Educators should not strive for objectivity.

First of all, i want to distance myself from your reiteration for 2 reasons: Point one is that i do not belong to the description you just gave, nor do i believe that most people who believe in striving for objectivity do. Second and very important: the debate isn't about what some people might be thinking according to you on the subject. The debate is all about striving for objectivity in education or not, not about a specifically group described by you and their motivation. Wanted to make this very clear, because i'm here to defend the idea of striving for objectivity in education, not to defend possible other peoples' view on the matter and because i've already clearly stated that there is place for personal opinion. So let us leave that group you seem to encounter often out, since they aren't the subject and they aren't part of my defense. ;) Now to the main debate: I'm aware that it is impossible to contribute attention to all the point of views in many debates. But is that much of a problem? If the main views can be handled, that is already quite something. Yes, this throws up the issue of how to decide what the main views are. But except for a few topics, the main positions are not that hard to distinguish. So where does striving to objectivity leads to in this case? It will result in the pupils being educated on multiple positions on the subject and what the main motivations are for people to take any of these positions. Will all positions be handled? No. Will they all get all their facts on the table? No. Will we be sure that the attribution of attention to each one will be perfect? No. BUT: It will guarantee that at least multiple views are known, which stimulates contemplating about the subject, seeing that there are multiple ways to see it. It will guarantee that major supporting arguments are known. These arguments can again be contemplated about and they can lead to developing an own vision. It will guarantee that pupils get at least a rough picture of the whole. And finally, it will also guarantee that they got the major facts (you don't educate by beginning with minor details) that can be used as fundamentals to start of reasoning on their own. Does allowing subjectivity improve any of these? I can't see how. It allows teachers to claim own views as facts, it allows them to focus on only one view. Those won't stimulate the forming of a critic mind for a pupil. For that, you need to be able to point them to existing debates. and i certainly don't see where this will reduce bias. Now about bias occurring at people striving for objectivity. Sure, everyone has some opinion and expecting people to exclude that 100% isn't very realistic. But again, how far will this reach? It certainly won't lead to a monolith view being dictated, if objectivity is the goal, you can't circumvent the fact that there are people thinking different. Of course, it will probably lead to some extra attention for the self-supported view, but this is no dramatic ruining of it all, due to the set goal, the other views are still assured of attention, where that wasn't the case in subjectivity as a goal. Also, selecting the importance of facts. Let me make a personal example (even though i'm aware that is no proof): I'm convinced of the Monetarist views, but i do darn well know what the main points of Keynesians are. How come? Because every interest group logically will proclaim its most important points the hardest. To get a good lead of what the major claims and arguments are of a certain group, it is sufficient just to see what they stress themselves the most. Even if bias kicks in here again, people certainly can't ignore all the major points made by that group. In one go, this also is what i'd have to say on not mentioning that you believe this or that fact is important: it is not that hard to get a fairly (not perfect) view of which ones are the ones that matter the most. But furthermore, there is no harm at all when the educator does bring up a fact that doesn't belong to the core arguments, they'll have learned something more trivial than otherwise, but there is no harm in that, is there? Now, i believe i did get to understand well what you meant. I may have had a slightly different interpretation of bias, but with your second round, i believe i can get it tuned to yours. Now, if you argue for teachers bringing forth their own point of view, then we'll have a few major issues: First, it doesn't guarantee, nor stimulates the education on several parties of the subject. With a monolith view presented, there is not that much of arguments given to start from in building up an alternate view. Second, there is no way by which the subjectivity system will stimulate that challenge towards students to argue, to make critics out of them. Why? Because, they never get presented existing debates. Because it is hard to start on an alternate view out of nothing, some subjects really aren't that straightforward. Because many students prefer to get something they can learn by hard, to pass (i'm not saying this is good, but it will result in focusing on the presented view, since it is the only matter given), if they get presented different views, the hardcore study freaks will at least have learned different views (by hard, but still, they'll be aware of them). If they get into the situation where the challenge arises even for them afterwards, they have some poles in the ground to build on. The breakfast metaphor then. Indeed, you can make breakfast in almost infinitely different ways. But let me add 2 specific ways: - Orange juice + cereals. - Chocolate milk + bread with salami in between. Now, a third option could be: orange juice + bread with salami in between. what do i want to make clear with this? There are indeed many, many, MANY ways to make breakfast, but most of these would be based on some parts that do often return or on the mix of different parts from well-known combinations. In the same way, if you give a few different views (as mentioned: as good as possible: the major ones) and they already have quite some 'building brics' to get started with. The daring ones will also try to leave one out and take in some totally new one. As long as a decent basis is provided, huge possibilities are already 'unlocked'. You don't inspire people to think different by giving your own view, because it is yours, eventually adding that there are many others. Actually showing them 'clashes' between some opinions points that out and immediately gives some views to start from for debating. You call not perfectly obtaining objectivity a total failure. But on what account? It's not because something isn't totally perfect, that it is totally imperfect. Striving to the goal of objectivity will never succeed in perfection, but we'll always get a bit closer and hence we'll always get a bit closer to that perfection. There will be some diversions from it, but with the goal set, there is not that much room for diversions from it. However, if you leave it open totally, there is no way you create an incentive for objectivity and non-bias. Indeed, those are not your goals at all, but it will neither give fundamentals to build upon towards your goal of challenging the mind. As closing words, i simply want to repeat myself more or less from round one: Objectivity gives room to own input, it gives room for debate. But i want to add: it also helps in guaranteeing that at least some fundamentals are handed over to pupils to build with on their own defense on the matter. It guarantees that they get pointed at the reality of debate, differences between people. So if makes them aware of the need to think it all through. The perfect goal won't be reached, humans are bound to be imperfect, but it will keep us close to the road we are trying to