnected facts, a mind molecule, a matrix.

If you search “ergonomic teaching” or “ergonomic education” in Google, virtually everything you find will deal with the physical world–chairs, lighting and computer screens. That’s physical ergonomics….The educational establishment has been ruinously sidetracked by a second kind–social engineering…. My own fascination is with the third kind: intellectual engineering. The Greeks and Romans were equally fascinated. You’d think all my ideas would be old hat. In fact, it seems that nobody is bothering with this vital frontier. Well, surely somebody must be! But until I know for sure I’m dubbing myself the Father of Ergonomic Education, and inviting all of you to join me in a crusade to make our schools more efficient.

Goods News! Princeton Alumni Weekly ran my letter–the one below. My faith in Princeton is partially restored. I think it’s a smart letter, and written in a fairly low key. So why not run it? Well, I’ve noticed more and more how the liberal media help the educators by the simple device of standing silently aside. Enough silence. We will not fix the problems in the schools until more people say, “Hey, you know what, these problems did NOT fall down out of the sky. So-called educators did the dirty work. Now, those same people can fix the problems–not likely–or they can get out of the way and let a new generation of real educators improve education.” Here’s the letter:
————————————————————-

“I want to compliment Norman Augustine ‘57 *59 for his article on American education and productivity. I agree with all his points. So, why are we having these problems?

This article echoes many of the points made in the famous 1983 report titled “A Nation at Risk.” No progress in almost 25 years? Can that be by accident?

Antonio Gramsci, a Communist theoretician, said that if you wish to help poor children, make sure they got a good basic education. Unfortunately, our ed establishment became enamoured with an ideology that emphasizes social engineering over learning and literacy.

There’s a hundred policies and promises I could point to. But the emblematic program for the 20th century will always, I believe, be Whole Word (sight reading). Said to be the best way to teach reading, it is in fact unworkable. Let’s do the numbers. The goal ls that children will memorize 800 words each year, which evidently guarantees semi-literacy through high school. Futhermore, only people with exceptional memories can memorize 10,000 of anything–faces, phone numbers, antiques, houses, or sight-words. But you really need to memorize 25,000 or even 50,000 sight-words to be literate in English (which has a huge vocabulary).

The more you study Whole Word, the more you’ll probably conclude with me it was never anything but a sophistry. I find it especially troubling that the media and academia appear to have stood aside and let educators have their way.

I say it’s time for an Education Revolution (I have a blog by that name). The first step might be to politely suggest that our top educators are not likely to fix problems they have created.

We need lots of new ideas and new blood–people from the arts, business, the military, and the professions. Put Norman Augustine and Bill Gates in charge of the schools. Ah, there would be a fine start.”

Bruce Deitrick Price
Norfolk, Va.
Improve-Education.org

—
—
NOTE: Bruce Price’s EDUCATON REVOLUTION (just Google those 4 words) is on Squidoo.com

A column I have in several places on the internet starts like this: “Most major American newspapers are scoring a painful trifecta: losing readers, waving goodbye to advertisers, and firing journalists. Why is this happening?” I discuss two causes. The first (in brief) is the papers are too busy pushing their political agenda. The article continues:
———
“A second reason for the newspapers’ decline is that the liberal media unthinkingly support the education establishment, on the mistaken assumption that this group represents some sort of progressive or liberal high ground. In fact, the educational establishment is often better described as regressive, for keeping students uninformed, giving future workers few tools for success. and favoring oddball reading theories that cause dyslexia and functional illiteracy.

There is in fact no necessary link between the politics of our education establishment and anyone’s progressive values. Antonio Gramsci, a real Communist, advocated giving poor children lots of basic academic skills, so they can escape poverty. What, pray tell, is “progressive” about schools that allow children to graduate without being able to read or write properly? No, the only sure link is the one between the media’s support of intellectually flabby educators and the continuing decline of the media themselves. Why don’t they see it: the schools are killing off their customer base!

Experts say this country has more than 40,000,000 functional illiterates. People are ignorant about even the most basic stuff. Where’s New York? Which way is the Pacific Ocean? What is France?…How can people who don’t have any background information enjoy reading a newspaper?

If our newspapers had better judgment, they would demand more achievement in the public schools.”
———————–

This link between the ed establishment and our media is much on my mind. As I’ve studied the reading wars and concluded that Whole Word was always a dubious proposition, the thing that haunts me is that the media and academia stood silently by. Hardly a peep out of the best people and brightest minds. Please, if anyone knows of a professor at Harvard, Princeton, etc., who jumped into the fight along side Rudolph Flesch, I’d love to hear the name.

