1. Blog Entry
Character education is an expected pillar of education to be presented by current and future
educators. According to this pillar, current and future educators are not only to teach and instill morals
and values in our students, but also to model them. In fact, many would argue that morality cannot be
taught, but rather must be modeled for that is the only way morals and values can be passed
on. Interestingly enough, as character education is being required among the future educators at
Marshall University, so to is post-modernism. Post-modernism teaches, among other things, that all
truth is relative and that morality and values are culturally constructed and up for interpretation. My
question is, with the push for post-modernism among the educated elite AND character education,
where are the answers? How can future educators possibly instill quality civic and moral values in their
students if their universities are perpetuating that all truth is relative and everything is up for cultural
interpretation? Right now, college students across the country, some of them education majors, are
being taught the mindset of, "What's right for you is right for you, and what's wrong for you is wrong for
you," or, "All truth is relative. There is no such thing as absolute truth, therefore don't judge me or tell
me I'm wrong," or, "Do what makes you happy." With this being taught, how can future educators
possibly be expected to instill quality values in their students if, by post-modernism standards, no one
has ever done anything wrong and everything everyone has ever done is right and should be accepted
as truth? How can educators punish bad behavior when you're told to be accepting of everyone's right
to their own choices?
If all morality and truth comes down to a majority decision made by humans, we will find ourselves in a
world of trouble. It is safe to assume that the majority of people on this planet, even post-modernists,
will say that murder is wrong. But what about when a group of Islamic terrorists storm a shopping mall
and kill 30 people? How can the post-modernist possibly be mad at them and call that "wrong" when
they've taught that all truth is relative? If it's right for the terrorists in their own minds to kill people,
then it should be accepted because it's right for them. Now, obviously, the post-modernist argument
would be that, as I said, the majority of people in our culture deem murder wrong, so of course the acts
of the terrorists is wrong. However, if all morality comes down to the majority of people in a society in
agreement on something, what is to be said of the post-modernist who claims murder as immoral when
he is placed in 1930's Germany? All of a sudden, the majority of people agree that the future murder of
6 million people is ok, so what is the post-modernist view? Sadly, I have heard post-modernists go as far
in defending their stance as to say that Holocaust is acceptable morally because the majority of
Germans deemed it ok. If this is the teaching we are being taught while we are also expected to instill
character morality in our students, how can we possibly be expected to do anything other than fail
miserably?

2. Blog Reply:
I like both styles of education because I see the benefits of both. Obviously, as you said traditional style
of education provides teachers and students the ability to build and strengthen daily bonds. However,
block scheduling provides the students a look into how college scheduling goes. Longer classes, a
possible heavier workload and differences in daily requirements. Either way, as long as education is
properly performed, I'm alright with it. What I would advise against is never switching at one school. If
you're going to have one system, stick with it for good. My middle school switched and it sucked big
time.