next »

[aardvark]

Re: the 9-11 post:

After  9-11-- actually, around 6 weeks later-- I rearranged my 20th century world history class to provide a day for a lecture/ discussion (with several pages of assigned readings) that contextualized our Afghan war.  Terrorism was already on the syllabus before the semester began, so I didn't have to add it-- obviously I mentioned 9-11 in the context of that discussion.  I don't think I "acknowledged" 9-11 in any other way in any of my other classes, and I didn't get the sense that the students expected me to. I also don't recall anyone asking for any extensions, though I probably didn't have anything due that week since it was so early in the term.  If my students were freaking out, then they kept it hidden from me.

Beyond historically contextualizing 9-11, I'm not qualified to "acknowledge" it in ways that might help students deal with whatever emotions they are experiencing.  Some professors no doubt are qualified to do so.  Presumably, there are people in our society, and on our campuses, who are qualified to acknowledge a tragedy in the ways the students need.

The last thing I would base my professorial action on is some poll, though.  If I did that I'd obviously have to give students higher grades and less assigned reading.

RE: the bulk of the thread:  clearly drstones's students aren't going to worry that they're going to fail if they don't pray ("He caught me not praying, so now I'm screwed!").  And IMHO anyone who is offended by the word "prayer" in that context needs to be offended a few more times so that they can learn to deal with their self-centeredness.  Which is to say the class is full of people who won't be offended plus maybe a few people for whom being offended offers a useful chance for personal growth.

I doubt any policies were actually violated and if some policy WAS technically violated here then I would bet, say, $500 that no administrator would punish drstones over such a breach.

[husqvarna]

Beyond historically contextualizing 9-11, I'm not qualified to "acknowledge" it in ways that might help students deal with whatever emotions they are experiencing.  Some professors no doubt are qualified to do so.  Presumably, there are people in our society, and on our campuses, who are qualified to acknowledge a tragedy in the ways the students need.

Do you think that this is a worthwhile qualification to have?  As you pointed out there are certainly professors who are qualified... probably psychology and religion professors would be more able to deal with the personal issues, and as drstones mentioned (and I think you don't give yourself enough credit for this), political science, history, or sociology professors may be able to adress the wider ramifications of the event in a way that personally affects students insofar as they are citizens of a country, connected with a particular cultural context, etc.  This I think can be a very personal and influential "acknowledgment"; discussions of what an "enemy" is and is not, who a particular group of people are, or what assumptions we have made about ourselves and others can be very important. 

Re: the 9-11 post:
RE: the bulk of the thread:  clearly drstones's students aren't going to worry that they're going to fail if they don't pray ("He caught me not praying, so now I'm screwed!").  And IMHO anyone who is offended by the word "prayer" in that context needs to be offended a few more times so that they can learn to deal with their self-centeredness.  Which is to say the class is full of people who won't be offended plus maybe a few people for whom being offended offers a useful chance for personal growth.

This is what I have been trying to get at in a lot of my comments.  Perhaps my focusing too much on defending the action itself sounded more like I was pitting myself against those who were opposed to it.  We should value situations like this- where various belief structures, priorities, or perspectives collide- as learning experiences... and we should then come to recognize that in our own cushioned world there isn't even much of a collision to speak of.  We are very blessed to be able to be "offended" by a peaceful request for prayer rather than something more serious.

[infopri]

We are very blessed to be able to be "offended" by a peaceful request for prayer rather than something more serious.

Amen to that, brother/sister.

[much_metta]

I think the OP did a dignified and lovely thing.  If you don't want to pray, don't pray.  I'm sure nobody was worried they'd fail if they chose to stare out the window instead. 

I have been in situations like this before when I was a student and I was absolutely terrified that I would fail if I did not comply.  If you've never been in that situation, you simply can't understand.  Never underestimate the coercive power of social pressure, especially when you (think you) are the only one who would dissent.  Do you really expect someone who is offended by something like that to raise a hand and tell their professor, who has a lot of power and authority over them, "Excuse me.  My religious beliefs do not include prayer and I am offended that you either assume they do or do not care that they do not."? 