WHY ARE TEACHERS LOSING RESPECT ??

a letter sent to the Princeton Alumni Weekly:

————————
In “The Road Back to School” (Oct. 11, ’06), Caroline Horowitz ‘04 is quoted as saying that teaching has lost much of its prestige. Sad if true; but I don’t think it is. People still respect teachers.

What the public is figuring out is that educators can’t be trusted. (By educators, I mean the people with PhD’s who control the educational establishment.) The perception is that these people always want bigger budgets to pay for ideas that invariably turn out to be counterproductive. Whole-word and New Math are two familiar examples.

For an essay titled “A Tribute to Rudolph Flesch” (easily found in Google), I studied education back to the 1880’s. It’s a shocking story and a sad one: educators conspiring against education. John Dewey and his colleagues decided that, if they were going to turn America toward collectivism, they needed to dumb down the citizenry. This foolish scheme is still hurting us a century later.

My sense of it is that our educators are much too invested in social engineering. Unless they reform, they’ll become one of the least trusted groups in the country, and they’ll drag teachers down with them.
————————————————-
signed: Bruce Deitrick Price

Well, I have to say I’ve had quite a run with reading, reading disabilities, and then trying to figure out how it was all connected, and how it all started. This country had 98% literacy a century ago, but then our educators went to work and took care of that!! Now we have 40,000,000 functional illiterates. Who are the geniuses in charge of this program? How can we thank them enough?As some of the earlier posts chronicle, I first became fascinated by Rudolph Flesch’s apparent common sense (use phonetics to teach a phonetic language) and the hysterical condemnation this poor guy aroused from the nabobs of non-education. Wow! What was this all about? Many months and a lot of research later, I was finally able to write “A Tribute to Rudolph Flesch.” In the process I ran smack into John Dewey, the Father of American Education, or as I recently nominated him, the Father of Dumbing Down.You can’t understand all the anti-intellectual tendencies in American education without confronting Dewey. This guy was willling to trade off academic content in order to have more passive, more dependent, more socialized children. Bingo, that’s where it started. Next stop, growing illiteracy and, because Dewey’s clones promoted a reading pedagogy that did not work, growing impairments such as dyslexia. I just finished a summary of all these weird developments: “Phooey on John Dewey.”Both articles are on my site Improve-Education.org.  The following video is titled: John Dewey and the Burden of Ideology. 

Finally, all of “A Tribute to Rudolph Flesch” is on Improve-Education.org. Part I is mainly about PHONICS versus LOOK-SAY. I worked hard to make the fundamental issues as clear as possible. (Alternate title: Why Frank Smith Is Wrong)

Parts II and III broaden out to be, for their fairly short length, a very good history of how American education got off track. It covers all the early people, the weird ideological matrix, and the Communist “double whammy.” All this craziness is still reverberating 100 years after John Dewey fired the first shots….Here are two of the concluding remarks:
—————————
“I’m always struck by the moral aspects here. It’s not all right to kill your neighbor’s child. Surely it can’t be all right to kill that child’s prospects. What sort of person would want to? Here’s the thing I find the most repellent: our educators actually appear to share an indifference to children, not to mention the more obvious contempt for country. These educators have their agenda, and if children are in the way, too bad for the children…

Let me close with my vision of what education should be concerned with. Simple: pushing and cajoling each child as far as each child can go. It seems to me this approach is better for the child; they’re more likely to be happy, self-fulfilled, and earn a higher income. This approach is better for the society, because our human resources are our most important asset. There is no way to know what talent or skill or contribution lies within each child. Why foreclose anything? Why not nurture and encourage all that is there?”
————————————————–
If you want to understand why John Dewey and Company took us away fom this sensible philosophy, please check out #21 on Improve-Education.org.

As part of my research on Flesch, I actually read or tried to read “Reading Without Nonsense” by Frank Smith. Not easy to understand. It’s almost druidical, sort of floating above the real world. He casually mentions children learning 50,000 sight-words. He casually mentions children memorizing new words as easily as they memorize new faces. Sounds good, until you try to imagine somebody memorizng thousands of faces. Or tens of thousands of faces.

Reading Smith made me really focus on how insanely difficult look-say (or whole word) is for children. Mainly, there’s a vast quantity of words in English–almost a million now. (A person has to know at least 20,000 words not to be illiterate, for all practical purposes.)

Second is a factor nobody talks about, certainly not Smith. English has lower case and upper case letters. The same word has many forms, for example: teachers, Teachers, TEACHERS. Plus, there are the italic and hand-written variations. Plus, there are the exotic typefaces we have so many of. Consider this word: dale. Having memorized that shape, would you even realize that DALE is the same word?

