January 27, 2002

1:59 PM

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy will be launching a morals program designed to teach high school students about "fundamental values and universal moral precepts." This in response to his observation that high school students did not feel a sense of outrage after September 11. Kennedy warned against trying to rationalize the actions of the terrorists, saying that "an explanation becomes the excuse." Do you think the justice system should be in the business of telling people the correct moral response to these events?
posted by Chanther (27 comments total)

When I was a freshman in college, a history professor told me something I've never forgotten:

"You can't legislate common sense or values"

I dismissed it as overly cynical at the time, but since then I've realized it was the truest thing I heard in college.
posted by mathowie at 2:03 PM on January 27, 2002

I think it's amusing that the American Bar Association will be a co-sponsor of anything to do with morals.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:04 PM on January 27, 2002

The students don't agree with us, so we need to teach them to agree with us.

Ok class. Essay question on this exam: "Explain how events in recent month's are nothing like 1950s era communist-tracking and blacklisting and McCarthyism. Blank responses will be seen as supporting the terrorists. You have 20 seconds. Begin.
posted by benjh at 2:23 PM on January 27, 2002

This in response to his observation that high school students did not feel a sense of outrage after September 11

What? My brother and I talked about it incessantly for weeks after 9/11. How can Kennedy come to the conclusion that high school kids didn’t feel a ”sense of outrage”? This seems more to me a case of generations not understanding each other, and then trying to pass laws/create policy to “correct” the younger generation’s problems. Remember, some younger kids didn’t feel the need to be patriotic during the Vietnam War.
posted by plemeljr at 2:26 PM on January 27, 2002

The guy wants to talk to high school students about the underlying principles of freedom, democracy, and the U.S. government. Oh no...
posted by techgnollogic at 2:43 PM on January 27, 2002

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy will be launching a morals program ...

In related news, heavyweight boxer Mike Tyson will be launching an anger management program ...

Maybe the reason they didn't feel a sense of "moral outrage" was because they used it all up during the SCOTUS election hijacking.
posted by RavinDave at 2:47 PM on January 27, 2002

Hmm. Well, if he, in fact, wishes to discuss "fundamental values and universal moral precepts" then this is pretty cringeworthy. If he sticks to discussing "core democratic values", rather less so. If he were to finish it off by pointing out that America doesn't necessarily adhere to these values but they're still pretty good values, this might even be O.K. Not that he'll do that.

"In seeking rational explanations for irrational acts, an explanation becomes the excuse," Bleh. No, in seeking rational explanations for acts we become more likely to prevent them in the future.

"Our purpose, our mission is to share democracy with the world" Again, see Ideal, America's failure to live up to.
posted by apostasy at 2:56 PM on January 27, 2002

Hhmmm ... the article itself is a bit different that the way it is presented. The MiFi sentence that reads,

"This in response to his observation that high school students did not feel a sense of outrage after September 11."

misstates things, and gives a wrong impression ... the entire sentiment is,

"The associate justice said he had been surprised and disappointed to read after September 11 that some students in a Washington area Muslim school were unmoved by the attacks. "There was no sense of empathy, no moral outrage," he said."

So hold back a bit plemeljr, it is not Kennedy, but rather Chanther's partial summation of Kennedy that implied that no high school students felt a sense of outrage.

Even further, the question,

"Do you think the justice system should be in the business of telling people the correct moral response to these events?"

may be a good one to discuss, but it also implies that this is what Kennedy is up to. The article certainly doesn't say this however. It appears as though Kennedy and the ABA are going to ask attorneys and others involved in the Justice system to visit schools, and give talks on the moral and legal foundations of democratic thought. There appeared to be nothing in the article that even remotely suggested Kennedy, or anyone else was going to attempt to force anyone to think in a predetermined way, or create any laws or policy to correct anyone's thinking.

"Ok class. Essay question on this exam: "Explain how events in recent month's are nothing like 1950s era communist-tracking and blacklisting and McCarthyism. Blank responses will be seen as supporting the terrorists. You have 20 seconds. Begin."

