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

Date: Mar 21, 2005

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

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Epicetus
"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."

Epicetus

If you would like to know why so many out side of academia lump most college professors together as being liberal, I would like you to read the text that I have linked here.

AAUP National Site

It is because of the company you keep.

This is someone you defend?

I could go on all night, but what's the use.

I guess from now on to be politically correct on this board since it seems I have offended disgusted student, I guess I will use the term elitist academic, instead of Liberal Elitist.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: About to Be Banned
" 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."

You haven't read my post closely enough. I did not use the word symbol -- quite intentionally. I did use the term "interpretation" - in fact as a mechanism to justify how people using similar evidence could arrive at different "interpretations" (or, using your terminology "opinions") about a work. Works of art can be discussed as facts -- one of the salient facts of "the Red Pony" is that it is prose rather than poetry, and that single notation of fact can be one of the observations used as evidence to build toward an interpretation.

In fact, this process of working fro observations, buidling evidence and then using that evidence to support an interpretation is a fairly simple example of analytical thinking -- simply applied in this case to art works. Personally, Id say that being able to do this fairly simple operation is a great tool that the best educated "young people" in many states use to challenge their elders.

I'm all for challenging elders -- and for challenging the status quo and for challenging old ideas. I don't think we have a disagreement here. You seem determined to find an argument and I'm not sure why . . perhaps you had a bad experience with a teacher or two -- perhaps you also misunderstood what it was your teachers wished you to do.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

Originally posted by: Kudzu King
"If you would like to know why so many out side of academia lump most college professors together as being liberal, I would like you to read the text that I have linked here . . . AAUP National Site"

You disagree with this from the AAUP Website? "Should serious questions arise about Professor Churchill’s fitness to continue at the University of Colorado—the only acceptable basis for terminating a continuing or tenured faculty appointment—those questions should be judged by a faculty committee that affords the essential safeguards of due process, as required by the university’s and the Board of Regents’ official policies."

What would you suggest? Immediate beheading? (Metaphor Alert!)

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: About to Be Banned
"

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. . . .

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."

See Prof. Judd's well-written post about how to consider works of art. Obviously we disagree. If you don't think the professor "knows more" than the student about the work of art, why should the student even be in the class? Why should the student even study art, if they have nothing to learn from an expert (and yes, there ARE experts on art)? They can simply stay home and read the novels for themselves. In demonstrating his/her opinion, the professor is also modeling how to think (I said, "how," not "what" to think). And how involves those ideas that Stephen Judd has eloquently described, and I will not repeat them here. Good professors often don't just present "the best" interpretation--they may present several (though when I do that students get irritated by having to think about them, and mostly just WANT me to tell them what to write on the test!

)

Perhaps I should clarify my earlier post. Works of art do not have _unlimited_ meanings. It is possible for a student to be completely wrong about a work of art, just as wrong as they can be about frogs. Artists generally intend to communicate something, and the student can be wrong about what is being communicated. (Ever see a film in a foreign language you don't know without subtitles? Then see if dubbed and really "get it?")

As for "So these professors have all undertaken every iota of the scholarly research themselves? NO! They learned it from someone else." Well, certainly they learned some of it from someone else. I am deeply grateful for the things I have learned from fine teachers in my past. But when Noel Polk teaches Faulkner, he is using his own research. And when I teach in my specialty, I'm using mine. If I've spent years and years studying a topic, even if it is art, then I have something to offer. And if you don't think so, you probably shouldn't be in college. I agree that education is "to teach people to think for themselves and to interpret information for themselves", but this is not possible if they are not willing to add to, reexamine, reconsider, and, if need be, change their "their knowledge, their beliefs, and their values systems." You give me the impression that you want to instructor to teach without presenting any ideas that the student didn't already have before they walked in the door.

(I doubt this poster would be interested, but faculty members reading the board might see the piece in the latest issue of Academe about the very attitude this poster expresses, which is, as I'm sure you know, increasingly common.)

Date: Mar 21, 2005

I have followed this thread of posts from the beginning. It has been interesting to observe that many faculty do not take criticism well. There is validity to some of the claims that faculty push points of view that are not mainstream to the bulk of the students who come to USM. I think that some of the claims about faculty having agendas come from faculty members expressing opinions on issues unrelated to the class.

