1.) What was a Trotskyist? Trotskyists were people who subscribed to the theory of social Marxism developed by Leon Trotsky, who’s interpretation was largely focused on the concept of Permanent Revolution. This theory hinged on the idea that a cultural revolution that was won by the upper class would not be sufficient for true change. He argued that it would have to be the working class that succeeded in order to institute true change in areas like Russia. In the context of Goldfarb’s manifesto, his friend belonged to a Socialist youth group seeking change(which he later found in a civil rights movement group, page 8).
2.) I do agree with him on the subject of colleges teaching students how to fill a niche more than broadening their education and preparing them for reality(pages 7,8). When I was in high-school I and my fellow students were told ad nauseam that college would be better, college would be different because you can choose what you want to learn about and study. This was a lie. No matter what your degree is, you will invariably have to take classes that don’t pertain to your major, if only to fill an arbitrary general education requirement. Oftentimes, multiple classes will repeat the same material, and endless PowerPoint slides are presented, again encouraging students to just memorize what’s on the study guide, instead of presenting challenges and encouraging students to learn and look at things from different perspectives. Too often professors and instructors assign too much weight to attendance(which is absurd, considering how much students have to pay just for the ‘privilege’ of being there, they should be able to come and go as they damn well please) and ‘participation'(which means next to nothing considering I can raise my hand every class but not actually contribute anything substantial) scores. I have said it many times to family and friends, that if my college education was not being paid for by the GI Bill, I would not go, because the value for what I have actually learned versus the amount of money required simply is not there. I believe that schools should offer a more direct approach to the subjects at hand, getting students involved beyond memorizing what is going to show up on a test and then forgetting it completely come summer time. Too often in my personal experience, the first couple weeks of the new school year is spent reviewing what was learned the previous year in a different class. In our current system, if you are a bad test taker, if your memorization skills aren’t finely honed, then you’re a ‘failure’. People who could excel under different teaching methods such as hands-on experience or visualization are told they’re wrong and left by the wayside, as if there aren’t multiple means to the same end. While I agree that schools are influenced heavily by society and what is considered ‘right’ at the time, I do not hold the belief that schools are churning out kids to be mindless automatons who feel compelled to obey the rules(page 8), I think society changes and advances at a rate much faster than schools are able to adopt, due to their bureaucratic nature.
3.) What did Goldfarb believe the solution to this problem of a ‘fascist’ school system was? While I thought the tone Goldfarb used was a bit heavy handed, his points are not without merit. I do believe that schools can get overly involved in telling students what is right or wrong, when the primary focus should be on disseminating facts and ensuring students leave the school system as well-rounded individuals who have a better sense of the world around them. My favorite teacher in high school was my Government teacher, and he was my favorite because he taught the class with impartiality, never allowing his own views to cloud what was being taught, and the issues we discussed in class were directly related to political and societal issues that were occurring at the time. Unfortunately he is in rare company as far as his teaching methods go. His idea that the modern structure of schools should be eliminated entirely is unrealistic and he offers no further support other than “We’d manage”(page 6). He offers up examples of his own experiences of letting students be ‘free’ by changing the seating around or having a non traditional spot in the classroom from which to teach from, but this is still only the illusion of freedom(page 6). Is his idea of an ideal school one where the students have free reign to pick and choose what they’d like to study or can come and go as they please? While that sounds like a good idea on paper, in reality it would be a chaotic and highly distracting learning environment. I believe that students can learn in a structured environment without being constrained.
Ian Blayney 