Educators should not strive for objectivity.

To recapitulate your reasoning very briefly: 1) Obtaining perfect objectivity is impossible. 2) Striving for it will result in hard-to-detect bias. So from (1) and (2) comes the result: we should not make objectivity a goal. I'll get back to this later, but first i want to touch a fundamental issue: "How can one act in an objective manner, how close can we get to objectivity"? But before i touch that final point, there is need to touch the fundamental issue of how one can act in an objective manner and how close we can get to that perfect objectivity: Your claim is that it involves giving all the facts. That would indeed be objective, but you're wrong when assuming it is the only way. There are many ways to act in an objective manner, so most accurate way to define objectivity is: "the inverse of subjectivity." This leaves open the question: "what is subjectivity?" Subjectivity is not just giving an opinion. One can say: "Seems to me that striving for objectivity in education is a good/bad thing." That is not subjective, that opinion may be, but that doesn't mean the quote is, that one is very objective if it is true that that is his/her opinion. For the people who just got lost in my reasoning: it would have been subjective for someone to say: "It is (not) better to strive for objectivity in education" Where is the difference? The second time, it is stated as a fact that it is better/worse. So, to get to the conclusion of what subjectivity is: Claiming facts and truths, based on personal points of view. Now, to get back to your argument. I hope that it is clear after this that objectivity isn't a far far away goal. However, i do agree that you can't get perfect objectivity, people remain people and there will always be some lenience to own vision. But getting close to it is still possible: ï¿½ Instead of giving all the facts, one can keep himself to the facts stressed by one group, the stressed facts from the second group and so on. (for example: in economics, you get to see Keynes, Neo-Classics (and monetarists), not into detail, but you get their main arguments. This gives a fairly balanced, rough overview of the total picture. ï¿½ It doesn't restrict one to facts, he/she can perfectly give his/her personal vision, as long as he doesn't state it as a truth. If he also gives visions held by the opposition, it is perfect. (yes, giving opinions can go along with acting objectively, as i explained in previous alinea) ï¿½ A debate between the different 'factions' also works. The debate setting makes clear that the people have a different opinion. On top of that, the 'factions' get the fairest way to get their views expressed: they may defend themselves and attack the others. Although these are different ways and they all are fine, i'd like to stress out the first one. Because it provides people with facts, who are the fundamentals upon which opinions can be build. Certainly, it won't be perfectly objective, nor complete on facts, but when honestly given, it still gets close. Put shortly: we can get rather close to objectivity and it doesn't hamper the educator's personal views, it only demands that he/she is fair enough not to claim their view as the single (correct) truth nor only gives one group's vision a stage to 'preach' on. Objectivity is a noble goal, it gives all views a fair chance to be discovered in the most open-minded way possible. Now for the second (2) point: Will it result in hard-to-detect bias? Certainly, one can not totally exclude bias by making objectivity an aim for educators, there certainly will be educators who will present their personal opinions as factual. But let's look at the alternative: not striving for the objectivity goal. Will that prevent bias? Or even reduce it? Certainly not. They can still go around dictating their opinions as facts and there is no reason why they would be any easier to detect. If the aim is objectivity and that is made official, it even gives a valuable control tool to the people being educated: As we are talking about (almost) adults, they surely have some sense for critics themselves. So biased views being presented wrongly as facts, can be detected by the audience (the pupils) and they can take action against it, since the educator doesn't follow the policy. This means that an educator who tries to press through personal views will risk being 'exposed', which can result in sanctions, so it makes them less likely to try. To conclude, i'd like to place my finger upon my observation that we probably don't really are different considering what should be possible in education and what not. Our difference is on a different aspect: i believe that striving for objectivity leaves enough space for personal points of views, something you seem to doubt. My last saying about this before i have to give back the floor is that you need the goal of objectivity for what you want: the possibility to give opinions as long as they are presented as opinions. Since the second part of the sentence is something that people only can't evade when they have to strive for objectivity, it is your only guarantee.