next »

[TSA, UCB, retired]

John McWhorter, formerly University of California, Dept of Linguistics
December 13, 2005
FORUM KQED FM
http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R512130900

"The general idea is that part of being an educated person is to learn that there's inequality in society that's not always obvious to someone with relatively narrow horizons, and that is an important lesson to learn.

I think it can also be said that over the past 30 to 40 years it has gotten to the point where that particular lesson has had a way of crowding out some other things in many disciplines. There is certainly a fetishization of that message.

It's not that the message is wrong but  the idea that that should be the keystone of a liberal arts education is one that would have looked peculiar to someone in 1930, and I think will look peculiar to someone in 2070."

[%sig%]

[Not Surprised]

I have children in university, and I always tell them to avoid any classes or teachers who try to enforce a certain political viewpoint, be it from the left or the right.  In those classes, there is no freedom of thought or discussion.  Recognizing the reality of privilege and power means recognizing that the professors have all the power and the students have none.

If they can't avoid those classes or teachers, then I tell them simply to play the game - to tell those professors what they want to hear.  Just listen to the prof, get a reading on the correct opinions, and give those back to the prof.  If they do that, then they can get high marks with less work (if they have no alternative but to take those courses).

Looking at the "conceptual frameworks" for dispositions, it is evident that some institutions are trying to define and enforce a certain political orthodoxy.  Students who want to think for themselves should avoid such institutions, but if they have no choice, they should play the game and tell the professors what they want to hear.  

While I believe that any attempts to enforce political orthodoxy are antithetical to what a university should be all about, I also have little sympathy for some of the students who get themselves into trouble with T-shirts, bumper stickers, and comments that challenge the orthodoxy of the school or the opinions of the profs.  These students should bide their time and play the game, recognizing the realities of power in the university environment.  They should be realistic, and they should be flexible.

[John]

Well, so much for integrity.

[%sig%]

[Sick of PC]

John wrote: "Well, so much for integrity."

I believe that in the example given, it is the professors who turn their classrooms into political indoctrination gulags that have the questionable integrity. The students who are intelligent and strong enough to endure and turn the unethical professors' weakness for proselytizing and self-admiration are to be commended and admired.

[Worried for the Future]

But what about *education?* Does that enter into the calculus at all?  Questioning and dissent are the very heart of education per se: Can we really stand by passively while petty indoctrination wholly supplants essential intellectual training?


This is no game. Far from it. I would never advise students to just parrot what they are told to parrot: That would be manifest malpractice.

[Worried for the Future]

No: As clearly stated, I have forgotten the institution that did the study.

[Worried for the Future]

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni did that survey last year (2004).

[Not Surprised]

How much integrity can there be in a class where you can get an "A" for parroting the professor's opinion, and an "F", or an exit from the program, for not following the party line?  There is no integrity in such classes, and that is why students should avoid them if at all possible.  If they can't avoid them, then they must play the game and give the politically correct answers.

[%sig%]

[Big State School]

This disposition requirements sets a dangerous precedent. Presumably tenure exists in higher education so that we can teach and speak our minds without concern that our "disposition" is disagreeable to someone else, especially someone with power. If K-12 educators are given a disposition test, then whose next? Several Academic Bill of Rights legislations, aimed right at university professors, are making their way through various state governments. The two sound very much the same to me.

I wish education programs stressed CONTENT. Whatever happened to the good old days when teachers were expected to know and understand the material they taught? These days I have prospective science educators in my classes, which they refer to as "content classes," who are majoring in "critical thinking." I had to check our university website to learn that Critical thinking is the study of pedagogy. Apparently studying how to teach is no longer enough. Now we need to study HOW we study how to teach. And in the mean time, my prospective science educators cannot do multiplication or division. I consider that a much bigger threat to the future of our children at the hands of the next generation of educators.

[H.J.S.]

As a teacher required to belong to AFT -- IMHO, this is the kind of ideological weirdness that builds public support for charter schools and voucher education. I have seen it, first-hand.

