There's been a bit of a scuffle going around the Wisconsin editorial community regarding teaching "right and wrong" at MPS, and whether religious teachings should be included.  I've been sitting on the sidelines of this one since it started, always having it on my list of blog topics.  This was one of those ones that I didn't want to jump in on right away, because its one of those topics where opinions can be easily misconstrued.  It all started with this editorial in the Journal by Willie Hines, the Milwaukee Common Council President.  Overall, its a good essay, including this bit:

Whenever a teacher ignores destructive behaviors, a certain morality (or immorality) is left unchecked. A clear message is sent: "The behavior is OK." Whenever scholastic schedules progress without reserving any forum or venue for ethical discussion, a message is sent that morals do not matter. When we neglect to highlight what is right in the world, we unwittingly endorse what is wrong.

Simple enough.  But as soon as you talk about teaching a topic (any topic), the next obvious question is of course, "How do you intend to teach it?"  This is not a problem limited to ethics, or even sex education, where debate rages rampant.  Ask any grade school teacher who has been teaching for more than 15 years about the number of different methods they've had to learn regarding how to teach basic arithmetic, and you see that this problem plagues all of education.  And of course, when teaching about "right and wrong", many people will of course jump into a discussion about religion in public education.  It started with Patrick McIlheran, lamenting that too few parents have the option of sending their children to private schools where religious teaching would be allowed.  Of course, he also said:

Frankly, I think it would be hard to teach morals and ethics without some reference to God, however understood. That's why I send my kids to a school that’s free to mention Him. It’s wonderful that about 20,000 Milwaukee children can do so under the school choice program.

That still leaves 80,000 in MPS which, because of a certain narrow-minded secularity in American political culture, can’t mention God. Pity, but still this shouldn't stop the schools from teaching behavior ranging from common courtesy to a deeper right-and-wrong based on the Judeo-Christian ethics that have prevailed for the majority of this country’s history.

Jay Bullock had a one liner on the topic (in a post that really talks about much larger issues with MPS), and Patrick has responded as well.  They're all interesting reads, as are these posts by Rick Esenberg (I, II, and III).  Personally, I like Rick's moderation on the topic.  I think Patrick just suffers from a lack of imagination, as do many commentators who add a religious bent to everything they write.  He just can't imagine a way to teach morals without referring to God.  Of course, many people like Jay tend to go too far, and suggest that any mention of God is some form of religious indoctrination.  He answers that to a certain degree this morning.

Of course, the reality is, there is no simple answer.  What we need to know is... What exactly do you want to teach?  Do you want to teach basic morals, or do you want to teach ethics?  Just as you can teach basic mathematical concepts quite adequately without ever mentioning names like Diophantus, or Newton (though it is hard without mentioning Pythagoras if for no other reason than the theorem which bears his name), you can teach about moral behavior without mentioning Moses or Jesus.  Many societies have risen with similar moral tenants as ours, and without Christianity.  Some things are simply more transcendent.  Likewise, some societies have risen and fallen with Christianity that were far less moral than ours, at least by our definition today.

And that is why any good ethics class is really a history class.  More than a history class, a good ethics class is an investigation.  I'm talking about learning about the teachings of Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Immanuel Kant, John Locke, and maybe even Ayn Rand.  That list is by no means exhaustive... which is the point.  You can spend an entire semester in an ethics or philosophy class and barely even scratch the surface.  The goal is not to teach "the one true ethics" however, because there really isn't one.  The goal is, or ought to be, to teach critical thinking, so that the student comes away from the class with the ability to apply certain principles to an unknown situation, and hopefully make an "ethical" decision based on new situations.

Of course, religion can do the same thing.  But religion goes further than mere ethics.  It also delves into notions of faith, spirituality, and the afterlife, as well as to an adherence to a specific set of instructions that don't necessarily conform to any ethical standard.  I'm referring to requirements that are neither moral, nor immoral per se, but are requirements of the faith nonetheless.  And so while many would argue that it's hard to teach ethics without mentioning God, it is also just as easy to argue that its hard to teach about God without mentioning these other ideas.  And therein lies the true conflict.

My point is that its rather easy, and I would hope noncontroversial, to enforce basic moral standards, without the need for religion.  For that matter, you can enforce those basic moral standards without mentioning Plato, Aristotle, or any other philosopher or ethical teacher.  You can do these things just as easily as you can teach basic arithmetic.  Moral standards need no justification, just reinforcement.  But to teach ethics and critical thinking, you need to go further.  

I would still argue that if a school wants to cover ethics, that religion shouldn't be included in that discussion.  One primary reason for that is availability.  If one wants religious teaching to be included in a child's education, one has a multitude of places to go every Sunday for that extra instruction, even if it's not included every day in a child's learning of the "three R's".  A similar venue cannot be found outside of traditional schools that teach other ethical schools however (like those mentioned above).  This of course leads to another argument, which is leaving religious teaching out of a school's "ethical training" would create a conflict between differing views.  In other words, certain secular ethical doctrines may be in conflict with certain religious ones.

To that I say, "Welcome to the world".  Any ethics class worth their salt automatically presents a broad range of ethical schools of thought that are often times in conflict... and that's before religion is ever brought into it!  They argue with each other!  That is what develops critical thinking, and the ability for any one individual to evaluate a situation, and apply a certain moral code to new and changing circumstances in life.  People's views will often times be challenged, not just in an ethical world, but also a political one, as we're all doing right here and now.  Hell, even people's ideas on how the Bible ought to be interpreted are different between different arms of Christianity.  Teaching views that may be in conflict with your current ethical understanding will do one of two things.  It will either reinforce your current ethics as you find problems with opposing views, or it will make you reevaluate your current ethical views and change them.

Is that something to be feared, or something to be celebrated?  Perhaps that is the real question to be debated.