Teaching Morals and Character at State University :: Teaching Education Essays

Teaching Morals and Character at State University Introduction Several weeks ago, there was a slight uproar on State U.’s campus when a threatening homophobic message was found scrawled on a student’s personal belongings. The controversy revolved around the intentions of this message and, once it was discovered who had written the message, how that individual should be punished. Most of the dialogue on campus, both amongst the administration and the student body, focused on the individual’s motives, the individual’s actions, and the individual’s punishment. Yet, I argue that such actions can not simply be attributed to the character of the individual, but also reflect the character of the institution. A somewhat humorous, yet appalling parallel can be drawn between this situation and one presented by constructionist Rheta DeVries during her discussion of teaching morality in a classroom of three-year-olds where a teacher found urine on the floor of the bathroom for several consecutive days. DeVries wrote, "[The teacher] did not know who was responsible, but suspected that more than one child was involved. She figured that they were not being malicious but thought it was funny" (2). In this same manner, the State U. individual who wrote a threatening, homophobic message probably did not do so out of sheer hate, or with harmful intentions. Nevertheless, the message offended the State U. community in the same way that the urine on the bathroom floor interrupted the three-year-olds’ classroom. In both situations, we must ask ourselves: what encouraged such actions? Why did the three-year-olds think it was okay to urinate on the floor? Why does a State U. student think it is per missible to write such a negative message? Neither the children nor the college student would have committed such acts had they believed that it would not have been accepted — if not by everyone, at least by the majority. This State U. student faced a semester of suspension for his actions, but was permitted to return to school the following year. However, short-lived suspension is not the only necessary action. By temporarily ridding the institution of this individual, State U. alleviated the symptoms of immorality but avoided directly treating the problem at hand: State U.’s moral atmosphere. Such a negative action, even if committed merely by one student, is a summons to the institution to re-examine its ethical environment in order to prevent inconsiderate actions before they occur, not treat them after the fact.