On Feb. 23, 2010 Sandy Rios devoted an entire two-hour radio program to a discussion of Julie Roys’ investigation into Wheaton College’s Department of Education “Conceptual Framework” and its reliance on far-left scholars who promote critical pedagogy, or as it’s more commonly known “teaching for social justice.” As with so many problems in education, the manipulation of rhetoric is front and center in the effort to advance “progressive” ideologies, in this case via the term “social justice,” an innocuous term that masks some not-so-innocuous philosophical commitments.

David Horowitz, ex-Marxist who is now committed to exposing leftwing radicalism in American colleges and universities, discusses the serious pedagogical and cultural problems posed by “social justice” theory in his article “The Political Assault on Our K-12 Schools“:

Today the gravest threat to American public education comes from educators who would use the classroom to indoctrinate students from kindergarten through the 12th grade in radical ideology and political agendas.

Much of this indoctrination takes place under the banner of “social justice,” which is a short-hand for opposition to American traditions of individual justice and free market economics. Proponents of social justice teaching argue that American society is an inherently “oppressive” society that is “systemically” racist, “sexist” and “classist” and thus discriminates institutionally against women, non-whites, working Americans and the poor. … In recent years teaching for social justice has become a powerful movement in American schools of education.

The problem isn’t that the creators of the Conceptual Framework mention the names of “progressive” theorists. The problem is they mention them with no acknowledgment of the serious worldview flaws they espouse. Education students should critically engage with their ideas, but it ill serves Wheaton students to believe that these are theorists whose ideas are largely positive and on which they can rely for wisdom.

On its website the Wheaton Department of Education has posted the foundational philosophy that lies at the heart of its Teacher Training Program. What is notable about this “Conceptual Framework” is the sheer number of leftist scholars who are uncritically cited, and who hold precisely the view of social justice that Horowitz decries. Very few parents and virtually no prospective students would be troubled by the document because they would be unfamiliar with the names and the jargon that may alert those who are familiar with “social justice theory.” The troubling scholars cited include unapologetic former Weather Underground domestic terrorist Bill Ayers; socialist and proponent of black liberation theology Cornel West; feminist psychologist Carol Gilligan; and Brazilian Marxist and godfather of the “social justice” movement Paulo Freire. The jargon that raises red flags is the term “agent of change,” that appears sixteen times in the Conceptual Framework and which is straight out of the Freire playbook. Christians should be concerned about justice and should seek to effect positive change, but what justice and positive change look like to disciples of Paulo Freire and Bill Ayers is likely very different from what justice and positive change look like to many disciples of Christ.

One of the most troubling statements found in the Conceptual Framework is that “The first broad goal is to ensure that candidates learn to work effectively with all children and their families regardless of race, creed, religion, national origin, [and] sexual preference…“(emphasis is Wheaton’s). Of course, all teachers should work effectively with all children, but why would the crafters of this document pluck out just one form of sin — homosexuality — to mention specifically in a list of conditions unrelated to morality? The fact that they have included one form of sin to include in a list of other conditions unrelated to morality suggests the influence of secular thinkers who routinely attempt to equate homosexuality with race. It also suggests the influence of adherents to critical pedagogy who view homosexuality as constitutive of an immutable identity and who view those who identify as homosexual as an oppressed class.

The Conceptual Framework also states the following:

Finally, teaching for social justice extends beyond one’s individual classroom. An agent of change is aware of current inequitable access to quality education.

After the writers of the Conceptual Framework say that “an agent of change is aware of current inequitable access to quality education,” and that an agent of change “recognizes the inter-relatedness of educational opportunity and society at large,” they cite Ayers, West, and Freire. One could extract an inoffensive comment or idea from virtually any writer, but is there no Christian scholar who could make those obvious and superficial observations? How about a non-Christian who does not hate capitalism and the United States and one who doesn’t use foul language routinely, even when talking to students as Ayers does?

The Conceptual Framework also cites feminist theorist Carol Gilligan’s book In a Different Voice, about which Christina Hoff Sommers has this to say:

In the final analysis, the (un)availability and (in)adequacy of Gilligan’s research are the concern of her professional colleagues. My Atlantic article touched on In a Different Voice only because that is the book that made Gilligan famous and influential and because I firmly believe that her influence has been harmful — to boys especially, but to girls as well.

Gilligan went on to successfully promote the sensational but empirically baseless “finding” that America’s adolescent girls were being “silenced” and demoralized as they were raised in our “male-voiced” culture, a culture that also harms boys by pressuring them “to internalize a patriarchal voice.”

Gilligan’s pronouncements on girls and boys are more ideological than scientific. Few academic psychologists take them seriously. In “gender studies” and in many schools of education, however, Gilligan is taken very seriously indeed, and not least because she is thought of as the famed Harvard scholar who did that “landmark research” showing that men and women speak morally in different voices.

In response to the Sandy Rios program about Wheaton, Provost Stan Jones wrote:

On February 23, 2010, the nationally syndicated Sandy Rios radio program broadcast a commentary, termed an “expose,” about “social justice” issues at Wheaton College. The commentary significantly misrepresented how social justice is addressed at Wheaton College.

