Know Power, Know Responsibility: How to unleash the potential of every child in America

Part 1 — Chapter 7: Normalizing Compliance, Discouraging Critical Thinking, and Devaluing Moral Courage

Author’s Note: I will publish additional sections of this book each week. You can find previously posted sections at the following links: Note to Parents of School Age Children and Note to Teachers, School Administrators, and Other School Staff here; Introduction here; Prologues Part 1 and 2 here; Prologues Part 3 and 4 here; Part 1-Chapters 0 and 1 here; Chapter 2 here; Chapter 3 here; Chapter 4 here; and Chapters 5 and 6 here.

CHAPTER 7 — Normalizing Compliance, Discouraging Critical Thinking, and Devaluing Moral Courage

Students should graduate from high school ready, willing, and able to stand up to those who would strive to manipulate and take advantage of them. That, however, requires students to develop and practice critical thinking skills, develop the confidence to use these skills regularly, and develop the will to actively protect themselves and others from those who would abuse their power and influence.

Normalizing compliance

Chapter 4 describes how our current model interferes with student learning. This approach of normalizing compliance also contributes to significant societal challenges.

Children become accustomed to compliance. They learn to function as well as possible in an environment of rewards and punishments. They also learn that those with power and influence dictate the rules, limitations, freedoms, and consequences. Those same people determine what will be learned, when, and how and that there are negative consequences for noncompliance. Essentially, compliance becomes normalized and considered necessary.

When students move on to college, compliance continues to influence most aspects of their lives with countless rules, rewards, and consequences including for academic performance. After college, this continues to be accepted as the best way for society to function.

When people join a group, they often gain a sense of power from that group, even if that was not why they originally joined. The leaders of some groups leverage this sense of power to gain additional influence. Whether or not by design, schools do this when they strive to build school spirit and then use that to influence student conduct and actions. As adults, people may find their only sense of power comes from aligning with an individual or group they see as powerful.

Unfortunately, those who crave real power but lack a moral foundation can leverage the compliance mindset to gain support and allegiance. In the absence of critical thinking from their followers, they use calls for loyalty and trust to maintain support.

I believe this is a root cause of our current levels of divisiveness and political dysfunction. A small number of wealthy and powerful individuals and groups wield incredible influence over political parties, ideological organizations, media outlets, elected officials, and various other aspects of society. They leverage the compliance mentality and their members’ need for a sense of allegiance and power to support actions and decisions that many would never consider otherwise.

Unfortunately, even people and groups with a moral foundation are prone to acting in similar ways because they don’t see any options. Many people default to compliance and are unaccustomed to critical thinking, so they continue to follow “their” groups and leaders. Thus, even ethical groups may adopt manipulative, uncompromising practices.

Discouraging critical thinking

Which leads to the next outcome — discouraging critical thinking. Critical thinking requires one to view a problem or situation objectively. It requires consideration of various points of view and delineating facts from assumptions, opinions, and false information. To think critically, one needs to have an open mind and be willing to accept sometimes being wrong and having flawed opinions.

Equally important is having an outlet for critical thinking. If people think critically but their ideas and conclusions are ignored or lead to a negative consequence, they learn to avoid thinking critically. In our current compliance-centric model, students do not learn to question, validate, and challenge sources of information or what they are being taught. Instead, they learn that doing these things will often have negative results.

Probably worse, students aren’t learning to challenge their own opinions and thinking. In the absence of critical thinking, discord, and disagreement about things important to them, students can’t learn how to reflect on their own thoughts and ideas, which are essential to critical thinking. Even schools that include instruction in critical thinking often lack integrity because they won’t accept students doing so in the areas that really matter to the students.

Further, students learn it is best to stick with their decisions. Whether choosing a specific answer, choosing courses, or joining a group of friends or a club or sports team, there are often rewards for sticking with one’s decision, while changing one’s mind can bring complications, discomfort, and sometimes harassment from others.

Many people find ways to rationalize their continued allegiance to an organization even in the face of immoral or illegal acts. The need to be part of a group can outweigh our own awareness and personal values. In defending our allegiance, we further cement our bond, making it even harder to break away. When the group or its leaders move further from our base beliefs and values, we continue to accept it and retain our “loyalty.” This can occur slowly over time such that we find ourselves supporting actions and individuals that, at one time, we would have condemned.

THE PARADOX OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Some people have a strong law and order bias while also being vocal about supporting the Second Amendment and opposing firearm restrictions. On its surface, this seems reasonable. However, a little deep reflection and critical thinking reveals a paradox.

