can or should a college teach virtue?

8/14/2019 Can or Should a College Teach Virtue?

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/can-or-should-a-college-teach-virtue 1/13

ISSUE PAPER: CHARACTER EDUCATION 1

Running head: ISSUE PAPER: CHARACTER EDUCATION

Issue Paper: Character Education in Institutions of Higher Education

Joshua Barron

History and Philosophy in Family and Consumer Sciences Education (FCSE 5341)




Introduction

Regardless of a college student’s background, upbringing, belief system, and personal

code of conduct, our universities have the de jure opportunity to place the finishing touches on

each graduate before they enter the professional realm, fully commended and released into

society as true adults. Without promising substantive and authoritative answers, this paper seeks

to explore thoughtfully the following three questions:

1. Who should bear the responsibility of crafting character in our youth?

2. Is this within the charge and mission of our institutions of higher education?

3.

What values might the institution endeavor to teach?

In its exploration, we will briefly explore the issue within the historical, societal, and

political contexts.

Historical Context

With disdain we regard parents who shy from the active rearing of their children. And

yet, economically, provision, comfort, and the ever-present lure of success entice us to spend less

and less time with our own children, and to entrust their academic training to professional

caregivers and educators. In an effort to provide more for our children than was our own

opportunity we, and many generations preceding us, endeavor to find and secure the services of

the best educator, nanny, boarding school, childcare facility, or guild member. However, as we

secure and acquire learned mentors for the benefit of our children, we must also acknowledge

and grapple with a certain loss of influence that occurs as the locus of control moves further from

home (Althof & Berkowitz, 2006).

And so, when we beg the question of “who is responsible,” there is implicit agreement

from historians, philosophers, and theologians that parents, neighbors, and extended family bear




this responsibility (and opportunity). The realistic reader will also acknowledge that these

parties often defer that responsibility, for understandable practical reasons, to some third party

designee.

From their origins as monastic and court schools, to the modern day, universities have

always been imbued with and have served as platforms for the values of their patrons.

Linguistically, even the word “patronage” hearkens to remember those fatherly benefactors who

created, supported, and sustained the universities (including the monastic). This further

reinforces the parental responsibility for all rearing and educating of children, up to and

especially including instruction in matters of virtue, respect, integrity, ethics, morality, and

character. Patronage begat the learning environment, which begat learned graduates who, in

time, become patrons (Scott, 2004).

Current Status

“So,” one may ask, “does the university teach values to its students, or does a culture,

influenced by the work of its former students, require the university to continually alter and

update its overall system of values?” In microcosm, it is apparent that we have found a chicken-

and-egg scenario … which came first? In the larger macro view, however, a number of factors

reveal another possibility: the university’s values are subject to, not its masters, but by its

customers.

The rapid growth of the university, the dispersion of its patronage (and the resulting

decrease in their direct influence), and the inclusion of the working class as educated citizenry

have all conspired to prompt the university to become something of a production engine for a

more educated workforce. In this, the values of the populace and the values of their places of




work have trickled up to inform, direct, and hold accountable the values being taught in higher

education.

“Trickled up?” Let’s investigate a little deeper. At the time when education was

primarily a privilege of nobility or wealth, it enjoyed the benefit of a certain degree of freedom

from the powerful influences that can hold sway when livelihood is tied more directly to an

overall “bottom line.” As the university absorbed the guild and became even more vocational in

direction, so too its values have become directed by the industries to which its graduates become

employees. At first blush, this may appear to be an altogether negative phenomenon, but in

many cases, we can observe a beneficial effect for the greater society as a whole. To provide one

specific example for consideration, our engineering graduates are accredited, not by any degree-

granting academic institution, but by a professional body, and in order to prepare graduates who

are prepared to meet the standards of such an accreditation, the educational standards of

academia (including, to a degree, its underlying value system) are altered accordingly (Stephan,

2003).

So, while we might be inclined to disdain marketplace economies that exert some

influence upon education, these same pressures (or “consumer demands”) effectively cause our

beautiful and environmentally friendly bridges, buildings, and the like, to go beyond the

requirements of enlightened thinking. At the end of the day, we are all grateful for the practical

reality that these constructions meet (and hopefully exceed) the consumer’s more pressing desire:

they do not fail us as we travel across or inhabit within.

Social Context

On the other hand, when such levels of attention are paid to the individual’s bottom line,

other cherished values are often set aside in the name of profit. To wit: our current economic




situation, the Enron and WorldCom debacles, have all been fruit of former students whose values

have been compromised by the opportunity to better their own bottom line (Stephan, 2003).

