Navigating Truth: The Role of Schools in Countering Conspiracy Rhetoric

 Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]  

In a democratic system, trust in institutions is essential. Conspiracy theories introduce doubt in these systems, leading to reduced faith in institutions. This lack of trust can lead to social divisions creating an "us vs. them" mentality. Conspiracy theories divert attention from issues that deserve attention, impeding government operations.  

Trust in democratic institutions, such as the courts, elections, and independent media are foundational elements of democracy and are checks against abuses of power and authoritarian governments. Those whose goal it is to weaken democracy must first work to undermine public trust in those institutions which serve to defend democracy.  

As someone who began his career as a social studies teacher, I think it is crucial for schools to equip students with skills that enable them to discern credible information from conspiracy theories. Schools should prioritize the development of students' ability and disposition to question the credibility and reliability of sources. Learners should learn to differentiate fact from fiction, factual statements from statements of opinion, and to understand the inherent assumptions and biases in any given argument.  

Part of their preparation should include acquainting students with common logical fallacies. Using real-world examples, teachers can effectively point out and illustrate fallacies such as ad hominem attacks or circular reasoning. Students should be encouraged to identify fallacies in daily situations, public pronouncements and media. Media literacy should be a central component of every student’s education. They should be taught to evaluate sources and understand the pitfalls of online echo chambers and algorithmically driven content.  

Students must learn the difference between fact and opinion because it helps them navigate the information they encounter every day. By distinguishing between what’s accurate and what’s inaccurate, they are better able to make informed decisions, form their own beliefs, construct sound arguments, and avoid being swayed by misleading information. Knowing something about a topic also helps them recognize when someone is trying to manipulate or deceive them.  

Students should become familiar with enduring stereotypes and tropes. Such knowledge fosters critical thinking and promotes cultural awareness and sensitivity. Recognizing the origin, evolution, and impact of these narratives helps students challenge and deconstruct prejudiced beliefs.  

Students should learn about the social psychology of conspiracy theories and the influence of cognitive biases like the desire for pattern recognition or the need to find explanations for significant events. Teachers can use historical examples and contemporary case studies.  

Open discussion is key to the approach I am suggesting. Schools must be safe environments where students can critically analyze popular conspiracy theories. Respectful debate using logic and evidence is essential.  

Schools can and should create informed citizens capable of navigating the complex terrains of truth and misinformation. 

Who needs school?

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce is granted if authorship is acknowledged]

I’ve thought about this question often. A new year’s resolution prompted me to ask the question again. I had resolved to organize the zillions of photographs I’ve taken since I first acquired a digital camera. I needed a free, desk-top program with artificial intelligence capability. I did not want to use a cloud-based system where commercial providers use my photographs to train their algorithms and add to their repository of my personal information. I found what I was looking for. I found written and video material to learn how the software worked. There was a user group (they are called communities these days) where I could post questions and receive help in the form of crowd-sourced replies.

The experience reminded me of the many times I use the internet to access information and develop skills. I’ve had many successes and one monumental failure. My culinary abilities, such as they are, were honed with recipes from the internet. A couple of weeks ago, I learned how to replace a water filter. I cannot recall the last time I was unable to find something I wanted to know or be able to do. If information is freely available online, who needs school anyway?” 

There are some parents who are determined to eviscerate or at least control the substance of schooling and its important contribution to critical thought. In the US they are pursuing legislation to ban materials and teaching of topics that might cause psychological discomfort to students. The term “psychological discomfort” is code for anything with which the parents disagree.  

If passed, legislation such as the bill to which I referred above would make teaching about sexual orientation / gender-identity, racism, or any other contested topic perilous for teachers, schools, and school systems. If such legislation were to pass in British Columbia, the curriculum would require revisions to remove such competencies as “make reasoned ethical judgments about actions in the past and present, and assess appropriate ways to remember and respond.”  

Students cannot learn to make reasoned ethical judgments from the internet. It is too easy to find dogma and ideology -- the enemies of reasoned judgment – on the internet. If dogma and ideology replace reasoned judgment, school becomes unnecessary because one of the purposes of schooling is to acquire the values that make us human (empathy, compassion, etc.) and enable us to distinguish right from wrong.  

Schooling tries to cultivate the ideas that other people are no more or less important than we are and that our claims will be considered impartially along with the claims of others. This process often causes disequilibrium and discomfort when applied to non-trivial issues. For example:  

·        How could pious people who advocate for the rights of people enslave other human beings?

·        Are there justifiable reasons for permitting children to be taken from the parents and denied the opportunity to speak their own language?

