[S]ameness is the enemy not only of vitality but of excellence, for where there are few or no differences—in genetic structure, in language, in art—it is not possible to develop robust standards of excellence. …
[Diversity] is an argument for the growth and malleability of standards, a growth that takes place across time and space and that is given form by differences of gender, religion, and all the other categories of humanity.
Thus, the story of how language, art, politics, science, and most expressions of human activity have grown, been vitalized and enriched through the intermingling of different ideas is one way to organize learning and to provide the young with a sense of pride in being human. [Neil Postman, The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School, Vintage, 1995, pp. 79-80]
We need open, free, and adaptable people precisely because we need unique perceptions of the real, new insights into it so as to disclose more of it. … The genius of the theoreticians of democracy is that they understood this, that we must have as many different individuals as possible so as to have as varied a view of reality as possible, for only in this way can we get a rich approximation of it. … As the great Carlyle warned us, everybody has to think and see for himself, or the nations are doomed. [Ernest Becker, The Birth and Death of Meaning: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on the Problem of Man, Free Press, 1971, p. 163-164]
[N]either the whole of truth, nor the whole of good, is revealed to any single observer, although each observer gains a partial superiority of insight from the peculiar position in which he stands. … It is enough to ask of each of us that he should be faithful to his own opportunities and make the most of his own blessings, without presuming to regulate the rest of the vast field. [William James, “Talks to Students: On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings,” 1892, William James: Writings 1878-1899, Literary Classics of the United States, 1992, p. 860]
As [William] James said, each person sums up a whole range of very personal experiences so that his life is a very unique problem needing very individual kinds of solutions. Kierkegaard had said that same thing when he answered those who objected to his life style: he said it was singular because it was the one singularly designed to be what he needed to live; it is as simple and as final as that. [Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death, 1973, Free Press Paperbacks / Simon & Schuster, 1997, p. 259]
Positive freedom as the realization of the self implies the full affirmation of the uniqueness of the individual. Men are born equal but they are also born different. The basis of this difference is the inherited equipment, physiological and mental, with which they start life, to which is added the particular constellation of circumstances and experiences that they meet with. … Organic growth is possible only under the condition of supreme respect for the peculiarity of the self of other persons as well as of our own self. This respect for and cultivation of the uniqueness of the self is the most valuable achievement of human culture and it is this very achievement that is in danger today. [Erich Fromm, Escape From Freedom, 1941, Henry Holt & Co., 1994, pp. 262-263]
The development of individual variety tends to be both the cause and the effect of the progress of civilization. … [I]t is the variety of individual interests and talents that permits the growth of specialization and division of labor, on which civilized economies depend. [Murray Rothbard, Education: Free and Compulsory, 1971, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1999, p. 5]
Mankind is naturally differentiated into many types, and to press all these types into the same mold must inevitably lead to distortions and repressions. Schools should be of many kinds, following different methods and catering to different dispositions. … [D]ifferentiation is an organic process, the spontaneous and roving association of individuals for particular purposes. … The whole structure of education, as the natural process we have envisaged, falls to pieces if we attempt to make that structure rational or artificial. Like life itself, animal as well as human, education must follow a principle of organic consistency: we must feel our way to the right units, and out of the natural grouping of these units round the biological actualities and practical activities of man, free and healthy institutions will emerge. Among these we shall find institutions in which children can mature the principle of growth innate in each one of them while at the same time they are initiated into the fellowship of their familiars. [Herbert Read, Education for Peace, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1949, pp. 146-147, https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.89306]
As practiced now, test scores reflect the effectiveness of a teacher, a school, or an educational system in producing a homogenous population of students in the tested subjects. They say little about a teacher, school, or system’s capacity in fostering a diversity of talents. But research has shown that diverse talents, skills, knowledge, and perspectives are powerful assets to create better societies, groups and businesses (Page, 2007). Moreover, as technology and globalization drastically transformed our world from a mass-production industrial society into a society that is more personal, customizable, and hyperspecialized, traditional undervalued talents become highly valuable (Pink, 2005). Thus, a world-class education may be one that enhances diversity rather than reduces it. [Yong Zhao, “The Danger of Misguiding Outcomes: Lessons From Easter Island,” Counting What Counts: Reframing Education Outcomes, edited by Yong Zhao, Solution Tree, 2016, p. 5]
The advantages of unlimited development of private schools is that there will tend to be developed on the free market a different type of school for each type of demand. … The State’s imposition of uniform standards does grave violation to the diversity of human tastes and abilities. [Murray Rothbard, Education: Free and Compulsory, 1971, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1999, p. 9]
[I]t is important to realize that the very nature of the public school requires the imposition of uniformity and the stamping out of diversity and individuality in education.
