Why We're In the Mess We're In - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Mar 21, 2005

Why We're In the Mess We're In

Date: Mar 21, 2005

TROLL ALERT

Warning! This poster does not reflect the opinion of any students that I have talked to or know.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

I hope (and trust) you won't be banned. To the extent that college professor do use their positions to indoctrinate rather than allow for open debate, I think you are correct. I am sorry to say that I do see evidence of these tendencies among some of my colleagues, and I do think you are correct to point out that in some cases chickens are indeed coming home to roost (in the unfortunate analogy used by Ward Churchill). I am not speaking here only of one kind of indoctrination but of ANY kind of indoctrination. Therefore I am hoping that my comment will not violate the ideal of keeping this board free of political opinionating.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

No wonder Cabana came back. He's the warden for all us inmates.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: About to Be Banned
"We are paying the price for endoctrinating students rather than educating them. For the past 20-30 years, a large majority of college and university faculty have taught only their views on things and have penalized students whose views differed. I think we are now seeing the backlash from a state whose citizens do not value our opinions and who disagree with our opinions if they take the time to examine them. That's why we get the "inmates" analogy and why a large percentage of the state's residents just don't care about USM or education in general."

What you say may be true, but it does not comport with my experience. I have three degrees: two from public institutions and one from a parochial school. Even at the parochial school, I only had two professors who openly professed and advanced a particular point of view: conservative Christian, in fact. Even they were scrupulous in their disclosures of that fact.

I cannot imagine what type of "endoctrination" it is to which you refer. (Teaching conventional spelling?) For the life of me, I cannot remember anyone -- other than other students-- injecting any sort of political spin into class time. For that matter, my disdain for authority figures would have negated any attempted indoctrination advanced by anyone more than five years older than I.

I say all of this by way of confession; my education would have improved had I listened a bit more and lowered my levels of skepticism and arrogance just a teensy bit.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: About to Be Banned
"We are paying the price for endoctrinating students rather than educating them. For the past 20-30 years, a large majority of college and university faculty have taught only their views on things and have penalized students whose views differed. I think we are now seeing the backlash from a state whose citizens do not value our opinions and who disagree with our opinions if they take the time to examine them. That's why we get the "inmates" analogy and why a large percentage of the state's residents just don't care about USM or education in general."

This must be put in context. I had students who had similar views. What the student didn't understand was she was basing her opinions on incorrect logic. I had to point out logical facilities she was making and she didn't like hearing that she wasn't entitled to her opinions without providing evidence.

Some students even sounded like the arguments from the business community, where "reasoning" is confused with "positive advertisement". The student complained that my statements (of fact) were being too "negative".

In summary, the student was approaching science as if she was in church discussing theology. (No the subject wasn't evolution, if that is what you are thinking.) I can certainly see how this student could leave USM thinking, "…a large majority of college and university faculty have taught only their views on things and have penalized students whose views differed. " They don't realize that "scientific opinions" have been tested and the articles peered reviewed so that it isn't just " faculty opinion".

Date: Mar 21, 2005

I think the problem is mostly a matter of interpretive areas. It can be proven that certain scientific phenomena occur and why. It is harder, though, to reach a level of "certainty" in analyzing literature, art, or other "soft" subjects. I have known many students who read a novel and, when time came to discuss it in class, the instructor lorded his or her opinion over the class, stressing one thematic ideology over others. In those instances, students left the classroom feeling like they had to reproduce those thoughts in order to pass the course. Further, i know of many professors who almost constantly make comments regarding politics, religion, lifestyle choices, etc., in class. I personally feel that this is inappropriate. Even if you are teaching political science, religion, marriage & family, or whatever, you should keep your personal beliefs out of the classroom. Present factual material and let the students decide what they think, not what stance I will have to replicate to get an A on Professor Smith's exam.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

BB, you point out an area which is of concern to many instructors. For myself, I have always tried to show students that I was teaching them a PROCESS. I tried as much as I could to keep my personal beliefs aside, though that is nearly impossible over an entire semester. One thing I find interesting is that I sometimes am more frustrated with students with whom I actually agree. By using faulty logic, ad hominem remarks, prejudice, etc., they are doing damage to ideas I hold (sort of a "with friends like this, who needs enemies" thing.) I have found myself being rougher on them than on the ones I totally disagree with. But I have always thought that our job is to teach HOW to think before we teach WHAT to think.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Book Burning
" Further, i know of many professors who almost constantly make comments regarding politics, religion, lifestyle choices, etc., in class. I personally feel that this is inappropriate. Even if you are teaching political science, religion, marriage & family, or whatever, you should keep your personal beliefs out of the classroom. Present factual material and let the students decide what they think, not what stance I will have to replicate to get an A on Professor Smith's exam."

