next »

[Forums Moderator]

Some education schools have begun evaluating their students not only on their academic work, communication skills, and classroom practice, but also on their "dispositions," such as a commitment to "social justice" and sensitivity to "white privilege." Do such evaluations, as conservative groups have complained, amount to political litmus tests? Or are education professors right when they say they have a responsibility to make sure their graduates will treat all children fairly?
Read more...

[%sig%]

[Worried for the Future]

"Do such evaluations, as conservative groups have complained, amount to political litmus tests?"



Yes, obviously. For all the bogus talk about *diversity* in the schools, this is pointedly and solely a way to enforce ideological uniformity. This (along with use of any so-called "collegiality" factor  in tenure decisions) is one of the most worrisome signs of the complete downfall of intellectual standards in the contemporary academy.



"Or are education professors right when they say they have a responsibility to make sure their graduates will treat all children fairly?"


The question is Orwellian. They are correct that graduates must treat children fairly, but that has nothing at all to do with using "disposition" evaluations to destroy careers just because people dare to dissent from prevailing leftist orthodoxies.   That is nothing but two-bit political thuggery on the part of faculty who cannot argue the merits of their position and use force and threats to control others instead.  It is diametrically opposed to decency, intelligence, and fairness.

[Ann Fairbanks]

Education schools have abandoned their primary purpose, which is to prepare teachers to teach.  That purpose requires two things: that teachers know their content and appropariate instructional practices.  There is some attention to instruction in education schools, but it is mostly pseudo-science like tapping into a student's different "intelligence," having an "open mind," or exposing students to "diverse" ideas.  This is all a way of re-labeling students who are behind and who truthfully need academic help as "differently gifted."  Knowledge of content is also completely absent if not discouraged, as students need to be able to "construct" their own knowledge--construct it in a way that is free from white male capitalistic Western influence.  

Terms like teaching for "social justice" are not neutral as many claim either.  Social justice, in the context of an education school, means redistribution of wealth or a collectivist or statist economic-political philosophy.  It does not mean that everyone should be treated equally under the law, its proper meaning.  These two meanings are widely different.  Yet advocates of SJ conflate the two, probably as a means of smuggling the false concept into the consciousness of their student-teachers.

If education schools want to help the lower classes--or any student--they should end the ideological indoctrination and truly educate their student-teachers by emphasizing knowledge of subject matter and practices that are backed by science and rationality.   All of our so-called "problems" in education have been solved.  The educational elite in higher education, however, will not allow these solutions to be published in journals, taught in education shools, or practiced in public schools because they do not like the economic-political philosophy they imply.

[Regional U.]

I'm very glad prospective teachers are being screened like this. I grew up in a conservative backwater where Jesus was part of class and Public school was really Sunday school. What comes bundled with this kind of teacher is the typical Christian hate, bigotry, homophobia and sexism. I was drowned in this as a child--it was part of my everyday childhood classroom experience. The conservative teachers hated the little brown and black boys and girls; they also were the ones saying girls couldn't do science and math; they taught the sex-ed modules which were really all about how they hated gay people. Don't we owe children a better education?

While the tone of the article suggests that *all* conservatives are for these terrible things, we know they are not. But, as humans, we use our core values in everything we do. What core values do you want your kids' teacher to have?

Now, only if we could weed out the ones who became teacher-ed majors because they think it's easy and they think they will get summers off.

[%sig%]

[Univ Professor]

I find this discussion silly.  No one has bothered to poll all compulsory teachers to find out their political disposition.  This would certainly help (or hurt) the argument that colleges are brainwashing the future public teachers of the world.  I do not care about one person's experience.  While psychologically it may be important to them, it is irrelevant when creating overall governmental policy.  This is more of the same me generation non- sense and speculation.  Squeezing out intent from action is impossible and certainly not measurable.  In a country with over two million people, I am sure I can find several examples of Irish, left-handed Republicans, from Texas, but born in Ohio to rich Democrats, who collect Revel models of WWII airplanes, and shop for clogging supplies on Tuesday.  However, just because I find 100 to 200 examples of this does not mean this country is over run by such people.  On Horowitz’s students for academic freedom website there are three hundred and twenty one complaints against several teachers.  Three hundred and twenty one complaints are evidence of an epidemic problem and proof that the majority of professors are conservative?  