It is hard for me to see why an English professor would feel the need to comment on whether George Bush is a good or bad President. It also is not a topic for discussion in business classes or science classes. The question of who should wed who or what is not a topic for a science class. Neither is it a topic for a business class unless it deals with inheriting wealth. Discussing why Karl Marx was right and Adam Smith was wrong is not a topic for nursing classes.

Most of the abuses in this area, and yes they occur at USM as well as most other universities, are due to a fervor with a set of beliefs that extend past the domain of the discipline being taught. It is the responsibility of each faculty member and the departments to guard against groupthink and to guard against being contemptuous of those who hold other views. You cannot educate by browbeating and humiliating students and insinuating that they are stupid if they do not agree with you.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

Stephen Judd,

I wasn't responding to your post. I don't know what's up with my internet, but I didn't even see yours when I started typing that last post. Sorry.

I'm not looking for a fight, but the attitude that everything is absolute in every field chaps my a$$. I think we can agree that there is plenty of room for discussion and free exchange of ideas in the classroom and that the process of forming one's own ideas should not be squelched by overbearing instructors.

That said, I agree with you that there ARE many "absolutes" in all fields.

As for bad experiences, I never met a "liberal arts" teacher I didn't like and whose courses didn't challenge me to think outside of my preexisting thought lines.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: About to Be Banned
" 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. . . . 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."

Oops. Pardon me. I thought my comment was made in good humor. Obviously I was wrong.

And you are quite right. There are enormous gaps in my learning, but my mother is not responsible. Thanks all the same for the very helpful observations.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Cossack
"It is hard for me to see why an English professor would feel the need to comment on whether George Bush is a good or bad President. It also is not a topic for discussion in business classes or science classes. The question of who should wed who or what is not a topic for a science class. Neither is it a topic for a business class unless it deals with inheriting wealth. Discussing why Karl Marx was right and Adam Smith was wrong is not a topic for nursing classes.
"

Just want to point out that "About to be banned" appears to me to be talking not just about these sorts of abuses, but about English professor's opinions of novels, which they do have a right to! I'm arguing for a professor's right to academic freedom in their own discipline. (Geez, it seems sort of obvious, but at USM, the basics are always in question . . . . )

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: foot soldier
" See Prof. Judd's well-written post about how to consider works of art. Obviously we disagree. If you don't think the professor "knows more" than the student about the work of art, why should the student even be in the class? Why should the student even study art, if they have nothing to learn from an expert (and yes, there ARE experts on art)? They can simply stay home and read the novels for themselves. In demonstrating his/her opinion, the professor is also modeling how to think (I said, "how," not "what" to think). And how involves those ideas that Stephen Judd has eloquently described, and I will not repeat them here. Good professors often don't just present "the best" interpretation--they may present several (though when I do that students get irritated by having to think about them, and mostly just WANT me to tell them what to write on the test! ) Perhaps I should clarify my earlier post. Works of art do not have _unlimited_ meanings. It is possible for a student to be completely wrong about a work of art, just as wrong as they can be about frogs. Artists generally intend to communicate something, and the student can be wrong about what is being communicated. (Ever see a film in a foreign language you don't know without subtitles? Then see if dubbed and really "get it?") As for "So these professors have all undertaken every iota of the scholarly research themselves? NO! They learned it from someone else." Well, certainly they learned some of it from someone else. I am deeply grateful for the things I have learned from fine teachers in my past. But when Noel Polk teaches Faulkner, he is using his own research. And when I teach in my specialty, I'm using mine. If I've spent years and years studying a topic, even if it is art, then I have something to offer. And if you don't think so, you probably shouldn't be in college. I agree that education is "to teach people to think for themselves and to interpret information for themselves", but this is not possible if they are not willing to add to, reexamine, reconsider, and, if need be, change their "their knowledge, their beliefs, and their values systems." You give me the impression that you want to instructor to teach without presenting any ideas that the student didn't already have before they walked in the door. (I doubt this poster would be interested, but faculty members reading the board might see the piece in the latest issue of Academe about the very attitude this poster expresses, which is, as I'm sure you know, increasingly common.) "

Foot Soldier:

Thanks for your very excellent and passionate exposition here. And while I think that it is true that even faculty members sometimes allow their personal feelings or even "interpretations" to come front and center in ways that might not always be called for (even faculty have bad days) the best rejoinder a student can have is to use his/her critical tools to engage the professor's errant behavior. It happens . . . . what brings us all back to sanity in those moments is our common agreement about the methods and tools of the intellect.

