return to religion-online

Education and the Common Good: A Moral Philosophy of the Curriculum by Philip H. Phenix


Philip H. Phenix was educated at Princeton University, Union Theological Seminary, and Columbia University. He was formerly Dean of Carleton College, and was professor of Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. Published by Harper & Brothers, 1961. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock.


Chapter 16: World Responsibility


It is not enough, in the present age, to promote justice in the local community and in state and nation. Events and peoples beyond our borders can no longer be regarded simply as subjects for inquiry by the adventurous and the curious. The world has become a neighborhood.

Thus, the idea of one world, of the family of mankind, is today not merely a prophet’s vision. In one sense it is an accomplished reality. But it is a fact forced upon us by technology, rather than a moral achievement. Morally we still live in many separate worlds. We are fearfully unprepared from a personal standpoint for the technical unity which the progress of modern knowledge has presented to us. As in so many other realms, our knowledge has outrun our virtue.

This unification of the world through science has been accompanied by a diffusion of democratic ideas among peoples of every land. Men everywhere are demanding equality and independence. The old assumption that one nation may hold sway over another is now universally challenged. "Colonialism" and "imperialism" today have unqualifiedly evil connotations, particularly in countries struggling for national self-determination.

The spread of the idea of freedom throughout the world is essentially a consequence of education. Through the diffusion of information by modern methods of travel and communication, democratic ideals are transmitted from one people to another. When people in one nation are given knowledge of better ways of life in other nations, they have a basis for aspiring toward equal benefits and opportunities for themselves. The subjugation of a people can be maintained in the long run only by keeping them in ignorance of their rights, potentialities, and means of emancipation. Now that enlightenment is within reach of everyone everywhere, the demand and expectation of freedom and opportunity are also universal.

The results of these world-wide movements toward independence are nevertheless ambiguous. On the one hand, new hope and vigor are in evidence over wide areas of the earth. The long sleep and silence of oppressed and exploited peoples are at an end. Within a generation, cultures are being transformed from the level of the stone age to that of the atomic age. People who only recently were nobody are now treated with the greatest seriousness. The attention of the whole world is fastened upon the struggles of new republics to be born, to survive, and to grow to some degree of political maturity. Such events provide an atmosphere of expectation and exhilaration for the many peoples who see their own fortunes in the ascendancy.

On the other hand, these revolutionary changes have been accompanied by unprecedented fear and violence. The precipitous plunging of people from the life of nomads, peasants, and forest dwellers to that of urban industrial workers has had catastrophic effects on morale. The rapid assumption of prominent positions in international affairs by politically immature people has made for a high degree of instability in relations among the nations. The meeting and the mixing of cultures have caused the dissolution of traditional values without any satisfying framework of meaning to take their place. Thus, hope and enthusiasm in wide segments of the earth’s population are compounded with anxiety, confusion, conflict, and suffering probably without parallel in the history of man.

Out of this complex of aspiration and desperation has arisen the greatest of all enemies to human welfare, total war. War is nothing new in man’s history. Men have perennially battled with one another, whether for sheer love of contest or for lust of conquest. But modern total war is something new under the sun. War is no longer a limited engagement at arms between selected members of the population. Today war between nations involves everybody, soldiers and civilians alike. It is a comprehensive effort to destroy the enemy by any and all practicable means. Every available resource of materials and manpower is poured into the struggle, and all of the treasures and traditions of civilization are sacrificed for the one supreme goal of military victory.

The crushing burdens of war must be carried not only during the actual armed conflict but also when there is no open combat. Preparation for war is essential to success in it, and the intervening times must be used to make ready for engagements to follow. Thus, it is no longer customary to speak of alternating war and peace, but of "hot" wars and "cold" wars. "Peace" is, then, merely the preparatory phase of war, a phase that makes the ensuing struggle all the more deadly because of the greater power accumulated during it.

Modern war is total in three respects: in involving everyone and everything in waging it and in suffering from it; in absorbing the energies and concern of the nations perpetually; and in the destructiveness of modern weapons. Technical discoveries have also made available the means to effect the speedy annihilation of humanity and civilization. Atomic bombs, now stockpiled in abundance by the major contending powers, can desolate cities within a few moments and blanket the earth with radioactive dust which would make it completely uninhabitable. Biological weapons could quickly destroy whole populations by spreading fatal infections across the land. Or the enemy could use certain gases to destroy the people’s will to resist and so could take his victim without a struggle.

