pageok
pageok
pageok
Charles Murray on Education Reform:

The Washington Times has been running a series of excerpts this week from Charles Murray's new book, Real Education. Today's excerpt is on educating gifted children. I thought yesterday's was the most interesting of the group. Wednesday Murray argued that the country is essentially "run" by a couple of thousand "elite" politicians, business people, and thinkers.

Thursday he tackled the question of the limitations of how this elite are educated today in "Virtue? The Good?":

The topic yesterday was the elite that runs the country, drawn overwhelmingly from among the top 10 percent in intellectual ability, dubbed "the gifted." Today's topic is their education in virtue and the Good.

As someone who has spent a fair amount of time on campuses over the past 20 years, I am happy to report that today's gifted students are, for the most part, nice. They are not racist, sexist or homophobic. They want to be generous to those who are less fortunate. They say please and thank you.

But being nice is not being good. Living a nice life is not living a good life. One of the special tasks in the education of the gifted is to steep them in the study of what good means - good as it applies to virtue, and the as a way of thinking about how to live a human life.

Virtue by what definition? It sounds like a daunting question. It is not. The great ethical and religious systems of the world are in such remarkable agreement on the core issues that, practically speaking, any of them will do. Take the world's two most influential secular ethical systems, Aristotelian and Confucian, as examples. If your children grow up to be courageous, temperate, able to think clearly about the consequences of their actions, to be concerned with the welfare of others, with a sense of obligation to set a good example for others in their own behavior and to accord to others their rightful due - all of which are central tenets of both ethical systems - do you really care whether they were raised to be good Aristotelians or good Confucians?

The problem is when they are raised in no tradition at all, and instead imbibe the reigning ethical doctrine of contemporary academia, nonjudgmentalism. If they were taught merely to be tolerant, fine. But nonjudgmentalism goes much further, proclaiming that it is a sin to make judgments about the relative merit of different ways of living. Nonjudgmentalism is the inverse of rigor in thinking about virtue - a task that, above all else, requires the formation of considered judgments.

I encourage you to read the whole thing. Based on these excerpts the book looks fascinating.

OrinKerr:
I don't think I've ever met a nonjudgmentalist. People differ in what they judge, not whether they do.
9.5.2008 12:37pm
Randy R. (mail):
I don't understand his point -- that students *should* be judgmental? On what issues?

Let me guess -- their judgements should be in line with traditional US conservative values, right?

Big surprise....
9.5.2008 12:43pm
Derrick (mail):
I'm guessing that the understanding that blacks are inferior and should therefore just be left to shine his shoes and other menial tasks is essential to Charles Murray's "judgment".
9.5.2008 12:53pm
Vermando (mail) (www):
Thank you Ross Douthat. If he wants to make literally the exact same argument Ross made in a book a few years ago, fine, but he should at least cite the guy.

For my part, having been raised in such a strong tradition, I see what both Mssrs. Murray and Douthat mean - I had a real leg up on my contemporaries when I went away to an elite school because I had that base. On the other hand, I do not know that it had anything to do with virtue - people where I lived were just as likely to be sinners, and having had to perform a jillion hours of community service to even get a sniff at a good college, those Yankee kids were certainly virtuous in the less-Aristotelian sense of the word - exceedingly charitable, generous, kind hearted, with noble goals for themselves and the word.

Indeed, if I look at it empirically, those people were far more likely to pursue a career in public service - including teaching - than the more tradition-grounded from my school, most of whom (including myself) have gone on to have a nice career, raise a family, etc. Not that that is the measure of virtue, but it is certainly something to consider.
9.5.2008 12:57pm
Anderson (mail):
I am happy to report that today's gifted students are, for the most part, nice.

Presumably, Murray has read Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind, even if Zywicki hasn't.
9.5.2008 1:15pm
Mark Field (mail):

The topic yesterday was the elite that runs the country, drawn overwhelmingly from among the top 10 percent in intellectual ability, dubbed "the gifted."


This is an odd definition of "gifted". Those who use IQ cutoffs (which they claim tests "intellectual ability") generally use the top 2%; that's the typical standard for GATE classes, for example.

