The Objective Standard Blog

Archive for December 2006

Thursday, December 7, 2006

Iran and Syria Are Our Enemies

Posted by ARI Media at 4:34 pm

Irvine, CA—The Iraq Study Group endorsed the increasingly popular notion that America should ask Iran and Syria to help bring peace and stability to Iraq.

“But Iran and Syria are our enemies,” said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. “These countries are responsible for the maiming and deaths of numerous American soldiers in Iraq. For months Iran and Syria have been fomenting terrorist activity against American troops and Iraqi civilians, providing terrorists with training, weapons and explosive devices.

“The United States should be bombing, not ‘engaging,’ these terrorist regimes.

“Any U.S. appeal to Iran or Syria for help in Iraq would be suicidal and immoral. By evading the evil of these regimes and pretending that they’re peace-seekers who share our goals, the United States would be encouraging and rewarding their aggression. Dispensing with moral judgment is not a short-cut to achieving peace; it is a sure way of unleashing and goading the killers to redouble their efforts against us.”

Copyright © 2006 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Posted in: Foreign Policy and War

Wednesday, December 6, 2006

The Homework Lie: Part 2

Posted by Lisa VanDamme at 12:43 pm

It is not surprising that our no-homework policy does wonders for parents’ relationships with their children. I will never forget when a parent sat at my desk one day and, told me, with tears in his eyes: “You have given back our family life.”

But, you might ask, how do VanDamme Academy students fare when they are sent off to high school with their homework-laden peers?

Well, consider this typical comment by a parent of a high school student at a school attended by several VanDamme Academy graduates—each of whom had several homework-free years: “Do you have to be a complete genius to go to that school?”

You don’t have to be a genius to go to our school or learn from our courses—but the level of knowledge and caliber of thinking that our curriculum instills can make our graduates seem like geniuses.

Our students shine because we make efficient use of the school day, focusing on those subjects which are most essential to the cognitive development of the child—because we give students careful supervision in the development of academic skills instead of shunting that task off to parents—because we revere and enjoy the work itself, and do not feel compelled to “jazz it up” with treats and distractions—because we present the material in a careful, systematic, hierarchical manner, one which allows the child to grasp and keep the knowledge presented—and because the effect of all of this is intelligent, driven students who love to learn.

A few concrete results:

Many VanDamme Academy graduates leave 8th grade having completed Pre-Calculus or Calculus.

Over half the 8th graders have completed the school’s rigorous grammar curriculum, and can both write with impeccable grammar and parse any sentence under the sun. Their parents refuse to send me an e-mail until it has been edited by their children.

And our students often do voluntary “homework”—inspired, ambitious, personal homework.

When I assigned the abridged version of Les Miserables, half the class purchased the unabridged version, and read it in pace with the rest of the class.

One year a 10-year-old student, inspired by his study of European history and Shakespeare, took up fencing, and wrote an entire iambic pentameter play over the summer.

Here is the prologue:

This sad tale of Phillippe Joan and his love,
The beautiful Milady Hauthorne Grey,
Doth sadden many of the stars above.
In effort to be with her every day,
He was forced to fight, and sail the great seas,
And slave for pirates in his captured care
And dueling. Love had him down on his knees
As he yearned for his lady. O, she was fair,
And more so than Helen. A man would lay
Gladly his life down for her. He was lost
His country, though, which was her husband. Hate
For Phillippe was on all his lips. That host
Ingracious was both of their tragic ends.
So, gentles, do patience to this play lend.

Remember this poem the next time you hear that the problem with American education is that kids don’t do enough homework.

The VanDamme Academy Email List features inspiring stories, exclusive commentaries, and special product offers from one of the best schools in America. Subscribe at www.vandammeacademy.com or send an email to custserv@vandammeacademy.com with the subject “Subscribe.”

Posted in: Education

Tuesday, December 5, 2006

‘Racial Balance’ Programs Are Racist

Posted by ARI Media at 9:36 pm

Dear Editor:

In Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, the Supreme Court will decide whether government schools can ship students around to different schools in the name of achieving a “racial balance.” What are the boards of education in question really advocating? Racism.

Back in the 1950s, when some schools were segregated by race, a monstrous injustice existed. Many students were prevented from going to the best schools because of their skin color—a completely non-essential characteristic. That was racism.

Today’s proposed “racial balance” programs also prevent some students from going to the best schools available to them because of their skin color. This too is racism. Anytime the government arbitrarily treats some of its citizens differently, it commits a horrendous injustice. Let’s hope the Supreme Court remembers that one of its functions is to protect the individual against the government’s abuse of power.