Included among the resources marshaled for the conduct of total war are those of education. When civilization is clouded over by the threat of armed conflict, everything that is done to prepare the young for the future tends to have some reference to the needs of national defense. Science and engineering are emphasized at the expense of the humanities. Control of education is centralized in order to enable the national government to meet the continuing emergencies of full or partial military mobilization. In the totalitarian nations every agency of instruction and communication is enlisted in the government’s service, to educate the people in the requirements of national security. Under conditions of international military rivalry, the free nations, too, become more and more regimented, and liberty in teaching and learning are suppressed in the national interest. Thus, war and the threat of war make education in all nations subordinate to considerations of military strength.

The desperate world situation which modern warfare has now created makes the pursuit of peace mankind’s number one objective. Since war has at last become an all-consuming evil, no human achievement of any kind is possible unless war is prevented. Knowledge, art, and social invention -- all of the works of civilization -- depend for their realization upon the elemental securities of existence. Human life and its products cannot endure without a hospitable environment. Total war creates a totally inhospitable environment for man and all his works. None of the other values -- of intelligence, creativity, conscience, or reverence -- that education ought to promote has any meaning at all apart from the basal fact of human survival. Modern war makes all judgments of better or worse pointless in comparison with the primordial "to be or not to be" which determines whether there shall be anything at all to appraise. The questions of autocracy and democracy, of desire and worth, of mediocrity and excellence in education -- all of the matters that have concerned us in these pages -- have significance only on the assumption that war does not consume us all. It is in this sense that world peace is today the value of values.

How has our present international predicament come to pass? The most obvious factor has already been noted -- namely, the progress of science and invention, by which the world has been contracted and united and weapons have been made totally destructive. But such knowledge and skill are not in themselves evil. Our perilous condition is due to the conjunction of these technical factors with the moral and personal factor of self-centeredness. The present fearful state of the world is a result of combining the human tendency to strive for autonomy with the vast powers now at man’s disposal through science and technology. In other words, what today threatens to extinguish the light of civilization altogether is a union of the democracy of desire with vast technical capability.

The upsurge of nationalism all over the world is not simply a struggle for justice. It is not only an attempt to redress the wrongs of colonialism and imperialism. It is also a clamor for autonomy, a demand for absolute liberty, for full self-determination. So insistent are the pressures that even peoples who are not yet prepared to assume the responsibilities of self-government claim their independence and then pay a heavy price in internal chaos and strife, with the likelihood of having to settle for order by dictatorial power rather than by consent. Thus, the irresponsible demand for independence characteristic of the democracy of desire tends at length to autocracy and police coercion, which actually diminish the people’s freedom.

The widespread revolutionary movements of the time are also due to the popular demand for a larger share of material goods. The "have nots" are rising to challenge the "haves," usually with scarcely any conception of the necessary economic, political, and demographic conditions required to produce a high standard of living. Impoverished people in underdeveloped agrarian societies, newly aware of the abundance enjoyed by the people of advanced industrial societies with a long history of civilized development, are demanding at once the benefits of civilization without creating the instruments necessary to produce them.

These insistent demands for more power and possessions contain the roots of war. Nations fight for markets, for territory, and for prestige as well as to defend themselves against other countries which seek such things at the expense of their neighbors. The explosive insecurities of our time follow from the general acceptance of the principles of the democracy of desire -- namely, that the goal of life is to have maximum liberty and to acquire as much power and as many things as possible.

No lasting solution to world problems can be achieved apart from widespread conversion from the life of acquisition to that of devotion. Yet under modern conditions of weapons capability, even the acquisitive philosophy is incompatible with war, for in total war nobody can win. On purely practical and prudential grounds, apart from any considerations of justice or excellence, armed conflict no longer pays, for anybody. War is not now, as it once may sometimes have been, a way of gaining desired ends. In a nuclear holocaust the difference between victor and vanquished would disappear in the abyss of universal destruction and suffering which would ensue. A clear assessment of the facts of modern warfare makes it evident that armed conflict is no longer defensible on any view except that of nihilism.