·        Does my freedom allow me to behave in ways that cause harm to others?

·        Are there circumstances that justify taking the lives of others?

·        Was the trucker blockade in Ottawa an urgent, temporary, and critical situation that seriously endangered the health and safety of Canadians or that seriously threatened the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada?

·        How should a society balance the rights of individuals with the needs of the collective?

These are the kind of questions likely to cause discomfort. Ensuing discussion might include: “Would you change places with: the person who was enslaved? the child removed from her family? the person who was harmed? the person whose life was taken?” Other discomforting questions include: “How are you defining [freedom or some other key term]?”  “What is your evidence for that claim?” “Is what you just said consistent with what you said earlier?”  

If we do not want our children and grandchildren to learn what is required to make ethical judgments, we can leave their education to the internet. To put it another way, if we are content to live in a world governed by dogma and ideology, schooling as we know it is unnecessary. Discomfort is an inevitable by-product of the school’s effort to expose children and youth to an environment that is larger, more complex, less cohesive, and more diverse than their families.  

“. . . preparing students for the future, rather than just knowledge.”

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus of Education, The University of British Columbia[permission granted to reproduce if authorship acknowledged]

I was troubled by a statement made by a student named Josh in an article describing B.C.'s new high school curriculum: Genocide and Indigenous studies, drones and mechatronics, more projects, fewer exams. Josh, who hopes to study finance at an Ontario university next year, said, “I feel there is a bigger focus on preparing students for the future, rather than just knowledge.”

I presume that, in contrast to subject-specific knowledge, Josh was referring to the emphasis on skills such as being self-motivated, having a positive attitude, communicating clearly and respectfully, teamwork, problem solving, critical thinking, etc. These are all useful skills to have now and for the future, but they are no substitute for knowledge. Subject-specific knowledge plays a part in many, if not all, of them.

Problem-solving and critical thinking are not independent of subject-knowledge. The standards for thinking critically and solving problems in health are different from the standards for making judgments in chemistry that, in turn, are different from the standards in engineering. People need knowledge in order to make judgments that often depend on critical distinctions between concepts.

In all fields, knowing the difference between key concepts is central to thinking clearly and solving problems, and communicating and working with one’s colleagues. The key concepts are the common language that practitioners in a field share and, without which, they cannot understand one another.

If Josh pursues his studies in finance, he will learn soon enough that there is a difference between depreciation and amortization. If he pursues studies in the sciences, he’ll learn the difference between vaporization and evaporation. If he switches to history, the disposition he acquired to inquire will prove helpful, but he will also need to learn the difference between a revolution and a coup d’état. The teamwork Josh learns will be very useful if he pursues studies in music, but he will need to distinguish between rhythm and tempo. His inter-personal communication and sensitivity skills will prove indispensable in theatre studies, where he will learn the difference between drama and melodrama.

BC’s new curriculum includes topics such as genocide and fields such as Indigenous studies. If he pursues either or both, Josh will learn the differences between genocide and fratricide, and between indigenous and aboriginal.

Jacques Delors, President of the European Commission from 1985 to 1995 and the author of the UNESCO Report Learning: The Treasure Within called attention to four categories of learning that Delors felt were necessary in a society that strives toward democracy and citizenship:

• Learning to know: by combining a sufficiently broad general knowledge with the opportunity to work in depth on a small number of subjects. This also means learning to learn, so as to benefit from the opportunities education provides throughout life.
• Learning to do: in order to acquire not only an occupational skill but also, more broadly, the competence to deal with many situations and work in teams. It also means learning to do in the context of young peoples’ various social and work experiences which may be informal, as a result of the local or national context, or formal, involving courses, alternating study and work.
• Learning to live together: by developing an understanding of other people and an appreciation of interdependence – carrying out joint projects and learning to manage conflicts – in a spirit of respect for the values of pluralism, mutual understanding and peace.
• Learning to be: so as better to develop one’s personality and be able to act with ever greater autonomy, judgement and personal responsibility. In that connection, education must not disregard any aspect of a person’s potential: memory, reasoning, aesthetic sense, physical capacities and communication skills (p.37).

Delors’ four categories are a useful way to think about the contribution of schools and teachers to the development of the next generation.

Learning to do without learning to know, learning to live together and learning to be would make us one-dimensional and not very useful to ourselves or our society.

Reference
Delors J. et al. (1996). Learning: The treasure within. Report to UNESCO of the international      commission on education for the twenty-first century. Paris: UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000109590