The argument for the Second Amendment is the ability to defend one’s freedom against potential government infringement. This presumes the possibility that the government cannot be fully trusted and that individuals must be willing to question government decisions and actions and be ready to take up arms to support one’s rights.

Support for law and order stems from a belief that everyone must obey the law and those who don’t must suffer the consequences. When someone believes a law is wrong or that rights are being violated, they must work within the system to change the law and not act illegally in protest.

Thus, the paradox. An advocate for law and order shouldn’t be able to entertain the possibility of taking up arms against the government, while a supporter of the second amendment must allow the possibility that some laws may need to be broken. It is possible to reasonably hold both these views, but only by thinking critically about each and considering the many nuances that come into play.

Critical thinking on hot-button issues from all parties involved would allow those with opposing perspectives to discover common ground and seek collaborative solutions to societal challenges.

This continues into adulthood. People are honored for being a member of an organization for years or decades. Others are honored for sticking to their “principles” even when these are actually opinions and biases rather than commonly shared values. People put great importance on loyalty and stick-to-itiveness, but they have a downside.

Devaluing moral courage

Compounding these outcomes is the devaluation of moral courage. Most people believe courage is a virtue — but determining a person’s act as courageous often depends on one’s ideological leanings. People will praise a student who stands up to a bully but condemn a student who stands up to a teacher or the administration, even on issues of student rights. Students quickly learn that demonstrating moral courage may not be worth the price.

This follows into adulthood. Tragic events such as school shootings and natural disasters become politicized; actions and decisions get twisted to align with an ideology. People who speak out and take a stand come under attack from those who feel that stand threatens their power and influence. Those in power then leverage their aligned groups to pursue the attacks and undermine the person or ideas being expressed.

Some may argue this stems from differing values among people. However, values are much more consistent than most realize. The differences that emerge during discussions and debates — and much more quickly and viciously on social media — often stem from refusing to apply critical thinking and objectivity. Instead, people filter events and actions through their biases and the influence of the groups with which they’re aligned. The actual values and moral courage get lost among ideologies and the self-interests of the various parties.

Rushworth Kidder explores this in depth in his book Moral Courage. Kidder dissects this concept, illustrates with dozens of examples, and provides significant evidence of values that are almost universally shared and considered most important across cultures, countries, and generations of people as well as within professional organizations and businesses. (Kidder, 2005)

It is not differing values at the heart of our divisiveness and political dysfunction; it is the ability of a small number of people and groups to maintain their power and influence by leveraging our compliance mentality, our unwillingness to think critically, and our fear of demonstrating moral courage.

We need a school model that requires students to think critically about things that are important to them and then guides them through the process until it becomes second nature. That means students need real power over their own education. Such a model would also lead students to value their own opinion and power and to strengthen their resolve to use these when necessary; that is, to demonstrate moral courage.

HOW’S YOUR CRITICAL THINKING?

Think about groups or individuals you oppose politically, ideologically, or otherwise. After reading this chapter, do you think they are manipulative? If so, then do a little reflecting. Ask yourself honestly and thoughtfully whether or not those you support are guilty of this.

It is not critical thinking when simply confirming a bias or opinion. Anytime you reject or embrace an idea, suggestion, opinion, or news story based on the source or how it aligns with your current opinions and beliefs, you are not thinking critically. Critical thinking requires reflecting deeply about the subject — and that means considering peripheral factors, indirect impacts, second- and third-order effects, etc.

Want to know how you’re doing at critical thinking? Try this: Select something about which you feel very strongly. Now, consider opposing points of view. Can you do this? Is the opposing viewpoint upsetting to you? Can you get past that and look at it objectively? Can you contrast your and the opposing viewpoints to see good and bad about both? Can you recognize why someone might support that opposing viewpoint? Can you recognize where your viewpoint might be wrong or at least unattractive to others? Can you think deeply about opposing points of view, ideas, or stories? Then you are capable of critical thinking. Now practice that as you continue to read.

Continue with the next section of Know Power, Know Responsibility (Part 1 — Chapter 8), here:

You may also enjoy reading:

Kevin Miller is a Boomer who joined the Army during the Cold War and continues to serve. He has spent 30-plus years working in K-12 education as a teacher, administrator, and consultant and is now on a mission to reinvent our school model. His book Know Power, Know Responsibility provides the imperatives for a complete redesign of schools and the way to get there. See his website knowresponsibility.com to learn more.