Absolutophobia

9. Now Read the essay entitled Absolutophobia. Does your impression of your own actions/inactions change? Why/why not?
10. What is the author of Absolutophobia saying about our society? Do you believe they have a valid argument/point? Does our society suffer from Absolutophobia?
11. Do you believe John Leo’s line that says, “students often think they are so locked into their
own group perspectives of ethnicity, race, and gender that moral judgment is impossible, even in the face of great evils.”

UP FRONT
Absolutophobia John Leo
In 20 years of college teaching, Professor Robert Simon has never met a student who denied that the Holocaust happened. What he sees quite often, though, is worse: students who acknowledge the fact of the Holocaust but cannot bring themselves to say that killing millions of people is wrong. Simon reports that 10 to 20 percent of his students think this way. Usually they deplore what the Nazis did, but their disapproval is expressed as a matter of taste or personal preference, not moral judgment. “Of course I dislike the Nazis,” one student told Simon, “but who is to say they are morally wrong?”
Overdosing on nonjudgmentalism is a growing problem in schools. Two disturbing articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education say that some students are unwilling to oppose large moral horrors—includ- ing human sacrifice, ethnic cleansing, and slavery—because they think that no one has the right to criticize the moral views of another group or culture. One of the articles is by Simon, who teaches philoso- phy at Hamilton College in Clinton, New York. The other is by Kay Haugaard, a freelance writer who teaches creative writing at Pasa- dena City College in California. Haugaard writes that her current students have a lot of trouble expressing any moral reservations or objections about human sacrifice. The subject came up when she taught her class Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery,” a short story about a
Up Front 5
small American farm town where one person is killed each year to make the crops grow. In the tale, a woman is ritually stoned to death by her husband, her 12-year-old daughter, and her 4-year-old son. Haugaard has been teaching since 1970. Until recently, she says, “Jackson’s message about blind conformity always spoke to my stu- dents’ sense of right and wrong.” No longer, apparently. A class discussion of human sacrifice yielded no moral comments, even under Haugaard’s persistent questioning. One male said the ritual killing in “The Lottery” “almost seems a need.” Asked if she believed in human sacrifice, a woman said, “I really don’t know. If it was a religion of long standing….” Haugaard writes, “I was stunned. This was the woman who wrote so passionately of saving the whales, of concern for the rain forests, of her rescue and tender care of a stray dog.” Both writers believe multiculturalism has played a role in spread- ing the vapors of nonjudgmentalism. Haugaard quotes a woman in her class, a “50-something redheaded nurse,” who says, “I teach a course for our hospital personnel in multicultural understanding, and if it is part of a person’s culture, we are taught not to judge….” According to Simon, we should “welcome diversity rather than fear it,” but he says his students often think they are so locked into their own group perspectives of ethnicity, race, and gender that moral judgment is impossible, even in the face of great evils. In the new multicultural canon, human sacrifice is hard to con- demn because the Aztecs practiced it. In fact, however, this nonjudgmental stance is not held consistently. Japanese whaling and the genital cutting of girls in Africa are criticized all the time by white multiculturalists. Christina Hoff Sommers, author and professor of philosophy at Clark University in Massachusetts, says that students who cannot bring themselves to condemn the Holocaust will often say flatly that treating humans as superior to dogs and rodents is immoral. Moral shrugging may be on the rise, but old-fashioned and rigorous moral criticism is alive and well on certain selected issues: smoking, environmentalism, women’s rights, animal rights. Sommers points beyond multiculturalism to a general problem of so many students coming to college “dogmatically committed to a moral relativism that offers them no grounds to think” about cheating, stealing, and other moral issues. Simon calls this “absolutophobia”—
The Responsive Community • Winter 1997/986
the unwillingness to say that some behavior is just plain wrong. Many trends feed this fashionable phobia. Postmodern theory on campuses denies the existence of any objective truth; all we can have are clashing perspectives, not true moral knowledge. The pop-therapeutic culture has pushed nonjudgmentalism very hard. Intellectual laziness and the simple fear of unpleasantness are also factors. By saying that one opinion or moral stance is as good as another, we can draw attention to our own tolerance, avoid antagonizing others, and get on with our careers. The “values clarification” programs in the schools surely should come in for some lumps, too. Based on the principle that teachers should not indoctrinate other people’s children, they leave the cre- ation of values up to each student. Values emerge as personal prefer- ences, equally unsuited for criticism or argument as personal deci- sions on pop music or clothes. But the wheel is turning now, and “values clarification” is giving way to “character education,” and the paralyzing fear of indoctrinat- ing children is gradually fading. The search is on for a teachable consensus rooted in simple decency and respect. As a spur to shaping it, we might discuss a culture so morally confused that students are showing up at colleges reluctant to say anything negative about mass slaughter.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