I am baffled. What does it mean to be a professor? To profess something, right? Can one get to any significant level in one's profession and not have personal opinions based on one's study and experience? Wouldn't it be a disservice not to share those opinions.

I must have been incredibly fortunate, because I never found that I had to parrot a party line to get a good grade. (Had I ever thought that was the case, I would not have hesitated to regurgitate the appropriate material if that would have done the trick. Believing and mimicking are two totally different activities, aren't they?) But I always found that I could get reasonably good grades just by offering a modest justification for my position, even if that was not consonant with my perceived opinion of the professor.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

This is a result of liberal elitism that fostered itself on college campuses across the nation. He is talking about the type of environment that produced Hutner S. Thompson, Ward Churchill, and locally Kate Green, Noel Polk and others. I know exactly what ATBB is talking about becuse I experienced it first hand on the Hattiesburg campus in the late 90's. Coming from rural Mississippi, this was the first time that I experienced educators taking a bully pulpit to push social agendas. Social agendas that as an 18 year old freshman, that I had only read about in newspapers or saw on CNN.

I am glad that I had professors like this, because it gave me the opportunity to engage them in a debate that many didn't expect from one of their students. I found however that in more cases than not, my willingness to engage these professors, somewhat endured me to them. I used this as the opportunity to educate myself on issues, I had to, because in the classrooms at USM, I was only exposed to one view. That was the view of the professor. I never tried to debate my professors unless I had read up on the issue and was fully prepared to back up my points with timely, factual information.

But, there is a reason that some say that Southern Miss is the most liberal University between Austin and Athens.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Kudzu King
" But, there is a reason that some say that Southern Miss is the most liberal University between Austin and Athens."

What's your authority for this assertion? Who said, or says this? I'm very well acquainted with The University of Texas at Austin and USM and I don't see the parallels. I'm not necessarily taking issue with your comment. I'm just curious about the basis for the claim.

AE

Date: Mar 21, 2005

It's an opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

I thougth that there were more thought provoking points in my post than that.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

KK,

Apparently you were not in my class under Dr. Polk in the early 90s. I witnessed no such liberal elitism that you so vaguely describe.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: ram
"
What you say may be true, but it does not comport with my experience. I have three degrees: two from public institutions and one from a parochial school. Even at the parochial school, I only had two professors who openly professed and advanced a particular point of view: conservative Christian, in fact. Even they were scrupulous in their disclosures of that fact.
I cannot imagine what type of "endoctrination" it is to which you refer. (Teaching conventional spelling?) For the life of me, I cannot remember anyone -- other than other students-- injecting any sort of political spin into class time. For that matter, my disdain for authority figures would have negated any attempted indoctrination advanced by anyone more than five years older than I.
I say all of this by way of confession; my education would have improved had I listened a bit more and lowered my levels of skepticism and arrogance just a teensy bit."

I just noticed this reference to my obvious typing error -- middle finger on the right hand, not the left hand, gets you an "i" -- and I have to point out what a pompous a$$ you are for making that comment. Let me be the one to point out that your whole defense is predicated on the fact that every student has your values and has had your experiences. I would venture a guess that you didn't have every instructor in every department across USM, so your point is even less valid than before. If you think that a large number of USM students would avoid indoctrination, then you are deluded. USM students will do whatever they are told to do for the most part. Others have spoken up to verify my claim from their points of view.

By the way, spelling Nazi, your mother obviously never told you it was impolite to correct someone's grammar (in this case, spelling, either) in public. Probably not the only thing you weren't taught or didn't learn.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

K.K., where do you suppose Noel Polk hails from? Take a guess.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

That is a good point. Polk did't let any of that interfere with his classroom teaching. Polk's actions outside of the classroom is what reeked of liberal elitism.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Kudzu King
"Polk's actions outside of the classroom is what reeked of liberal elitism."