But I think Prof. Kerr got it right. Tolerant as I am (ahem), I do judge Charles Murray. And not very favorably.
9.5.2008 1:32pm
Ben P (mail):

This is an odd definition of "gifted". Those who use IQ cutoffs (which they claim tests "intellectual ability") generally use the top 2%; that's the typical standard for GATE classes, for example.


I can't seem to find the day before's article on the Washington Time's website, but it depends quite a bit, I think, on how he defines "running the country."

The top 10% of people by intellectual ability probably shares a pretty high correlation with those that have postgraduate degrees. This seems to tie in with the idea that he has in his third column that for these "gifted" people college is generally pretty easy.

I don't go to a Top 20 school, but that seems to be the pretty common undergrad experience among my friends, they could easily coast through most undergraduate classes and still get decent grades. It's much the same when looking at those in technical masters programs and business school too.


and, getting to the first part of the assertion, the leading individuals in this country are by in large, a very well educated group. There aren't many college dropouts among CEO's of large corporations, and while it may not be true of elected officials, the top level advisors and bureaucrats are also often very well educated.
9.5.2008 1:42pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
College is way too late to start studying virtue. For one thing, students of the rigorous curricula Murray cites favorably -- mathematics, engineering, science -- have little or no time for any Hillsdale College-type focus on things good, true, and beautiful. For another, principles to live by must be inculcated beginning in the primary grades, in time for the storms of adolescence if for no other reason.

Forcing smart children to acknowledge that their brains are an undeserved gift seems pointless. People are what they are -- they can't imagine themselves otherwise. Does Murray similarly exhort those who can throw a ball or run a race to fall on their knees to thank the Almighty? But what is worthwhile is challenging the talented, upping the ante so that they reach their potential, not with extra busywork but with tasks that match their talents.

I agree with one position of Murray's: Defining the elite as the heads of corporations necessarily expands the range of intelligence beyond the top two percent. Really intelligent people often pick comfortable careers, like law professor, over the ups and downs of starting and running businesses.
9.5.2008 1:57pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
I think Murray is right about the elite. And one astonishing thing I've come to realize is just how accessible the elite are and how Joe Six Pack couldn't give a damn. But, given the cognitive elite tend to "speak" at a very high intellectual level, the average person neither knows nor cares about getting into the dirt of exchanging ideas with them.

Case in point the Robert P. George James Madison program holds lectures that are free to the public and fairly well attended in the sense that a medium size Princeton Classroom might get 3/4 full on a good day.

The people giving the lectures tend to be from that "elite." You can ask them questions afterwards at a reception. Among others I've run into Cornell West, Marvin Olasky and Randy Barnett. Olasky and George are on a first name basis with President Bush. Many of these folks further are accessible by email.

But imagine if Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were making an appearance. Imagine how difficult it would be to approach them and exchange ideas.

I test my students on current membership of the Supreme Court. They tend NOT to know who they are, either names or faces. Unlike Jolie or Pitt, I'm sure Stephen Breyer et al. have no problem going out in public, jogging in the park with most people having no idea who they are and not having to worry about the paparrazi following them.

Yet if folks truly realized the power import of the "elite" they would get the paparrazi to follow them around. The 9 members of the Supreme Court WOULD be celebrities.
9.5.2008 2:13pm
A.C.:
People who run SUCCESSFUL businesses are usually pretty smart, even if they aren't book-smart in the usual sense. Don't know if CEOs of large corporations are normally the people who saw the business through the rocky years, either.

I definitely think smart people, and beautiful people, and athletic people, and great musicians, and so forth should be told that the innate part of their ability is a gift and not a personal virtue. This is important because it helps them grow up as tolerable human beings who don't drive the people around them crazy. It also leads to the next question, which is what they plan to do with their gifts. If they work hard and actually do something, rather than coasting on innate ability alone, you can then praise them for the progress they are making.

This is even more important for people with brains than for people with other kinds of gifts, precisely because brains often land someone in a position with authority over other people. Lots of smart people get a sense of entitlement to "rule" early on, and that makes it hard for them to take in new ideas and information from people they think of as below them.