Look at what has happened on this thread.  Others will claim that such objections are "insensitive" to their beliefs.  Others will interpret their objections as being "heartless" or "insensitive" to the victims.  Do we really want to further marginalize and isolate individuals in the wake of this tragedy?  Do we really want to make the classroom feel less safe for our students, especially those who think they are "different?"  Like others on this thread, I think the OP's heart was in the right place, and that certainly makes the action more forgiveable, but that in no way makes the situation less uncomfortable or less threatening for anyone with different religious beliefs. 

I think silent reflection or prayer is a far more powerful way to feel for a moment the seriousness of something like what has just occurred than discussion.   What is there to discuss right now?  That kid who's kind of quiet and weird?  Gun control? 

There is plenty to discuss right now.  I've spent the entire week doing just that.  We've discussed how students feel and what they think.  We've discussed what they can do to help and what they can do to make our campus safer.  We've discussed how many people they know who illegally bring a weapon to campus every day.  We've discussed how they can be supportive to those who are having a tough time dealing with what's happened and the campus resources available to help people.  We've discussed what this situation must be like for the gunman's parents and sister, who not only have to cope with the loss of a child and brother--to suicide--but the enormity of the suffering he caused to an entire campus.  We've discussed how his parents are already being blamed for what happened and how their life will be turned upside down in the weeks to come as allegations of sexual abuse are already being leveled against them in the media.  We've discussed how the media is trying to shape and define this story in their own terms and how this changes on a day-to-day basis.  We've discussed why it's so important not to jump to conclusions about the gunman, or his motives, as so many did on Monday.  We've discussed what we can do to be better friends, better citizens, better people, in the wake of this tragedy.  I have no doubt that class time this week was better spent discussing these issues than the topics I had on the syllabus, nor do I have any doubt that my students are far more likely to remember what we talked about this week years down the road than any of the topics I had scheduled.  Tragic as Monday's events were, they provided us all with a teachable moment.  I, for one, am glad I didn't miss the opportunity. 

[neutralname]

I'm tempted to say that since the OP has already clarified that hu didn't instruct hus students to pray, there is no case to discuss here.  Like the Supreme Court, we should only discuss cases where there is a real potential grievance.

But people keep on discussing it anyway, not only stating views with which I disagree, but supporting them with flawed arguments.  I'll just make a couple of points. 

I mentioned to one class of students this week that I'd read the opinion that campuses are devoid of morals and values.  They replied no, that was 9th grade.  Now, they say, they have values.  I believe them too.  (Of course, the person who claimed that campuses are devoid of values may simply mean that students don't share hus values.  If so, hu is probably right.)

Then:

We are very blessed to be able to be "offended" by a peaceful request for prayer rather than something more serious.

If the options are either to be shot or to coerced to pray, I guess I'd choose the prayer too, and be grateful that's all I had to do.  However, those are not the only options. 

Imagine the upset there would be if, the day of the killings, I insisted that my students reflect on the absence of God, the absurdity of religious belief, and the shallowness of those who use religion as a crutch to get through emotionally difficult experiences.  Would it be any defense of my actions if I said "well, they should be glad that I wasn't threatening them" and that they should be grateful that I was giving them a chance of personal growth? 

[dr_stones]

My name isn't Hugh ... it is Stones.

Please don't call me Hu.

Though I still respond to Hufessor.

[anxiousdee1]

I think the OP did a dignified and lovely thing.  If you don't want to pray, don't pray.  I'm sure nobody was worried they'd fail if they chose to stare out the window instead. 

I have been in situations like this before when I was a student and I was absolutely terrified that I would fail if I did not comply.  If you've never been in that situation, you simply can't understand.  Never underestimate the coercive power of social pressure, especially when you (think you) are the only one who would dissent.  Do you really expect someone who is offended by something like that to raise a hand and tell their professor, who has a lot of power and authority over them, "Excuse me.  My religious beliefs do not include prayer and I am offended that you either assume they do or do not care that they do not."? 