These examples alone should serve as proof positive that the university, as either a

“finishing school” or a “last-ditch effort” has, at the very least, the opportunity to influence (and

potentially, to help students learn) of character, and in so doing, to prompt growth and maturity

of future citizens.

In a society that appears to undergo substantial turmoil when it is faced with agreeing

upon any standard definition of morality, it is no wonder that the ethics and character education

literature fails to reveal any widely accepted policy, principle, practice or other act of consensus

beyond the areas of academic integrity, ethical behavior, diversity awareness, and tolerance.

Political Context

Even within these easily identified and widely accepted issues, it is challenging in the

current politic to find or gain any general consensus on the standardization of definitions,

consequences, or responsibility for institutional, personal, and professional accountability in

these areas (Slaughter, 1996).

It is not enough for a society to be populated with benign hedonists, as a truly civil

society needs citizens to care about the general welfare and those who cannot advocate

for themselves. --Althof & Berkowitz (2006).

While there are a variety of curricula in place, it is interesting to consider the continually

changing political landscape (in the U.S. specifically), and to wonder aloud about the

implications of changes in power from a politically liberal to politically conservative

government, and back again. It would be interesting to research the presence or movement of

certain markers within character education over time, and to chart this in any particular nation,

against the policies and philosophies of the entity in power at the time. Such an investigation,




which I have not been able to locate in any of the literature I have surveyed, might offer more

insight into the real impact of the political environment on the actual practice of character

education across the gamut of the age spectrum: elementary through graduate school.

The Contrarian Extremist Viewpoint

Recognizing that liberal, at the heart, indicates freedom, in a setting that truly seeks to

fully personify the ideals of a “liberal education,” it would be oxymoronic for that institution to

impose any corporate code of morality or conduct. Within this conundrum, we see the circular

tension raised by philosophers of ages past: Aristotle, Plato, & Socrates (Yanikoski, 2004). “It is

not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen.” (Aristotle, 325 B.C.).

It seems that a necessary responsibility of the free citizen then, involves setting aside his

[or her] citizen ship in order that the larger community might benefit. Yet, if this is the case,

have we not compromised the liberal learning institution’s standard of freedom by imposing

“standards of ethical behavior” and the like?

In contrast, I take the position that, because the world that hosts the smaller realm of

formal education has determined total freedom (translated “anarchy”) to be an unacceptable state

of governmental affairs, so too, must the educational institution teach, practice, and champion

intellectual freedom within the constraints of civic responsibility. Equally, because of patronage,

endowment, and public subsidy, the higher education system is slightly removed from the

temperature of current politics and popular fashion. With this breathing room, as part of a larger

constructivist approach to learning, wherein critical thinking and self-directed learning facilitate

the transition of the adolescent from child to adult, educational institutions should, in my

opinion, be deliberate in questioning and examining thoroughly the cultural norms and mores of

the current day, within the context of the cultural norms and mores of days past. In doing so,




educators invite students to think maturely, translate history into learned principles, which has

the impact of providing motivation and the necessary equipment for our graduates to

demonstrate thoughtful and deliberate acts of character, even in a social, economic, political, or

legislated environment with which he might be in disagreement.

Solutions and the Implications for Society

With globalization and the overall transformation of our culture toward that of a

knowledge economy comes the potential for erosion of local values, even as we begin to benefit

from realizing diversity and tolerance (Taplin, 2002). Yet, there is much support for highly

ethical, and increasingly globally aware graduates, particularly among the business community

and governmental institutions (Annette, 2005).

For purposes of clarity and brevity, I have prepared a chart to illustrate the implications

of three varying approaches to ethical instruction at any educational level (Yanikoski, 2004).

Defined, the three approaches are:

1. Ethics 101: This approach will generally follow the traditional curriculum and delivery

methods of a standard philosophy course. As with many courses in higher education, the

expectation for learning is upon the student, and the instructor merely serves as a conduit for

the transfer of information to the student by way of lecture, with accountability provided in

the form of assessing the specific recall of principles taught, or application of principles to

theoretical case studies.

2. Ethics by Agenda or through Experience: This approach would either involve some active

and collaborative elements within the curriculum, or would be a service-learning oriented

course, whereby all instruction takes place within the context of some actual work/volunteer

environment. I this latter style of ethics instruction, the curriculum is developed in such a




way as to facilitate the reflective self-assessment of the learner, in addition to the prescribed

transfer of information that will take place in required readings, etc. (Annette, 2005).