Debi Ghate
Vice President, Academic Programs

Posted in: Education, Individual Rights and Law

Tuesday, December 5, 2006

The Homework Lie

Posted by Lisa VanDamme at 6:01 pm

Every year, dozens of parents sit at my desk and describe to me the intense frustration they feel as they watch their children churned through the public schools. One of the refrains of their complaints: endless homework.

And no wonder:

  • The work itself is largely pointless. Students must complete countless contrived worksheets meant primarily to satisfy state standards for homework volume.
  • Their children are overwhelmed, trying to cram this busywork into car rides, between after-school activities.
  • Parents do not know the material themselves. They are often unable to help, and sometimes they even hinder the children with their own confused instruction.
  • There is no sacred family time. Instead, the time for bonding between parents and children is compromised by battles over homework.
  • There is no sacred free time; the time the child should be allowed to rest, play, spend time with family and pursue personal interests is compromised by the looming responsibility of performing hours of homework drudgery.

VanDamme Academy has a policy of no homework.

Yes, you read that correctly.

At VanDamme Academy, the only daily, on-going responsibility given the children outside school hours is to read. Reading is an activity best done alone, in the quiet of the child’s own bedroom. It is a very independent and personal task, and—if it is the right book and taught properly—a very pleasurable one, too.

Math practice is done in math class. We give students ample time to learn, practice, and master new concepts under the close supervision of the teacher. Essays are written in writing class. Writing, which is one of the most challenging and comprehensive skills a student must learn, demands the constant monitoring and assistance of the teacher.

That such disciplines are neglected during the day—and then sent home in a mad-dash effort to get the kids up to speed for standardized testing—is criminal.

It is not surprising that our policy does wonders for parents’ relationships with their children. I will never when a parent sat at my desk one day and, told me, with tears in his eyes: “You have given back our family life.”

But, you might ask, how do VanDamme Academy students fare when they are sent off to high school with their homework-laden peers?

You’ll have to wait until tomorrow to find out. :-)

[To be concluded tomorrow in "The Homework Lie: Part 2"]

The VanDamme Academy Email List features inspiring stories, exclusive commentaries, and special product offers from one of the best schools in America. Subscribe at www.vandammeacademy.com or send an email to custserv@vandammeacademy.com with the subject “Subscribe.”

Posted in: Education

Monday, December 4, 2006

Open Letter to Republicans

Posted by John David Lewis at 9:04 pm

There are two things that all Republicans know today: that you lost the mid-term election, and that the loss was a repudiation of President Bush’s policies. What you must now figure out is why. Why did Americans vote as they did? What specific policies did they reject? The answer you accept will determine whether you discover a road to victory for your country and your party, or whether you stumble further into defeat.

You have heard—and will continue to hear—many explanations for the election results. You have been told, for instance, that Democratic obstruction stymied the president, and leftist defeatism undermined support for the war. These answers will not cut it. Republicans held a political majority in Washington for six years, and the President was given all the resources and authority he asked for—including a solid re-election two years ago.

You have been told that Democrats wanted to spend like crazy on domestic programs, and that they turned on Bush because he sought to allow Americans greater choice in how they spend their money. But the president has increased spending to a degree not seen since LBJ and FDR, and has not vetoed a single spending bill.

It has been said that the election was about values—meaning, religious values—and that you lost because you were not “Conservative” enough. But what does this mean? That you did not lobby strongly enough for government intervention in family affairs, education, and science? Religious conservatives—such as Senator Santorum—were also soundly defeated. The American people expressed no desire for more religious values in government.

It remains telling that the American people were solidly on the president’s side when he promised a reduction in government coercion at home, and a victory in the war overseas (over 80% supported the invasion of Iraq)—and that they withdrew their support only after he failed to follow through on his promises.

I’ll offer a different reason for your defeat. You lost because you ceased being Republicans, and became new, “Neo-,” Conservatives. You were too Conservative, and not Republican enough. To earn my vote, it is Conservatism that you must reject, in favor of freedom, rights, and reason. You must once again become Republicans—the party of the American Constitutional Republic.

What Republicans once stood for, despite many compromises and errors, was preserving and extending American freedom. But where in recent history have you upheld this value? Have you, for instance, defended America’s freedom against foreign enemies? The “Forward Strategy of Freedom” uses our soldiers to dig toilets for foreigners, claims success when a hostile government is elected, and promises years of American casualties. The result has been permanent airport checkpoints at home and armed guards on our borders. Whatever happened to the idea of driving to victory over avowed enemies?

