Tuesday, September 14
Arrgghhh, the Academy, Part I
Ok, so I LOVE my new job. Like, I love it a lot: I get paid to read interesting books, think interesting thoughts about those books, and then talk to interesting people about them. There are, however, some things that I expect are going to drive me pretty crazy, including the following, so I think this is the first installment in a long series:
Recently a classmate asked a professor what technique you can use to get around teaching undergrads the importance of Puritan theology to early American culture. This question is important, he says, because you don't want to offend students by appearing to endorse religion. Now let me, as they say, unpack this statement, just in case it didn't jump out and grab you by the throat and yell "CRAZY AS A MOONBAT ON ACID" like it did to me.
He's assuming (1) puritan theology IS important to early American culture, and (2) you want to minimize its importance because it may clash with the ideology of the STUDENTS. This is a step beyond letting your own ideology determine what you teach. He's suggesting you reinforce the prejudices of the students, even when you and the majority of the experts think they're wrong. It's PC gone amok - the triumph of kindness over truth - and an abdication of the responsibility of a teacher, whether you think they should teach the truth, or challenge the minds of their students. It's arguably a useful approach for kindergarten, and probably not even there, but certainly not for college. Now, in fairness, his suggestion was quickly rejected by the professor (although not as forcefully as I would have liked), but it remains a frightening indicator, especially frightening because the guy who said it appears to be quite thoughtful and not at all a crazy moonbat leftist.
Now, all that's disturbing enough, but the little voice in the back of my mind keeps asking me an even more disturbing question: what are the chances that this guy would be as worried about offending students if the ideology being discussed as important wasn't puritanism, but was instead socialism?
I can't answer that, but I do have a guess.
- posted by Tom Sawyer @ 9:29 PM
Comments:
<< Home
Now now, you can't chalk this up to lefty pcness. You can only chalk it up to idiocy. As if explaining the *historic fact* of a religion's existence and theology were the same as endorsing it. That's not liberal. That's just fucking stupid.
And that kind of crap's no good for kindergarten teaching either. In parenting as in teaching, there's a very clear distinction between explaining *that* different people have different ideas, and telling people what to think. And anyone who doesn't get that is a moron.
And that kind of crap's no good for kindergarten teaching either. In parenting as in teaching, there's a very clear distinction between explaining *that* different people have different ideas, and telling people what to think. And anyone who doesn't get that is a moron.
No, I think you're right about that. The foolishness is the problem here, not the politics (which I was imputing to him anyway). My final comment was, I suppose, an expression my fears as a conservative (in some ways) entering academia - that sometimes this kind of foolishness can be caused by ideological blindess (of both liberal and conservative sorts), and that, if you believe what "they" say, there will likely be more of one sort than the other. To be fair, so far I have no real evidence of this, but it remains a concern for me.
Post a Comment
<< Home