3. Ethics Ignored: In this approach, the institution will ignore its opportunity to provide ethical

training, generally in the name of academic freedom, post-modernity, or strict disciplinary

focus.

Opportunity

to Present

Ethical

Instruction

Opportunity to

Facilitate

Experiential

Learning and

Critical Thinking

around Ethical

Issues

Opportunity to

Assess Learning

of Ethical

Principals

Opportunity

to Assess

Ability to

Apply

Ethical

Instruction

Ethics 101 High Low High Low

Ethics by Agenda or

through Experience

Low or

Obscure

High Low High

Ethics Ignored Non-existent Non-existent Non-existent Non-existent

Conclusions

I will close the writing of this paper, as promised, not with definitive answers, but with

more questions in my head than could be counted when I began. I am persuaded, however, by

the reading I have done in preparing for this paper, that it is the responsibility of the educator to

be aware of all the truths, principles, and practices taught, whether in direct or indirect

instruction. On a university campus, it is clear that this happens within and beyond the

classroom environment. When pursuing the final question of this paper, “What values might the

institution endeavor to teach,” I ran across a dated article by Harry C. Payne (1996), then

president of Williams College.

He writes excellently on, not “values,” as was expounded upon earlier, but on “virtues,”

and the college’s responsibility and role in teaching and instilling them in its pupils. I encourage




readers of this paper to toss it aside in strong favor of Payne’s article, and will use a long quote

as powerful bait to accomplish that end.

The intellectual academic virtues presuppose and hence strengthen a noble view of each

other. They do not work unless they are acted out against a backdrop of tolerance,

empathy, patience, mutual respect, cooperation. These are neither purely intellectual nor

purely social. In fact, they show that the distinction is incorrect to begin with. One cannot

be a determined and effective inquirer without the character virtues of empathy and

humility. One cannot be a successful intellectual explorer without the character virtue of

courage. One cannot find the best expressions of one's thoughts without the character

virtue of integrity.

Moreover, in a residential college, we have an additional world of potential learning-the

world from 4 P.M. on, which often involves a significant array of nonacademic activities:

athletics, clubs, organizations, assaulting the administration, drinking and parties, and

the like. In the most fundamental way, in an isolated residential environment with young

people of remarkable skills, we invite students to create a world for themselves under our

gaze but with enormous latitude. We do so because we sense that they arrive with a

reasonable array of character virtues, and we think they will enhance those strengths and

learn new ones simply by creating a world with one another.

In this regard we take some considerable risks. While we do not totally abandon students

once they leave the classroom, there is no doubt that we allow them wide leeway. As we

all know, such freedom can bring out the very best and very worst in people, and we

certainly experience some of both, though not in equal measure. We admit students who

have all displayed considerable strength of intellect and character, we nurture an

intellectual environment which strengthens such virtues, we intervene when we think

individuals and groups go markedly beyond tolerable boundaries, and we take the

chance that the benefits of such freedom far outweigh the costs. I think they do, but I

would be dishonest if I did not say that we wish to intervene far more often than we

actually do. We must remind ourselves that the precious capacities we nurture must




ultimately be tested at some risk in the cruder rough-and-tumble of living and working

together.

We must also house and smile cheerily on different versions of what is true, right, and

good. We purposefully create a world of inevitable conflicts--where strengths are

developed in conflict--rather than create a social world with a received dogma of what is

true. The virtues are enacted and discovered in the conflicts, in their resolution, and even

in the discovery of the impossibility of resolution.

It is a heady environment, in which participating as adults is an often frustrating and

puzzling exercise. But we also must realize that we ourselves are not innocent actors in

this regard. The strengths and weaknesses we faculty and staff members display in that

exercise are sharply watched and constitute part of our teaching. Our students study us,

as well as their academic courses and each other. We teach the academic and character

virtues insofar as we display and enact those virtues.

Nor do we view these years as an end in themselves. All of our efforts, both curricular

and extracurricular, are geared toward creating not simply technically skilled persons

but citizens. Indeed, this notion of citizenship is central to the ethos of the liberal arts

education. We help students to gain the skills to get on the escalator to professional

success, to be sure. But our ultimate task is to make them more effective participants in

the larger world of responsibility and authority, which most will seek; or, if they try to

avoid responsibility or authority, most will be sought out, in any case. Hence, we can and

must teach the academic and associated character virtues first; then, if students and

adults have done their work well, they will in fact be more virtuous and hence, more fit.

