Who Should Decide Our Values? Essay, Research Paper

Mike Young

University at Buffalo

English 201

9/27/99

“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe

free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless,

tempest-tost, to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”1 These words are,

of course, inscribed in bronze at the base of the greatest symbol of American

freedom, the Statue if Liberty. These words were also a call to the entire world,

exclaiming how our nation of freedom wants to take in all of the earth?s

downtrodden and oppressed people so they may live a life of liberty, and follow

any beliefs they choose without persecution. Obviously, the world consists of a

vast amount of varying people and societies, each with their own religions,

values, and ways of life. In the United States, the ?melting pot of the world,? we

preach the fact that everyone is safe to live these ways of life any way they

would like. With the lieutenant-governor of Maryland, Kathleen Kennedy

Townsend?s essay, Not Just Read and Write, but Right and Wrong, she makes a

proposal to force a universal set of a values upon all public school children, which

could be conflicting with the very ideas that this nation was founded upon.

By citing her conversation with a ?crowded? classroom, her daughter?s

experience on an all male soccer team, and on obscure survey which samples

a mere one-thousand people to represent all those aged fifteen to

twenty-four in the entire U.S, Kathleen Townsend draws the conclusion that

the children of this generation are very immoral and have few values. Before

making such a bold generalization, she should have gathered a little more

evidence than what she did to prove her accusation. It is not accurate

enough to use little more than one-thousand people to judge several million.

The most accurate surveys, like the A.C. Neislon Company for example,

surveys several thousand people in each region of the whole country to

gather television ratings2. To say the least, television ratings are trivial

compared to the importance of morals and values of today?s youth.

Therefore, this matter should have been researched much more extensively,

or at least just as well as some frivolous television ratings.

The way she decides who is responsible for this problem is almost as

unconvincing as the reasons believes this problem even exists. She quickly

points to public education as the major factor for the poor values and morals

of the current generation, and states that it is also the only thing that can

save it. The only real backing mentioned to support this conclusion is the

fact that, one-hundred and seventy years ago, in the 1830?s, the teaching of

morals and self-discipline were concentrated on to decrease the crime rate.

Although I am not familiar with him nor does she state who he is, she quotes

James Q. Wilson as saying ?Crime went down. And it went down insofar as I,

or any historian, can tell because this effort to substitute the ethic of

self-control for what appeared to be the emerging ethic of self-expression

succeeded.? Perhaps Mr. Wilson may be right, and the reason for the decline

in crime was the teaching of self-control, but it still remains that this all took

place nearly two centuries ago. What any historian can tell you is that

people, and societies change. Two centuries is a large portion of time, it

actually nearly covers the entire existence of this nation. That is a significant

amount of time in which this country?s society can shape, and reshape itself

several times in continuously molding itself into a completely new, and unique

society. What might have been successful two centuries ago, cannot

assuredly work today.

In this essay, Townsend does, in fact, give more than enough

evidence to back one of her points; the fact that public schools do not think it

is their place nor do they want to teach values and morals in their

curriculums. She uses a questionnaire she sent to schools across Maryland, a

consensus of high school administrators and teachers in a curriculum

workshop, her conversations with a principal she knows, and how George

Bush dodged discussing the teaching of values at Thomas Jefferson?s own

school, the University of Virginia, to back this point. So it seems, without a

doubt, that those who are there in the schools and have experience, the

teachers and administrators, do not believe the teaching of morals is a good

idea nor do they feel it is their place. And there doesn?t appear to be a better

person to ask about that subject than actual administrators and teachers

whom are the experts in that field and should know what was best for their

students and themselves.

The school administrators and teachers are right, the implementation

of Townsend?s values inculcation would be ineffective and perhaps disastrous.

There is simply no way to efficiently teach morals and values. Who would

actually take in and learn the ideas taught in a morals class? It would be

those who already share the same morals as those being taught. No student

is going to change the way they look at things, and what they value, based

upon what some person they do not know is telling them. Furthermore, the

only parents that would allow their children to take such a class would be

those parents who have the same values as those being taught. No parent

will sit back and let public education undermine the values and morals their

children have learned from them, because in their eyes, the public schools

would be the immoral ones who have improper values.

These parents would be outraged that a politician is going to decide

what their kids should value, and what morals they should follow. Some

politicians would respond ot this by saying that the people elected them and

it is their job to do such things as implement values and morals they believe

are acceptable. In today?s American society, politicians are among the most

immoral, underhanded, and corrupt people in the nation. Nearly everyday we

can read in the newspaper about a scandal surrounding some politician. Not

even the president is immune to scandal. Because of this, it is easy to see

how most citizens would agree that a politician is one of the worst people

they would want deciding what morals to teach their children. Moreover,

seeing how Townsend refers back to the 1830?s to provide backing to her

theory that values inculcation works, we can also look back at history not

more than even fifty years ago to the days of McCarthyism in the United

States, and we would see Townsend labeled as a communist. This idea of

values inculcation would be seen as a communist idea by Townsend to have

the government force the all of the nation?s citizens to assimilate into the

government?s own system of beliefs, and it would be struck down with the

blink of an eye.

The great pride that this country has about being the land of the free

cannot and should not be put into question. Using public education to force a

system of morals and values on students is not the answer. That will only make

people more hostile and wary towards the government. People in power need to

realize they have a great influence on the people of this country. If people like

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend want to change the morals and values of its youth,

they should take a good look in the mirror and think very hard about the old

saying, ?Actions speak louder than words.? Because in a time where the most

powerful man, and leader of this nation, the President of the United States, says

he guarantees no new taxes, and turns around and creates several new ones, or

when he flat out says he did not have an affair with a White House intern, and

then has to make a public apology about lying about it, it is evident that even

the very basic moral of truth has been lost by the most influential man in the

country. It is up to these influential people, to take a stand, be role models, and

set good examples for their youth if they truly do want to change their morals

and values.