EdAction
Maple River Education Coalition PAC
105 Peavey Rd, St 116 
Chaska, MN  55318 
952-361-4931
http://www.EdAction.org
E-mail

Printer Version

January 1, 2001

From the classroom to the courtroom; “constructivism,” fully grown

by Michael J. Chapman

Abraham Lincoln once warned, “the philosophy of the school room in one generation, will become the philosophy of government in the next.” Lincoln’s axiom can be demonstrated by examining two documents recently released: The Achieve, Inc. analysis of Minnesota’s “Profile of Learning;” and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion in the recent Presidential election contest.

What links these two documents is their basis in “constructivist” philosophy.

The Achieve report, crediting the philosophy behind Minnesota’s new curriculum, defines “Constructivism...as the premise that students...construct a personally meaningful understanding...[and] that teachers should actively engage students in designing their own unique understanding of content...”

Justice Stevens displayed his constructivist ideology, not because he disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of law, but because of his disagreement with their definition of law. According to Stevens (and other constructivist justices), “the law is, just what we say it is.” In other words, his personal view of law, is the law. The source of his thinking can be found by tracing the constructivist philosophy from the classroom to the courtroom:

If students are to construct their own personal meaning or unique understanding of content, then facts must be seen as opinions, and truth as simply individual perspective. In other words, there are no absolute truths that apply to everyone equally at all times. Under constructivism, we don’t discover the laws of nature, we create them. Objective reality, then, does not exist. Even the laws of mathematics are no longer viewed as absolute certainties discovered by man, but simply as tools invented by man.

According to the “award-winning” Connected Mathematics Program, “children...discover that mathematics is man-made, that it is arbitrary, and good solutions are arrived at by consensus among those who are considered expert.” Compromise, or “consensus,” replaces unchanging foundation principles. The solution to 2+2 is no longer certain for all time because future experts may come to a new “consensus.”

Since there are no mathematical absolutes, teachers are to avoid imposing their personal view on students. Teachers, then, no longer teach facts, instead they facilitate self-directed learning. According to Minnesota’s new teacher licensing rules, “math teachers...must recognize that there are multiple mathematical worldviews and how the teacher’s own view is similar or different from...students.”

Likewise, under constructivism, the written word is no longer thought to hold intrinsic meaning. Therefore, it is no longer important to understand the original meaning an author intended to communicate to future readers. Instead, children are taught to apply their own “context” or perspective to what they read in order to “construct” their own unique understanding. Hull’s education dictionary defines “constructivism in reading” as “a strategy to help children construct meaning out of texts.”

The National History Standards, written to conform to the Goals 2000 Educate America Act, warns that the “worst” thing a student can do when it comes to historic interpretation is, “report back as self-evident truths, the facts written within a document.” Apparently the phrase “we hold these truths to be self-evident...” found in the Declaration of Independence, has been “contextually redefined” to mean, “we hold these opinions to be self-actualized!”

Gary Nash, co-director of the National History Standards project, was a consultant for the textbook publisher Houghton Mifflin. Their 1992 eighth-grade Social Studies textbook, A More Perfect Union, shows how constructivism applies to the US Constitution. Under the heading, “Change Without Amendment,” the textbook teaches children that the amendment process is not the only way to change the Constitution: “By unofficial [change] method is meant...the Supreme Court’s interpretation...which differs sometimes...depending on the views of new justices.” (Original intent of the authors is now meaningless!)

Unfortunately, this view of our constitution justifies bending the law to conform to the biased ideals of an activist judiciary. Leonard Levi, a leading law and history professor at Harvard University, justifies Judicial activism in his book, Original Intentions and the Framers’ Constitution. Starting with the premise that the Constitution was poorly written, Levy argues that “strict construction [adherence to original intention] is a faintly ridiculous concept” [since, as Levy puts it] “ambiguity cannot be strictly construed.” Levy illustrates his point using a dialogue from the story, Alice in Wonderland:

“When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said..., it means just what I choose it to mean – nothing more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that is all.”

Humpty Dumpty’s question is worth asking our Supreme Court Justices. Is there value in seeking the original meaning of the written law? Or, does meaning evolve to accommodate a perceived social need? Is man governed by the rule of law; or is the rule of law subject to man’s whims? Is America one nation under God; or is America one nation under Man – with a capitol “M”? How one answers these questions depends upon one’s worldview.