Actions outside the classroom? Are faculty members not allowed to have a life outside of USM? Does it matter whether a faculty member is Catholic, Protestant? Republican or Democrat? Just how involved do you think the university should dictate a faculty member's personal life? Does it really matter to the university whether a faculty member is for privitization of social security? Or their views on abortion or gun control or same sex marriage? Just who the h*ll do you think you are talking about a faculty member's life outside the classroom?

Right of Center

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Kudzu King
" But, there is a reason that some say that Southern Miss is the most liberal University between Austin and Athens."

You have got to be kidding me. Do you know Bill Scarborough? Do you know Frank Glamser? To show you how ridiculous this Shelby-sponsored line of reasoning is, those two professors are (were) some of the most conservative people in Mississippi - not just USM - Mississippi. And yet they stood up for principle - what being a conservative used to mean in this country - and have exposed SFT for the poser he is. USM a liberal campus? My friend, the last anarchist, is laughing as I type. Get real. Using your analogy, think Tulane, Vanderbilt, Florida State, etc.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Book Burning
"I think the problem is mostly a matter of interpretive areas. It can be proven that certain scientific phenomena occur and why. It is harder, though, to reach a level of "certainty" in analyzing literature, art, or other "soft" subjects. I have known many students who read a novel and, when time came to discuss it in class, the instructor lorded his or her opinion over the class, stressing one thematic ideology over others. In those instances, students left the classroom feeling like they had to reproduce those thoughts in order to pass the course. Further, i know of many professors who almost constantly make comments regarding politics, religion, lifestyle choices, etc., in class. I personally feel that this is inappropriate. Even if you are teaching political science, religion, marriage & family, or whatever, you should keep your personal beliefs out of the classroom. Present factual material and let the students decide what they think, not what stance I will have to replicate to get an A on Professor Smith's exam."

While I agree with you that works of art are subject to varying interpretations (that is, in fact, why I like them so much), the problem with your point of view is that you assume that the students' opinions are as good as the professors'. If this were, in fact, the case, they would BE the professors. I would rather hear the opinion of an English professor about a novel, a professor who had spent 25 years reading it and teaching it and who had read the bulk of other people's scholarly writing about it, than an undergraduate who had just encountered it. Chances are really good that the professor's ideas would be more worth learning--so the student should, in fact, learn some of those ideas from the professor. A class is not an encounter group. Even when interpreting "soft" subjects, not everybody's ideas are equal. Education is not about reinforcing one's personal opinion, it is about learning other peoples'--even if you disagree with them. In my opinion, if you don't cope with new ideas, you aren't getting education.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

Angeline

I do know Dr. Scarborough, he is a fine man. And yes one of the most conservative voices outside of the CBA. I have the greatest respect for him.

But, why do you assume that just because someone has an opinion different than you that they are following Thames?

Maybe, just maybe, some of us slipped thru the cracks and got an education that allows for independent thinking.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Kudzu King
"Angeline I do know Dr. Scarborough, he is a fine man. And yes one of the most conservative voices outside of the CBA. I have the greatest respect for him. But, why do you assume that just because someone has an opinion different than you that they are following Thames? Maybe, just maybe, some of us slipped thru the cracks and got an education that allows for independent thinking."

What I am saying - and others tried to say to you as well - is that the FACTS do not support your opinion.

Now, less directed at you, Kudzu King, than just me up on a soapbox, here's what else I want to say about this issue:

Having an uninformed, inaccurate opinion is not defensible, it is ignorant. If you cannot support your opinion with reasoned argument and evidence than you are speaking in the wind. I know in this postmodern age we are sometimes led to believe that everyone's "opinion" is equal to another's, but it ain't so unless you can defend it with evidence. This is why so many politicians, and don't even get me started on the national media, are darn near worthless - they are incapable of basing decisions upon facts and instead promote a narrow ideology through "opinion." Notice, I am not - even though I have before - promoting a particular political persuasion - there is plenty of blame in the two national parties to go around.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Angeline
"
What I am saying - and others tried to say to you as well - is that the FACTS do not support your opinion.
Now, less directed at you, Kudzu King, than just me up on a soapbox, here's what else I want to say about this issue:
Having an uninformed, inaccurate opinion is not defensible, it is ignorant. If you cannot support your opinion with reasoned argument and evidence than you are speaking in the wind. I know in this postmodern age we are sometimes led to believe that everyone's "opinion" is equal to another's, but it ain't so unless you can defend it with evidence. This is why so many politicians, and don't even get me started on the national media, are darn near worthless - they are incapable of basing decisions upon facts and instead promote a narrow ideology through "opinion." Notice, I am not - even though I have before - promoting a particular political persuasion - there is plenty of blame in the two national parties to go around."

