Universities and Indoctrination

It is a common thought that one of the aims of education is to impart knowledge to students. We see this, for example, when education theorists talk about the difference between content knowledge and the acquisition of skills. However, knowledge cannot be one of the aims of education because belief, one of the components of knowledge, cannot be one of the aims of education. At least, so I will argue.

The following example illustrates what I have in mind:

The Professor of Biology and the Her Brilliant Student

An evolutionary biology professor has what she describes to her colleagues as a “once in a career” student in her evolutionary biology class comprised of the best seniors in the program. The brilliant student is more than 10% ahead of the next closest student in her term’s work. The professor says she is extremely impressed with the student’s work and is sure that the student has a brilliant career ahead of her in evolutionary biology. The professor asks her student to consider doing graduate work in the professor’s lab next year. The professor has a large grant that she could use to support the student’s graduate work, and this would set her up for a great academic or private industry career.

The student responds, “That is very flattering, and I really enjoyed your class. But I don’t believe in evolutionary biology. I believe the earth was created in 4004 BCE. I’m planning on doing graduate work in theology. But thank you so much for the offer.”

Two questions:

Did the professor successfully educate the student in evolutionary biology?

Did the professor successfully indoctrinate the student in evolutionary biology?

I say yes to the first question. The student clearly understands evolutionary biology very well—far better than her classmates. She more than proved this by doing well on all the professor’s assessments.

I say no to the second question. If the professor’s aim was to indoctrinate her student, then she failed miserably. Clearly the student does not believe in evolutionary biology.

Assuming you agree, this suggests that there are different epistemic aims of education and indoctrination. The epistemic aim of education is understanding; the epistemic aim of indoctrination is belief.

I offer this example to all my first-year students to make it clear that they will be assessed on whether they understand the course material, not whether they believe the course material. I tell them sometimes I will present arguments that look like I’m trying to get them to believe something, but this is not the case. I do so because I would like them to see the reasons that might be offered for a view they don’t share. They don’t need to believe that the argument is good, because I’m not trying to indoctrinate them. They do need to understand the argument, because I’m trying to educate them.

I don’t have any hard empirical evidence that this makes a difference, but my impression is that it does. Students are people, and people bristle when they think they are being held captive while someone tries to force some belief on them. Students seem a little more relaxed while considering an argument for a position they do not agree with precisely because they know that their belief is not part of the course assessment.

I’m not sure all professors accept this. My guess, and my fear, is that some professors think it is their job to get students to believe. When they act on this, it seems to me to be an abuse of power. I suspect, or at least hope, this is a very small minority of teachers. In any event, given the constant refrain by some segments of society that university professors seek to indoctrinate their students, I would encourage professors to have a little meta discussion (like the one above) to reassure students that they aim to educate, not indoctrinate.