Short on reason and comprehension

A lot has been written recently about our failing education system, and the measure of this, for many people, is the poor performance of Jamaican students in assessment examinations like the Grade Six Achievement Test and Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate.

When I was a teacher at high school (and university), I was often disappointed and distressed at how frequently students seemed to misread questions in essays and examinations. I would ask one thing, but would get pages of discussion on a different topic - usually the one the student had prepared for and swotted.

For me, this showed up the real weakness in our education system: poor training in logical comprehension and reasoning.

Many people think that education is about learning and memorising facts, and reproducing them on examination papers. A person who can do this, but who is not able to think and reason is not much better than a parrot. What is the point of being able to read faultlessly, but not properly understanding what is read? When I was in school, we were taught to value highly the marks we got in comprehension.

I have been blessed by a broad and varied education at the tertiary level - in the natural and social sciences, and in theology and philosophy. This allows me to argue a point from different perspectives: I can look at, say, political corruption both as a sociologist and a student of ethics; and I can comment on environmental matters both as a natural scientist and as a theologian.

RATIONAL ARGUMENTS

I know that, in this secular age, many people are not moved by biblical or theological arguments; indeed, an increasing number of people are turned off by them; and, therefore, I do not often write from that perspective. Rarely do I quote the Bible in this column. I prefer to use philosophy - rational argument based on logic, deduction and induction. I expect those who analyse what I write or say to argue with me and engage me in debate in like manner.

I read all the comments posted below my weekly columns on The Gleaner's website, and usually I am frustrated; for so many people appear not to comprehend what I write. For example, last week (June 21), in response to the Sectoral Debate presentation by the minister of youth, I wrote that abortion was a 'Plan to kill poor black people'. I drew no reference to religion at all, but argued from science and philosophy.

The column received 41 comments, many of which supported my position; but several respondents accused me of using religious arguments.

Look at the comments of persons with these noms de guerre: Africanus, The Grand Inquisitor, Mioutya, True Jamaican, StopBigGovt, Pro Choice, yamdigger, Victoria Parker. Despite drawing no reference to religion, I was called a "bleeding-heart religious fanatic", one of the "bleeding hearts on the religion brigade", "no different from the Taliban", "well, on his way to becoming errelevant" (I liked the pun in the last comment).

MISSING THE POINT

My reasoned arguments and analysis of what the minister actually said were lost on these campaigners, who, by reflex, trotted out their standard anti-religion slogans without disturbing the workings of their brains.

And the week before (June 14), I wrote 'Gays made, not born' in response to a letter to The Gleaner by Patrick E. White, PhD. Again, I drew no reference to the Bible or religion in my column when I argued that gender identity develops as a result of 'socialisation', which is not a conscious process; and I argued that the homosexual orientation is the result of improper socialisation.

That column received 143 online comments on The Gleaner's website, again many of them in support of what I had to say, but many of them missed the point entirely. So many thought I was saying that the homosexual orientation was a 'choice', when in fact, I said the exact opposite. Look at AutumnDenver, StopBigGovt, NowOnTheOutside, Guest43, jamjedi, Str8 N' Narrow, and Blake.

Someone responding as Patrick E. White, PhD, wrote, "The deacon has undercut his entire argument that being gay is a conscious 'choice'." I don't believe that someone with a PhD could so profoundly misunderstand my column.

And then, despite making no reference to religion, check out the contributions of Get real!, StopBigGovt, NowOnTheOutside, AutumnDenver, Yard_Angel, and jj Depp.

We really do have a problem in this country with a dysfunctional education system. I do not understand how so many people could go to primary school for six years, high school for five years, and university for three or more years - how they could graduate and still not comprehend a newspaper column, analyse its main argument, and craft a response or rebuttal to what is clearly written.

Peter Espeut is a chemist, a sociologist, and Roman Catholic deacon. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.