Wishbone: Please tell me that's a Poe's Law site, and is not meant to be taken seriously! :-/

Chihaya: Anything that counters the tactics and clout of the insane liberal/PC zealots of our times and pisses them off is good and fair. Liberals are far, far, far worse and far more obnoxious with their perversion of history and society.

Wraith: ...

Wraith: Essentially, this boils down to the age old story of politics. Republicans are the one who pushed this through, and are using this as an excuse to push their opinions on others and allow history to be told through one viewpoint.

Bodkin: Who controls the past controls the future.

Lobsang1979: In my view, the contentions around the teaching history in schools could be avoided if the teaching of Philosophy was also made a compulsory subject. As Aliasalpha pointed out, education should not be so much about the answers as it should be about the questions.
More and more arguments are arising these days over the 'dangers' of ideologies or knowledge that is not currently conducive to keeping the status quo, as if knowledge itself was a dangerous thing. Philosophy would teach pupils that differences of opinion are perfectly natural, arguments are a good thing, and the restriction of knowledge without debate will only stagnate or regress our society.
There, all that and I haven't even had my first coffee of the morning.

Aliasalpha: I think the quote is "He who controls the past commands the future, He who commands the future, conquers the past"
...

Aliasalpha: "As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
- Commissioner Pravin Lal

Lobsang1979: Why would we have to teach university level Philosophy at high school? Knowledge is a progressive thing that is gathered over the course of a lifetime. Pupils do not learn all there is to know about quantum mechanics or electromagnetic forces when they are 11 years old, but instead learn the basics of physics upon which to build an understanding of the world we live in.
I do not think that a pupil should be fluent in the philosophical schools upon graduating high school, but a grasp of philosophical debate and though processes would be just as beneficial as the ability to use correct grammar or demonstrate ability in public speaking. The current education system in the UK drives kids to be scientifically successful, because that is what is good for our economy supposedly. Yet many school-leavers I meet here are extremely immature when it comes their moral or dare I say, even, spiritual aspects. There is more to life, in my view, than converting knowledge into money or success.
I certainly agree with your premise that the more an individual knows, the greater the temptation to show arrogance with that knowledge. I was far more arrogant as a 20 year old than I am now as a 30 year old, for example. However, the idea that adults are less likely to formulate half-baked ideas than young people are makes me smile. Some of the most shockingly stupid ideologies of the modern world have been formed by well-educated, yet philosophically neutered, individuals.
By the way, when I say 'Philosophy', I do not necessarily mean the Classics or the various schools. I mean "the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language".