In Levy’s worldview, man is master over meaning and so the Constitution is turned on its head. If the constitution means whatever the justices want it to mean, then we have no constitution. If we have no constitution, the rule of law is meaningless and the great experiment in self-government is over! Levy didn’t bother to mention that Humpty Dumpty had a great fall, and all the King’s horses and all the King’s men couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty together again!

America is in danger of falling off the wall of freedom because the constructivist ideology dominates the judicial appointments of the last twelve years, and is the antithesis of American Liberty under the law. Joseph Sobran explains:

"The Constitution didn't 'grow'; it was never supposed to. Written law must be stable, or it isn't law. A government that can change the very meaning of old words is tyrannical. What really happened -- fairly recently, in historical terms -- is that the courts were taken over by liberal zealots who saw the judiciary as a potential instrument of raw power. After all, justices are appointed for life; they don't face the people at the polls and can t be held responsible for the consequences of their rulings. So by disguising their desires as constitutional mandates, the courts have been able to impose their will on the whole country, uninhibited by reason, tradition, or any other force."

When the U.S. Supreme Court, by majority decision, overturned the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling, the media claimed “partisanship!” The media was wrong! The division was not political; it was philosophical, and it represents the deep division in America between two competing worldviews.

On one side are those who believe that 2+2 will always equal “4.” They believe in self-evident truth, unalienable rights, unchanging principle, absolute meaning, and Lex-Rex (“Law is King,” as opposed to what history had always known - the “King is Law!”).

The other side, which now threatens 225 years of liberty under the law, represents constructivism – fully grown. They are radical activists who redefine words to fit their own agenda. They change life into death and liberty into a license for doing wrong. They believe in the evolution of “truth,” compromise over principle, and a return to the dark ages when kings had authority over law! Today their kings sit on the judicial bench.

Justice Stevens, in his dissenting opinion joined by Ginsburg and Breyer, defended an activist Florida Supreme Court, claiming “It did what courts do.” According to Stevens: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” That is – judges “define” law, rather than “interpret” the law under the Constitution. But Stevens goes even further, writing:

“If we assume – as I do – that the members of [the Florida Supreme] court and the judges...are impartial, its decision does not even raise a colorable federal question.”

Oh really?! Not only are justices to define law, they are now automatically assumed to be impartial! The judge is king and infallible! Why bother with a Federal Court of Appeals at all? Justice Stevens goes on to thrust his knife into the heart of due-process, calling it a “federal assault” should anyone ever question the infallible kings throughout the land:

“What must underlie petitioners’ entire federal assault...is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges... The endorsement of that position [lack of confidence in judges] by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is the confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law.”

Idolatry! Stevens has given God’s throne to man! – the abomination that causes desolation! Shall we change our coins to read “In Man we trust?”

But by accusing the majority decision, Stevens has fallen into his own trap and revealed the bankruptcy of his own worldview. If “confidence in the judges” is, as Stevens believes, the true backbone of the rule of law, why then is he not confident in the majority opinion of the highest court in the land? By what authority does he claim the right to question the object of his unfailing trust? In truth, activist judges are only confident in their own radical agenda. Their gods are not really found on the judicial bench at all, but in the looking glass where words mean whatever one wants them to mean!

Writing to Justice William Johnson on June 12, 1823, Thomas Jefferson warned against such nonsense!

“On every question of construction, carry [y]ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

Jefferson may as well have written that letter to Justice Stevens on December 12, 2000. Discarding the good advice of our Founders, Justice Stevens ends his dissention by lamenting what he claims America has lost. He writes: “the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”

Ironically, what Justice Stevens calls a loss, I cling to as my hope and prayer – that America will finally wake up and abandon its blind trust in man, and once again become, “one nation under God” – the only true and impartial guardian of justice, mercy, peace, and the rule of law.

In the meantime, our duty is clear. It has been written, “Train up a child in the way they should go, and when they are old they will not depart from it.” Our children are America’s future judges, leaders and citizens. A student is not above his teacher, so the “way they go” when fully grown depends upon who “trains them up” today. Who is training your children? What are you doing to protect them, and America’s future?

Unfortunately, the government education system is led by “experts” blinded by the false light from Wonderland. When the blind lead the blind, they will both fall down the rabbit hole. If America falls, don’t count on all the king’s horses and all the king’s men to be able to put her back together again! 

EdAction - 105 Peavey Rd, Ste 116, Chaska, MN  55318 
952-361-4931 - edaction@lakes.com - (c) EdAction - All rights reserved.