A Critique of S.E.M.P
By the Public Questions and Communications Committee
John Steinbacher, in an address delivered at the "We, the People" Convention in Phoenix, Arizona in 1973, said: "Public education has never in its history been under the kind of attack and controversy that has been raging for the past six or eight years." This assault has now been made in our educational systems, an assault against all that hints of Christian ethic. We need only turn to the recent study materials projected for use in our classrooms (S.E.M.P.) to see the thrust of this concerted, ideological attack. Let's see the various parts of S.E.M.P. to understand why they ought to be rejected.
1. Content
(a) The Family Course
The first criticism I make of S.E.M.P. regards its content. It is one thing to teach children that women have a right to be 'liberated' from the home to pursue careers in business, social and political life. But there is no place in teaching for derogatory remarks concerning mothers who find their vocation within the home as full-time mothers. I object to the reference that mothers who retire from work do so to 'breed', with the emotive inference that such mothers are living an animal-like, sub-human existence. Nor are keepers at the home 'anti-social'. All of these sentiments are taken from Germaine Greer's book, "The Female Eunuch", who also claims that a mother at home does not sustain a healthy relationship with her children because she is too close to them.
The Family Course also encourages teenagers, with the help of burlesque cartoons, to sit down together and discuss and evaluate the hypocrisies of parents and teachers. There are 27 of these cartoons (called Hassells) that lampoon parents, and nine against teachers. It may be wrong for a parent to have a double standard by commanding his child to stop the noise of roller-skates while he himself has the races on radio blaring out; but Scripture gives no right for teens to sit down together and publicly condemn parents. Scripture has strong words to say about homosexuality, yet this section of the course proposes homosexual 'marriages' as alternative lifestyles, perfectly acceptable. Divorce is also stated to be a good thing, and beneficial in certain circumstances. De-facto relationships, hippie communes are all valid choices open to young people today; they are not considered sinful.
(b) People and Change.
In the course of understanding others, teens are asked to evaluate the experiences of four adolescents: Mark (a quadriplegic), Vicki (born without arms), Margaret (a retarded girl), and Rex, (a school drop-out). This is psychologically harmful for teenagers to be continually forced to face up to unnecessary and manufactured problems, so that not only have they to experience their own but vicariously experience a whole range of mythical people's likely or unlikely experiences as well. Child psychologists warn of the dangers inherent in this system of learning, and in the U.S.A. there is a concerted effort to stop such techniques in classrooms. The New York child analyst (and author of "Love, Sex and the Teenager") wrote about SIECUS programs: "Children are not psychologically ready to learn: they are over-stimulated and frightened; such programs attempt what only the home can do well."
(c) Race and Ethnic Relations.
The teaching guide states (p.12) that Australia is a pluralist society. It is not. It is a Christian pluralist society. Our laws are founded upon Biblical laws. The teaching technique called 'Social Engineering' is subtle indoctrination. The handbook introduction lets the cat out of the bag by saying the course's aim is "to bring about change in school as a whole, and in the system of which it is a part". The education and learning processes of the past have apparently been abandoned!
The section on "Aborigines and Europeans" espouses what is called "Frontier Politics". Al Grasby is quoted as saying: "For the first 125 years we have had more bloodshed and the most destructive encounters recorded between people in the 19th Century." There are no references given; the percentage of immigrants, Cook's personnel, the references to the voluntary settlers, are all incorrect. We are told that Lawson, Blaxland and Wentworth crossed the Blue Mountains only to wipe out the Aborigines. Yet the Oxley Library records that in fewer than 20 years after this crossing to obtain more grazing lands, Australia had replaced Spain and was second only to Germany as supplier of wool to Great Britain. One wonders what time there was for such grazing if the time was spent in annihilating the Aborigines! Al Grasby's favourite bit of history is the Eureka Stockade, and the whole exercise of this section of the course is to twist history to suit a politically left philosophy; to derogate out white national background and the historical achievements of our pioneers. The same underlying attack is seen in the booklet for the course, "Melting Pot" which promotes apartheid (yet some people speak of Rhodesia!). It implies that world peace can come only by racial suicide of the white races in our country. Students, of course, are not told that the worst wars this world has seen are those fought between people of the same skin, not black and white, e.g.. Irish Catholics and Protestants, Arabs and Jews, Indians and Pakistanis, tribal wars in Africa.