Armed with mutually enhancing, quite specific strengths--virtues, rather than some more

general idea of Virtue--successful students can approach their work in the world stronger

as well as wiser. -- Howard C. Payne (1996).




References

Algera, H., & Sink, C. (2002, Fall2002). Another Look at Character Education in Christian

Schools. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 11(2), 161. Retrieved November

28, 2008, from Professional Development Collection database.

Althof, W., & Berkowitz, M. (2006, December). Moral education and character education: their

relationship and roles in citizenship education. Journal of Moral Education, 35(4), 495-

518. Retrieved November 26, 2008, doi:10.1080/03057240601012204

Annette, J. (2005, September). CHARACTER, CIVIC RENEWAL AND SERVICE

LEARNING FOR DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP IN HIGHER EDUCATION. British

Journal of Educational Studies, 53(3), 326-340. Retrieved November 26, 2008,

doi:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2005.00298.x

Aristotle. (1984). Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics. Ed., Hippocrates G. Apostle. Grinnell, Ia. :

Peripatetic Press.

Chi-Hou, C. (2004, December). Moral and civic education - the hidden curriculum in Macau.

Journal of Moral Education, 33(4), 553-573. Retrieved November 27, 2008,

doi:10.1080/0305724042000315707

Feldmann, D. (2007, June). Citizenship Education: Current Perspectives from Teachers In Three

States. Educational Research Quarterly, 30(4), 3-15. Retrieved November 28, 2008, from

Professional Development Collection database.

Greer, P. (1993, March). Talking life seriously: An ethics course and its teacher. Journal of

Education, 175(2), 75. Retrieved November 25, 2008, from Professional Development

Collection database.




Jennings, B., & Nelson, J. (1996, Winter96). Values on campus. Liberal Education, 82(1), 26.

Retrieved November 26, 2008, from Professional Development Collection database.

Kaplan, S. (2006, April). Yoga and the Battlefield of Ethics: Highlighting an Infusion Model for

Ethics Education. Science & Engineering Ethics, 12(2), 391-398. Retrieved November

26, 2008, from Science & Technology Collection database.

Metzger, D. (2002, Spring2002). FINDING COMMON GROUND: CITIZENSHIP

EDUCATION IN A PLURALISTIC DEMOCRACY. American Secondary Education,

30(2), 14. Retrieved November 27, 2008, from Professional Development Collection

database.

Murphy, P., & Boatright, J. (1994, July). Assessing the effectiveness of instruction in business

ethics: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Education for Business, 69(6), 326. Retrieved

November 26, 2008, from Professional Development Collection database.

Payne, H. (1996, Fall96). Can or should a college teach virtue?. Liberal Education, 82(4), 18.

Retrieved November 28, 2008, from Professional Development Collection database.

Rose, M. (1996, September). Integrating ethics and diversity issues into economic and business

statistics. Journal of Education for Business, 72(1), 13. Retrieved November 25, 2008,

from Professional Development Collection database.

Scott, P. (2004, December). Ethics ‘in’ and ‘for’ Higher Education. Higher Education in Europe,

29(4), 439-450. Retrieved November 26, 2008, doi:10.1080/03797720500083039

Slaughter, S. (1997, January). Class, race and gender and the construction of postsecondary

curricula in the United States: social movement, professionalization and political

economic theories of curricular change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(1), 1-30.

Retrieved November 26, 2008, doi:10.1080/002202797184170




Smith, P., & Oakley III, E. (1996, September). The value of ethics education in business school

curriculum. College Student Journal, 30(3), 274. Retrieved November 28, 2008, from

Professional Development Collection database.

Stephan, K. (2003, Fall2003). How Ethics Was Specialized Away. Academic Questions, 16(4),

31-40. Retrieved November 25, 2008, from Professional Development Collection

database.

Taplin, M. (2002, March). Can we, should we, and do we integrate values education into adult

distance education? Opinions of stakeholders at the Open University of Hong Kong.

International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(2), 142-161. Retrieved November 26,

2008, doi:10.1080/02601370110111709

Yanikoski, R. (2004, Summer2004). Leadership perspectives on the role of character

development in higher education. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2004(122),

7-23. Retrieved November 27, 2008, from Professional Development Collection

database.

can or should a college teach virtue?

Documents