Have you preserved freedom at home? Did you demand spending reductions along with your excellent tax cuts, or rather settle for deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars? Who doubled the size of the Department of Education, which some of us once hoped that Reagan would eliminate, and which is now pursuing a de facto federal takeover of the schools? Who enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley persecutions of businessmen? Who projected government power vigorously into bedrooms and marriage contracts? Who showered government money onto churches as replacements for the local welfare office?

Fiscally, you have accepted without question a God-given imperative to distribute other people’s money by force—not as a compromise with the Democrats, but with a commitment to outdo them. Every time you have set out to eliminate or reduce a government program, you have ended up energetically saving it. Social Security, for instance, once facing elimination, has been saved—by Republicans. You have surpassed the Democrats in spending other people’s money.

In no case have you been Republicans—meaning, defenders of the American Republic. You have been Conservatives—conservators of your vision of America, in the form of the liberal welfare state.

The first cause of this problem is the moral premise that you share with the leftists: altruism. You have accepted that moral goodness means sacrificing for the (alleged) good of others, and you have worked to shape America in this image. This ideal has defined President Bush’s policies overseas, which purport to wage war by bringing benefits to enemy nations. It has defined a domestic policy that sees moral goodness in expanding programs of redistribution. Whereas the Democrats do this in the name of socialism (a discredited doctrine that has wreaked havoc wherever it has been tried), Conservatives do it in the name of “compassion.” Democrats base their vision on class warfare and revolution; Conservatives base it on charity. But the practical results are the same: Socialism, now anchored not in Marx, but in civic religion.

Is this what you want for your party? If so, then stay the course, and continue your competition with the Democrats. But if you wake up one day and find that no area of life is beyond the reach of government power, and that we are all wards of the state, then you may rejoice. You will have reached the Promised Land. This is what you wanted.

If, however, you want to restore and protect freedom in the Land of the Free, then you must see the error of your ways. The proper state of man is not that of a beggar, demanding handouts by coercion and moral blackmail. The proper state of man is that of a thinking being—a being free to act on his own judgment for his own sake—free to produce and to trade for what he needs—free to achieve his full intellectual and physical potential—free, that is, from coercion by others.

This idea of freedom is based on a moral conception of man that is radically different from man the dependent. By this vision—the vision of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”—each person is an autonomous moral agent, free to act as his nature requires, for his own benefit, without sacrificing self to others or others to self—free to deal with others voluntarily, by offering values, not by imposing “duties.”

But where, in our culture today, is this moral conception to be found? Leftists claim that moral principles—the broad generalizations that define the basic terms of right and wrong for every area of our lives—are not derived from facts. No “is” can lead to an “ought,” they claim; moral principles are invented, culturally relative, subject to change, mere conventions that shift with the winds of the day. This premise led to the 1960s, freedom of speech as sit-ins on private property, and freedom from political authority as smashing “the system.” The basis of this anarchy is subjectivism—the idea that we create reality in our minds, rather than grasp it through our senses and our reason. There are no absolutes, in this view; there is only man the follower of whims. Vox populi, vox dei.

You were appalled at this, and rightfully so. But what was your answer? There are standards, you said, but they are not derived from facts. With this basic premise you agreed with the leftists: There is no “ought” to be derived from this world. Where then shall we find moral principles? In another world, you said. Moral principles are supernatural and beyond reason, but they are imbedded in society and tradition, and knowable by faith. The result is an undefinable feeling that tells you to give to the poor, to render unto Caesar, to turn the other cheek, and to lose your fortune—or to tax mine—if it benefits others. Vox dei, vox populi.

The root of the moral views shared by leftists and Conservatives remains the conviction that the mind is incapable of grasping moral principles—and that we must rely on the authority of feelings, whether from the immediate consensus (vox populi) or from claims to divine sanction (vox dei). The clash between the leftists and the Conservatives is a clash of feelings. Neither side appeals to the mind; each wishes to impose its views by force.

This elevation of Feelings over Reason is precisely what you must reject. You must learn that your emotions are not tools of cognition. Your feelings will not tell you how to run a business, how to protect freedom, how to win a war, or how to distinguish good from evil.

If you, as Republicans, want to regain control of your party and end its malignant alliance with the looting left, then you must stop being looters yourselves, both in mind and in matter. Intellectually, you must grasp that rights and freedom can be discovered only through rational thought—individual thought—and that only the rational mind makes rights and freedom necessary. Materially, you must end your love affair with socialist redistribution, and become protectors of property rights—the practical expression of individual thought and freedom.

