CCBC-Net Archives
affirmation and pluralism
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Charles Bayless <charles.bayless_at_ttmd.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:42:46 -0500
Thom,
Well put and I whole-heartedly endorse your call for intellectual freedom, intellectual pluralism and defense of unfettered free speech.
I think a further argument towards this end is the need for humility in face of the profound limitations of our knowledge. We can passionately believe something to be true but, regardless of whether or not it is true, if we do not convince others of that truth, we are engendering a contest of power. Convincing cannot consist of trying to hide the information or the texts with which we disagree. This isn't a short term problem. It always seems more effective to take a shortcut by finding some way of forcing it to happen regardless of what others might want. But effectiveness only arises from convincing people. Sooner or later, that has to be done.
As an example of the limitations to our knowledge, there are two propositions which I believe are widely shared in this community that have little actual empirical support. It is not that either proposition is wrong, it is that there is little evidence yet that they are right. 1) Enthusiastic reading has a positive causative impact on life outcomes such as test scores, education attainment, future earning potential, etc. 2) Reading upsetting things in books can be detrimental to life outcomes and finding an absence of gender or race identities can have a detrimental impact. Passionately as we might believe either or both propositions, the robust empirical data to support either is weak or non-existent. There is a lot of data showing a correlation between enthusiastic reading and positive life outcomes, but correlation is not causation. Enthusiastic reading co-varies with other variables which might actually be the primary driver(s). There are a couple of studies with reasonably rigorous data that actually do support the proposition of causation, but they are only a couple. There are no robust empirical studies supporting proposition 2. All of which is to say that there are real limitations on the scope of knowledge - we may be right or wrong in what we believe but we don't know and we are not in a strong position to counter those that believe otherwise. Conviction is no substitute for convincing.
I also endorse the caution of assuming authority that is not real. Largely absent in much of this conversation are the children and their parents themselves who are actually the ultimate decision makers in terms of outcomes. It is well and good for authors or publishers or advocates to have something they want to occur, but it is the free exercise of choice on the part of the parents and their children that determine outcomes. Parents have different objectives than those of publishers or authors or teachers or librarians (or their own children sometimes). Trying to displace the parent's objectives with those of others is problematic. Not atypically, parents want their children to become enthusiastic readers. From their perspective, we risk letting the best be the enemy of the good. Not only is there ambiguity and paradox but there are undesirable trade-offs. A parent may be interested in fair representation but also intensely interested in his child becoming an enthusiastic reader. Knowing that a child freely choosing a book to read and enjoying a book as part of a series are both strong enablers of reading enthusiasm, the parent may perfectly rationally elect to support reading LHOTP while fully cognizant of its possible flaws. For that parent, the objective of enthusiastic reading may trump the objective of fairer representation. No third-party is in a real position to dispute that trade-off decision.
Yet another argument is that we seem to be taking such a binary view of books and reading rather than recognizing that there are deep complexities and especially that there are always trade-offs. All books have some flaw to them, but they each also have some redemption. Our capacity to see the flaws and understand the redemptions is limited based on our lack of knowledge of the individual reader, their context, history, or circumstances.
I think we place librarians and teachers in a very unsatisfactory position if we argue they should use their position of responsibility to make changes that the community may not yet have endorsed. Advancing what might be perceived as a personal political or ideological agenda via a trusted public position is anathema to most. It is highly risky and likely ineffective. It is the librarian or teacher that gets fired.
Finally I endorse the call to trust. The fact that others do not share our own particular beliefs and values or make different decisions does not reflect ill upon them. It simply means that they have reached a different conclusion. If we want to change their conclusion, we have to do that directly rather than by trying to restrict their choices and freedoms. All systems need variation and variety in order to evolve. The only way to have diversity is to have diversity.
Charles
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 18:42:46 -0500
Thom,
Well put and I whole-heartedly endorse your call for intellectual freedom, intellectual pluralism and defense of unfettered free speech.