By the way, I do not think it inappropriate for a professior to have opinions, nor to state them, nor to use them to challenge students. I think that it can be interesting to watch an excellent professor engage himself/herself in presenting both sides. But I do not think it necessary. I do believe that as a student I must have the ability to state my own opinions (with supporting evidence) and not to fear that MY OPINION in and of itself will cost me a grade. But in a university, simply stating an opinion, sans evidence, is simply not enough. It is too often the case that opinion is all a student has . . . I have, in the past, helped students construct their own defenses for their opinions . . . . as an exercise. After which, of course, I ask them to create an analysis that challenges the opinion they have just defended.

I went into undergraduate Old Testament as a Southern Baptist. The Professior, of course, taught Old Testament from the standpoint of a less than evangelical point of view -- certainly not from the stanbdpoint that the Bible was literally true. I found it offensive and difficult to take. We had many disagreements -- and there is little doubt that in our disagreements his greater knowlege and his ability to debate challenged me to work at defending my belief and opinions. He never once conceded that he needed to present the other side -- he was generous, however, in allowing the class to debate the evidence supporting the arguments we could marshall. These disputes eventually had to move out of class to post class meetings (or else we would have not had time for the material in the class!). I did not get an "A" from Professor Crane that semester -- but it never occured to me that it was because of my opinion. I knew that my arguments were not well enough presented, and did not have the force of evidence. That caused me to look more closely at both the material he was presenting and at what I had (actually fairly uncritically) accepted as true. It also caused me to look very closely at the process by which people of differing beliefs, opinions or theories discuss those opinions.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: About to Be Banned
"Stephen Judd, I wasn't responding to your post. I don't know what's up with my internet, but I didn't even see yours when I started typing that last post. Sorry. I'm not looking for a fight, but the attitude that everything is absolute in every field chaps my a$$. I think we can agree that there is plenty of room for discussion and free exchange of ideas in the classroom and that the process of forming one's own ideas should not be squelched by overbearing instructors. That said, I agree with you that there ARE many "absolutes" in all fields. As for bad experiences, I never met a "liberal arts" teacher I didn't like and whose courses didn't challenge me to think outside of my preexisting thought lines."

Thank you ATBB. I appreciate the discussion and the provocation as you seem to have a passion and some humor about it as well. I have to conede that sometimes people in positions of authority do get carried away with themselves -- that must also include professors as well as others -- we are hardly free from the imperfections plaguing the rest of humanity.

THe saving grace is that professiuors do have a code for intellectual honesty and practice to which they can be held accountable. I'm not talking legally here. I am saying that the passage from student to master often occurs in these kinds of disputes, when a student becomes the authority either by assuming the mantle of knowlege that signifies the passing of generations, or by effectively using the weapons of intellectual exchange in calling the professor to task or by using that weapon skillfully in debate. You spoke about challenging elders -- the best challenge to elders is to expose to them their own hypocrisy. But in order to do that, you have to master the tools . . .

Best wishes -- I'm glad you had some good expweriences and I can see now that you are actually making a distinction between those that abuse their authority to become intellectual tyrants and those who use the intellect to provoke and stimulate.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

I'm guessing that everyone who has contributed to this thread would agree with the following propositions:

(1) A professor should not routinely use his or her class to express opinions unrelated to the topic of the class

(2) If such opinions are ever expressed, the professor should make it clear that s/he welcomes counter-arguments and that no student will ever be penalized merely for expressing a contrary argument provided that the argument is well-reasoned

(3) It is the job of professors both to encourage critical thinking and to display it themselves.

Would ANYONE who has contributed to this thread disagree with these propositions?