Each man’s rights are inalienable from his being. This is a fact of nature—not of “supernature.” Since each man must act on his own judgment in order to live as a man, he must be free to do so. This is his basic right: The right to act on his best judgment—that is: the right to do what is right. It is right to identify the facts and think—and to act as reason dictates—because we can live only by using our minds. It is right to keep what we produce—and to trade in a free market—not because this embodies some mystical “invisible hand,” but because our lives depend on it. It is right to interact with others by rational persuasion and values—because the alternative is the club. And it is right to use physical force to restrain—and, if necessary, to destroy—those who attack us.

If you Republicans want to become true rightists—and a real alternative to the left—you must accept a morality of reason and become its advocates across the board: in classrooms, in newspapers, in board rooms, and in town squares. You must recognize that there is no dichotomy between what man is and what he ought to do, and no chasm between moral rights and practical consequences. The only true alternative to the left is a view of man as a rational being who owns himself and is the proper beneficiary of his own productive effort.

Grasping this makes it easy to evaluate the numerous issues swamping political discourse today. Domestic programs? Redistribution means taking from one person by force because another (allegedly) needs it. The principle is not changed if extended to millions—only the scope of the destruction is broadened. What of Social Security, Medicare, and government funding of medical research, agriculture, and education? There is no basis in reason for making an employee, a CEO, a doctor, a researcher, a farmer, or a teacher, into a slave to others because he produces—nor to demand the enslavement of others to fund him. Republicans can seize the moral high road by opposing such redistribution forthrightly, as a matter of principle.

The purpose of the government is to prevent criminals from preying on us. We need a domestic policy that does this and this alone—rather than turning police into social workers, and courts into moral censors and persecutors of businessmen. Republicans need to become voices for objective, rights-based, reason-based law, as a matter of principle.

What of foreign policy? Support for the war in Iraq has collapsed because there are no goals being pursued except the sacrifice of our youth for strangers, and no accomplishments except a demonstration of America’s weakness. Republicans need to become advocates of a foreign policy of self-interest, by which we fight to defend the freedom of Americans, and only the freedom of Americans, with the goal of a fast and decisive victory when we do fight, as a matter of principle.

To preserve and extend the freedom of Americans was once the mission of the Republicans. But this mission was never properly understood. This is what you must discover. Your choice is: Conservatism (i.e., faith, self-sacrifice, and religion-inspired socialism) and its consequences of enslavement, self-loathing, and further defeat—or proper Republicanism (i.e., reason, self-interest, and individual rights) with its consequences of freedom, self-respect, and victory. I hope you Republicans—and all Americans—make the right choice: the rational choice.

Posted in: Foreign Policy and War, Individual Rights and Law

Monday, December 4, 2006

P is for Pajama Party or Paragraph?

Posted by Lisa VanDamme at 3:28 pm

Recently, I was visited by a mother frustrated with her son’s education and looking for something more.

She informed me that mid-way through his kindergarten year, they were still learning their letters—most recently, they had been studying the letter “P.” And in honor of the letter “P”, they were having a pajama party in the classroom.

During the discussion, I had on my desk some paragraphs written by my Lower Elementary class, which now includes a boy named Johnny and my daughter Greta, both of whom move up to my literature class from the K-1 Montessori room. Here is the paragraph that Greta, age 5, had written about the novel Abel’s Island:

“It seems that Abel really loves his wife Amanda. He has a lovely picnic and they went into the forest to eat the picnic. He picked a daisy for his wife as a parasol. He goes to get his wife’s scarf even though it is pouring. He plunges into a river and goes down a waterfall but he gets out and he thinks about Amanda. He loves Amanda.”

Here is the paragraph written by my daughter Lana, age 7, reflecting a few more years of reading and writing experience at VanDamme Academy (and written entirely on her own):

“It seems that Abel really loves his wife Amanda. Abel prepares a lovely picnic for Amanda. While Amanda is reading under a fern he picks a daisy for her to use as a parasol. Abel braves a storm just to retrieve Amanda’s scarf. While Abel is thrashed about, pushed under water, drowning, desperate for air, all he thinks about is his wife Amanda. It seems as though Abel is risking his life just for Amanda.”

The 7 and 8-year-old students are universally capable of writing well-structured paragraphs, with topic sentences, examples, and a “clincher.” This ability has been developed gradually: from writing clear and complete sentences about history, literature, and science in the Montessori classroom; to writing paragraphs together as a group under my guidance in the Lower Elementary classroom; to systematic instruction in their writing class with Mrs. Fingerhut; to constructing paragraphs on their own. I now enter the classroom to a din of eager demands: “Can we please write a paragraph by ourselves today?”

