<HTML>
This thread seems to have a lot in common with "Educational strategies for
different children", which is quite appropriate, since from the original
question and subsequent postings I'd say we're talking about some *very*
different children.
There are the ones whose critical faculties have atrophied on a diet of
Artscroll Youth Series books. We had a kid over for a shabbos meal
recently who told us that if he didn't get the okay from a gadol b'Torah he
wouldn't know that two plus two equals four (I hear his proud parents are
having his brain bronzed as a memento of his early childhood).
Who exactly is Aharon Frazer suggesting teach these kids critical thinking?
The same people who've gone out of their way to extirpate it? Do you
think if we just point this out to them they'll say "Golly, you're right -
What could we have been thinking?"
Then we have the kids who know, if cornered, to say that the Avos were
tzaddikim, but who also suspect that they were really primitives who kept
slaves, subjugated women, and were willing to kill over an inheritance.
Not at all like us, and certainly not anyone to pattern oneself on.
Is Frazer suggesting that these kids need to nurture their ability to
question what they're taught? Would that they cared enough about it to
bother questioning it.
There are kids that we do have some prospect of influencing, and regarding
them I say: Treat them with respect for their intelligence and integrity,
and the little monsters will likely reciprocate. I know, I know, it sounds
like fortune-cookie advice, but not everything has to involve a twelve-step
program, source books and trigger films. Just take serious questions
seriously, answer them when you can, and when you have to say "you'll
understand that later" they're likely to accept it (even though it's
probably a lie).
Taking serious questions seriously should do for encouraging critical
thinking - I don't believe a class ever went through Beraishis without
asking most of the problematic questions about the Avos; it's just that
the teacher usually papers them over in one way or another.
Oh, and lest someone read the above carelessly, let me specify that I
limit the show of respect to "intelligence and integrity", not opinions; I
think it should be clear to everyone involved that the teacher knows what's
right (at least relative to the kids).
As for keeping pshat and drash separate, I'm all for it, but remember that
pshat doesn't mean "the Avos with their hair down." And drash can just as
well be a close literary reading of the text - based on chazal's intimate
knowledge of the language and encyclopedic knowledge of the corpus - as a
homiletic pegged as an afterthought to a particular verse.
But that's another discussion. Don't get me started.
Michael</HTML>