 

I think silent reflection or prayer is a far more powerful way to feel for a moment the seriousness of something like what has just occurred than discussion.   What is there to discuss right now?  That kid who's kind of quiet and weird?  Gun control? 

There is plenty to discuss right now.  I've spent the entire week doing just that.  We've discussed how students feel and what they think.  We've discussed what they can do to help and what they can do to make our campus safer.  We've discussed how many people they know who illegally bring a weapon to campus every day.  We've discussed how they can be supportive to those who are having a tough time dealing with what's happened and the campus resources available to help people.  We've discussed what this situation must be like for the gunman's parents and sister, who not only have to cope with the loss of a child and brother--to suicide--but the enormity of the suffering he caused to an entire campus.  We've discussed how his parents are already being blamed for what happened and how their life will be turned upside down in the weeks to come as allegations of sexual abuse are already being leveled against them in the media.  We've discussed how the media is trying to shape and define this story in their own terms and how this changes on a day-to-day basis.  We've discussed why it's so important not to jump to conclusions about the gunman, or his motives, as so many did on Monday.  We've discussed what we can do to be better friends, better citizens, better people, in the wake of this tragedy.  I have no doubt that class time this week was better spent discussing these issues than the topics I had on the syllabus, nor do I have any doubt that my students are far more likely to remember what we talked about this week years down the road than any of the topics I had scheduled.  Tragic as Monday's events were, they provided us all with a teachable moment.  I, for one, am glad I didn't miss the opportunity. 

Why would you raise your hand and openly object to a professor's heartfelt request that the class take a moment for prayer or silent reflection?  I would worry about what the professor thought of me if I took such a combative stance as well and embarrassed him or her.

As for the discussion idea, I think it's wonderful if you were able to facilitate productive discussion especially when the event is so recent and raw.  Indeed, I applaud your equanimity and your students' supernormal ability to stay on topic.  I was trying to make the point that much of what recently occurred strains the limits of comprehension--what the young man at VTech did was beyond the limits of reason and is, in many ways, nonsensical to most of us.  What we can do is to try to identify with that which is sensical, the loss of loved ones.  And of course I am including in my empathy the parents and relatives of the shooter.  Moments of silence or prayer allow us to imagine for a moment what the victims must have experienced and what their families are experiencing; it allows us to reflect on our own humanity and that of others.  Far from being pointless, these moments can be exercises toward the development of an essential but often absent (as we've just seen) sympathetic relationship with the world.  Cho certainly didn't spend much time imagining what his victims and their families would be feeling.

[aardvark]

Then:

We are very blessed to be able to be "offended" by a peaceful request for prayer rather than something more serious.

Imagine the upset there would be if, the day of the killings, I insisted that my students reflect on the absence of God, the absurdity of religious belief, and the shallowness of those who use religion as a crutch to get through emotionally difficult experiences.  Would it be any defense of my actions if I said "well, they should be glad that I wasn't threatening them" and that they should be grateful that I was giving them a chance of personal growth? 

While your counter-example may be a *logical* parallel to what drstones did, I seriously doubt that you think that this is *contextually* the same thing.  If you do, then I won't try to convince you otherwise, but I'll say that IMHO most faculty, administrators, and students will not see drstones's moment of silence and your (hypothetical) diatribe against students' religious beliefs as-- contextually-- the same thing.

There ARE of course, appropriate contexts in which you could state your beliefs in the shallowness of religion and the absence of God.

What drstones is describing is a common American ritual that takes place on solemn or grief-provoking situations.  100 years from now it may not be a common American ritual-- and heck, reflecting on the absence of God may be the ritual that takes its place. 

The personal growth that the offended might gain from such a situation isn't, of course, a personal growth that they are choosing.  And I didn't intend in my earlier post to equate personal growth with learning to believe in God.  All I mean by personal growth in this context is that (as earlier posters have said) too many people are "offended" by very silly things.  I've had students who were "offended" by things said by dead people, for crying out loud-- where's the mileage in that? 