What I find interesting is that I didn't claim the statement as my opinion, I said that I had heard the statement made, and that it was pure opinion. You assigned the opininon to me, because I don't walk lock-step with you and because you needed it to attack the rest of my posts. You guys as faculty members are very educated, but you're not smarter than the rest of us.

It is very apparent that everyone's opinion is not equal, especially here. It looks to me that this board is more concerned with nitpicking minor points, playing grammer police and feeling sorry for themselves, than doing anything positive.

The way I see it, you guys are not overly concerned with tangible ideas. You would much rather make a flanking attack at a poster who you don't agree with, but nitpicking spelling or taking the attitude of "I know more than you, so listen to me." That is the liberal elitism that posters in this thread are talking about. Thank you so much for giving us an example.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

I see students trying desperately to be different, in spite of evidence to the contrary. They believed that "just being different" means they were creative. They didn't understand that it doesn't work pass junior high and reason have to exist to support different opinions.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Kudzu King
" What I find interesting is that I didn't claim the statement as my opinion, I said that I had heard the statement made, and that it was pure opinion. You assigned the opininon to me, because I don't walk lock-step with you and because you needed it to attack the rest of my posts. You guys as faculty members are very educated, but you're not smarter than the rest of us. It is very apparent that everyone's opinion is not equal, especially here. It looks to me that this board is more concerned with nitpicking minor points, playing grammer police and feeling sorry for themselves, than doing anything positive. The way I see it, you guys are not overly concerned with tangible ideas. You would much rather make a flanking attack at a poster who you don't agree with, but nitpicking spelling or taking the attitude of "I know more than you, so listen to me." That is the liberal elitism that posters in this thread are talking about. Thank you so much for giving us an example."

KK,

Maybe now is a good time to redirect this particular conversation (and perhaps even start a different thread!). I am genuinely interested to know what, specifically, you personally would recommend The Resistance should do to oppose Shelby effectively. Please do feel free to start a new thread to answer this question. You may have stated some of your suggestions elsewhere; if so, it would help me (at least) if you would restate them in one place. I am sincerely interested in your advice.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

taking the attitude of "I know more than you, so listen to me."

This is probably true in the classroom, and many students could benefit by listening to the professor prior to forming an opinion.

BTW, I have to look left politically to see Bill Scarborough, but I respect his opinions as based on solid scholarship.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

Analyzing works of art isn't as vague a project as people sometimes think. Novels, paintings, music, plays -- all share some common ideas by which we can engage them. We can, for instance, look to determine if there are themes (ideas or, in music, variations) which are repeated and thus by repetition assume a prominence which obligates us to engage in them. We can discuss how the work's formal properties contribute to thse themes (repetition, rythm, balance, harmony, etc.) as well as how the elements are organized (line, color, texture, shape/mass, pitch . . . etc. etc.) These terms are concrete. How we use them to arrive at an interpretation is often personal, but that we use them as critical tools is requisite to having a discussion that,in fact, attempts to arrive at an evaluative response that may help to answer questions like: what is the intent of the artist? What is the effect the artist intended ot have on the audience? Did the artist succeed (i.e. is the work successful?).

Students often do not understand that in discussing paintings, novels and pieces of music, they must be able to identify these formal properties of the art object, give examples of how the artist made use of them, and link them to the what the work seems intended to achieve (among other things -- there are always other things). Instead, they often will be content to speak of how they like or dislike the work, or to decide that the work is bad (or good) but will often simply not get beyond this -- which is, in fact, just the statement of personal opinion that analysis is designed to subvert. Every work of art has a set of internal rules by which it is organized and by which we may know it. Part of the job of examining a work is to find objective facts about an object that may create in viewers a very non-objective set of reactions. Those objective facts are the internals laws that govern that work, and are the key to determining both the power of its effect and its effectiveness.

Although the mere stating personal opinion can be pleasurable, and can even be provocative, it seldom can lead to anything beyond that -- the statement of personal opinion cannot resolve much about the work itself. Stating an opinion, in fact, is an act for which there is no accountability. By definitation, I cannnot be wrong about my opinion -- it is of course, mine, and who would know it better than me?

