finally seen the light, while I’ve nevernerred and still receive no dramatic recognition?”nAs best I understand, the parablensignifies the high value communitiesnshould put on w^o/esomeness, and thendemands that valuation places on responsiblencitizens. A similar theme isniterated in the parable of the lost sheep,nand the duty of the good shepherd tonreconstitute his flock.nObviously, there is good precedentnfor treating Postman’s potential fornconversion with sympathy and interest.nIf my preceding remarks were directlynrelated to Christian tradition, I havenno doubt that many other importantnreligious traditions mirror similarnthemes. However, for persons of a morensecular temper, let me offer a morenempirical proposal: “We should nevernunderestimate the potential of humannbeings for learning and changing.”nOften this potential is unfulfilled, andnoften it reveals itself slowly, but othernhumans are not strict images—unlessnwe refuse to allow them to grow.nAn interesting theme in the Postmannbook is the idea that formal education,nto some extent, must maintain andegree of tension in its relationship withnthe popular values of society. Educationnshould not simply prepare its studentsnto be mirror images of the norms ofnthe surrounding society. Instead, itnshould try to identify deficiencies innthe society, and conduct itself so thatnits students, when they mature, are notncrippled by these deficiencies or canneven (in adulthood) help to try to correctnthem. In a way, this theme is consistentnwith Teaching as a SubversivenActivity. Ten years ago, Postmannthought poorly of conventional society.nHe thus wrote a book recommendingnthat schools and teachers act as subverters.nNow he believes society is toonenmeshed in pursuing immediate gratification.nAs a result, he recommendsnthat schools act to support traditionalnvalues (through measures such as requiringnrigorous homework and bynmaintaining dress codes). Some of hisnSOinChronicles of Culturenrecommendations make sense, but…nThe difficulty is that Postman hasnnot lived and learned enough. The intemperate,nall-or-nothing approachnwhich pervaded Teaching as a SubversivenActivity still persists. Only thisntime Postman has found a new superordinatenvillain—not traditionalism,nbut television. And, just as in his earliernwork, there is some merit to his suspicions,nbut his conclusions are severelynoverdrawn. This overdrawing gravelynundermines his diagnosis and proposedntreatment. It is notoriously true thatnmodern children spend a great deal ofntime watching television, and that muchnof the programming is at best trivial,nand at worst destructive. Still, it is simplisticnto attribute all—or most—of thendeficiencies identified in the conduct ofnour young to television. Similarly, it isnunsound to almost totally relate prescriptionsnfor improving schools to thenneed to correct the harmful effects ofntelevision.nTelevision is not the only importantnchange that has occurred in our youths’nenvironment during our lives. It is simplynthe one that is most evident tonuninformed people without much perspective.nThere is a great variety ofnother changes which many social scientistsnhave concluded are extremelyndeleterious. Divorce has increased; thenproportion of families living in suburbannand urban areas has increased (whilenthe rural proportion has declined); realnfamily income has increased; school sizenhas increased; the level of bureaucracynin schools and colleges has increased;nBooks in the Mailnthie amount of time young people spendnenrolled in school and college has increased;nthe fragmentation of schoolnprograms and student groupings innschools has increased; the number ofnchildren in individual families has declined,nand their age grouping has becomenmore clustered; the variety andnnumber of household chores allocatednto children has declined; the quality ofnpaid work available for young peoplenhas deteriorated; and the quality ofnschool discipline codes and gradingnstandards have declined.nMost of these changes are not as immediatelynevident as some kids watchingntelevision. They can only be identifiednthrough reflection, adopting a longrangenperspective, and reading somentedious studies. Estimating the cumulativenharmful effects of these changes,nand their relative importance to eachnother, is a topic for an ongoing debate.nBut most persons concerned with suchnissues would conclude—as I do—thatnthe harmful effect of these changes onnour young is far greater than the wrongsnwrought by television. And, if one’snthinking tends to such a direction, itnis evident that the medley of educationrelatednremedies needed are far morencomplex than simple worries about hownto cure televisionitis.nIn sum, let us rejoice. A prodigal sonnis trying to return. Let us also hope hencan come along further, and finally ridnhimself of his temptation to pursue thenfacile, whether it’s done in defense ofneither good or bad causes. DnDialogues on American Politics by Irving Louis Horowitz and Seymour Martin Lipset;nOxford University Press; New York. Scholarly reflections on the state of America in thenlate 1970’s.nParadoxes of Education in a Republic by Eva T. H. Brann; University of ChicagonPress; Chicago. An inquiry into the root dilemmas of American education.nDorothy L. Sayers: A Literary Biography by Ralph E. Hone; Kent State UniversitynPress; Kent, Ohio. A look at the work of Dorothy L. Sayers and the life which inspired it.nAs Her Whimsey Took Her: Critical Essays on the Work of Dorothy L. Sayers editednby Margaret P. Hanney; Kent State University Press; Kent, Ohio. A collection of literaryncriticism covering the varied writings of Dorothy L. Sayers.nnn