Smith and Company like to pretend that look-say simply means an American child is learning English words the same way Chinese children learn their ideograms. Wrong. Those ideograms come in only one form; and there’s not nearly as many of them; and most of those ideograms contain picture elements–i.e. the symbol for “man” will reappear inside many other symbols, so there’s visual clues all over the place. The English alphabet is lean and efficient when used phonetically. Used ideogrammatically, it’s hopeless. Too many similar shapes, too many variations.

In my article “A Tribute to Rudolph Flesch,” I conclude that look-say is a form of child abuse. If you have a photographic memory, maybe then it could work. Otherwise, how could it?

Please see #21 on Improve-Education.org.

Did you see John Stossel’s TV report “Stupid in America?’” Things are grim out there.

Did you know that Professor David Gelernter (at Yale) said we should just close the public schools–they are that bad?

Did you read my “A Tribute to Rudolph Flesch?” You’ll enjoy it. On the other hand, the closer you look at whole word, sight-reading and the rest, the more depressed you’ll be. Our so-called educators couldn’t possibly promote a reading pedagogy that actually harms children, could they? Yes, they could. They did.

I just set up a second site (a blog, technically) called Bruce Price’s EDUCATION REVOLUTION. The thesis is that we need reform and maybe the time is ripe. Why? Because more and more people know that American education is debased and that educators can’t be trusted to fix the problem because they created it.

It’s like Senator Moynihan almost said…Better to have the schools run by any 400 people out of the phone book than by educators. Much better.

I want EDUCATION REVOLUTION to be a HQ for the reform movement. You’ll find some good thoughts, good links and good books. (Especially suggest this site to your friends who aren’t sure what to think.)

PS There’s also a link to “A Tribute to Rudolph Flesch.”

Well, I spent several years hoping to find a benign explanation for why our educators are so incurably drawn to bad ideas–quintessentially, look-say or whole word.

I confess to you that I couldn’t. I couldn’t see that Frank Smith and Ken Goodman were anything but sophists. I looked back at the early days of Education (ca. 1890) and couldn’t see that John Dewey (photo) was anything but a super-high-IQ quack. I worry I’ve missed some big insight that justifies everything; maybe I have. But I decided to take my best shot at explaining what is basically a great American mystery story. Judge the results for yourself.

My article, titled “A Tribute to Rudolph Flesch” (#21 on Improve-Education.org), starts with a careful analysis of why look-say was never a valid way to teach the reading of English. In this counterintuitive approach, children have to memorize each English word as if it were a Chinese ideogram–that is, by shape or design. (Very much as we remember faces, houses, cars, or objects of any kind.) Sounding out letters is NOT allowed. The look-say process is slow, labor-intensive, inappropriate for a language that is essentially phonetic, and impractical for a language with a vast vocabulary (English is now approaching 1,000,000 words.)

Rudolph Flesch explained all this in his two bestsellers, “Why Johnny Can’t Read” (1955) and “Why Johnny STILL Can’t Read” (1980). These books were hugely popular. Did the educational establishment listen? Not at all. They vilified Flesch and went right on promoting look-say as much as possible. They still do. This sort of ideological rigidity is curious and needs to be understood. If Flesch is right, look-say has caused a vast amount of illiteracy and dyslexia, all of it unnecessary.

Explaining what happened and figuring out the motives–that’s the goal of “A Tribute to Rudolph Flesch.”

Some schools stress feelings and opinions–anything but actually teaching facts. Teachers are trained to say: “Students don’t need to memorize anything. They can look it up!” A slogan which is carte blanche for teaching less and less.

I recommend a superior slogan: “Facts are fun!” For pleasure and for profit, students need to know fundamental information about the world they live in.

I have just added The Quizz to Improve-Education.org. This is a fast, fun exam consisting of 100 easy questions that every high school graduate should be able to answer: What is 9 times 9? Where are the Pyramids? How many pounds in a ton?

How good is your school? Take The Quizz and find out. Any high school graduates who can’t answer at least 80 questions should sue their schools.

One of the oddest tenets of modern educational theory is that children can engage in “critical thinking” without knowing any facts to think about. Sort of like playing tennis without a ball, swimming without water, or conducting chemistry experiments without chemicals. These activities are properly called make-believe. Common sense says that students should first learn facts, then learn to analyze those facts.

The Quizz is Essay #20 on Improve-Education.org.

1) As a young novelist, I collected examples of bad prose. Some of the worst English in my file of jargon and obscurity was by educators. How could this be? Wouldn’t you expect educators to set high standards of clarity and precision?
2 If you have ever watched Jay Leno’s “Jaywalking,” you know that Americans don’t know very much. Endless surveys confirm this. Our students don’t compare favorably with students from other countries, especially when our much larger expenditures per pupil are factored in. Is this the best we can do?