For it is in the nature of any governmental bureaucracy to live by a set of rules, and to impose those rules in a uniform and heavy-handed manner. If it did not do so, and the bureaucrat were to decide individual cases ad hoc, he would then be accused, and properly so, of not treating each taxpayer and citizen in an equal and uniform manner. …
The public school bureaucrat, for his part, is faced with a host of crucial and controversial decisions in deciding on the pattern of formal schooling in his area. He must decide: Should schooling be—traditional or progressive? free enterprise or socialistic? competitive or egalitarian? liberal arts or vocational? … sex education or not? religious or secular? or various shades between these poles. The point is that whatever he decides, and even if he decides according to the wishes of the majority of the public, there will always be a substantial number of parents and children who will be totally deprived of the kind of education they desire. … The more that education becomes public, the more will heavyhanded uniformity stamp out the needs and desires of individuals and minorities. [Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, 1973, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006, pp. 154-156]
[A] community of standardized individuals without personal originality and personal aims would be a poor community without possibilities for development. [Albert Einstein, “On Education,” 1936, Ideas and Opinions, Three Rivers, 1982, p. 60]
Another merit of [the home in education] is that it preserves the diversity between individuals. … Too much difference is a barrier to social solidarity, but some difference is essential to the best form of co-operation. … Social co-operation, in like manner, requires differences of taste and aptitude, which are less likely to exist if all children are exposed to exactly the same influences than if parental differences are allowed to affect them. This is to my mind an important argument against the Platonic doctrine that children should be wholly reared by the State. [Bertrand Russell, Education and the Social Order, 1932, Routledge Classics, 2009, pp. 45-46]
Equalizing opportunity through universal higher education subjects the whole population to the intellectual mode natural only to a few. It violates the fundamental egalitarian principle of respect for the differences between people. [Caroline Bird, “College is a Waste of Time and Money,” The Case Against College, David McKay Co., 1975, https://www.scribd.com/document/46775622/Caroline-Bird-College-is-a-Waste-of-Time-and-Money]
I believe that it is an increasingly common pattern in our culture for each one of us to believe, “Every other person must feel and think and believe the same as I do.” We find it very hard to permit our children or our parents or our spouses to feel differently than we do about particular issues or problems. We cannot permit our clients or our students to differ from us or to utilize their experience in their own individual ways. On a national scale, we cannot permit another nation to think or feel differently than we do. Yet it has come to seem to me that this separateness of individuals, the right of each individual to utilize his experience in his own way and to discover his own meanings in it,—this is one of the most priceless potentialities of life. Each person is an island unto himself, in a very real sense; and he can only build bridges to other islands if he is first of all willing to be himself and permitted to be himself. So I find that when I can accept another person, which means specifically accepting the feelings and attitudes and beliefs that he has as a real and vital part of him, then I am assisting him to become a person: and there seems to me great value in this. [Carl Rogers, On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy, Houghton Mifflin, 1961, p. 21]
The purpose of [liberal education] is not to make self-destructive or social-destructive demons, but just the opposite: to help bring about necessary and continuing social changes by truly strong and responsible people. We would try to liberate maximum individuality only because we know that this is the best way to master the new and unexpected problems that arise in each generation. We free our youth because we trust that they will not repeat our fatal mistakes. [Ernest Becker, Beyond Alienation: A Philosophy of Education for the Crisis of Democracy, George Braziller, 1967, pp. 38-39]
Liberty is not simply a proposition designed to placate intellectuals who want to protect the expression of their opinions. It is, rather, the condition in which individuals—and the societies in which they live—can remain resilient, adaptive to changing conditions, and thus maintain the creative impulses necessary for their vibrancy.
The individual, with his or her uniqueness and self-directed nature, is the expression of life on this planet. As such, a condition of liberty tends to generate variation and non-uniformity, with social order arising as the unintended consequence of individuals pursuing their varied self-interests. …
But most institutions tend to be uncomfortable with liberty, for the processes of change that are implicit therein run counter to their purposes of a structured permanency. Because of their size and scope of operation, institutions deal with people on a mass, rather than individualized, basis. As our world becomes more institutionalized, standardization and uniformity become more dominant values. [Buttler Shaffer, The Wizards of Ozymandias: Reflections on the Decline & Fall, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2012, pp. 2-6]
Related:
– What constitutes a successful adolescence?
– Why do the questions of education, and a purposeful life, demand individual attention?