A primary objective of education today, in homes, in schools, and through the mass media of communication, should be the full and forceful dissemination of knowledge about the extreme destructiveness of modern weapons of war and about the awful consequences for everybody which would result from their use in any large-scale conflict. The false sense of security in the possession of a stockpile of powerful weapons must be dispelled, and a proper fear must be engendered of the heightened danger to which all the nations of the world are exposed through the arms race. Even from the standpoint of national advantage, the citizens must be encouraged to work for a reduction in arms. An atomic build-up cannot be risked, because of the ease with which a nuclear war could be initiated by accident if not by design. At present there is a balance of terror through the possession by each of the world’s major antagonists of the means to inflict mortal damage on the other. Such a balance is dangerous and precarious. The minds and wills of all the people must be prepared by education to find some way, not yet apparent, out of the collective insanity into which our compounded knowledge, fear, and hostility have led us.

Wars will not cease from the earth until the universal demand for autonomy is subordinated to the search for truth and justice -- that is, until democracy is founded more in devotion than in desire. What, then, are some of the ideals for a democracy of worth in the sphere of international relations? What are some of the goals of education for world responsibility?

A first objective is the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy. This position must now be taken even on strictly practical and prudential grounds. It ought also to be supported on an ethical basis. The mass extermination, in warfare, of persons and of the means of livelihood is a moral enormity. War violates every canon of right. It contradicts the ideal of human worth. It silences the voices of reason and of conscience. For the slow and patient work of creation it exchanges swift annihilation. In place of civilized persuasion it exalts barbaric force. Instead of sensitivity it promotes indiscriminate callousness. It displaces love and understanding concern by hatred and indifference. Every strategy of trickery and deception is allowed in war. Truth is subordinated to success in battle, and honor is regarded as merely one of the conditions of mutual assistance.

In earlier times warfare may have had its noble aspects. It sometimes engendered courage, loyalty, and endurance. It provided a field for the exercise of skill and imagination. It was a training ground for leaders and a powerful impetus to patriotism, national unity, and civic cooperation. But recent technical developments have so transformed the ways of warfare that whatever nobility it may have had in the past no longer maintains. While it is true that the necessities of national defense still provide a powerful stimulus in a variety of technical and educational fields and still serve to unite citizens in a common struggle against enemies within and without, the end toward which these efforts point is so evil that their virtue is negated. Thus, in our present predicament perhaps the most fundamental of all moral tasks is the abolition of war.

The renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy can be effected only if nations also abandon their claim to absolute national sovereignty. The idea of full national sovereignty belongs to the philosophy in which autonomy is the highest good. National sovereignty means unrestricted national self-determination. It means that the nation is believed to be subject to nothing beyond the pursuit of its own interests. When interests conflict, it is natural to resort to force, since it is assumed that there is no higher authority to which appeal can be made for settlement of differences. If, on the other hand, the controlling principle of national life is doing what is right, then the nation is no longer autonomous and self-sufficient; its policies are determined and judged by reference to the superior authority of what is right. The nation is regarded not as the source and criterion of all good, not in itself as an object of unconditional loyalty ("my country, right or wrong, my country"), but as an instrument and channel for goodness.

To relinquish complete national sovereignty is not to eliminate the nation as such. It is frequently urged that the existence of nations is the cause of wars, or in any event that the creation of a single world political community, without separate independent nations, would insure world peace. Such a scheme is not practicable in the foreseeable future, nor would it appear desirable from a democratic standpoint. Just as the democratic nation should be comprised of free and diverse individuals, with maximum personal and local responsibility, so a democratic world community should be made up of independent and distinctive nations, severally and regionally responsible for the universal good. Every nation has its own special history, traditions, culture, and purposes. The citizens of each country have their unique capabilities, national characteristics, and styles of life. These differences in nature, custom, and outlook from country to country enrich the life of mankind.

Nations organized in independence and freedom are as essential to world democracy as free and independent persons are to a democratic community. But such a world of free nations presupposes the subordination of national will to the sovereignty of justice. If nations continue to assert their independence of all higher authority, the end will be either war to the death (for all) or the emergence of a single dominant world power which will maintain by force the minimal order necessary to insure the survival of civilization. National integrity and independence in a democratic world community are contingent upon acceptance and practice of national responsibility for the pursuit of justice and the relinquishment of the principle that the nation is a law unto itself. Vigorous nationalism and devoted patriotism are thus not incompatible with world democracy. The progress of mankind does not lie in the destruction of national identity and the denial of patriotic pride and devotion -- any more than civic virtue would be improved by undermining family loyalties. The best citizens of the world are those who are also conscientious individuals, devoted members of families, responsible citizens of the community, and loyal patriots.