Date: Mar 21, 2005

PS:

I've come to the conclusion, after many years of experience, that before beginning a serious discussion with anyone with whom I seem to disagree about a serious topic, the best procedure is simply to begin by asking a very simple question:

"What kind of evidence would I have to present before you would even consider changing your mind on this topic?"

Often you will discover that a person will concede that there is NO evidence that could be presented that would cause him or her to change his or her mind. In such cases, further discussion doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It is remarkable how many people really would never even consider changing their minds on certain issues, no matter what evidence could or might be presented.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"I'm guessing that everyone who has contributed to this thread would agree with the following propositions: (1) A professor should not routinely use his or her class to express opinions unrelated to the topic of the class (2) If such opinions are ever expressed, the professor should make it clear that s/he welcomes counter-arguments and that no student will ever be penalized merely for expressing a contrary argument provided that the argument is well-reasoned (3) It is the job of professors both to encourage critical thinking and to display it themselves. Would ANYONE who has contributed to this thread disagree with these propositions? "

Only that I am uncomfortable in too closely defining what opinions are unrelated to the class. I like your word "routinely" I suppose, as it suggests that there might be times when such utterances would be legitimate, and that if such utterances were to be "routine" then that might be, ipso facto, a sign of a faculty member pressing an agenda. So I suspect that the violation of this condition would almost have to be on a case by case basis.

Your other points, however, seem inarguable to me as primary to our enterprise.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
"PS: I've come to the conclusion, after many years of experience, that before beginning a serious discussion with anyone with whom I seem to disagree about a serious topic, the best procedure is simply to begin by asking a very simple question: "What kind of evidence would I have to present before you would even consider changing your mind on this topic?" Often you will discover that a person will concede that there is NO evidence that could be presented that would cause him or her to change his or her mind. In such cases, further discussion doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It is remarkable how many people really would never even consider changing their minds on certain issues, no matter what evidence could or might be presented."

I'm enjoying your analysis -- both of these two posts were excellent. Thank you.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

Foot Soldier,

I fear that many times the opinions expressed by faculty are outside the parameters of their discipline or the course they are teaching. I agree that within the discipline opinions of the faculty not only carry more weight, but also likely have stood the test of time and scholarship. At the same time, the faculty member has an obligation to avoid implying that the student is ignorant. If there is signal to the student of a lack of respect, teaching and learning come to a halt.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

Those red herrings won't fly. AAUP is small potatoes in academia and the crackpot you mentioned is just that.

In the same vein, I wouldn't condemn capitalism because of the existence of people like Ken Lay or Dennis Kozlowski. A businessperson should be less worried about crackpots and more worried about those that undermine faith in the economic system. These folks produce more Democratic votes than an army of "liberal" college professors.

Full disclosure: Libertarian with little use for either party. Considers Ayn Rand to be a little soft on capitalism.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Cossack
". . . the faculty member has an obligation to avoid implying that the student is ignorant. If there is signal to the student of a lack of respect, teaching and learning come to a halt."

Cossack,

I agree strongly. Sometimes, of course, as a pedagogical technique, certain professors will pretend to superiority (I am thinking of the kind of professor who used to be played by John Houseman in The Paper Chase). If this is done as a way of challenging students, it can be successful, I suppose, partly because it could then be seen as a sign of respect for the students: "I take you seriously enough to challenge you and not molly-coddle you." It is not a technique, however, that I would ever employ, and it can quickly seem (and perhaps be) pompous. I have always thought that professors, ideally, are professional students, students who never stop being students -- people who never stop seeking to learn and who therefore encourage others to learn along with them.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

:quote:
Originally posted by: Epicetus
"Libertarian with little use for either party. Considers Ayn Rand to be a little soft on capitalism."

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Cossack
"Foot Soldier, I fear that many times the opinions expressed by faculty are outside the parameters of their discipline or the course they are teaching. I agree that within the discipline opinions of the faculty not only carry more weight, but also likely have stood the test of time and scholarship. At the same time, the faculty member has an obligation to avoid implying that the student is ignorant. If there is signal to the student of a lack of respect, teaching and learning come to a halt."