When I walk down Fulton Street every morning, I now see the World Financial Center. It used to be blocked by two much bigger buildings that are not there any longer. People have died of anthrax poisening. A guy was caught with sophisticated explosives in his shoe, attempting to blow up another airliner. There are people, possibly even in this country, that as I write this are attempting to figure out how to create death and destruction, in serious numbers, in this country.

Is the government overreacting? Sometimes, in some areas. Do I think the threat, however, is illusory? Hell no it isn't - it's very real.
posted by MidasMulligan at 3:06 PM on January 27, 2002

Midas...you are right...I did spout off. My bad...I guess it is true that it take at least 5 posts for an actual conversation/discussion to take place. I reread the link, and you are right.

I am just very tired of lip service and promises (I live in Cincinnati) that don’t amount to anything. If lawyers can come into the schools, and start a discussion about “moral and legal foundations of democratic though” then I am all for it. But, as stated before, if we start (continue) legislating morality, it is a slippery slope.
posted by plemeljr at 3:18 PM on January 27, 2002

Midas, I think you're correct that my omission of the word "some" before "high school students" leads to an overstatement of the situation. However, I think that saying it's "giving talks on the moral and legal foundations of democratic thought" is an understatement of it.

The phrase "fundamental values and universal moral precepts" is very broad. Perhaps it's all going to be educational in nature - educating children on how our institutions and democratic traditions came to be. If so, I not only accept it, I applaud it.

But there's also an aspect of this that goes beyond educational into the "prescriptive." Kennedy is not just concerned with the knowledge of the students, but of the views of the students - and that, to me, is a very different situation.

To warn against attempts to find rational explanations for the terrorists' actions is not educational, it is morally prescriptive. To cloak that moral stance as though it were incontrovertibly based in our own democratic traditions (with the implication that any opposing view is undemocratic) is intellectually suspect. And I question whether a Supreme Court justice should be involved in that. So I do stand by the original question, for I do think what Justice Kennedy has proposed moves past the educational into inculcating a moral view.
posted by Chanther at 3:55 PM on January 27, 2002

This is clearly not an Ethics class, nor is it a Civics class, this is merely blatant propaganda. "core democratic values" in this case seem to amount to reacting in predictable and socially acceptable patterns.

He warned against what he said was an effort to find rational explanations for the actions of the terrorists.

This bastard calls himself a man of law, has the utter balls to don the robes of his office, and then tells me that we should teach children to look at perpetrators of unlawful acts as beyond reason, unworthy of examination, unredeemable? This is not acceptable. A Supreme Court Justice should know better than to perpetuate the myth of good and evil, a moral rather than legal judgment which he is frankly not in the business of making.

I find myself getting visibly angry at this story. I can look past a lot of Big Brotherisms, but can't maintain suspension of disbelief on this one. This is real life, swiftly becoming less and less recognizable.

"Our purpose, our mission [sic] is to share democracy with the world," he said."

Does anyone else find this ominous as hell?
posted by Hildago at 4:24 PM on January 27, 2002

No sense of moral outrage? What planet does Hizzoner live on? Just about everybody of every concievable persuasion I know, from the age of 3 up, was outraged by the attacks. To draw a conclusion like that from the statements of an isolated few borders on paranoia.
That said, I would welcome any honest national dialogue about moral and ethical issues from whatever source. However, I don't think that's what Justice Kennedy is offering. I have a feeling that his program will make the mistake of most other "values" based initiatives. That is, instead of offering youg people a variety of opinoins and ideas and teaching them the critical thinking skills they need to make their own mind up, this seems more like picking a point of view and indoctrinating people into "choosing" it.
I remember back in junior high watching a debate on PBS(I was an odd kid) about whether to teach evolution or creationism in schools. I also remember feeling vaguely insulted that these people assumed that I believed whatever I was taught. This program gives me that same old feeling.
posted by jonmc at 4:24 PM on January 27, 2002

Wow ... people appear to be reading way more into the article than it says, and then accusing Kennedy of all manner of crimes based not on what the article actually says, but on the conclusions they leaped to based on what it said.

