Reflections on Murray, Lapsley, and Educating for Character in the 21st Century Free

In 2011, University of Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith and his research team published Lost in Transition: The Dark Side of Emerging Adulthood (Smith, Christoffersen, Davidson, & Herzog, 2011). This book reported the results of their study, conducted in summer 2008, of a nationally representative sample of two hundred thirty 18-to 23-year olds, drawn from every region, social class, and educational background in the United States. Each subject was interviewed for three hours. Smith et al. (2011) preface their own findings by acknowledging some recent positive trends in youth character: teen pregnancies and abortions have declined since the early

1990s, the percentage of young persons starting and finishing college has increased, and youth as a whole are less prejudiced against people of other races and ethnicities than earlier generations.

Smith et al.’s (2011) findings, however, present a darker picture. The authors begin by describing six “macrosocial changes” they believe have combined to make the transition to adulthood more protracted, complex, and dangerous: (1) the extension of formal schooling into the twenties and the consequent postponement of entry into careers, (2) the delay of marriage, (3) a changing national and global economy that has replaced the prospect of stable careers with frequent job changes, a need for ongoing training, and a heightened sense of insecurity, all contributing to a general disposition in young adults to maximize options and postpone commitments, (4) the willingness and ability of many parents to support their children well into their twenties and even thirties, thus enabling them to take a long time to settle down into full adulthood, (5) readily available birth control technologies that have fostered uncommitted sexual relationships, and (6) postmodernism, a philosophy that has promoted subjectivism (there is no objective truth) and moral relativism (what’s moral depends on your point of view), both of which now thoroughly permeate the educational ethos, mass media, and youth and adult culture.

Here are some of the indicators of the young adult character emerging from this transformed cultural landscape: 60% of the 230 interviewees in Smith et al.’s (2011) national sample are “moral individualists” who believe that every individual must be free to act on his or her personal values, and must be tolerant and “not judge” others. If fully 60% of Smith’s cross-section of American young adults refuse to pass judgment on the rightness or wrongness of actions by others, then it appears that the wishy-washy “nonjudgmentalism” that Murray (this issue) sees as a weakness in the “new upper class” characterizes not just that social elite but a majority of today’s emergent adults. Most are not willing to assert a moral standard that they would hold all people accountable to.

When asked “What would living the good life look like to you?,” 54% of Smith et al.’s (2011) subjects said they would be happier if they could buy more things. Nearly half (47%) admitted to binge drinking sometime during the 2 weeks prior to the interview (Smith et al., 2011).

In a chapter describing the “shadow side” of the sexual revolution, Smith et al. (2011) report that the typical never-married, 18-to 23-year-old has had three oral sex partners and three sexual intercourse partners. Nearly 6 in 10 express at least some regrets about their sexual experiences. One interviewee commented: “Obviously sex is no longer sacred, and people are just giving it away. Men get what they want with women, which generally speaking is physical fulfillment, and women think they’re gonna get what they want, which is commitment. And people just go from one person to the next” (Smith et al., 2011, p. 180).

In a chapter on civic engagement, Smith et al. (2011) report that 69% of respondents are apolitical, having either no knowledge of or interest in politics or public affairs. Most contribute neither time nor money to charitable causes or community service. Interviewees were characterized by “nearly total submersion of self into private networks of technologically managed intimates and associates” (Smith et al., 2011, p. 223). Some even sent text messages between interview questions.

For more than 40 years, UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute has surveyed entering freshman at hundreds of 4-year public and private colleges and universities and published each year’s results in a report called The American Freshman (Pryor, Hurtado, DeAngelo, Palucki Blake, & Tran, 2010). Because the American Freshman survey asks these young adults questions about life goals and various social-moral issues, it provides a barometer of national values. And unlike Smith et al.’s (2011) profile of 230 young Americans interviewed in 2008, Pryor et al.’s (2010) data provide a picture of trends over a 40-year period. On UCLA’s survey, only about a third (36%) of all freshmen in 1970 said that it was “essential or very important” for them to “become very well off financially.” But 4 decades later, in 2010, that percentage had climbed to more than three quarters of all freshmen (77%) (Pryor et al., 2010).

In 1970, more than three quarters (79%) of college freshmen said that “developing a meaningful philosophy of life” was essential or very important. By 2010, however, that figure had plummeted to less than half of entering freshmen (47%) (Pryor et al., 2010). In 1970, nearly 6 in 10 (57%) college freshmen said it was essential or very important to “keep up to date with political affairs.” But by 2010, only one third (33%) said that this was important to them (Pryor et al., 2010). These three UCLA-documented 40-year trends among college freshmen—rising materialism, less concern about developing a philosophy of life, and declining interest in public affairs—align strongly with Smith et al.’s (2011) portrait of 18-23-year-olds.

