Objective Instruction
Yes, nuclear education is a good idea, one that should have been instituted years ago. Yet a real danger exists that this emotional subject will not be taught objectively. Some teachers whom I have met have preconceived ideas that would preclude their capability to instruct objectively about nuclear power, much less nuclear war.
Take, for example, the case of a Vietnamese youth whom I was tutoring in English. He had been instructed to write a paper for one of San Diego’s community colleges on any subject that was of interest to him. He chose nuclear energy. His paper had to present the pros and cons of his subject, and he protested to me that he could only find anti-nuclear information in the school’s library. To alleviate this problem, I loaned him my personal file on nuclear power.
He showed me the draft of his paper, and I thought that it was excellently done. But to lend more authenticity to his work, I had him meet a friend of mine who had worked with the nuclear reactor on a Navy aircraft carrier based here in San Diego. My Vietnamese student came, armed with a tape recorder and with questions for my nuclear expert friend. With this interview incorporated into his paper, my Vietnamese student handed it into his English teacher. She rejected it. I believe that she rejected it because, while the paper was outstanding, its conclusion was not to her liking--that nuclear power is safe if handled correctly.
While some people are deathly afraid of nuclear power, especially since the accident at Chernobyl, everyone will admit that this is nothing but a pin-prick when compared to what would occur should a nuclear war be fought. The evidence is overwhelming that such a war would leave the world devastated if not inert. Consequently, it is unrealistic that the Soviet Union or the United States would engage in such insanity. So, why then do we continue to build these weapons at great cost to both the United States and the Soviet Union? Some students are bound to ask this question, and the instructors must be able to answer it with authority.
When the question is asked, the teacher leaves the field of nuclear war and enters the field of international politics. This is indeed thin ice to walk upon. Will he or she explain the necessity that we maintain a strong nuclear capability in order to deter Soviet expansionism? Will he or she explain that unilateral disarmament on the part of the United States would open us up to nuclear blackmail and eventually surrender?
I would expect that the teachers would take the American side, but I cannot be sure that they will. Therefore, it is essential that the curriculum, teaching objectives and lesson plans, be closely scrutinized by the school board and that actual classroom instruction be closely monitored.
Once implemented, only time will tell if the desired results of nuclear education can be achieved. So let’s try it, but with close supervision.
EDWIN O. LEARNARD
San Diego
