Evolving Educational Philosophy Evolving Philosophy

Evolving Educational Philosophy

Evolving philosophy

Few would contest the idea that universities must create moral graduates capable of critical thinking. However, should the university endorse a particular type of morality? In (post) modern times, this seems impossible. Today's diverse educational environment requires tolerance of many belief structures and ways of life. Perhaps the only real educational philosophy the university can embrace is one of a marketplace of ideas. It must also evolve into a community that permits personal and ethical exploration for knowledge's sake, not merely provides technical qualifications.

The highest form of human moral development, according to Lawrence Kohlberg, is achieved when human beings deductively reason from abstract principles. Beyond mere obedience to personal whims and rules, a truly ethical individual must be able form a creed and rationally decide if something is right or wrong. Of course, this assessment has come under considerable critique by many theorists, who suggest that moral standards are relative and culturally contextual. The idea of the existence of a kind of universal morality is highly particular and Western -- in many indigenous cultures, situational decision-making rather than creating eternal moral abstractions is of greater importance. Furthermore, there is also a gender-based critique of Kohlberg's moral typology which suggests that women often prioritize human, individuated elements when engaging in decision-making rather than classify decisions as wrong or right for all.

Perhaps the most productive aspect of Kohlberg's psychological experiments, in which he asked people of different ages if it was right for a man to steal a drug to save his wife's life, is the priority he gave to moral thinking in the development of the individual. His definitions of a universal morality that can be easily defined seem narrow -- even the specific dilemma he addressed is revealed to be quite debatable in the current controversy about healthcare in America. Having a single type of rationale behind a coherent faith or philosophy seems elusive in this postmodern world of relativism and compartmentalizing. Students may feel like one moral being at school, and another moral being at home with parents who speak a different language and never attended university in the United States. The classroom may entertain ideas that are in conflict with the morality of greater society, as well as the student's own home life. Education must seek to bring these conflicts to light; it cannot often resolve them for students.

The fact that morality and identity seem so slippery is not a reason for the university community to discount the value of moralizing and philosophy -- in fact, it makes it all the more imperative that morality is discussed. In these pressured economic times, students often come to the university with the aim of getting a good job, rather than becoming a good person. Ensuring that they leave with not merely a degree, but with the experience of discussing ethics in relation to the human condition and their chosen fields of work and study must become one of the legacies of the university in undergraduate and graduate's daily lives. Students may not have a chance engage in ethical exploration with such vigor and rigor once they leave a learning community and become professionals. But the series of scandals that have gripped modern life in business show that merely possessing intelligence and qualifications does not mean one is ethical, and ethical misdeeds can have practical and tragic consequences. Despite the catastrophic job market, at least current students can use the present-day crisis as a teachable moment. No matter how bad things may be, the university must strive to create positive educational debates and experiences.

It is not the responsibility of the university to provide answers to student's questions of morality and identity. But a university has a responsibility not to stifle debate; rather it must enable students to feel free to ask questions. The university must encourage graduates to comfortably tolerate ambiguity and diversity of beliefs amongst their fellow students and within their own hearts. In this tolerance of diversity, of course, there is an implied moral system to some degree, just as there is in Kohlberg's prioritization of moralistic abstractions. The modern university that values ethical questioning must allow for multiplicity of opinions. This tolerance is not cross-culturally universal in its nature. But for an American university, located in a diverse world, a school that seeks to prepare students for a global community and a mosaic of cultures in America, part of the learning process for students must be having a certain kind of open-mindedness or at least the ability to engage in dialogue with others with different opinions.

All students embark upon a journey self-exploration in college. As they stretch their ability to learn about others, and try on new personas, they must allow others to do the same. As the university serves all students it cannot permit narrow-mindedness -- of opinions and even of specialization in academic study. Breadth and depth must be fostered in course offerings and interdisciplinary learning. A certain level of discomfort must also be tolerated in renegotiating one's personal morality in a university climate. Even if a student returns to the morality of his or her parents at the end of the voyage of intellectual and personal discovery through the university, to learn requires change and reconsideration of values (Colby et al. 2003, p. 107).