In brief concluding observations on “what is to be done,” Smith et al. (2011) state that they do not think anyone can do much anytime soon to intentionally change the macrosocial forces—such as individualism, capitalism-driven consumerism, and media-driven popular culture—influencing today’s emerging adults. They argue, however, that “middle-level institutions,” such as schools and colleges, can do a much better job than they currently do of developing moral reasoning and promoting healthy, respectful, and responsible lifestyles. They urge adult friends and relatives of youth to help mentor young persons’ transition to mature adulthood. Faith communities can do more to maintain ties to young adults. In the spirit of Murray (this issue), Smith et al. (2011) exhort us to do more to get young adults civically engaged. But most of all, they urge us to work at “the micro-level of social life,” in particular encouraging families to spend less time watching TV and more time eating together, talking with each other, and volunteering in their communities.

In the century ahead, helping families strengthen family life is one concrete way character education can help reverse some of the negative trends evident from Smith et al.’s (2011) research and the UCLA data. At SUNY Cortland’s Center for the 4th and 5th Rs, we’ve tried to give parents tools they can use to increase meaningful communication (“What was the best part of your day?” “What’s a way you helped someone today, or that someone helped you?”, “What are you thankful for today?,” etc.), build close relationships, and solve problems (e.g., through family meetings) in a way that gives children authentic voice and shared responsibility for family life. See, for example, the Winter/Spring 2013 issue of our Excellence & Ethics education letter, available on our home page at http://www.cortland.edu/character.

A large and growing body of research makes increasingly clear why the weakening of a marriage culture, especially in blue-collar America as documented by Murray (this issue), carries a high social cost. In 2011, a team of 18 distinguished scholars associated with the University of Virginia’s National Marriage Project issued a 47-page report, Why Marriage Matters: Thirty Conclusions from the Social Sciences (Wilcox, 2011). This report stated that whereas the rising American divorce rate following “the divorce revolution” of the 1970s had for 2 decades been the greatest threat to the quality and stability of children’s family lives, today the rapid rise in cohabiting households represents an even greater threat (Wilcox, 2011). Cohabitation has increased fourteenfold since 1970. One quarter of the nation’s children are now born to cohabiting couples, and another 20% of children spend time in a cohabiting household with an unrelated adult at some point later in their childhood, often after their parents’ marriage breaks up (Wilcox, 2011).

The 2011 edition of Why Marriage Matters highlights five new themes that have emerged since the 2005 edition; all center on the damaging effects of cohabitation:

1. Children in cohabiting households do significantly worse on many educational and psychological outcomes than children in intact, married families, and as poorly as children in single-parent families. Children in cohabiting households are also much more likely to be physically, sexually, and emotionally abused than children in married families and single-parent families.

2. American family life is becoming increasingly unstable for children. Cohabiting couples who have a child together are more than twice as likely to break up before their child turns twelve, compared to married couples.

3. Family instability is generally bad for children. Transitions into and out of marriage, cohabitation, and single parent-hood—especially multiple transitions— are accompanied by higher rates of negative outcomes such as school failure, behavioral problems, drug use, and loneliness.

4. American adults and children are now more likely to live in “complex households,” where parents have children with more than one romantic partner. Children who come from these relationships are more likely to have poor relationships with their parents, experience health and behavior problems, and fail in school.

5. The nation’s retreat from marriage has hit poor and working-class communities with particular force. Since the early 1980s, children from college-educated homes have seen their family lives stabilize, whereas children from less-educated homes have seen their family lives become increasingly unstable. The United States is devolving into a separate and unequal society.

Why Marriage Matters presents three “fundamental conclusions” based on its latest analysis of the research literature: (1) The intact, biological, married family remains the gold standard for family life in the United States. Children are most likely to thrive—economically, socially, and psychologically—in this family structure, (2) Marriage is an important public good, associated with a wide range of economic, health, educational, and safety benefits that help local, state, and federal governments meet the needs of those they serve, and (3) The benefits of marriage extend to poor, working-class, and minority communities, despite the fact that marriage has weakened in these communities in the last 4 decades.

What can character education in the 21st century do to help rebuild a marriage culture? For starters, it can expose high school and college students to the 30 conclusions of Why Marriage Matters. They may be directed to the website of the National Marriage Project (http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/), where they will find research-based suggestions such as: “(1) Consider making marriage a top goal for your life. Married people are healthier, wealthier, and happier. (2) Wait to have a child until after you are married and at least 20 years old. The children of unwed parents face greater risks of depression, drug abuse, dropping out of school, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, being poor, and committing suicide. (3) Think twice before you decide to live with someone outside of marriage. Living together before marriage is linked to a less satisfying marriage and a higher chance of divorce.”

Schools can also offer courses on marriage, as growing numbers of high schools now do. In Devine, Deuk, & Wilson’s (2000) book Cultivating Heart and Character, educators June Saunders and John Williams observe that,

One evaluation study cited by these authors found that students completing a marriage course were subsequently more likely to reason out arguments than resort to aggressive behavior.