Only a few months and it's apparently been forgotten that the attacks were very delibrately attacks on democratic values. The Taliban and Bin Laden hate this value system, believe it is evil and corrupt, and believe they have a moral foundation for engaging in terrorism. They do NOT think the population has an latent equality, that anyone other than a small group should be able to determine law, they consider the notion of voting an abomination, and that women should be virtually completely controlled ... Even further, they have made a case for the justness of their value system (a sort of modified theocratic system) throughout the Muslim world. In fact, they've made their case somewhat strongly. Kennedy noticed that not only in China and several other places he visited, but even some among people in this country, the argument for "moral equivilency" had won - with people feeling as though it was just tit-for-tat ... America "deserved" it.

So ... how terrible, that understanding this scenerio, a supreme court justice would actually try to organize people to talk about OUR underlying value system in America. That he might actually think that this is NOT a war between two morally equivilent value systems, but that one is more universal than the other.

No, we don't always live up to ideals ... but we do a damn site better than those that call those ideals corrupt. And the values do seem "universal" ... there is a reason why the students in Tiannamon Square built a replica of the Statue of Liberty, why the demand to get into this country is immensely greater than the demand to get out, or to get into any other country. The reason is this value system we live under. And if a supreme court justice, one of those whose day to day life is continually filled with reading the founding documents, and translating their intentions into the current world - i.e., someone well qualified to think about what those core values are - wants to organize talks on the subject ... well all I can say is GOOD. DAMN GOOD.

And I might add that if a member of the Taliban had attempted to organize the same thing in Afghanistan, or the (effectively) ruling clerics in Iran announced such a project ... they would be doing exactly what everyone seems to be accusing Kennedy of.

Rage away folks ... rage away at the guy that is suggesting that maybe high schoolers think about the value system that lets you rage against Kennedy without having your limbs chopped off by clerics.
posted by MidasMulligan at 5:01 PM on January 27, 2002

Invoke Godwin's law if you want, but I think this needs to be broached.

This is from the personal account of Edward Behrendt, who as a boy in Austria was part of the Hitler Youth Program:

"Like many dictators, Hitler and his immediate cohorts believed that it was vital to convert young children to their cause and believes. Basically that theory still holds true today. If you can capture the minds of young children and persuade them to become dedicated to your cause, your theory of the truth and your theory of what is right and wrong, then you can hold the whole country captive and you have complete control. That is what the Nazis were after in establishing the Hitler Youth. "

There isn't a perfect analogy between what Kennedy is trying to do and what Artur Axmann (leader of the Hitler Youth) did. However, it's close enough to warrant rational examination while such is still at least nominally in vogue.

Democratic values are not "universal" values, they are a vague collection which is mixed and matched under a single umbrella, but which changes over the years. The democratic values of today are not the same as they have always been; new social climates, new priorities, new technologies, et cetera can change them or rearrange their importance to us. How many years ago do you suppose it was that protestantism was at the heart of democratic values?

I'd say that "democratic values" are undeniably dependent upon whomever is in power, both in government and in media. To teach that the values in place during a particular generation or administration are "core", or "universal" is to teach, more or less, that whatever is, is right; That whatever the government says goes. The lack of "rational examination" of propaganda is what has lead to a lot of very bad things, including not only nazism but, ironically, the spread of terrorism in places like Afghanistan.
posted by Hildago at 5:04 PM on January 27, 2002

Midas -- "Only a few months and it's apparently been forgotten that the attacks were very delibrately attacks on democratic values. The Taliban and Bin Laden hate this value system, believe it is evil and corrupt, and believe they have a moral foundation for engaging in terrorism."

I'm sure that they despise our system. Our values, if you like. But that is not the entire reason, or, I would argue, even the majority of the reason they keep attacking us. Bin Laden himself, as well as a host of other terrorist leaders right on down the line have said that our support of their enemies and our occupation of their countries is what pisses them off so much. In other words, it is not the mere existence of American Values that they are striking out against, but the incursion of American Values on their own system, overt and otherwise.

Which is why Kennedy's mission statement about sharing democracy bodes so much ill.

