When it comes to human knowledge there is one simple principle to remember. Our minds are the direct results of what we see (or hear, smell, etc.). If we choose to limit what we see only to what we are shown, then we are at the mercy of those in positions to show. This is one of the basic governing principles behind propaganda. But propaganda has an antithesis, an offset: information. Enter the supreme responsibility of those within and surrounding the business of education. This is not a new passionate area for me, but gasoline was thrown on the fire this week with the story of the university professor in Colorado who assigned his class a paper citing three negative criticisms of Sarah Palin. As disenchanted as I've become with Glenn Beck, I still hold in high regard his clear sense of reason (though I've not heard his take on this particular story) and his standpoint on higher educators seems to be spot on. The problem does not reside only with tenured professors, as Glenn suggests. Tenure is a pretty ugly concept in a free society (along with unions) because it removes the threat of consequence or responsibility. But even educators who do have to worry about keeping their position in the event of their spewing forth of intellectual swill can still do plenty of damage. It's not always intentional, for no matter how impartial we all try to be we are still biased by our own method of finding joy, but educators should be held to a higher degree of accountability when it comes to non-partisanship. It all starts with publicly funded school systems. For example, instead of the constant childish bickering over whether to teach Creationism or Evolution in public schools there should be solutions being worked toward on teaching both fairly. The concept of publicly funded institutions is not abstract. If we all pay for it, we are all represented by and within it. Making policies that contradict this is the direct responsibility of intellectual simians who cower in fear of parents behind the sheer curtain of bureaucracy. The parents' part in this rigamarole goes right back to what I've said about protecting loved ones. Their judgement is rooted in a combination of compassion and fear of the unknown (if they don't understand something it must not be good for the kids). This is understandable, but fallacious. One of the most beautiful things about human existence is the concept of choice. To reasonably choose between two options one must have an adequate amount of information on both. How does this relate to education? Sharing only one side of any story serves to deny the student the ability to accurately judge that story. Whether it is intentional or out of ignorance that you don't offer the learner all the information on all the subjects you are still guilty of manipulation. Some who are of similar thinking say that the classroom is no place for the teacher's opinion. I say that it is the perfect place for opinion. Let the students see one logical conclusion to the material. But also let them see one that's different. Let them see a dozen different views. My main argument here is that there needs to be balance and equality at all stages of the education process. To deny anyone the opportunity to choose for themselves the path they feel is best is the real oppression. I once had an instructor who described his child-rearing philosophy as "doctrinal" as opposed to "behavioral". He explained to his children why they should be obedient instead of saying, "Because I'm the boss and I told you to." The same goes with education. This is quickly becoming "The Neverending Blog" so I'll cut it short here. I'll end on this note. I am only realistic enough to recognize the problem. I am mostly optimistic in that I know improvement is, not only possible, but very probable.