Paul R. Klohr A Hermeneutic Portrait Originally Published by The Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, Sprint, 2001. Reproduced here by permission. Copyright 2001, Robert V. Bullough, Jr.
By Robert V. Bullough, Jr. Brigham Young University Chairman, Graduate School, University of Utah
The purpose of Hermeneutic Portraits is to present a narrative that "explores historical and contemporary curriculum theory and practice." Further, they recognize "the importance of examining individual lives within their historical and cultural contexts." They are "reminiscences." In what follows I reminisce, but I also want to make a point. I reminisce about Paul Klohr (photo at left), my mentor at Ohio State, who is properly recognized as the father or perhaps some might argue the grandfather, of the reconceptualist movement in curriculum studies. The point I want to make, a point that comes from thinking carefully about what it was about Paul that drew me to him, has to do with the nature of the education professoriate and the privilege of professing. The path to the point is a circuitous one: twisted turnings across time. I arrived in Columbus, Ohio in the fall of 1973 to begin graduate study within the College of Education, Academic Faculty of Curriculum and Foundations. I enrolled at OSU at the urging of one of the professors with whom I had studied for my master's degree, a former student of Harold Alberty and former OSU professor. I trusted him. Soon I discovered that although many faculty faces remained the same the Ohio State my professor remembered was no more. Over one of the doors into Ramseyer Hall, the former University School Building, are Tennyson's words, "The Old Order Changeth." And it had. Shortly after beginning my course work I began to
A simple interpretation of the events surrounding closure would be that Klohr and his colleagues who supported keeping University School open misunderstood the nature of higher education politics, that they were out of step with the times, even non-progressive. There is another view that I believe is more accurate. Since the early 1970s it has been common place to argue that curriculum work is inherently political and that all curriculum decisions involve conflicts in values. The question is "How does one go about resolving conflict while achieving a practical intent: the formation of potentially educative spaces?" This question has both philosophical and practical implications. Put differently, the challenge is to generate principles that are adequate for guiding action, which inspire non-compelled assent and cultivate virtue. Philosopher Robert Kane is helpful when he argues that while we can never know if what we are seeking is objectively true, we can, in our aspiration for meaning, engage in quests for truth that are open to every value and respectful in the highest degree possible of every person and value, to the extent that they support an enlivening moral sphere. The later principle derives from the Kantian imperative to always treat others as ends, never as means. If openness is fully honest and respect is active and sincere, agreement will often follow if interaction takes place within a secure moral space, a place of goodwill. Outside of the moral sphere, respect will necessarily be limited, but not within it. In the battle over the closure of the University School, the moral sphere broke down, yet Klohr opted to maintain commitment to the principles of openness and respect. To do otherwise would have been to do violence to