That negates half the reason for having staff in the first place. You want your employees to do work for you, of course, but you also want them out there collecting information and bringing it back to you so that you can act on it. Even the smartest person can't be everywhere and observe everything that's relevant to the organization. And somebody who closes off the information flow because they think they are better than everyone else is going to make a lot of very stupid mistakes. We've all seen it happen, over and over.
9.5.2008 2:26pm
Mark Field (mail):
Ben, I agree that Murray's definition in this article is probably fairly close. I was only surprised that Murray would use such a broad group.
9.5.2008 2:27pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
Derrick:

I'm guessing that the understanding that blacks are inferior and should therefore just be left to shine his shoes and other menial tasks is essential to Charles Murray's "judgment".

Tell us where Murray makes that "judgment?" Have you ever read anything by Murry, or are just parroting the attacks on him? He's most famous for his book The Bell Curve, which few people have read, but everyone seems to have an opinion about it. I have a copy of the that book, and I don't see where he makes that judgment. Perhaps I don't read carefully enough so someone can enlighten me by pointing to the relevant pages. What I do see again and again is someone simply googling the title and then cherry picking the negative opinions, which are almost always non specific.
9.5.2008 2:29pm
ichthyophagous (mail):
As Murray points out, virtue, in the sense of being nice and being considerate to others, is not lacking in the elite. The problem is that so many of those in this class do not appreciate the significance of the many people who are not nice. Most people who are not in the elite understand clearly that there are some really bad people around, who don't give a toot about Aristotle, Confucius, Jesus, et cetera except perhaps from an impression-making point of view, and who are dangerous even when all you want to do is go about your daily business or take a walk on Sunday morning. Many among the elite think that the problem of such people can be solved by redistribution of wealth. Our premier moral philosopher and political scientist, John Rawls, is an excellent example; how many of the pages of A Theory of Justice are devoted to law enforcement? Unfortunately, those in the elite rarely come in contact with really bad people and do not get an opportunity to learn this visceral lesson.
9.5.2008 2:34pm
Avatar (mail):
If you're ignorant of the ethical distinctions between the traditional Western and Confucian systems of thought, you probably shouldn't be commenting on the education of children who are, as you have demonstrated, much more intelligent than you are. ;p

Murray's definitely conflating two different groups. The top ten percent ain't "gifted", as such - that's a rank that someone of average intelligence can work themselves to through ferocious effort, or someone of slightly higher than average intelligence can attain through some effort. You can't become "gifted" through effort; it's kind of the point, after all.

The fact is, the people that run this country are, by and large, not the gifted. Genius intelligence is not actually a significant asset in many everyday applications; you can think faster, but most of what people do every day isn't thinking. Furthermore, it's actively detrimental to the kind of social networking and political skills that are needed to achieve high office. Think about it. Most people can understand that speaking with someone who has a low IQ and limited abilities to think and use logic is exhausting; now what if everyone you ran into was like that? That's what it means to be "gifted" intellectually, you know... you will spend almost all of your life surrounded by morons, and not in the rhetorical sense.
9.5.2008 2:42pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

The fact is, the people that run this country are, by and large, not the gifted. Genius intelligence is not actually a significant asset in many everyday applications

Yes, it can be a handicap. It prevents your advocating simple answers to complex questions. You find yourself considering multiple outcomes. Realizing that, for example, drilling offshore now would not produce any substantial amount of oil for a decade, you are less enthusiastic chanting of "Drill Now!"
9.5.2008 3:10pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

The fact is, the people that run this country are, by and large, not the gifted. Genius intelligence is not actually a significant asset in many everyday applications

Yes, it can be a handicap. It prevents your advocating simple answers to complex questions. You find yourself considering multiple outcomes. Realizing that, for example, drilling offshore now would not produce any substantial amount of oil for a decade, you are less enthusiastic chanting "Drill Now!"
9.5.2008 3:10pm
HoyaBlue:
"Virtue by what definition? It sounds like a daunting question. It is not. The great ethical and religious systems of the world are in such remarkable agreement on the core issues...courageous, temperate, able to think clearly about the consequences of their actions, to be concerned with the welfare of others, with a sense of obligation..."


This is a non-point. OK, so they agree that they use the same terms for things. So what? Do they agree about what it means to be those words? Virtue isn't a matter of choosing the right nouns and adjectives.

What is it to be 'courageous'? The point would hold much more water if he were to suggest/show that they agreed about that.

