Thanks to Harry Drabik for his hug, the wet kiss was not my style though, and thanks for his inciteful, but incomplete, analysis of my previous comments.
I say incomplete because Harry would have us believe that justice is an inappropriate descriptor for a legitimate course in social studies; certainly justice deserves to be studied within the social realm and ought to be recognized as an essential part of our learning in a civilized society.
Using justice, as discipline in algebra and chemistry is logically absurd, equally so would be using Euclidian or organic for Social studies: those teaching ether of those sciences would do well making sure students were aware of the differences. Because such differences exist in all the mentioned disciplines, none can be described as dogmatic, in fact I would suggest that social studies can be even more dogmatic in the absence of justice, and excluding justice is a far more serious violation of the public trust in education.
Harry is younger than I, but he appears to prefer education be confined to the 3 R’s, an idea first promoted in the early 19th century, but abandoned by the time I was in high school; age, I guess, is more than just a study of chronology. BTW, regime change would certainly be a valid topic within the discussion of social justice, but just one out of thousands of possibilities.
Jerry Hiniker
Colvill
Leave a Reply