You have Big Education/Big Labor, under the umbrella of Big Government, subjectively and arbitrarily picking sides in subjective political battles that can piss off 50% of the taxpaying public.

Do you think the opponents are just going to stand by and do nothing? Please -- get real. You throw rocks at people -- they are going to throw some back. This has obviously been the case.

If Big Education/Big Labor wants more charter schools/vouchers -- keep it up. You'll get them -- you'll be de-funded.

[Tim Henrich, Professor]

The fact is that when students are tested they must produce the right answer. For the basic courses in science and math there is a correct answer to the problem and maybe several solutions. For instance in circuit theory the voltage drop can be calculated by simultaneous equations or using Kirchoff's Law. If you cannot solve the problems and know the subject matter your not fit to teach.

The issue in science is that because some true believers have the inside information that the earth is 5000 years old and was created in 7 days and women were made from a man's rib and that anything in science is irrelevent.       Hence instead of studying gravitational theory they have decided that intelligent design causes people to fall, "the lord reached down and knocked me off my surfboard". This excuse will not provide students an education and it is no wonder that we have to import people who can cipher from India and China.

In other areas such as social sciences, humanities or the arts, there may not always be one correct answer. However students might have to recall for a test how the philosophers of various eras addressed issues They should know the characteristics of impressionist painting or the nature of the authoritarian personality as written by Adorno or the writings on suicide by Durkheim.

Students may have their own beliefs but getting an education means that you should understand the writings of people who have actually studied the issues rather than people know everything because they heard it from a precher on Sunday morning.

In studying history students may not believe in the Devine Right of Kings but the student will study how the nobility justified this philosophy whether they believe it or not.

The President of Iran does not believe the Holocuast took place but if he lived in Europe he would be taken to a concentration camp to see and and he would have to pass an examination.
 
Some conservative people today will tell you that God made George Bush the President of the United States and people believe it. However if one takes a course in political science and the electoral system they would probably need to describe how officials are selected and elected - even if they believe that God put someone in office. You can't escape knowing American government by saying God put those people in their position.

Another conservative friend believes that the world is run by the Tri-Lateral Commission and that Gorbechov is in charge of it. Hence knowing anything about the government is really meaningless because Gorbi is calling the shots. This guy has a BA in History but had to be concurrently enrolled in an Anger Mangement Course because he was sure Satan was telling the teachers what to say.

Universities have to deal with these issues because most institutions have such weak admission standards that if you can fog a mirror you can get accepted. Students are not preapred to understand and synthesize new information and compare it to what they were supposed to have learned in high school. If there is such thing as higher education it would follow that lower education must be completed first.

As far as being suitable for teaching, I doubt if that can ever be an empirically derived constant hence any teacher without the disposition to teach will usually be taken care of by Darwin.

[%sig%]

[John]

I thoroughly agree with you in this matter.  Colleges and Universities (as well as the whole public education system in general) in the U.S. have become bastions of left-wing politics and religion.

Granted, discretion is sometimes the better part of valor, and sometimes it is better to run (or hide) than to fight, but I would like to see more students (and parents of students) fighting to get the wimpy left-wing pseudo-intellectuals to stand down.

[%sig%]

[Bystander]

Consider this--'disposition' testing is a short step away from the next development: hiring the manifestly incompetent because they are especially strong in their 'disposition'.

Most of the posts here have taken the (quite correct) position that the thought police are out and about, making mischief by sorting out those who disagree with them.  Phase 2 is having 'disposition' preempt all other considerations and, hence, privileging those who do agree with them.  Affirmative action for the politically correct.

[A.D.]

The American Enterprise
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17443/article_detail.asp

Berkeley Electronic Press
http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss2/art8/

[%sig%]

[Anonymous]

"The schism has caused people like the activist David Horowitz to call on universities to hire more Republican faculty members and be more tolerant of conservative students."

I'm interested in Horowitz's response here - is he suggesting affirmative action for Republicans?