The personal growth comes from a thought process like this: "Granted that I don't believe in God... still, why am I 'offended' by a ritual that seems to comfort lots of people?  Is it because I'm forced to sit through it?  But this is only a minute or two, and gee, I'm forced to do a lot of things in life that I wouldn't choose-- that 2 hours I spent filing my taxes is time I'll never get back again-- and the fact that I have to sit through 1-2 minutes of what I think is a very stupid exercise, that seems nevertheless to help these other people (who I think are shallow idiots) isn't really that big a deal.  You know, I'm after all too big a person to be 'offended' by something so silly."

The beauty of it is, if you do think the minute of silence is silly, you can actually have that entire thought process I just described IN the minute of silence.

[husqvarna]

Then:

We are very blessed to be able to be "offended" by a peaceful request for prayer rather than something more serious.

Imagine the upset there would be if, the day of the killings, I insisted that my students reflect on the absence of God, the absurdity of religious belief, and the shallowness of those who use religion as a crutch to get through emotionally difficult experiences.  Would it be any defense of my actions if I said "well, they should be glad that I wasn't threatening them" and that they should be grateful that I was giving them a chance of personal growth? 

While your counter-example may be a *logical* parallel to what drstones did, I seriously doubt that you think that this is *contextually* the same thing.  If you do, then I won't try to convince you otherwise, but I'll say that IMHO most faculty, administrators, and students will not see drstones's moment of silence and your (hypothetical) diatribe against students' religious beliefs as-- contextually-- the same thing.

You're right, but neutralname does have a point.  I think I would just say (in my defense!) that I wasn't really offering this as a defense... I wouldn't wan't to try to justify any offensive remarks I or anyone else might make to a student, I just want to say that, given these issues will be offensive, I am thankful that we are dealing with these issues rather than any other.  It IS a shame that students are hurt by these sorts of comments, and it IS a bad thing.  But as we have been discussing how to respond to tragedies like this, we are tripping over ourselves to find the "right" way.  What I appreciate about the good hufessor's action was that it wasn't justified or defended.  It was just spoken honestly, unsure of itself and yet sure that something had to be said.  If neutralname felt that hus counterexample was what the students needed to hear, then fine.  Many who have gone before us saw the same message as necessary to preach.  So long as neutralname recognizes that there is no defense for hurtful comments and what we are looking for is some sort of way forward within a world that can't avoid the kind of pain we are discussing.

[aardvark]

Then:

We are very blessed to be able to be "offended" by a peaceful request for prayer rather than something more serious.

Imagine the upset there would be if, the day of the killings, I insisted that my students reflect on the absence of God, the absurdity of religious belief, and the shallowness of those who use religion as a crutch to get through emotionally difficult experiences.  Would it be any defense of my actions if I said "well, they should be glad that I wasn't threatening them" and that they should be grateful that I was giving them a chance of personal growth? 

While your counter-example may be a *logical* parallel to what drstones did, I seriously doubt that you think that this is *contextually* the same thing.  If you do, then I won't try to convince you otherwise, but I'll say that IMHO most faculty, administrators, and students will not see drstones's moment of silence and your (hypothetical) diatribe against students' religious beliefs as-- contextually-- the same thing.

You're right, but neutralname does have a point.  I think I would just say (in my defense!) that I wasn't really offering this as a defense... I wouldn't wan't to try to justify any offensive remarks I or anyone else might make to a student, I just want to say that, given these issues will be offensive, I am thankful that we are dealing with these issues rather than any other.  It IS a shame that students are hurt by these sorts of comments, and it IS a bad thing.  But as we have been discussing how to respond to tragedies like this, we are tripping over ourselves to find the "right" way.  What I appreciate about the good hufessor's action was that it wasn't justified or defended.  It was just spoken honestly, unsure of itself and yet sure that something had to be said.  If neutralname felt that hus counterexample was what the students needed to hear, then fine.  Many who have gone before us saw the same message as necessary to preach.  So long as neutralname recognizes that there is no defense for hurtful comments and what we are looking for is some sort of way forward within a world that can't avoid the kind of pain we are discussing.