I have read the document, and I would argue that if there is any misrepresentation going on, it comes from the Conceptual Framework itself rather than the radio program.

Dr. Jones continues:

A second broad goal is to ensure that diversity is respected and that candidates have the opportunity and capacity to work in diverse environments and with diverse colleagues and teachers. A third broad goal is to ensure that candidates understand legitimate current issues of justice in education, and understand their responsibility to work for positive change when such injustice is present.

What does “ensuring that diversity is respected” mean? Are Wheaton grads expected to respect all forms of diversity? How is injustice defined by “social justice” proponents? What does positive change look like? What are the means recommended to achieve positive change? For example, most devotees of critical pedagogy deem homosexuality a form of diversity worthy of respect and affirmation and believe that the eradication of orthodox Christian beliefs about homosexuality constitutes positive change.

Dr. Jones defends the Conceptual Framework, explaining that:

As a part of the educational process, students in our teacher preparation program in the Department of Education engage with a wide array of educational theorists, including certain critical theorists who explore issues of possible systemic societal injustice such as diminished educational opportunities and resources for children in low-income communities. As individuals and together, our faculty recognize that many of these theorists and researchers have some valuable insights and research findings to offer, even as they question, criticize, or even outright reject aspects of the overarching worldviews that often lie behind their work (e.g., naturalism, dialectical materialism, statism, collectivism).

Several observations:

First, if the Conceptual Framework is accurate, students will be engaging with a preponderance of “critical theorists.”

Second, Dr. Jones uses the problematic term “systemic societal injustice,” which is a synonym for the more common but equally problematic term in the lexicon of social justice theory, “institutional racism.” Both terms refer to the notion that bias and inequality are built into institutions and serve to preserve the power of the oppressor classes. Institutional racism is distinct from the prejudiced beliefs held by individuals or racist acts committed by individuals. One wonders if Wheaton students critically engage with the ideas of F.A. Hayek who was an economist, philosopher, and U. of Chicago professor. Hayek wrote this about “social justice” (as distinct from justice):

I may, as a result of long endeavors to trace the destructive effect which the invocation of ‘social justice’ has had on our moral sensitivity, and of again and again finding even eminent thinkers thoughtlessly using the phrase, have become unduly allergic to it, but I have come to feel strongly that the greatest service I can still render to my fellow men would be that I can make… speakers and writers…thoroughly ashamed…to employ the term ‘social justice.’

Or what Hayek wrote about equality:

From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time.

Third, there was nothing in the Conceptual Framework or responses of Education Department Chair Jill Lederhouse or Wheaton President Duane Litfin in the radio interview to suggest that the faculty “questions, criticizes, or outright rejects aspects of the overarching worldviews that lie behind the work” — or in the forefront of the work — of Bill Ayers, Maxine Greene, Cornel West, and Paulo Freire. Neither Dr. Lederhouse nor Dr. Litfin provided evidence that students read any criticism of the definition of social justice or the remedies for injustice that these theorists promote. Do faculty members expose students to criticism of their theories? And why not include references to scholars like Ronald Nash who actually hold the worldview that Wheaton claims to hold? I would argue that there is a substantive difference between critically engaging with a text in class and citing it in one’s foundational statement of philosophy.

This document purports to be the driving philosophical force for the entire department’s pedagogy. According to the Conceptual Framework, it has a “direct effect” on the policies and practices of the Wheaton Teacher Education Department:

Teaching for social justice is addressed in all of the unit’s classes…. The unit’s conceptual framework has also been used to develop the evaluation forms that are completed on each candidate after the completion of each practicum experience….In addition to its influences on the classes and school experiences of the candidates, the conceptual framework also guides the practices of the faculty in all aspects of their work and the unit itself in its assessment of its own effectiveness. As new faculty members are recruited, all are provided with a copy of the conceptual framework. During the interview, the faculty candidate’s fit with the College’s beliefs regarding the preparation of teachers is assessed.

I was interviewed almost a year ago for Julie Roys’ report, a report in which Dr. Lederhouse admitted that the Conceptual Framework relied too heavily on leftist thinkers, and yet in the ensuing year, the document was neither taken down nor revised. In addition, in recent responses to concerns addressed in the radio program, neither Dr. Litfin nor Dr. Jones addressed Dr. Lederhouse’s admission.

Education majors at Wheaton should critically engage with formative theorists, but in the document outlining the foundational philosophical commitments for Wheaton’s Department of Education it might be wise to exclude those theorists whose worldviews are largely antithetical to a Christian worldview, and whose valuable contributions — if any — are not unique to them. The Conceptual Framework would be vastly improved if scholars like Anthony Bradley, Ronald Nash, Christina Hoff Sommers, Thomas Sowell, Sol Stern, and Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom were cited in the Conceptual Framework, and Ayers and Freire were critically studied in class.

(Read more about this important issue and/or listen to segments of the radio interview at Julie Roy’s blog: JulieRoys.blogspot.com)