But even if it were the case that it's just freedom that they hate, and not all the hell we've raised in their part of the world, it still does not follow that our response should be to preach Americanism even more loudly. In other words, to set our two value systems against each other. It is possible to teach children empathy without tying it to politics at all. The first was around way before the other.
posted by Hildago at 5:16 PM on January 27, 2002

Midas, buddy, pal, compadre...as is usually the case, I'm with you on democratic values, opposition to totalitarianism in any form etc.
But you gotta remember that CHOICE and FREEDOM OF THOUGHT are THE essential democratic values. Not mention respect for other individuals with differing poits of view.Which is of course, why many of us, even publicly proclaimed patriots such as myself are suspicious of anyone who claims to have a monopoly on how those values are to be interpreted and put into action. And this is a healthy suspicion, I think. Look at our last self-proclaimed arbiter of values, Bill Bennett. His so-called collection of "universal" values was basically a regurgitation of the party-line conservative agenda. Which is a perfectly fine point-of-view to have; however, if you truly subscribe to democratic values, it's also perfectly fine for someone else to interpret it another way.
No, you are correct in saying that we may be prejudging Justice Kennedy's motives. So, touche on that point. But it's just a smidgen of the healthy suspicion I mentioned earlier.
Also, for the would-be Osama's in our country, there's very little you can do to change someone who's mind is wired that way. However, people like that are useless without followers. Followers we can keep them from gathering when we lead by example.
posted by jonmc at 5:27 PM on January 27, 2002

"There was no sense of empathy, no moral outrage," he said. "I said, 'If that's what's happening in Maryland, imagine what's happening in Cairo.' And then what's happening here."

Um, can someone explain this to me? I'm doing fine up until that last sentence and then it all falls to pieces.
posted by MUD at 5:29 PM on January 27, 2002

" ... Um, can someone explain this to me? I'm doing fine up until that last sentence and then it all falls to pieces ..."

Actually, I think the article noted here was not very well written - as several comments seemed disjointed and out of context. And this discussion seems continually to go back and forth between what he actually said, and what people are concluding he meant. He nowhere said anything about "preaching" anything.

The program itself is called "Dialogue on Freedom" - i.e., it is not intended to be a bunch of lawyers preaching to kids, but rather being facilitators of a discussion. A different report of the press conference is on the Washington Post website, and goes into somewhat more detail ....

"Students will be asked to respond to a hypothetical scenario, drafted by Kennedy, in which their tourist plane develops engine trouble and they land in an imaginary country called Quest, where a charismatic leader, Drummer, is spreading an anti-American message. Characters from Quest demand to know what democracy has to offer them and why they should care about the attacks on New York and Washington."

If this goes on around the country, I do think it will cause a real examiniation of what American values are, and how they can be justified. In fact, far from indocrination, I suspect it is also likely that such a discussion could even lead to a greater awareness of those places where we do not practice it as well as we could. I also know a lot of high school students, and anyone that thinks a lawyer walking into a classroom and trying to indoctrinate them into anything has a ghost of a chance fundamentally does not understand modern high school students. In fact from what I've seen, students in high school today are some of the most sophisticated, worldly students in the history of our country, and they have a nearly hyper-sensitivity to anyone trying to program them into thinking anything. The scenerio, as devised by Kennedy, is not only likely to lead to a discussion of democratic values, but will likely see people questioning the premise of the scenerio itself.

Look what the announcement alone did on this discussion board (that, in fact, includes some high school students) ... it lead to a discussion of what "democratic values" are, whether they are universal, should be exported, whether they change over time ...

No, the more I read about this, the more it sounds like a good idea.
posted by MidasMulligan at 6:06 PM on January 27, 2002

MidasMulligan: "In fact from what I've seen, students in high school today are some of the most sophisticated, worldly students in the history of our country, and they have a nearly hyper-sensitivity to anyone trying to program them into thinking anything."

This is because they're the third generation after propaganda became widely used for commercial, rather than jingoistic, purposes.

Ash.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:57 PM on January 27, 2002

" ... Swimme describes how children have historically learned their place in the world. "For as long as three hundred thousand years, humans have huddled together in the night to ponder and to celebrate the mysteries of the universe.... Around the fire of the African plains, in the caves of the European forests, under the brilliant sky of the Australian land mass, in the long houses of North America. There the people told the sacred stories of how the world came to be, of what the human brings into the universe, and of what it takes to live a noble life..."

