Update: In addition to my comments below, I strongly recommend the argument made here for anyone interested in this stuff.
Here is a bit more of it:
As a way to challenge such a [liberal] view of freedom, I start my classes by telling my students that I do not teach in a manner that is meant to help them make up their own minds. Instead, I tell them that I do not believe they have minds worth making up until they have been trained by me. I realize such a statement is deeply offensive to students since it exhibits a complete lack of pedagogic sensitivities. Yet I cannot imagine any teacher who is serious who would allow students to make up their own minds.He is obviously being deliberately provocative here and I like that.
Do I agree? Well, I'd need more context and elaboration to say for sure but there is something right about it. Which is to say, there is a straightforward Aristotelian argument underneath this.
In the Nicomachean ethics, Aristotle says, very close to the beginning, that it would be impossible to teach ethics to someone who has not been brought up correctly. I think he is right.
There is an opposing liberal view that you can teach people evaluative skills independent of any moral content and then let them make up their own minds. It is usually argued in support of this approach that it leaves students more freedom. I think that is nonsense for exactly the reasons Aristotle outlines and are repeated by others. A good moral education will always begin with moral training, that is training in being moral—not with neutral critical evaluation skills. And if that is what Hauerwas meant, I think he was correct.