If war is to be eliminated as an instrument of national policy and if absolute national sovereignty is to be abrogated, matters in dispute among the nations must be dealt with by persistent and patient negotiation. If, as here contended, there is an underlying assumption of rightness to be discovered, negotiation becomes a means of cooperative exploration. The search for an acceptable solution to disputes is not simply a contest for maximum advantage. It is rather an attempt through discussion and persuasion to satisfy the requirements of justice. Negotiation between democracies of worth is a quest for mutuality founded on common loyalty to the right.

Implicit in the negotiation of disputes according to principles of justice is the acceptance of international law. It is by this law that the sovereignty of nations is limited. This is the higher authority to which they ought to be subject. This law is the criterion of judgment between nations in conflict with one another. By this rule the procedures for equitable relationships and for meaningful persuasion are established. Such international law must be regarded as an approximation to the right, since laws that are held to be only convenient conventions will be ignored when important national interests require it. Force is the only resort in disputes over vital interests when the principles of justice are believed to be solely man-made agreements for purposes of mutual accommodation.

International law comprises the basic rules for ordering the relations between nations. It covers such basic national rights as security against invasion, the control of entrance and exit of persons, the ownership of property, the extradition of criminals, and honorable treatment of ambassadors. Ideally, international law should also extend far beyond these traditional provisions for preserving the integrity and independence of sovereign states, into the domain of universal human rights. Just as there are laws within a nation that forbid a person to misuse his liberty, so there should be laws under which the irresponsible use of a nation’s powers over its own citizens could be judged; that is to say, the rights of self-determination by the nation should be subordinate to the fundamental rights of man. For example, under extended international law no nation should be allowed to maintain a system of slavery or to cause its citizens to suffer loss of life, health, or property without just cause. Eventually a universal bill of rights should emerge, containing the basic principles of justice with which all law, both within and between the nations, should be compatible.

A meaningful system of international and universal law requires organized machinery for adjudication -- an international court system. It further presupposes some sort of world legislative and executive bodies by which procedures could be formulated and authority exercised. An international police power is also needed to keep order and insure compliance with fundamental world law. Such a force should eventually take the place of the huge military establishments now maintained by the separate nations, under a world order in which war and preparation for it would be abandoned as intolerably burdensome, impractical, immoral, and suicidal.

World courts, legislatures, executives, and police forces constitute a world government. Universal law cannot operate effectively among the nations without concrete instrumentalities in which certain of the powers now held by sovereign nations are surrendered to a world governing agency. But for the sake of national freedom, the powers assigned to the world authorities ought to be clearly defined and strictly limited. A world state with comprehensive powers would weaken or altogether destroy the nations and would raise the threat of a world tyranny more absolute and destructive of liberty than any of the imperial tyrannies of history. The democratic principle of limitation of powers is therefore even more essential in world government than in the political organization of the individual nations. Some sort of world commonwealth there must be, if mankind is to continue to live in a single world of radical interdependence. Some visible instrumentalities are necessary if a common allegiance to certain elemental principles of universal justice is to be more than a pious sentiment. But the vast preponderance of governing power belongs within the free nations of the world community, and not to any world body. International political organization should have jurisdiction only in matters essential to basic peace and justice among the nations and to the preservation of certain universal human rights everywhere.

Much progress can be made toward a world commonwealth, apart from the actual ceding of certain national powers to a world government, by the strengthening of voluntary international cooperation. For example, the United Nations provides a forum for continuing discussions of world problems and even for cooperative police action as a substitute for traditional warfare. Postal services, telephone, telegraph, and broadcasting facilities, monetary exchange, and the regulation of trade all require administrative cooperation across national boundaries. In such activities a kind of world government exists de facto, and in these practical ways a basis is provided for the eventual formation of a limited world government de jure.

World democracy may also be furthered by the more advanced and prosperous nations providing economic and technical assistance to underdeveloped nations. The inequities of national privilege due to historical and geographical circumstances should be removed by assisting the less fortunate peoples to develop their own material and cultural potentialities. This cannot be done by making indiscriminate gifts of money, nor by seeking to remake other nations according to the details of the governing pattern of the would-be benefactor nation. The United States, for example, cannot effectively help other nations simply by pouring out dollars and by persuading other people to adopt American institutions and culture. It can best serve the cause of world democracy by helping supply the means for the less developed nations to fulfill their own unique aspirations, without attaching to the aid any conditions of military, economic, or political alliance, conformity, or dependency. To insure equity and freedom in aid programs it is desirable to utilize such cooperative international agencies as the World Bank, instead of one nation’s contributing directly to other nations. The establishment of a world government with well-defined and strictly limited powers would further facilitate the just and impartial allocation of economic and technical assistance.