Wow ... I would have actually bet against anyone being able to pack that much factual error and generalized idiocy into three sentences.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:27 PM on January 27, 2002

If we don't have Natural Law, do we have any real fundamentals to run the country off of.
posted by aaronshaf at 9:53 PM on January 27, 2002

Since when did an "eye for an eye" become the basis of morality?
posted by banished at 10:13 PM on January 27, 2002

Can't forget Alan Keye's thoughts on morality.

"Banished" and whomever, a thought:

If we banish retribution as a reason for justice, and merely use "rehabilitation" and "deterrence", do we really have justice at all?
posted by aaronshaf at 10:36 PM on January 27, 2002

" ... Since when did an "eye for an eye" become the basis of morality? ..."

It isn't a basis for morality. It may, however, in some instances be justified on moral grounds. I personally think that the initial approach to anyone (or any nation) ought to be to assume the best, and act according to the highest principles possible.

If, however, someone pokes my left eye out, and stands in front of me saying that the minute he gets the chance, he'll poke the right one out as well ... then yes, I believe the best response is to immediately, and with no qualms or hesitation, remove one of his eyes. The end result of this is that two eyes have been lost, but the chances of any more being lost go down, as the initial perpetrator will think twice. Doing nothing, letting the guy just remove my second eye, greatly increases the chances he'll start on the eyes of others. It is not "moral" to be a doormat.

There is hatred in the world, and there is evil. If someone blows up 2 buildings, and kills 3,000 people ... KILL THEM. Unleash as strong a hell as it's possible to unleash upon them. Do not start wars, but if wars are started, FINISH them.
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:54 PM on January 27, 2002

Midas care to qualify this remark?
Only a few months and it's apparently been forgotten that the attacks were very delibrately attacks on democratic values.
i too applaud any attempt to promote discussion about the nature and foundations of liberty. What i would question is whether someone caught up in the crazy world of legality is in any position to comment on the subject in anything other than a highly subjective way. there is a bigger picture.
it may be difficult for some people to understand, but the deaths of americans in the attacks are but a blip on the 'death by terrorism' chart. looking at the situation from an international perspective, with a knowledge of the history of the subject, one could quite easily dismiss the attacks as statistically insignificant, outrageous though it may seem. there are more devastating 'terrors' patrolling the planet.
the psychological effect of the attack was the most important, given american hubris and was being questioned in such an obvious way. the rest of the world is now living in a less safe atmosphere as a result of the american response to this incision into their confidence. more people have been killed in afganistan (by the american onslaught) than were killed in the attacks on the us, afganistan does not have the same support and internal structure as the us, so even more will continue to die.
any attempt to combat terrorism must start by promoting the democratic ideal and ousting (via whatever means are appropriate) non-democratic governments. state terrorism against the people of a country, has killed, and will continue to kill more people than all the 'terrorist' bombings, shootings and attacks by, or for any non-government sponsored group. it is a great pity that this type of terrorism has been supported by most western governments in the past century, but america outstrips any other country in bank-rolling this kind of oppression. it appears that foreign policy and covert operations are driven by paranioa.
it seems to me that expressing views like these would be met with confusion, anger and denial, if expressed to the mainstream (as i have experienced), but that does not mean that these views are any less valid than the official party line.
*takes breath*
posted by asok at 4:09 AM on January 28, 2002

Whew! What asok said. Thanks for taking the time to explain how I feel so well asok.
posted by nofundy at 6:08 AM on January 28, 2002

I appreciate your sentiment asok, but in terms of violent terrorism, 9.11 was NOT a mere 'blip on the death by terrorism' chart. The link you use for a breakdown statistically of 'terrors' is dubious at best.

Not having access to basic education and/or safe drinking is 'terrible'. Not 'terrorism'. Unless you can argue convincingly that someone, somehwere, is deliberately witholding safe drinking water from a people with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
posted by glenwood at 10:11 AM on January 28, 2002