3) As a practical, somewhat scientifically minded person, I was haunted by the suspicion that education could be organized more efficiently than was normally done. American education during the 20th century seems to have had an odd affinity for bad ideas. Worse, I began to sense that this affinity was not accidental but premeditated. As I researched the matter, I found more and more quotes from early educators indicating that they hoped to turn schools into mechanisms not for elevating students but for leveling them. Would the American people vote to have their children dumbed down? Of course not. Educators had to resort to stealth. “Dumbing down” is a common phrase, but not the whole story. A more revealing phrase is: “dumb by design.” ————————————————————————————–
My guess is that we need to confront these bad ideas one by one, and deliberately replace them with better ideas. My site Improve-Education.org is intended to be part of this renewal.

“In her essay, Vanessa Wills casually conflates activism, compassion, and a typical liberal agenda. I say this is sophistry. As antidote, I suggest Max Eastman’s Reflections on the Failure of Socialism, one of the world’s great (short) books. I would love to know if anyone at Princeton teaches it.

Personally, I’d been noticing the last few years how so-called activists always seemed to be liberals. When I decided to set up a Web site (Improve-Education.org) pushing more sensible approaches to education, I decided that I would hail myself, in press releases, as an “education activist.” A little tongue-in-cheek, but when I think about the ignorance and illiteracy that so-called liberal educators have fostered, I have to conclude I’m the real activist here.”

BRUCE DEITRICK PRICE / Norfolk, Va.
————————————————————————————–
Well, that’s the edited version that they published; but the gist is there. The key thing omitted about Max Eastman’s book is that, after he renounced Communism, he couldn’t decide what to call himself. He said, in effect: “I want to call myself a liberal. But the Commies have stolen the word.” This all the way back in 1953!! The problem persists. People calling themselves liberals push ideas (in education and elsewhere) that aren’t liberal at all. Not Jeffersonian liberal. Not liberal as in devoted to liberty (the terms were once synonymous). So I, like Max, can’t call myself a liberal. I thought I had better start calling myself an education activist before some of the same people could completely steal this phrase. And that is how I became an education activist!

Sophistry is an epidemic in our culture. In our media. In our universities. And especially in the field of education. One of the biggest sophistries is the assault against the concepts of truth and objectivity. Aren’t they the first things that sophists would attack? So I say: give children a chance to defend themselves. Teach sophistry early and often.

Definition: sophistry is arguing to win. Sophistry is saying ANYTHING to make you look wise and to make your opponent look foolish. Sophistry is shameless manipulation of language, logic, thought and sense.

Sophistry is closely related to salesmanship. Sophistry is when you say that land under water has good river views.

What is the relationship between sophistry and lying? Typically, liars know they are lying. (Sophists may not. They become so caught up in their airy nonsense that they often leave reality behind.) Typically, liars will incorporate as much sophistry as they think they need to persaude you to believe their lies.

Note: great sophistries are almost impossible to disprove. The grandfather of them all is Zeno’s Paradox which proves conclusively that the fast runner can never catch up with the slow runner. The tortoise, of course, always wins.
Philosophy Weeps (essay #9 on Improve-Education.org) is a good discussion of five sophistries popular in academia. When I went to college, these sophistries were taught as ultimate truths! But here I am saying they’re just bull. Decide for yourself.–Bruce Deitrick Price

Suppose your mind is made up–you are determined to introduce deep thoughts into your classroom. Philosophical and spiritual thoughts, no less. I say, bless you. And here’s a way to do it.

The Tao Te Ching is a seminal work in World Philosophy, World Religion, World Literature, World History, Asian Studies, and Chinese History. It may well be THE supreme multicultural document. Who could criticize discussion of such a work?

Written (or compiled) almost 2500 years, the Tao Te Ching continues to fascinate intellectuals. One website counts more than 125 English translations! What is its appeal? It’s short; not religious in the ordinary sense; and talks about how to be happy. Note that Socrates in the Western world and the Tao Te Ching in the Eastern world were discussing the same topics at the same time!

When I first became curious about the spiritual life, I (like many others) used the Tao Te Ching as a point of entry. It is playful, elusive, wise, startling, and counterintuitive. I studied this little work for several years and wrote a number of articles. One of these I just added to Improve-Education.org (#18). It’s a quick, informal introduction. Half of this essay is quotations from my favorite translation, that of Witter Bynner.

The Tao Te Ching (being arguably the most perfect multicultural and thus Politically Correct thing you can study) trumps all opposition. Asian Studies, anyone?