Horowitz uses McCarthy like tactics where people can make baseless claims against professors they do not like, and apparently, facts or evidence is not required.  Currently, on this website, there is a male student who complains that a male “liberal” philosophy professor announced he was gay the first day of class.  This student then accuses the professor while in class, directing sexually suggestive comments towards the student.  This student provides no evidence other than testimony.  Perhaps this student is telling the complete truth.  However, perhaps the student is completely fabricating this as a means of revenge or attention.  With the evidence presented in the article, (none) both scenarios are just as likely.  If a college fails to launch an investigation into any claim, that college is then legally libel and financially responsible if a court rules for the plaintiff.  No college in today’s lawsuit happy America would dare risk a high profile lawsuit that could potentially cost them millions of dollars.  If I was a lawyer, I would be drooling to represent this student in this case because I know the college would probably pay a quick couple of million to make the case go away to avoid national attention.  If this incident actually happened, and I was the Dean of the College, I would have no hesitations of firing any professor who in class inappropriately made sexually passes on students.  Firing faculty members who solicit students for dates or sex while in class has nothing to do with whether the professor is liberal, anti Christian, etc.  If a professor is guilty of sexually harassing students (male or female) they are guilty regardless of political, sexual, or religious background.  However, this student wants readers to think this incident has something to do with liberals, all homosexuals, and the anti Christian agenda of Universities.  Sorry to inform this student but there is such a thing as Log Cabin Republicans, many of who are Christian, so being gay does not make someone anti Christian.  In fairness, this student claims the professor said anti Christian remarks.  If this professor is guilty, it is irresponsible to assume that this professor represents the majority of faculty in the United States.  That is just as illogical as saying all white Christian males are racist and sexist.  I am quite certain on every campus there are problem employees (as is the case at any large organization).  This does not mean that one incident is proof there is an epidemic.  Further, three hundred and twenty one examples are statistically insignificant.

However, evidence is less important than personal feeling, or worse bulling techniques used so students can get what they want.  This is part of the growing “Walmart” mind set that some students have where they no longer see paying for college as paying for the privilege (not right) of information.  These students think, “I paid for college therefore, give me my piece of paper with the least amount of effort and stress.  I only want to hear what I already know, I don’t want anyone to question my world view, my abilities, or my values, and further, I deserve a good grade because this school is expensive.  Many students do not want to change (change is a requirement for graduating any college because hopefully as a student they learned something and that in itself is change).  For some of these students, they regress to behaviors that worked for them when they wanted something from their parents.  They throw a fit, a temper tantrum, and use bullying techniques in hopes of shaming people into giving them what they want.  For instance, at the University I went to, which is on the Horowitz list of colleges that are too liberal, I thought the majority of education teachers were extremely conservative, very religious, and extremely moral centered.  I often wonder if the problem is that, they are not evangelical.  I learned a lot from different conservatives as well as radicals.  However, one of the College Republicans called my old chair a liberal thug pushing the left wing agenda (because we all know all sociologists are liberal even though historically one can argue a large part of sociology is extremely conservative).  Funny, my chair consistently votes Republican. It is almost comical that conservatives at almost all levels dominate the Government, and yet they keep complaining that they are oppressed.

I think the problem is some students think "because I feel I have been treated bad, everyone must have been treated bad".  It is projection at its worst, because these people assume they have all the facts when they complain. There are students who love to over generalize and (liberal or conservative) want to talk about how all their other teachers gave them an A, or all the students got an A, or most everyone agrees with me

[John Pepple]

What bothers me about this situation is the unwarranted holier-than-thou attitude these people have.  They imagine they are sensitive in all areas when they are not.  For example, when it comes to acceptance of international sports, I’ve found conservatives to be surprisingly more sensitive than liberals are.  Isn’t it likely, then, that conservative teachers will be more sensitive to the sports that immigrant children like?  And it’s all very well to talk about inclusiveness in our schools, but the fact is that our two main sports, football and basketball, exclude on the basis of size.  When are all those demanding sensitivity in our schools going to be sensitive to those of us who were the wrong size for these two sports?

[%sig%]

[John]

Well, to answer Regional's rhetorical question:

I most certainly do not want any of my child's teachers to have Regional U's core values (or distorted sense of reality).

[%sig%]

[PersonFromPorlock]

Not an entirely silly argument, but possibly miscast? 'Character' standards were routinely applied a century ago, so the practice isn't anything new, nor is it controversial. I doubt very many people would want an avowed Nazi, for instance, teaching Seventh Grade.

The problem is really the standards themselves: to the intellectually limited denizens of the education schools, 'progressive' standards are the only real ones. All others are meretricious and probably vile. So of course, the students eliminated will be those who are non-progressive. There's nothing wrong with this except, possibly, the faint, unsettling sense, based on nothing more than seventy years experience with it, that 'progressive' standards may be pernicious.

Still, we mustn't rush to judgement.

[%sig%]

[One state has it right]

Colorado no longer allows education majors to become licensed.  Instead, they have to major in a subject (what a profound concept), then spend an additional year learning how to teach (half didactic and half practicum; i.e. student teaching).

That, to me, is a step in the right direction.  Johnny can't do math if Johnny's math teacher can't do math.  The process should be neutral insofar as social and political beliefs are concerned.