It is much more difficult, however, to speak about the work itself. Analyzing a work for its internal laws is intended to shift the discussion from opinion to fact.

Students often misunderstand teachers when they believe they are being singled out for their opinions. Art instructors that I know are not interested in whether or not a student agrees with him/her, but on what basis the analysis is formed -- what are the observations of the work that will support critical opinion? In this sense, I have seen many students get frustrated with faculty not because of the student's opinion -- but the student failed to engage the opinion with observation and analysis.

Critical analysis is intended to get beyond personal opinion -- although personal opinion is an inevitable component. It is also a potential tool for the artist in assessing a project both in process and post process.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

Kudzu King, I would like to know what is tangible about your being jealous of Noel Polk?

Everytime his name has come up you have made some remark intended to indicate that Dr. Polk is really not that great. I would like to know why? The Dr. Polk that I know is a gentleman and a scholar and has numerous tangible honors to show for this. There is nothing that you can do to take this away from him. It only makes you look bad for trying. I have noticed that many people in Hattiesburg use the word "liberal" as meaning a person who is outside the group, or an outcast. Perhaps worse than Satan or another outcast who thinks differently than the good ole boys and gal.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

Kudzu King,

I understand what you are saying. I was taught by an older generation of liberal arts faculty who were extremely liberal but you wouldn't know it from the lectures. Outside of class was a different format with a different set of rules. As evidenced here, times have changed and many in the liberal arts consider a class without the opinions front and center to be dishonest. I understand your annoyance with this, but if it is a problem please understand it is systemic and not restricted to USM.

Your assertion that USM is the most liberal school between Austin and Athens is one that I would strongly disagree with. While many in COAL are clearly liberal they are much more focused on the basics (teaching and research) than many other places in the South, let alone the left or the right coast (or the Midwest for that matter). As evidence of this you never see Faculty Senate proclamations about whatever cause is currently fashionable on the American left passed at USM. OUR Faculty Senate spends their time on issues important to the Univesity. One may disagree with their postions but their work is focused on the institution. The COAL faculty here always struck me as garden-variety liberal democrats that are more tolerant of other views than most places.

Aside from the venting, I am distressed at the tendency of some on the right to make generalizations about University faculty based on observations about liberal arts faculty. University faculties are a mixed bag with predictable pockets of left and right. Some of those on the right seem intent on burning down some good barns to eliminate what they see as rats.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
"

While I agree with you that works of art are subject to varying interpretations (that is, in fact, why I like them so much), the problem with your point of view is that you assume that the students' opinions are as good as the professors'. If this were, in fact, the case, they would BE the professors. I would rather hear the opinion of an English professor about a novel, a professor who had spent 25 years reading it and teaching it and who had read the bulk of other people's scholarly writing about it, than an undergraduate who had just encountered it. Chances are really good that the professor's ideas would be more worth learning--so the student should, in fact, learn some of those ideas from the professor. A class is not an encounter group. Even when interpreting "soft" subjects, not everybody's ideas are equal. Education is not about reinforcing one's personal opinion, it is about learning other peoples'--even if you disagree with them. In my opinion, if you don't cope with new ideas, you aren't getting education.

"

So these professors have all undertaken every iota of the scholarly research themselves? NO! They learned it from someone else. Again, you're leaning toward indoctrination, not education. When the professor presents the "best" interpretation or the "best" argument, students just need to forget any other idea they may have had, because the prof knows it all! In disciplines where facts are presented, this may be true. However, my opinion regarding a work of literature or art is just as good as a lit prof or an art prof's opinion. I don't give a rip about what the watering trough in Steinbeck's "The Red Pony" symbolizes to you, because it may mean something else to me entirely, and that's the point of education: to teach people to think for themselves and to interpret information for themselves, based on their knowledge, their beliefs, and their values systems.

In science, you can tell me that a frog has a three-chambered heart. That's a fact. You can tell me how peptide bonds form or how light moves like both a particle and a wave, and you can present evidence to support your position. That's not what I'm debating on this post.

What I am telling you is to quit forcing your beliefs, interpretations, opinions, and the like on those who have not had the opportunity to form their own opinions and who do not have the status to challenge you. Young people in Mississippi are not taught to question their elders. I'd like to see you try this indoctrination BS in a place where students will get in your face about their opinions.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Why We're In the Mess We'r