My point is that a minute of silence, in this context, is a rather silly thing to be offended over.  I wouldn't defend the idea of *trying* to offend students-- I try NOT to offend students. But clearly drstones wasn't trying to offend students, and IMHO if one was offended he/ she shouldn't be.

I've had this same conversation with colleagues regarding politics.  A guest speaker comes in for a campus-wide ceremonial occasion and gives a very left-leaning speech:  a conservative colleague walks out "offended" and a liberal colleague loudly proclaims what a baby the conservative colleague was and how wonderful the speech was.  Six months later, the tables are turned when a conservative speaker manages to "offend" my liberal colleague.  Of all the idiocy:  after making fun of her conservative colleague, this liberal baby does exactly the same thing-- she walks out "offended."

Maybe my opinion stems from the fact that-- though I'm obsessive, though I'm argumentative, though I get my hackles up-- I just have never learned the acquired skill of being easily offended.

[dark_globe]

In the past few days my classes have gone on as always; the students seem exactly the same as always. The subjects of my courses are such that to bring up the subject of the VT shootings would be completely outside the course material (not always the case, but this semester it is).

I had a class on september 11, 2001, again on a subject completely unrelated to politics. I tried to teach for about 10 minutes, but it was obvious no one could focus on the material so I just dismissed the class.

As for offering my own "words of wisdom" concerning these sorts of events, first I think it's not my place, and second I'm not very comforting or empathetic.

[_touchedbyanoodle_]

In light of the question as to whether or not calling for a moment of prayer is "offensive," I had to offer my two cents.

I would have been offended by such a request (but not a request for a "moment of silence"). Why? Because I find religion offensive. Bill Maher recently summed up my views nicely: "Religion is childish destructive nonsense." In times of despair, I am especially offended by the idea of prayer simply because it often seems to take the place of actually doing something to cause good. (That is, doing something other than asking Somebody Else to do something.)

[anxiousdee1]

In light of the question as to whether or not calling for a moment of prayer is "offensive," I had to offer my two cents.

I would have been offended by such a request (but not a request for a "moment of silence"). Why? Because I find religion offensive. Bill Maher recently summed up my views nicely: "Religion is childish destructive nonsense." In times of despair, I am especially offended by the idea of prayer simply because it often seems to take the place of actually doing something to cause good. (That is, doing something other than asking Somebody Else to do something.)

Two cents was never a more apt descriptor.  Yes, Bill Maher with his barely digested and then expectorated Marxist screed against religion: so inspiring.  As if any christian believes that prayer takes the place of right action.  Prayer, myrealname, is not a Christmas list.

[trabb]

I would have been offended by such a request (but not a request for a "moment of silence"). Why? Because I find religion offensive. Bill Maher recently summed up my views nicely: "Religion is childish destructive nonsense." In times of despair, I am especially offended by the idea of prayer simply because it often seems to take the place of actually doing something to cause good. (That is, doing something other than asking Somebody Else to do something.)

Prayer is what we do when there -is- nothing else to do.  If you can suggest even one thing that dr_stones could have done to help anyone over in Blacksburg, I'd love to hear it. 

I'm sure you didn't intend this, but your post makes you come across as a self-righteous, pompous ass.  I can fully understand why someone might say that dr_stones made a poor choice in violating university policy.  To belittle the prayers of others because you think they are ineffective, however, strikes me as being a bit much.

[dark_globe]

In light of the question as to whether or not calling for a moment of prayer is "offensive," I had to offer my two cents.

I would have been offended by such a request (but not a request for a "moment of silence"). Why? Because I find religion offensive. Bill Maher recently summed up my views nicely: "Religion is childish destructive nonsense." In times of despair, I am especially offended by the idea of prayer simply because it often seems to take the place of actually doing something to cause good. (That is, doing something other than asking Somebody Else to do something.)

Two cents was never a more apt descriptor.  Yes, Bill Maher with his barely digested and then expectorated Marxist screed against religion: so inspiring.  As if any christian believes that prayer takes the place of right action.  Prayer, myrealname, is not a Christmas list.

I've met Bill Maher. He's a pompous, arrogant, self-important ass.