Teaching Morality
by Francisco Gonzales

Reflecting on the horrific attacks on September 11th, we are reminded again of the inherent evil of the attack. We've seen the images of planes hurling towards buildings, diving into those buildings without hesitation, and with full acceleration. Yet, three years separated from those attacks, and even in the days following the attacks, some have expressed their discomfort in hearing our President (or anyone else for that matter) label those who are at war with us "evil."

In his State of the Union address in 2002, President Bush went beyond calling Al-Qaeda and the Taliban evil. He went further and cited an "Axis of Evil," labeling the nations of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as state supporters of terrorism. After this speech, many in the media and on university campuses, among others, couldn't believe the President had used such terminology.

Whether or not we agree with President Bush on how to confront these nations and those who harbor or support terrorists, we should all be able to do one thing: call evil by its name.

Why then do so many people tremble when their President, or others, point out evil? Some of these people were even uncomfortable calling Saddam Hussein evil. In debates over the war in Iraq today, you will hear some of them now say, "Certainly Saddam was a 'bad man,' but..." and then go on to give an explanation on why we had no right to invade Iraq. Again, the focus here is not on whether or not we should have gone into Iraq, but if we are forthright in being able to identify evil when we see it.

In this recent war, one between Radical Islam and the West, we have to be able to say, "Yes, this is a battle between good and evil." More to the point, this is a battle between the values of the West and those of Radical Islam.

Western values are good, liberal values. Freedom of speech, tolerance (including religious tolerance), law and order, and justice; these are all democratic values that recognize all men are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. While all civilizations, including our own, have had a history of slavery and colonialism, abolition, decolonization and civil rights for all people are Western ideas.

Radical Islam does not share these values. Neither did the dictator in Iraq, nor does the dictator that still looms in North Korea, nor the Ayatollah in Iran. Instead, they would rather have societies where the few elites rule their nations, oppress their people and launch wars and weapons against those that do not share their values, especially those whose values are directly opposed to their own. Their enemy: any country or civilization that values freedom. Totalitarian societies do not want to grant individuals the freedom to control their own destinies, and free societies are a threat to the security of these totalitarian states. They believe they are right and they believe that our freedom, notably our tolerance for the freedom of expression and protest, will lead to their victory in the long-term battle of ideologies.

With this stark contrast between our society and theirs, the question still remains: Why are some people uncomfortable with labeling these oppressive societies and terrorist states as "evil?" And, why are leaders such as President Bush capable of making such a clear distinction and be so resolute in his claim?

The reason is part of yet another clash. It is the struggle between those who have moral clarity and those who suffer from a severe case of moral relativism. This affliction of character has been on the rise, but it is hard to say how far it will go or if it is perhaps already in decline. For conservatives, we need to be paying attention if we want the moral values that have sustained our nation and Western civilization to continue beyond our years.

According to C.S. Lewis, it is through public education that men learn this sense of morality. More than a half-century ago, in The Abolition of Man, Lewis warned that the difference between the old and the new education is that the old initiated, it was bold and forthright, while the new merely conditions. If one sits in a university classroom very long at all, one can certainly relate to this "conditioning." And, there is no doubt that this teaching has filtered all the way to our children's primary education as well.

In some rare instances, college professors have justified the attacks of 9/11. This is an extreme case of moral relativism that is sometimes picked up by the media radar. But, there are daily occurrences of the lack of moral clarity that make for an even worse education for today's students who are also tomorrow's leaders and tomorrow's promise to uphold the moral values our nation surely needs.

Our educational system -- public or private -- does not only exist to educate students in the subjects of math, science, and history. It also serves the purpose of conveying to these youth the moral values that sustain a free society. Without a backbone of moral clarity, our society struggles on personal and national levels. If we are not taught the good and warned of the evil, we will no longer know the difference.

In the Republic, Plato says the well-nurtured youth is one "who would see most clearly whatever was amiss in ill-made works of man or ill grown works of nature..." It is our duty as a society, through our educational institutions, to teach students to recognize the ill and strive for the good.

Francisco Gonzales is the Director of Membership and Campus Leadership for the
Intercollegiate Studies Institute.