And I don't buy into the nonjudmentalism as a prevailing attitude point. Ask a college student about John McCain or Barack Obama, Darfur, etc. See how 'nonjudgmental' they are. If anything, I think students lean the other way. They tend to be judgmental when they lack the information to do so competently.

But hey, I'm just a silly nonjudgmental undergrad. So I can't make up my mind and such.
9.5.2008 3:13pm
Rhonil (mail):
The smartest of smart people never go near anything like politics or "leadership." If they did, they would never succeed.
9.5.2008 3:20pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
Realizing that, for example, drilling offshore now would not produce any substantial amount of oil for a decade, you are less enthusiastic chanting "Drill Now!"


So delaying the start of the project for another 10 years is supposed to be the intelligent response?
9.5.2008 3:40pm
Tony Tutins (mail):

So delaying the start of the project for another 10 years is supposed to be the intelligent response?

What will the world be like in ten years? What will our average fuel economy be? Will mom and dad still be driving passenger trucks around? Are there better uses for that oil? That oil isn't going anywhere. Why turn it all into CO2, ten years from now?
9.5.2008 4:05pm
Fub:
From Today's excerpt, "Taking the gifted down":
This healthier alternative also means making sure that at some point every gifted student fails in some academic task. There is no sadism in this, but an urgent need for our luckiest children to gain perspective on themselves and on their fellows. As matters stand, many among the gifted who manage to avoid serious science and math never take a course from kindergarten through graduate school so tough that they have to say to themselves, "I can't do this." Lacking that experience, too many gifted graduates are not conscious of their own limits. They don't know, as an established fact, that there are some things they just aren't smart enough to figure out.

Everybody else knows that for a fact. Making sure that all gifted students hit their own personal walls is crucial for developing their empathy with the rest of the world. When they see others struggle with intellectual tasks, they need to be able to say "I know how it feels" - and be telling the truth.
I think this is balderdash, and that "making sure that at some point every gifted student fails in some academic task" actually is just sadism.

"[M]aking sure that at some point every gifted student fails in some academic task" is trivial. Anybody can hand a student a teacup and say "your assignment is to transport the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean with only this."

Not every gifted student fails to challenge himself. Not every gifted student is unaware of his own limitations. Not every gifted student is unable to empathize with the rest of the world.

In fact, I'd bet that most truly gifted students have voluntarily grappled with classical intractable or unsolved problems, even students not studying "serious science and math". Most every student of literature, for example, has puzzled over an unanswered question such as whether Homer ever existed, or what happened to Ambrose Bierce. Most every gifted student of any discipline is familiar with intractable questions.

The right way (and I think the effective way) to engender "empathy with the rest of the world" is to offer positive challenges and opportunity to actually engage and empathize with "the rest of the world". That would go something like this: Mr. Genius Social Scientist, go out and live a year with these people you've studied through academic papers. Break bread with them. Walk in their shoes on their turf. And while you're at it, pick one problem they face that you think you can solve, and do your best to help them solve it while you are there. Keep daily notes and write up a report when you get back.

The point should not be to humiliate gifted students, to "take the gifted down", but to present opportunities for the gifted to engage the real world they have studied academically, so to learn the limitations of purely academic excellence.
9.5.2008 4:07pm
Ryan Waxx (mail):
Well, I'm sure if the entire world economy has gone post-oil in 10 years, we won't convert the oil to CO2 out of spite. And if that fantasy hasn't come to pass, then we'd find a use for it.

Please tell me that wasn't an attempt at a serious answer.
9.5.2008 4:11pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
"Let's drill now, because I'm sure we'd find a use for that oil in ten years."

Please tell me that wasn't an attempt at a serious answer.
9.5.2008 4:32pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):

That's what it means to be "gifted" intellectually, you know... you will spend almost all of your life surrounded by morons, and not in the rhetorical sense.


I remember an episode of the Simpsons that played up on this theme. Though I disagree with it. Only if you are an intellectual snob will you find this the case. People with lower IQs won't be able to understand or relate to an intellectual conversation at a high IQ level. However the reverse is NOT true. People with high IQs can converse with , communicate and relate to people with lower IQs.

