Does Gilman fulfill their obligation of providing the necessary education to future citizens in a republic?

The burden of being a citizen in a republic requires the ability to self-govern. If a school succeeds in this duty, its students will gain the ability to cultivate discussion, engage in meaningful discourse, and ultimately cause change. The pressing question is: does Gilman supply the necessary education to fulfill this obligation?

America is a republic, meaning the cardinal power is held by the people. US citizens elect officials and make decisions that determine the future of our nation. A vital part of any republic is a good education system. Education in a republic carries a unique burden—to prepare its pupils for self-governance, critical thought, and civic duty. In a republic, the success of the nation relies upon its citizens possessing the ability to think freely and understand how to successfully contribute to the success of said government. A liberal education, according to Leo Strauss, “consists in the constant intercourse with the greatest minds, [...] a training in the highest form of modesty, not to say of humility. It is at the same time a training in boldness.” The philosopher claims that to fulfill the goal of a proper liberal education, students must engage in the thoughts and essays of the Great minds of present and past generations. The foundation of a liberal education is not simply a chain of knowledge, but also a training of the ability to think, be independent, and utilize rigorous reason.

In Gilman’s mission statement, the school claims to deliver education in “mind, body, and spirit through particular emphasis upon academic excellence, athletic participation, and aesthetic appreciation. Gilman seeks to produce men of character and integrity who have the skills and ability to make a positive contribution to the communities in which they live and work.” This charge can be categorized as a liberal education. The promises of the Gilman education must be evaluated against that mission.

In a Gilman News poll, 57.7% of 50 randomly-selected students polled said that in discussions about politics or the humanities, they feel led to a conclusion rather than given the chance to reach one on their own. Further, 57.7% of from that same sample claimed that they feel that suggesting an opposing view on a subjective and controversial topic would result in dismissal by teachers and administrative members. And finally, almost 50% claimed that they believe Gilman fosters a culture of conformity rather than independent thought.

When a significant cross-section of Gilman students say they are barred from independently thinking, and are unable to provide counterarguments to subjective topics, they are not being sufficiently supplied with the necessary education to thrive in a republic, and Gilman has failed in its mission.

The previously-mentioned philosopher warns against the “noise, the rush, the thoughtlessness” of intellectual cheapness, of simply falling to the pressure of the political conformity hammer. The exact thing the philosopher warns against is clearly present at Gilman: from our sample, a significant amount of students claim that they believe Gilman fosters conformity. A liberal education should force students to wrestle with ideas rather than attempt to comply with the ideas of a teacher and a society. A free society requires the ability to argue, persuade, and form one's beliefs.

A true liberal education requires boldness—not just in questioning authority but in defending the truth in the face of opposition. If Gilman students lack the ability to stand firm in opposition, their education has not prepared them for the self-governance and independence required in a republic; it has solely taught them to conform to the thoughts of people in power.