(d) Social Control and Conflict.
The lifestyles of those involved in crime and drugs (purple bundle) are referred to as being of a "different behaviour". The inference is that being a drug addict, pusher or criminal is now nothing worse than simply being 'different'.
(e) Urbanism.
Here, in "People and the City" there is bias against British culture. In "People and Planning" we see the aims expressed of the Humanist Manifesto re the overthrowing of existing economic order, and replacing free enterprise with socialistic, collective control of the means of production, wealth and income.
2. Method
(a) Values Clarification
I object also to the method used in these materials. They use the process of values Clarification, or Simonizing (named after Sidney Simon). It is a brainwashing technique to change the attitudes and moral standards from Christian absolutes to situation ethics; from authority to autonomy; from order to chaos; from nationalism to a 'world view'; from individual responsibility to group dependence. In accordance with humanist beliefs, it aims to teach the child that he has a private right to determine his own values in life. This system teaches that it is all right to lie, steal, engage in pre-marital sex, cheat and kill, if they are part of one's own value system, and if the person has clarified these values to himself. The important thing is not what one chooses, but that the person has chosen the value for himself. Each person must be free to choose and act upon his own values. The result is that God's laws don't matter; men become conceited about their own minds; freedom from conscience; great mental peace, doing 'our own thing'. The important thing is not what I know, but what I think, feel and how I respond. Facts are unimportant compared to the interpretation of values.
(b) Simulation
Simulations are hypothetical situations that become the model for reality. Teens are- encouraged to talk about their feelings, frustrations and decisions. With this there are great psychological risks. This is admitted in the handbook of the course where the following warnings are issued:
i. Stop the game if the anxiety or tension levels become too great.
ii. Dissipate anger, anxiety or tension during de-briefing.
iii. Intervene only if the situation seems to be getting out of control.
iv. Avoid potentially threatening questions until the de-briefing.
3. Underlying Philosophy
Its underlying philosophy is humanism (a subtle tool of Marxism). Up to this point of time, Australian education has been based on a certain amount of Christian ethic. As a result of a Referendum on the matter in 1908, in 1910 a State Act was passed instructing that Bible readings be held in schools and officially sanctioning Christian ethic to be the basis of teaching. Indeed, the constitution preamble reads: "Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God". Judge Kelly gave a pronouncement in the 'Cowan vs. Melbourne' Case: "There is abundant authority for saying that Christianity is part and parcel of the law of the land." Sir John Latham (himself an agnostic), Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia (1935-52) said that Australian law was based on the Christian ethic, and he would interpret it accordingly. Evidences of this persuasion are seen on every hand, with the Bible presentation at Naturalisation ceremonies, the appointment of Chaplains to the military forces, the use of our present calendar, and the figures of the last census that placed the percentage of atheists as 7.
There are those in our educational system that want Christian ethic replaced by a philosophy. What sort? It was described in the 1933 Humanist Manifesto and in the 1973 Humanist Manifesto. Listen to some of the emphases contained in it:
"Individuals should be permitted to pursue their lifestyles as they desire."
"We deplore division of mankind on nationalistic grounds. We must move towards building a world community: a development of system of world law and world order on transnational federal government."
"The right to birth control, abortion and divorce should be recognised. We do not wish to prohibit by law or social sanction sexual behaviour between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered evil."
There is thus no God or creative force; no such thing as revealed morality, thus eliminating the 10 Commandments. It's all situation ethics - every man decides for himself at the moment what is right for him. They expose the unbiblical, relativistic point of view, as seen in the words of Dr. H. Christensen, of the Purdue University: "Actions should be judged solely by their effects."