The relevant principles are simple. 1) Do not underestimate the ability or motivation of young children. They are capable of more than the letter “P,” and they need not be plied with pajama parties. Producing a well-formed paragraph about a delightful novel is motivation in itself, and a much deeper and more lasting motivation. 2) With proper, systematic instruction, children can advance far in their reading, writing, and thinking ability. The careful, incremental structure of our program enables them to progress naturally, effortlessly, proudly, and happily. 3) We are continually engaged in what I call a “war against boredom.” If Greta and Johnny were learning the letter “P”, pajama party or not, I would have lost them to learning for good.

We are only just beginning to see the academic distance that can be traveled by a student given our belief in their capability, given our systematic approach to teaching them, and given our commitment to continually challenging them. And it is an impressive sight.

The VanDamme Academy Email List features inspiring stories, exclusive commentaries, and special product offers from one of the best schools in America. Subscribe at www.vandammeacademy.com or send an email to custserv@vandammeacademy.com with the subject “Subscribe.”

Posted in: Education

Sunday, December 3, 2006

The Power of Observation: From Art to Literature to Life

Posted by Lisa VanDamme at 8:00 pm

One of the great joys of the present school year has been the addition of an art appreciation class, taught by art enthusiast and VanDamme Academy teacher Luc Travers. Mr. Travers’ unique approach to analyzing a work of art has transformed my esthetic life, enhancing my enjoyment of art, of literature, and of life in general.

Among Mr. Travers’ principles for deeply grasping and relishing a work of art is the idea of “shuttling”—of moving back and forth cognitively from abstract conclusions about what is observed (e.g., strength, bravery, intelligence) to detailed perceptual observations that yield the abstractions (e.g., sinewy muscles, an erect stance, a furrowed brow) and back to a more refined abstract understanding. Since learning and practicing this technique, I have had the experience of standing before a sculpture that was initially unintelligible and valueless to me, and then going through the process of observing, integrating, observing, reintegrating—and having emerge before me an image that I understood and loved.

VanDamme Academy students have honed this skill of “shuttling,” moving from precise observations, to abstract generalizations, to observations, to still more precise abstractions about Michelangelo’s David, MacMonnies’ Nathan Hale, and Gerard’s Belisarius, among others.

In the junior high literature class, I am presently teaching the thrilling and beautiful adventure novel The Scarlet Pimpernel. Inspired by Mr. Travers’ analysis of art, I showed students how to practice this same skill in the analysis of a literary character. I helped them to observe subtleties of characterization—how a character moves, what he wears, the expression on his face, the tone of his voice—and to extrapolate from these details a generalized understanding of the character. Finely narrowing your focus, looking carefully at the precise details of characterization, is often very illuminating of the distinctive nature of a particular character.

The subject of our discussion on this particular day was Marguerite Blakeney, the beautiful socialite, the “cleverest woman in Europe,” the passionate lover of life. We discussed a scene at the opera, where four very distinct characters were present: the Prince of Wales, who moved from box to box, heedless of the music; Chauvelin, who was attentive to the music, but more sharply and maliciously focused on the audience; Suzanne de Tournay, who finds that her schoolgirl crush is absent and thereafter listens to the performance apathetically; and finally, Marguerite herself, who is “enraptured” by the music, and watches as the very “joy of life” radiates on her face. The Prince of Wales—a politician; Chauvelin—a man bent on evil designs; Suzanne—a shallow schoolgirl; and Marguerite—an impassioned lover of life.

We grasp the basic nature of the characters through their most significant words and actions, but it is the subtle details, the fine aspects of their life and expression and movement, that give us a full and animated understanding of their souls.

I then discussed how this skill gained in art appreciation and in the analysis of literary characters would benefit them in their own lives. The value was clear: this same “shuttling,” this same attentive process of observing, of generalizing, of making further detailed observations, and of refining their conclusions, would aid them in their analysis of actual souls. It would help them both in the practical skill of analyzing people critically and the invaluable skill of noticing their virtues gratefully.

This single literature class highlights the value of a VanDamme Academy education: the acquisition of a crucially valuable cognitive skill, the integration of that skill across disciplines, and the direct application of that skill to a fulfilled life.

The VanDamme Academy Email List features inspiring stories, exclusive commentaries, and special product offers from one of the best schools in America. Subscribe at www.vandammeacademy.com or send an email to custserv@vandammeacademy.com with the subject “Subscribe.”

Posted in: Education