I'm very leary of this repeated idea of opinions being expressed as outside the discipline. Doubtless that is occassionally true. My problem is that the very notion suggests that knowlege is chambered and isolated, professionalized and expertised.

This is a somewhat dangerous principle for us to accept without some severe caveats. I like USM Sympathizer's appealing to the "routine" use of "opinions" that are outside the discipline as one sign that a professor may be abusing classsroom privilege. Otherwise I tend to have a fairly narrow view of what might constitute a violation here -- it is way too easy for that to become a mechanism to prevent debate in a classroom. Given the current political climate, It is also a good way to reduce a faculty member from a scholar whose exploration of knowlege may (and should ) touch many knowlege bases and intellectual worlds to an expert who is only entitled to speak of that in which he has expertise. Indeed, what we are producing is an academia of experts rather than of broadly educated academics. This is one reason why we have so much trouble understanding what we do across the discplines -- we no longer have much common ground for discourse.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

I should have stayed on the computer this evening, what an interesting thread.
I will add that I tried (always do try) and again was very frustrated, tried to convince students that I was grading on how well they made their argument, not on whether I agreed. It was the "making the argument" point where they always got stuck. They really are not being taught this concept in high school (or the ones that are went into Honors or to another school)

Kudzu King, I should warn you to grow a thicker skin if you're going to debate on this board. These guys argue for a living, it's meat and drink to many of them. You should hear the way they talk to each other! Don't take stuff personally.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Epicetus
"Those red herrings won't fly. AAUP is small potatoes in academia and the crackpot you mentioned is just that.
In the same vein, I wouldn't condemn capitalism because of the existence of people like Ken Lay or Dennis Kozlowski. A businessperson should be less worried about crackpots and more worried about those that undermine faith in the economic system. These folks produce more Democratic votes than an army of "liberal" college professors.
Full disclosure: Libertarian with little use for either party. Considers Ayn Rand to be a little soft on capitalism."

To which post are you responding with this? I guess I need a dotted line drawn for me here.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
" Cossack, I agree strongly. Sometimes, of course, as a pedagogical technique, certain professors will pretend to superiority (I am thinking of the kind of professor who used to be played by John Houseman in The Paper Chase). If this is done as a way of challenging students, it can be successful, I suppose, partly because it could then be seen as a sign of respect for the students: "I take you seriously enough to challenge you and not molly-coddle you." It is not a technique, however, that I would ever employ, and it can quickly seem (and perhaps be) pompous. I have always thought that professors, ideally, are professional students, students who never stop being students -- people who never stop seeking to learn and who therefore encourage others to learn along with them. "

Pomposity is a personality trait. Let's not confuse a professior who might be arrogant, pompous or just plain unpleasant for one who is intellectually abusive. The character played by Housman was all of the former -- but his point was that his students needed to be critical rather than accepting, skeptical rather than intellectually passive. HIS arrogrance was a counteractant to their smugness and insularity. I am not advocating his technique -- but I am saying that most of his unpleasantness was just that, not to be confused with the abuse of academic authority for its own sake.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: About to Be Banned
"

To which post are you responding with this? I guess I need a dotted line drawn for me here."

oops. see it. sorry.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
". . . I tend to have a fairly narrow view of what might constitute a violation here -- it is way too easy for that to become a mechanism to prevent debate in a classroom. "

Stephen,

I agree, and I think the key word in this sentence is "debate." Who can oppose genuine debate? I think there's far too little of it in all aspects of life. By "debate" I do not mean acrimonious disagreement; I simply mean a willingness to argue about important issues with the hope of finding some modicum of truth (if that ideal does not seem too naive). One of my best friends is a person whom I came to enjoy precisely because we disagreed so often but never allowed our disagreements to affect our respect for each other. He is a person who will argue ANYTHING with you and never be offended by your ideas. Such people are quite rare.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: stephen judd
"Pomposity is a personality trait. Let's not confuse a professior who might be arrogant, pompous or just plain unpleasant for one who is intellectually abusive. The character played by Housman was all of the former -- but his point was that his students needed to be critical rather than accepting, skeptical rather than intellectually passive. HIS arrogrance was a counteractant to their smugness and insularity. I am not advocating his technique -- but I am saying that most of his unpleasantness was just that, not to be confused with the abuse of academic authority for its own sake. "

Stephen,

Yes, and some students respond well to such professors. I had such a professor in graduate school, and his apparent "pomposity" was part of his performance. He used it to shock people out of their complacency, and that can be a very good thing to do. The only time I had trouble with it was when he really did not tolerate questions, as sometimes happened. But the man had made major contributions to the field -- he even had a whole approach named after him -- so he had some right to be pompous!