Make no mistake about it. Humanistic philosophy is being subtly pushed into our educational system. It doesn't matter whether it's M.A.C.O.S., S.E.M.P. or any future course, there will be pressure to promote it. Sidney Simon said: "To clarify values may be one of the most significant things a teacher can do for students in this conflicting and confusing world. It is a world we did not make, but which we can yet shape, if we know which way to carve into it." Or listen to Raths, Harmin and Simon: "Traditional approaches have not and cannot lead to values in the sense that we are concerned with them." (Values and Teaching).
The teachers of this course are told to discard the following traditional approaches to values: setting an example, persuading and convincing, limiting choices, inspiring, rules and regulations, cultural and religious dogma and appeal to conscience. Finally, let's see the master plan of this philosophy as outlined by the Hawaiian Board of Education:
"Every school classroom in America must now be regarded as a mental clinic. Every teacher must be regarded as a psychotherapist. Every child in the classroom must be regarded as a patient." What is meant by 'patient'? Ashley Montague (assumed name for Israel Ehrenburg) told 7,000 school board members in San Diego: "The reason I didn't salute the flag was that, number one, I do not believe in God, and furthermore every child who enters school at the age of six is mentally ill because he comes with certain values he inherits from his family unit."
4. The task of Education
Today, young people are growing up illiterate, finding themselves unemployable. Ideas, discussion, theories, and views - all take the place of sound learning and acquiring of knowledge.
The school should supplement the home, not denigrate it. 'It is not the task of education to fit children to enter our present sick society, but to prepare them to become citizens of a better society. Agreed that many homes-have no moral training; but that is better than wrong moral training at school. As the Dean of Education at the University of New York said: "If a referendum were taken today, there is no doubt in my mind that 70% of parents would opt for the old-fashioned kinds of education that they have had and only 30% for the innovations."
Do we seriously suggest that teens are mature enough to engage in sensitivity training and behavioural science? To indulge in open-minded questions of the greatest moral moment? How dare any child pass judgement on his parents! Do they know the traumas of their parents' divorce, the underlying circumstances? How can any child say why he thinks his parents shouldn't have had as many children as they did? What right has any educational system to encourage teens to tell private matters like that to others? Some things can wait until after-school years, when there will be no psychological harm or undue embarrassment. Sex is a very personal and intimate matter; not all inhibitions are bad. Children can withdraw themselves, we are told, but what child is going to go contrary to peers and the majority at school?
We read about "public good of community as a whole". Who decides that; the Humanist majority or the Christian majority? Training and knowledge are no substitute for wisdom, which comes only from God. The latter is the tool for using both the former. Sex cannot be presented in a moral vacuum. Moral principles are the cement that holds a culture together. Without them many nations of the past have collapsed and disintegrated.
All teaching is undergirded by some life and world view, consciously or not. Only the rarest teacher is able to present all sides fairly and to keep his students from being influenced by his own bias. This becomes a vital matter when we note that the 1977 Orientation Booklet (Section 10 b) claimed that the Q.T.T.U. policy was that homosexual teachers ought to be refused employment.
The Queensland Teachers Journal (March 15, 1971) said: "Education is about how to live, how to cope with living, how to know other people, how to know the world in which you live. This project ... is to give people the opportunity to be able to look at life as it really is, and to be able to clarify your own values in the light of others that you see.." This is all very well, but how can young people decide these things?
The S.E.M.P. Materials are excellently produced; the idea is most welcome; but it ought not to be used in a setting where the Christian ethic cannot be upheld. Gordon Simpson, M.L.A. said: "Men who believe they can and are entitled to change our children are dangerous if left unchallenged and unsupervised." The Church and parents should not stand by and permit such indoctrination in the name of education. Eternal vigilance by every Christian is the price of adequacy, purity, and Biblical soundness in moral education.
Making use of phraseology (with some adjustments) the Teachers Journal used in their fight against the State Government, I issue the challenge: "Parents, and all who uphold the Judea-Christian ethic, 'we are under attack - mobilize' before it is too late."