#1

Democracy is defined as “a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.” This, like most definitions I have read, does not dictate whether or not the choices that people make when provided with this power have to be informed. A conservative may believe wholeheartedly that global warming does not exist because that view is consistent with the platform of their political affiliation, but have no understanding of the scientific evidence presented demonstrating climate change over time. A liberal may endorse stem cell research without empathizing with those who believe that innocent “lives” are being sacrificed. The people are at liberty to become as informed as they want—a lot of this information is readily available on the internet or at the library, and can vote outside of their political affiliation if they so please. As most sources pose, however, most people do not go out of their way to educate themselves on the issues, simply sticking with one political party. It is their own decision to be ignorant and vote the way they do, so is this not a democracy?

            The idea behind a liberal education is to produce graduates who are more well-rounded and open-minded than they were before entering college. This is supposedly achieved by not only a diverse array of general requirements, including classes in art, science, math, literature, history, politics, economics, and more, but also classes that challenge students’ values and ethics. Ursinus College attempts this with the Common Intellectual Experience (CIE), in which all of the first-year students are randomly placed into sections of a discussion-based course in which students read various philosophical texts. The fundamental views of the students vary widely, especially in the way of religion and morality. The aim is not necessarily to change students’ views, but at least to entice them to question what they’ve believed for their entire lives and confirm those beliefs with more assurance. The majors of students vary as well. Students majoring in biology or environmental science most likely understand today’s scientific controversies and possess an educated opinion, but probably do not have as strong of a grasp on the actual politics. For other students, it may be the reverse. By intermingling, hopefully students of different backgrounds and interests are able to educate each other to result in everyone having at least a basic understanding of all of the prominent disciplines today.

            When looking at the strict definition of democracy, it does not seem as though a liberal education is necessary. A liberal education may lead to people knowing what they’re talking about and voting for more often, but it is apparent that people can be ignorant and still have strong beliefs on any issue. People are able to elect the officials who will represent them the way they want either way. However, if a ‘strengthened’ democracy implies that people not only strongly believe in something but also thoroughly understand it, then maybe a liberal education would do so.

            One problem with a liberal education—when looking at it pragmatically—is that most students are lazy. Art students will enroll in “rocks for jocks” to fulfill their science requirement. Science students will take “photography 101” to fill their art requirement. Most students at liberal schools are still focused on their major and will choose to neglect exploring the other fields in any sort of depth. So perhaps a stricter form of ‘liberal education’ is necessary, in which students are forced to challenge themselves outside of their primary focus, but when a level of curriculum rigor is forced upon students through what classes they enroll in, is the education still ‘liberal’?