[TBD]

I'm a decided liberal, but I think ideological acid tests should not be used.  Some of my colleagues in sociology regard their classes as opportunities to pump for a social justice agenda.  While I agree with much of it, I believe I've had better luck pushing a position in the classroom that is open to all points of view.  The students and I tend to argue with all the more extreme positions.  But I think we also explore the virtues of everything from Marxism to libertarianism to conservatism.  I'm especially opposed to PC culture because I think it really threatens first amendment rights, particularly those of faculty.

I'm convinced that an open approach has a better chance of creating active, engaged citizens than a prescriptive approach.

I think the "beat on their heads" approach frequently has paradoxical effects as students react to the instructor's ideological arrogance.  

I have absolutely no desire to teach whites or white males to feel guilty.  I do want to open all students up to wildly critical and creative approaches to changing social reality.  Or having it stay the same-- if that is their desire.

As an ex-60s radical (but also a six year Army vet,) I am dubious of the credentials of the implementers of these agendas.  I believe that many use PC agendas to garner power in bureaucracies (like education), without having been around in the 60s - 70s when many of these ideas emerged initially.

[Regional]

Dear John,
Well, lucky for you, most teachers don't. They don't give a rat's hinder because they are too busy trying to boost standardized scores, cope with the hunger and poverty and parental apathy they see daily.

But it just goes to show the reader that if a person is exposed to a different reality than his own, his first instinct is to call it some name like "distorted."

You is edumacated!
I is running the college and trainin' teecherz!
Viva lib'ruls!
Whatever.

[Thomas Williams, PhD]

I am not sure as to that the phrase "disposition" means. As such, how can one assess [for] it?  Sounds to me like a means and vehicle to control the job market in the most disturbing way!

[Dee, Professor of Music]

I believe it is vitally important that anyone who plans on becoming a teacher, needs to step back and examine their disposition.  It is one thing to have good grades, good communication with professors and students, but if your disposition is not a good one you could have some serious roads to travel.

Being able to communicate with students is one thing, but if your attitude (disposition) is a heartfelt one, I believe you will be a great instructor.  This heartfelt disposition, as I will refer to it, has to be right with not only students but colleagues as well.  A self-righteous disposition will not win you a popularity contest with your students or colleagues.

I have learned over the years to put my personal feelings aside and just "listen" to the students.  Don't take sides, and be objective.  You are in the classroom to "teach" and you have to be teachable as well.  After all, being a teacher, is an education in itself.  You can learn alot just by listening and communicating fairly with your students and colleagues.

The world is your textbook, and students are just a small part of that world, but they still turn to those of higher education to learn "more".  Open not just your eyes, but your heart as well.  Students need "good, heartfelt" mentors to keep our world "morally right".  Get back to teaching, not a "performance in the classroom".

[%sig%]

[Thomas Williams, PhD]

How are we defining "disposition", and who determines what disposition is?  Within this so-called definition, do we take into account all of the so-called variables? I hate to say this, but this sounds like a means and vehicle to control the job market in the most disturbing kind of way!  Forums Moderator wrote:

> Some education schools have begun evaluating their students not
> only on their academic work, communication skills, and
> classroom practice, but also on their "dispositions," such as a
> commitment to "social justice" and sensitivity to "white
> privilege." Do such evaluations, as conservative groups have
> complained, amount to political litmus tests? Or are education
> professors right when they say they have a responsibility to
> make sure their graduates will treat all children fairly?
> Read
> more...
>

[Smokescreen]

The individuals profiled in the "right disposition" piece may or may not have a legitimate beef, and I for one would oppose any political litmus test beyond a "pedagogical oath" to serve the needs of a diverse student body.  But is this really the pressing issue of our day, or even the pressing issue facing higher education?

The idea that the biggest threat to the American way of life is liberal control of the academy is beyond absurd, and ranks right up there with the myth of the persecuted Christian.  "Univ. Professor's" comments were right on the mark.  There is simply no compelling evidence for widespread liberal indoctrinination beyond the anecdotal complaints of individuals with their own agendas.  In my own, admittedly anecdotal experience, conservative students who join the chorus of Horowitz and Fox news can never produce specific examples to support their claims of bias.  Many conservative students seem to hold the (mistaken) believe that they have a right not to even hear views they disagree with.

It's more than a little disingenuous for conservatives to complain about liberal bias in higher education when one of their main agenda items seems to be to distort the content of primary and secondary education to reflect their views and only their views.  When conservatives start supporting the age-appropriate inclusion of diverse views on topics such as race relations, gender and human sexuality, and when they stop trying to pass off "intelligent design" as science, then maybe I can begin to take their complaints a little more seriously.  Till then, stop whining (bettter yet, keep it up--they're pissing off so many people with their arrogant and anti-democratic over-reaching--not too mention political corruption--that they're laying the groundwork for a major shift in the political landscape).

[%sig%]