Though I'm not a genius (I think my IQ is around 130) I teach many very ordinary people at a community college and enjoy going to blue collar bars and drinking with ordinary people (they tend to play the hard rock or heavy metal music I enjoy). I know I could very easily take a conversation above their intellectual level; but as long as I "keep it real" we don't have a problem.
9.5.2008 4:36pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
I think there is no doubt that the people who run the country DO have IQs at either the genius or very high level. Anyone could get elected to Congress (for instance, I think Chris Smith was a shoe salesmen). However if you look at who actually DOES get elected the folks tend disproportionately to be lawyers, many of them with impressive backgrounds. And to get into decent law school and pass the bar, one needs an IQ that is well above average (but not genius). Someone like Joe Biden, with modest legal credentials, I would estimate might have an IQ between 120-135. Probably not genius, but well above average. Likewise I think John McCain scored over 130 on an IQ test. And GWBush's estimated IQ is somewhere between 120-130.

These are very strong scores, but not Eugene Volokh level brilliance. The past 3 Presidents who did have, or probably had genius level IQs were Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Make of that what you will.
9.5.2008 4:42pm
theobromophile (www):
I dislike Murray's focus on intellectual ability, defined in a very, very traditional sense (IQ, "g", etc).

Those who are successful and run the world are often reasonably intelligent humans - thoughtful, with a brain - but have an exceedingly high EQ. Their skills are not well measured by standardised tests, but serve them quite well in the world.

I'm certain that there are many people out there who would gladly, if they could, trade IQ points for savvy and charisma.

Beyond that, it's sad to meet highly intelligent people - those who won the lottery of birth - who see their intellect as a sign of moral superiourity, or see giftedness not as good fortune, but of a sanction to step on other people.
9.5.2008 4:52pm
Mark Field (mail):
Completely agree, theobromophile.
9.5.2008 5:05pm
dearieme:
How can you expect to get far with a discussion like this if you adopt silly notions such as "genius level IQs"?
9.5.2008 5:09pm
A.C.:
Fub --

I think you confuse problems that no one can solve, or at least that no one has ever solved, with the sort of problem that somebody, somewhere solves, but that an individual gifted student cannot do. Or perhaps cannot do just yet.

The idea is not just to have that student working at his or her maximum level of competence, but to occasionally push him or her beyond it. You learn a lot by falling on your face, and it's good to find that out young (and when the stakes are comparatively low). One thing everybody needs to learn is how to lose gracefully, and another is where to turn when absolutely stumped.
9.5.2008 5:17pm
Crunchy Frog:
I can't believe we're taking any of this seriously. It's not the job of the school system to teach any student, gifted or not, to be a "good person", however that is defined. That is the job of the parents, and whatever resources they choose to employ (church, extended family, little league, boy/girl scouts, whatever).

Sheesh. Too much evil has been done in the world by people with "good intentions" who should have minded their own damn business.
9.5.2008 5:22pm
Mark Field (mail):

It's not the job of the school system to teach any student, gifted or not, to be a "good person", however that is defined.


I think the schools should absolutely teach civic values such as honesty, integrity, "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind", etc. It's pretty hard to maintain a republican form of government without a citizenry educated in such values.
9.5.2008 5:49pm
Fub:
A.C. wrote at 9.5.2008 4:17pm:
The idea is not just to have that student working at his or her maximum level of competence, but to occasionally push him or her beyond it. You learn a lot by falling on your face, and it's good to find that out young (and when the stakes are comparatively low). One thing everybody needs to learn is how to lose gracefully, and another is where to turn when absolutely stumped.
What I take issue with is the notion of "making sure that at some point every gifted student fails in some academic task". Nobody learns "how to lose gracefully" by playing against a stacked deck. That only teaches that the deck can be stacked, and that the power to stack the deck is the power to strive for.

You don't teach a kid to ride a bicycle by holding the bike until they get on, then pushing it over to make sure they fail. You teach by holding the bike as they pedal, then loosening grip slowly as they learn to maintain balance. Once they can ride on their own, they'll "fall on their face" plenty on their own accord, and hopefully "when the stakes are comparatively low".

There may be a worse way to teach youngsters than consciously setting them up to fail on the misbegotten theory that they'll learn "empathy with the rest of the world". But I don't know what it is.

There is a difference between a friendly challenge to exercise greater skill and setting someone up to fail. The latter only teaches that being a jerk who stacks the deck and humiliates people is a desirable goal to strive for.
9.5.2008 6:16pm
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
How can you expect to get far with a discussion like this if you adopt silly notions such as "genius level IQs"?

