"The Supreme Court; And By Focusing on Achieving, Are Our CHildren Learning Less?"

Sydney M. Williams

Thought of the Day

“The Supreme Court; And By Focusing on Achieving, Are Our Children Learning Less?”

May 12, 2010

David Brooks had an op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times, entitled “What It Takes”, which will certainly raise eyebrows. The purpose of the piece was to raise doubt about President Obama’s selection of Elena Kagan to serve on the Supreme Court, but the implications of his essay have far broader implications. Mr. Brooks’ point, at its essence, is that too many children are being raised to succeed by “going along”, not challenging authority – suppressing their opinions for the sake of their career. A Professor is looked upon as a boss who must be pleased.

My knowledge of Ms. Kagan is insufficient to draw an opinion as to her qualifications, but I suspect there is truth in what he says – not about the Solicitor General, but about the tendency of couples to encourage their young to succeed without rocking the boat. Very likely my own children feel they were raised with similar goals and limitations.

Nevertheless, there is something disturbing if we conclude that our most successful young students are reluctant to challenge their teachers. Have not the world’s greatest scientists and philosophers discovered new concepts and uncovered new natural laws because of their refusal to conform to accepted principals and ideas?

In discussing Ms. Kagan, David Brooks writes: “Yet she also is apparently prudential, deliberate and cautious. She does not seem to be one who leaps into a fray when the consequences might be unpredictable.” For a Justice, those characteristics sound appropriate, but in most jobs we need people who are willing to take chances. However, the Constitution does have plenty of grey area and is subject to interpretation. A four thousand word document that governs tens of thousands of laws represented in millions of pages is, at best, a guide. Interpretation is the reason we have courts in the first place.

It is unimportant that Court decisions be decided 9-0. (In fact they rarely are.) What is important is that whatever the decision, it reflects the opinionated interpretation of the nine Justices. The ultimate decision is not arrived at consensually, but is determined by vote, which is why dissenting opinions are published simultaneously with opinions.

Of the three branches of government, the Supreme Court most closely resembles the institution created 235 years ago. Since the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963, the Presidency, understandably, has become increasingly isolated from the people and, in doing so, more imperial. Congress, likewise, has become a separate island distanced from the people she supposedly represents. Nepotism has become more commonplace. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, travels back and forth to California on a C-32, a military version of a 757-200, provided by the Pentagon and paid for by the people. Congress often exempts itself from the laws they create, the most infamous being the recent passage of the Health Care Bill, a bill which, in time, will ration health care and will, ultimately, result in a single payer. The Supreme Court, alone, remains as it was envisioned. Attempts to politicize the Court, as Roosevelt discovered in 1937 when he attempted to limit the age of Justices, so he could pack it with new appointees and as President Obama has hopefully learned when, in his State of the Union, he publically dissed the Justices for their decision not to place a ban on corporate spending in elections, have not been well received by the people.)

But, to return to Mr. Brooks’ column; without actually saying so, he suggests a student can achieve good grades and receive great recommendations without really learning. Learning takes time and it often involves challenging one’s teachers, not to be rude, but to deepen one’s knowledge. Socratic teaching focuses on asking students questions, not providing answers. It results in self-discovery, not the provision of rote answers.

We live in a world in which time moves swiftly – we are an attention deficit disordered society. We want our child to be the best student, the best athlete, the best dancer, the best debater. We program their lives from an early age for achievement, but we risk suppressing their naturally inquisitive minds, minds that should be nurtured, so they can discover new horizons – go places where no man has gone before. These children, as David Brooks writes, are not “intellectual risk takers”; they are prudent rather than poetic. To the extent that is true, it is unfortunate.