Finally, for a world established in liberty and universal equality of opportunity, free exchange of goods, persons, and culture is essential. In a world-wide federation of free nations there is no place for protective tariffs and other forms of trade restriction, which subsidize inefficiency and prevent the people of certain nations from reaping the benefits of their special skills. Every nation should be encouraged to use its resources and the capabilities of its citizens most efficiently, and this requires open channels for the exchange of goods and services. Temporary hardships caused in certain industries by competition from foreign producers should be alleviated by direct economic assistance and by helping in plant modernization or the retraining and reallocation of displaced workers, and not by the imposition of import duties which prevent able and industrious people from reaping the rewards of their efforts.

Free movement of persons is another goal for a democratic world. At the present time, because of the great economic and political disparity among the nations of the world, complete freedom of immigration is not practicable or desirable. The economic and political structures of a nation are hard-won achievements of responsible citizens who have fashioned their careers in relation to these structures. Large numbers of people from other nations cannot then be brought into any country without placing great strains on its own people and institutions. The difficulties of quickly accommodating substantial numbers of new citizens are great. Ultimately, however, as the cooperation of the interdependent nations of the world brings about more complete equality of privileges, and particularly as measures are taken to bring population growth under control and in balance with available natural resources, it should be possible to permit persons to live and work under whatever flag they may choose and to fulfill their human vocations as loyal citizens of whatever nation most fully commands their devotion.

A practical and productive approach toward a democratic world can be made through cultural exchange. Travel and residence in other lands (apart from transfer of citizenship) is one important means of intercultural association. Regular exchanges of teachers and students should be arranged, so that direct personal experience of other peoples may be an integral part of the organized program of education. Seasoned and well-informed interpreters of the world’s cultures should be employed to make of foreign travel something more significant than a pleasure tour, and persons who travel abroad should be encouraged to regard themselves as responsible representatives of their country to other nations and to behave accordingly.

International conferences in every field of human endeavor including business, sports, the arts, and science are helpful in keeping open the channels of communication between the peoples of the world. Books and periodicals should be regularly exchanged, both in the original languages and in translation, in order that the widest possible reading may be assured. Care should also be taken to insure that cultural products sent abroad are reasonably representative of the sending nation and are not a caricature of it, as has unfortunately too largely been the case with American motion pictures circulated in other countries. Serious efforts should likewise be made to secure for foreign service in government and commerce men and women who are capable and dedicated, who will inspire confidence, respect, and affection in the people among whom they sojourn, and who will identify sympathetically with these people in attitudes and way of life rather than create little outposts of the home country in a foreign land.

None of the major human purposes can any longer be fulfilled apart from a world perspective. All of the values discussed in this book clearly presuppose universality and world outlook. Truth knows no national boundaries, nor does esthetic excellence. Scientific knowledge is not validated without the concurrence of inquirers everywhere, and the fund of human knowledge, skill, and beauty needs replenishment from men of genius in every land. We shall not have learned true civility in manners until we have passed beyond conformity to local and national custom and learned through our actions to symbolize our respect for every person everywhere. Work can be no true vocation while it is turned directly or indirectly to the forging of instruments of destruction, -- or can play be more than momentary escape from the abiding fear of violence so long as the nations are related to each other in hostility or uneasy alliance.

As it is with the values of intelligence and creativity, so is it with conscience. Conservation is a world problem. Since supplies of essential raw materials are usually highly localized geographically, international trade is necessary for their proper distribution. Moreover, the ways and rates of use of scarce materials are matters for international decision and control. The population explosion is likewise a problem for everybody and can be solved only by world-wide education. There is no hope for peace and civilization unless the pressures for the earth’s limited resources are relieved by responsible social planning; and, conversely, there is no hope for dealing constructively with resources and population as long as war and the fear of war govern the decisions of nations. Public health is another world concern. Disease is no respecter of nations, and the talents and resources of all nations are needed to eradicate it, coordinated through such agencies as the World Health Organization. World tensions and anxieties are certainly harmful to mental health, and the physical ravages of war spread sickness, injury, and death everywhere. In short, for wholeness of mind and body in its inhabitants, a whole world -- that is, a world healed of its mortal disease of war -- is necessary.

