Are We Teaching Tolerance or Intolerance?
March 10, 2004
I am writing to let you know that
I have a concern regarding the subject of tolerance in your class – how it is
supposedly being taught and the amount of time dedicated to this subject in
what is supposed to be an introductory literature course for 9th
graders.
I agree that tolerance should be
encouraged in the minds of impressionable youth. But the traditionally accepted definition is
being replaced by a “modern” version based on a particular worldview (which I
find disturbing and intellectually contradictory). Webster's original dictionary, right up
through the 1960’s, defined tolerance as “putting up with that which is not
wholly acceptable,” along with several similar variations. The newer definition is exemplified in
Houghton-Mifflin's American Heritage Dictionary which says: “The capacity for
or practice of recognizing and respecting the opinions, practices, or behavior
of others.”
The first allows a person to disagree
with another – even call him wrong in a transcendent or absolute sense – while
at the same time “put up” with him in a civilized manner. The newer definition does not allow for such
discernments of right or wrong (at least beyond an individual or cultural
context) and actually compels one to consider all opinions, practices and
behaviors to be worthy of positive value (as “respect” would require).
As I mentioned to you at the
parent-teacher conference, I do not consider a terrorist’s worldview one to be
respected or considered of some positive value compared to others that teach
that terrorism is absolutely wrong.
Neither will I respect a philosophy or mindset or actions
that advocates the hatred of others, the abuse of women and children,
etc. But this 2nd definition
of “tolerance”, if consistently followed, would have me labeled as “intolerant”
for not respecting their choices of hatred and abuse. This is the inherent contradiction within
the newer definition.
The original definition actually
allows for something that is far superior to “respecting” the views of
others. It allows for love and
compassion. In fact, love is often the
very opposite of the newer definition of “tolerance”. If someone has, e.g., adopted a mentality
that devalues his own life or others’ lives, the new definition of tolerance
provides no motivation for me to even hope that he may consider an alternative,
let alone encourage me to convince him otherwise. If anything, it suggests apathy toward him
and his choice. Love or compassion, on
the other hand, allows me not only to discern the rightness or wrongness of his
views, but also truly to care for him to the extent that I might help him
reconsider his views that could lead to harming others.
In WWII the ones very often
devoted to saving the Jews were not ones who necessarily respected their choice
of religion, but who were instead moved by compassion for them as human
beings. In fact, the thing that ended up
saving many Jews (and many others at odds with national socialism
and fascism) was refusing to respect (“tolerate”) the opinions,
practices and behaviors of Hitler and his Reich.
I get the sense that students may walk away from your
class thinking that “intolerance” is closely related to or is hatred. If this is the case then many (including some
of your students and their parents), at least to some extent, would then be put
into the classification of those who hate solely because they do not respect
certain opinions or lifestyles of others.
I may say someone is morally wrong, but that is a far cry from saying I
hate him or her. The exact opposite may
be true: conveying to another that they are wrong may be an act of true love.
(This is not to say that there are not groups who truly hate Jews and
others. They exist and I, for one, will not
tolerate their views in the least and will teach my children the same.) It is important for young people to learn
that love and compassion are to be directed toward all, but it is insane and
even dangerous to suggest that everyone’s opinion, behavior, etc.
should be respected. That is one of the
important lessons from Nazi Germany.
Judgment is not necessarily hatred. Neither is labeling something evil.
It is rather ironic that the Jews put in Auschwitz in the
‘30’s and ‘40’s would today be labeled “intolerant” because their sacred
writings taught them to believe that certain lifestyles and beliefs were
absolutely wrong and others were not.
I hope that the impression is not being left in the minds
of students that many Jews and Christians (and other people of religious
conviction) are committing some sort of hate crime because of their
beliefs. If this is the way students end
up thinking about these Jews and Christians, I fear both religions will be
subject to a holocaust all over again.
A distinction should be made between human beings on the
one hand and their beliefs/behaviors on the other. Human life should be valued because of its
inherent sanctity and value; beliefs, behaviors, etc. are not necessarily
valuable or good, and may be just the opposite.
I am not asking for any sort of religious teaching to be
advocated in your class. In fact I would
prefer that no religion be taught or promoted, especially one above
another. My concern, however, is that
certain concepts are being overlooked, perhaps even belittled. These include:
In view of this, there seems to be an inordinate amount of
time devoted to the subject of “tolerance” (several weeks), which suggests to
me that this is a theme that you feel is of utmost importance for students to
understand and accept. I find this to be
highly unwarranted since this course for freshmen is an intro literature course;
it is not to be a course in philosophy or politics, especially since it
involves a political philosophy that appears to be questionable at best. You could have committed more time to great
themes such as honesty, loyalty, courage, integrity, humility, faithfulness,
sacrifice and, of course, love and compassion.
As far as I can determine, I believe these are found in much of what you
have had them read, which I appreciate very much (including Night which
I was able to read and which I believe teaches good virtues and sends a strong
warning to all). But, again, the time
dedicated to this subject and what students may be learning about it deeply
concerns me.
If it is being taught or implied (or the students could
easily infer) that students ought to respect every view, behavior and opinion
of others, this is not education, but indoctrination. It is actually encouraging intolerance (in
the traditional sense) that is not justified philosophically, ethically, and,
perhaps most importantly, historically.
My fear is that students may end up to be despisers of virtue. Or, just as bad, they may end up saying, “I
don’t care.”
If you care to respond, please do, especially if you think
I am being inaccurate or unfair. I do
not wish to misrepresent you in anyway whatsoever.
Sincerely,
David Thompson, parent
╪