Pryor et al.’s (2010)American Freshman project finds that over 40 years, “raising a family” has remained an “essential” or “very important” life goal for three quarters of college freshmen. What could be more important to the health of any society than to provide its youth, in addition to marriage education, with training in being a caring and competent parent, generally recognized to be the hardest job in the world? If character education wants to improve the quality of family life and parenting in the 21st century, it should utilize and promote programs such as The Parenting Project (http://www.parentingproject.org), which serves as a clearinghouse for instructional materials and works to get preparation for parenthood into the schools. Harvard professor Alvin Poussaint has argued that parenting education should be a required course (Comer & Poussaint, 1992).

For much of human history, sexual self-control has been considered a mark of good character. The sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, however, dramatically changed the sexual culture in which young people form their sexual conscience. It advanced the idea that people should be free to have sex without marriage, commitment, or even love. Prior to the sexual revolution, as studies of American sexual attitudes and behavior have noted, most adolescents entered adulthood (age 18) as virgins, most adults did not cohabit before marriage, and the public supported the norm that sex should be reserved for people who were married. Today, most teens enter adulthood sexually experienced (the mean age for both first oral sex and first intercourse is now 16, with many youth engaging in these behaviors at younger ages); most adults now cohabit before marriage; and the majority of the public no longer agree that sex should be saved for marriage (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994; Wilcox, 2008).

One of the consequences of increased unmarried sexual activity has been a sharp increase in nonmarital pregnancies and births. As reported in the ChildTrends Data Bank (2012), over a 40-year period the percentage of all U.S. births outside of marriage increased almost eightfold (from 5.5% in 1960 to 40.8% in 2010). By 2010, 73% of Black babies were born outside marriage. So were 53% of Hispanic children, 29% of White children, and 17% of Asian and Pacific Islander children (ChildTrends Data Bank, 2012). In Coming Apart: The State of White America, Charles Murray (2012) focused on declining marriage and rising nonmarital childbearing among working-class Whites, but as the above data show, these trends cut across racial and ethnic groups. So do their negative consequences for unmarried mothers, their children, and society as a whole, as shown by the above-cited findings from Why Marriage Matters (Wilcox, 2011).

Though teenage sex, pregnancy, and birth rates have come down since the early 1990s, current surveys find that 3 of 10 teenage girls get pregnant at least once. About 30% get abortions. One in four has a sexually transmitted disease. Teen sex is associated with lower self-esteem and higher rates of depression. Sexually active high school girls are almost five times more likely to be victims of dating violence than girls who are not sexually active. Teenage girls and boys who abstain from sexual activity are less likely to become involved in substance abuse and crime, have higher educational goals, and are less likely to drop out of school (Wilcox, 2008).

The emotional consequences of premature sexual activity are illustrated by a New York Times report, “The Face of Teenage Sex Grows Younger” (Jarrell, 2000). The article quoted a psychologist who said she sees more and more preteens who are dating as early as fifth grade, becoming sexually active by seventh grade, and “feeling awful” about having had sex too soon. A psychiatrist commented, “I see girls, seventh-and eighth-graders and even sixth-graders, who have had oral sex 50 or 60 times” (Jarrell, 2000, p. 8).

Given the high personal and societal costs of youth sex, there is clearly a strong ethical case for reserving the ultimate human intimacy, with its capacity to create a new life, for adults who have a binding commitment (historically known as marriage). However, two fundamentally different sex education approaches compete for the allegiance of educators and the public. “Comprehensive sex education” teaches that abstaining from sexual intercourse is the only 100% effective method of avoiding pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, but is morally neutral about premarital sex itself and teaches students how to “responsibly” use contraception to “reduce the risk” of pregnancy and disease if they do have sex. By contrast, “abstinence education” promotes risk avoidance rather than risk reduction and encourages youth to avoid all sexual activity outside of marriage. Abstinence educators maintain that being responsible means not risking the harms to self or others involved in premarital sexual activity, and that students should be taught that condoms do not make sex physically safe (pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections can still occur) or emotionally safe (there is no condom for the heart).

Because abstinence education encourages students to make sexual choices that are objectively in their best interest and the best interest of children they might bring into the world, it is arguably the approach most aligned with character education—and therefore one we should support in the century ahead if we wish to ameliorate the cultural trends now putting our children and society at great risk.

Wilcox’s (2008) “A Scientific Review of Abstinence and Abstinence Programs” identifies nine credible peer-reviewed articles on particular abstinence education programs that have proved effective in reducing teen sexual activity. See my article “Educating for Character in the Sexual Domain” (Lickona, 2013) for further detail on such programs and additional research references supporting the above discussion of sexual behavior. Finally, see Smart & Good High Schools (Lickona & Davidson, 2005) for a vision of holistic character education aimed at developing eight strengths of character—including being “a self-disciplined person who pursues a healthy lifestyle” (including sexual self-control)—that we think will help young people lead productive, ethical, and fulfilling lives.

Clearly, our country’s social and moral problems have been many years in the making and will not be easily reversed. They will require solutions supported at all levels, from local communities to the federal government. It is not yet clear whether we have the national will to do what is needed to build a healthy culture that serves the best interests of children and the common good. But education of the next generation is the way society renews itself. And educating for character is our best hope for doing that.