I think a further argument towards this end is the need for humility in face of the profound limitations of our knowledge. We can passionately believe something to be true but, regardless of whether or not it is true, if we do not convince others of that truth, we are engendering a contest of power. Convincing cannot consist of trying to hide the information or the texts with which we disagree. This isn't a short term problem. It always seems more effective to take a shortcut by finding some way of forcing it to happen regardless of what others might want. But effectiveness only arises from convincing people. Sooner or later, that has to be done.
As an example of the limitations to our knowledge, there are two propositions which I believe are widely shared in this community that have little actual empirical support. It is not that either proposition is wrong, it is that there is little evidence yet that they are right. 1) Enthusiastic reading has a positive causative impact on life outcomes such as test scores, education attainment, future earning potential, etc. 2) Reading upsetting things in books can be detrimental to life outcomes and finding an absence of gender or race identities can have a detrimental impact. Passionately as we might believe either or both propositions, the robust empirical data to support either is weak or non-existent. There is a lot of data showing a correlation between enthusiastic reading and positive life outcomes, but correlation is not causation. Enthusiastic reading co-varies with other variables which might actually be the primary driver(s). There are a couple of studies with reasonably rigorous data that actually do support the proposition of causation, but they are only a couple. There are no robust empirical studies supporting proposition 2. All of which is to say that there are real limitations on the scope of knowledge - we may be right or wrong in what we believe but we don't know and we are not in a strong position to counter those that believe otherwise. Conviction is no substitute for convincing.
I also endorse the caution of assuming authority that is not real. Largely absent in much of this conversation are the children and their parents themselves who are actually the ultimate decision makers in terms of outcomes. It is well and good for authors or publishers or advocates to have something they want to occur, but it is the free exercise of choice on the part of the parents and their children that determine outcomes. Parents have different objectives than those of publishers or authors or teachers or librarians (or their own children sometimes). Trying to displace the parent's objectives with those of others is problematic. Not atypically, parents want their children to become enthusiastic readers. From their perspective, we risk letting the best be the enemy of the good. Not only is there ambiguity and paradox but there are undesirable trade-offs. A parent may be interested in fair representation but also intensely interested in his child becoming an enthusiastic reader. Knowing that a child freely choosing a book to read and enjoying a book as part of a series are both strong enablers of reading enthusiasm, the parent may perfectly rationally elect to support reading LHOTP while fully cognizant of its possible flaws. For that parent, the objective of enthusiastic reading may trump the objective of fairer representation. No third-party is in a real position to dispute that trade-off decision.
Yet another argument is that we seem to be taking such a binary view of books and reading rather than recognizing that there are deep complexities and especially that there are always trade-offs. All books have some flaw to them, but they each also have some redemption. Our capacity to see the flaws and understand the redemptions is limited based on our lack of knowledge of the individual reader, their context, history, or circumstances.
I think we place librarians and teachers in a very unsatisfactory position if we argue they should use their position of responsibility to make changes that the community may not yet have endorsed. Advancing what might be perceived as a personal political or ideological agenda via a trusted public position is anathema to most. It is highly risky and likely ineffective. It is the librarian or teacher that gets fired.
Finally I endorse the call to trust. The fact that others do not share our own particular beliefs and values or make different decisions does not reflect ill upon them. It simply means that they have reached a different conclusion. If we want to change their conclusion, we have to do that directly rather than by trying to restrict their choices and freedoms. All systems need variation and variety in order to evolve. The only way to have diversity is to have diversity.
Charles
---
You are currently subscribed to ccbc-net as: ccbc-archive_at_post.education.wisc.edu.
To post to the list, send message to: ccbc-net_at_lists.wisc.edu
To receive messages in digest format, send a message to...
ccbc-net-request_at_lists.wisc.edu
...and include only this command in the body of the message:
set ccbc-net digest
CCBC-Net Archives
The CCBC-Net archives are available to all CCBC-Net listserv members. The archives are organized by month and year. A list of discussion topics (including month/year) is available at http://www.education.wisc.edu/ccbc/ccbcnet/archives.asp
To access the archives, go to:
http://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/ccbc-net
and enter the following:
username: ccbc-net
password: Look4Posts
Received on Tue 11 Feb 2014 05:44:09 PM CST