Date: Mar 21, 2005

In spite of the concerns of Professor Judd, I feel that faculty have a responsibility to stay within their discipline in the classroom setting. Most particularly when there are areas of disagreement with the students. Discussions that are carried on outside of class where the student is seeking to engage a faculty member in a discussion is another matter. Your formal job responsibility is teaching in your discipline. The informal teaching that comes from after class discussion is unlimited except for the externalities of social responsibilities and legal responsibilities.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: USM Sympathizer
" Stephen, Yes, and some students respond well to such professors. I had such a professor in graduate school, and his apparent "pomposity" was part of his performance. He used it to shock people out of their complacency, and that can be a very good thing to do. The only time I had trouble with it was when he really did not tolerate questions, as sometimes happened. But the man had made major contributions to the field -- he even had a whole approach named after him -- so he had some right to be pompous! "

I have enjoyed tonight's discussion -- has me thinking. It is also interesting how much you grow as a professor -- I think I tend to be much more open with my students these days, less defensive, than I was as a younger professor even though I believed deeply in allowing them the right to their ideas. I can definitely think of times when I was probably not very open to questioning myself . . . . It is easy when you are an assistant professor not yet at third year review to think that you must present a front of authority -- especially if you aren't a lot older than they are! As much as we try to use rationality to maintain a sense of acceptance, our own uncertainties can subvert what ought to be the clear-eyes search for the right questions to ask . . .

Good evening all . . . I'll look back tomorrw to see if this thread continued after I left.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

Cossack,

Tell me if I understand your point. You think faculty members should responsible users of the academic freedom they enjoy.

Analogy:
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, I have the freedom to burn an American Flag in public. Should I exercise this right on the steps of a V.A. hospital? Probably not. It would be unproductive, mean-spirited, and insensitive. Perhaps I should choose another location for my protest. If I have positive motives driving my protest, I probably will not target the V.A.

I have the freedom to talk about a lot of stuff in my class; however, I steer clear of some topics that are clearly a stretch to incorporate into my class. I don't routinely cross my widely blurred margins to pull in such remote topics.

Date: Mar 21, 2005

quote:
Originally posted by: Cossack
"In spite of the concerns of Professor Judd, I feel that faculty have a responsibility to stay within their discipline in the classroom setting. Most particularly when there are areas of disagreement with the students. Discussions that are carried on outside of class where the student is seeking to engage a faculty member in a discussion is another matter. Your formal job responsibility is teaching in your discipline. The informal teaching that comes from after class discussion is unlimited except for the externalities of social responsibilities and legal responsibilities."

Oh, and I wanted to go and then I saw your post. I suppose I agree with you in theory -- the problem is I'm not always able, in any given circumstance, to discern clearly what DOESN"T relate to my discipline. It might be a little easier in math . . . . I teach theatre and it is pretty tough to treat it as a practice isolated from other knowleges and life in general. So it may be that given my discipline I might be a bit more sensitive and less willing to concede your point than others might be.

I have to tell you that I also grew up during Vietnam and it was a major source of discussion on most college campus's about when academic discourse became irrational because it treated the major element of many of our lives as though it did not exist . . . the term "ivory tower" never seemed so real as it did then. It was hard to be studying engineering without wondering what the end object of that study might be . . . or whether one was obligated to challenge certain uses of engineering knowlege. Those questions profoundly troubled both stufdents and faculty members.

I'm not making a political point here, truly . . . just explaining why I am reluctant to accept this idea as a kind of absolute, although I think it makes a reasonable guideline.

So it is not easy, at this point, for me to easily accept the point you make without saying that it is a generalizing principle but one that is relational and subject to change.