Even right relations in the family are correlated to world understanding. The exigencies of war disperse and dislocate families. Young people are exposed to loneliness, stress, and compulsion, which are not conducive to healthy love and marriage relationships, and the attitudes of hostility and habits of violence which war breeds ill prepare them for secure and stable sex and family life. In like manner, hostilities between the nations intensify estrangement between social classes and racial groups within the nation, especially where some of the groups are of foreign origin. An open, cooperative, peaceful association among the nations, on the other hand, makes for corresponding constructive relationships in families and between class and racial groups. Of special importance for world democracy at the present time is the decisive rejection of the white man’s dominance of the world, as people of every shade of skin assume places of leadership in the councils of the nations. The new democratic world-mindedness, despite pockets of bitter resistance, is bringing a sense of the worth of all people and exploding the racist illusions that long supported arbitrary privilege and unjust subjugation.

Finally, in this interdependent world it is evident that economic and political democracy cannot be achieved in isolation. When one nation suffers material hardship, other countries are affected also. When certain people in a nation prosper at the expense of others, the people of all countries are impoverished. The equitable distribution of labor and materials is not a task for each nation alone, but one for the whole family of nations, working cooperatively to administer justly man’s natural estate, which is entrusted to all men for the right use and service of all. Political democracy, too, must transcend individual nations. Tyrannies abroad beget defensive reactions at home, which threaten liberty. The necessities of war and of defense make political democracy difficult, since the great power that must be mobilized and directed by centralized authority against enemies abroad is easily turned to the suppression of inconvenient freedoms at home. The rule of law under which free men live is not a matter only of national tradition and preference. It is a universal principle, an objective right which should order the lives of men in every country.

For education, the inculcation of a world outlook is a clear imperative. A prime objective of the study of modern history should be to make vivid the story of the emergence of one world and the spread of the hunger and hope for freedom to people everywhere. Scientific and technical studies should also be presented in the light of their essential contribution to the creation of a single world, in the annihilation of space and time effected by machines for transporting and communicating. Through study units in regular courses and through special lectures, discussions, conferences, and seminars people of all ages should be given full and frank instruction in the causes, character, and consequences of modern warfare. Especially important in supplying such information are books, magazines, newspapers, radio, and television, through which the public can best be kept continually abreast of developments and possibilities both in weapons technology and in efforts toward armament reduction and control, and can be made aware of the nature and scope of the peril in which the world stands so long as war remains the ultimate resort in the settlement of international differences.

In schools and colleges every subject of study should be treated with regard to its world basis and implications. All fields of knowledge, from archeology to zoology, can claim distinguished contributors from many lands, and all studies have important applications to world understanding, whether it be an inquiry into the archeology of the Middle East, once the cradle of civilization and now a focus of cultural and industrial renaissance, or an analysis of the zoology of malarial infection, which has sapped the energies and influenced the destinies of millions in tropical areas around the globe. Today there is no justification for teaching any subject from a purely national or regional standpoint -- not even American history, which can be rightly comprehended only as a phase within world history. Neither man nor nation is an island, isolated and self-explanatory. A country’s very essence, the meaning of its national character and destiny, are defined in part by its interconnections with other countries.

World responsibility in education further entails serious attention to the teaching of foreign languages, beginning in the early years of school, when children can quickly and naturally learn another tongue in the same fashion as they learned their native language. The backwardness of Americans in giving attention to foreign languages is nothing less than a national disgrace. In most other countries the educated people have been instructed in at least one language other than their own, and many of them have attained a considerable fluency in it. If Americans are to play their parts as world citizens with full responsibility, they must speedily extend and intensify the program of foreign language instruction, not only in the traditional fields of Latin, French, German, and Spanish but also, for large numbers of citizens, in Russian, Chinese,Japanese, Arabic, and other non-European languages.

With more thorough preparation in foreign language, both written and spoken, American students will be in a better position to learn effectively from travel and residence abroad as part of their educational preparation. Such foreign study, under a broad program of regular international exchange of teachers and students, should increasingly become a normal feature of formal education for mature young people.

Finally, in homes, schools, and community affairs a new emphasis should be placed on patriotism, no longer as exclusive loyalty to the sovereign nation, but as devotion to country as the organized agency of articulate relationship with all mankind. The central symbols through which love of country is expressed should cease to be those of military might and should more and more come to celebrate those distinctive national aspirations and traditions that prefigure the reign of freedom and justice everywhere.

Viewed 91595 times.