Hmmm. So someone who can benchpress 600 pounds is not "massively strong"? Would that be a silly term?

I've come to believe that IQ or "g" is a lot like physical strength. It does exist and the standardized tests do measure it. There are different forms of intelligences just like there are different forms of physical strengths. Someone might have a much stronger upper body than a lower body. I know IQ tests, like most standardized tests, test for math and verbal intelligences. And I know that my verbal intelligence is way higher, relatively, than my math. There's the bench press (which might be LSAT) and the military press (which might be the MKAT). But these things are generally related. [i.e., folks who lift a lot of weight in one type of lifting tend to be able to life a lot in most kinds of lifting, even though they may have their own relative strengths and weaknesses; there is a "g" concept with physical strength.]

Further, there is a strong heritable component to physical strength. I don't care how much I work out, even with steroids, there are still folks (like those with the genetics to become pro-football players) who will always be bigger and stronger than me without working out a day in their lives. Yet, (working out) environment does matter.

Though society tends to allocate much more wealth and status based on IQ as opposed to physical strength. Which is ironic because in the state of nature or evolutionary state, I'd imagine physical strength and high levels of testosterone were far more important.

And finally as someone above noted, IQ (like strength) has NOTHING to do with moral worth. The Unabomber had a purported IQ of 170. Keep that in mind.
9.5.2008 7:54pm
TCO:
I think that the military and military schools do have an effect on shaping character. So I'm not sure that college is too late. That said, I think 7-12 is more critical.
9.5.2008 9:25pm
A.C.:
Fub --

What do you call sporting events in which the vast majority of participants do not win? Somebody is clearly stacking the deck in every marathon, right?

Not even close. There's a real world situation, and you present it to the runners (or students) unadjusted for their age or grade level. They investigate it, see that they aren't really Kings and Queens of the Universe just yet, and go figure out (1) how much they have to sweat if they actually want to BE Kings and Queens of the Universe, and (b) whether it is worth the trouble. This is an essential part of educating the highly talented in any field. Not for every single task, but often enough so they know the costs and benefits of what they are doing.

Withholding this information would be rigging the game and fostering unrealistic expectations. That's how you create people who crash and burn at 27.

Were you in on the discussion of that 9-year-old pitcher? It's the same kind of deal. There are supportive, developmental situations for people who are just venturing out into something new, like your kid riding a bike for the first time. Then there are the mid-level, difficult but achievable things that most people should spend most of their time doing. And then there's the gut-wrenching, "see what you're made of" challenge that anyone who wants to be elite in anything is going to have to face from time to time. And occasionally fail at.

Why is this concept so hard? I sure don't want anyone bossing me who hasn't paid his/her dues.
9.5.2008 9:52pm
vicneo (mail):
what is needed is not training in virtue but in intellectual rigor.
9.5.2008 11:48pm
Randy R. (mail):
"I definitely think smart people, and beautiful people, and athletic people, and great musicians, and so forth should be told that the innate part of their ability is a gift and not a personal virtue. This is important because it helps them grow up as tolerable human beings who don't drive the people around them crazy."

Nonsense. With regards to great musicians and athletic people, anyone one of them will tell you (at least the successful ones will) that hard work and determination count far more than genius. Give me a mediocre piano student who works two hours every day over the 'genuis' who works two hours a week anyday.

It's like Edison said, genuis is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration.
9.6.2008 1:23am
Jon Rowe (mail) (www):
anyone one of them will tell you (at least the successful ones will)

It may be a self serving answer. It's both hard work and natural gifts.
9.6.2008 10:03am
TCO:
Usain Bolt seems to lack some Charlie Hustle dedication. Lot more pure talent. Or some really good drugz...
9.6.2008 1:38pm
David Warner:
MarkField:

"I think the schools should absolutely teach civic values such as honesty, integrity, "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind", etc. It's pretty hard to maintain a republican form of government without a citizenry educated in such values."

Certainly throughout American history vast majorities agreed, as I do. This was often how our public school system was sold in the first place, for better or for worse. I think this is why Murray uses the Aristotelian and Confucian descriptors, as they are sufficiently secular for the point he is making.
9.6.2008 2:16pm