# Should there be limits on what teachers can teach?



## ginshun (Feb 25, 2005)

This question has been spawned from the Ward Churchill debate in the other thread.  The question just seems to keep popping into my head, and I thought it was a little out of the scope of the other thread.

 Should anything a teacher says in his/her classroom be up for debate, or can they say anything they please?  

 Is there a limit, or a line that should not be crossed?  Should public opinion have any say in it?


----------



## OUMoose (Feb 25, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> This question has been spawned from the Ward Churchill debate in the other thread.  The question just seems to keep popping into my head, and I thought it was a little out of the scope of the other thread.
> 
> Should anything a teacher says in his/her classroom be up for debate, or can they say anything they please?
> 
> Is there a limit, or a line that should not be crossed?  Should public opinion have any say in it?


Can we be a little more specific at least about the age group? 

The problem with public opinion is that you'll never have a unanimous decision.  That's what makes this society so great.  Not only free speech but free _thought_.  Please allow me to indulge in an illustration briefly.

Your child and many others are enrolled in a school.  You're a good parent and are involved in PTA and whatnot.  Come to find out, there's a history teacher expounding on something that happened in the past that you don't agree with.  However, some of the other parents in the school do agree with the teacher.  In this case, you are in the majority of public opinion, though.  Therefore, your group of people has the teacher removed.  Some of the other parents pull their children out of the school citing various reasons, and put them in a different school more akin to _their_ opinions.  This cycle continues until everyone in the school meets with your approval, and everyone in the other school meets with the other people's approval.  What just happened?  You segregated the student population based on an ideal.  

OK.  Let us extrapolate this out a little bit.  The children in the first school that you're now pleased with go through their entire education that way, learning a specific way without an outside source for debate.  Now they are young adults, with a specific set of education-induced tenents that they formulate opinions based off of.  However, without the element of debate, they have a difficult time rationalizing and making up their own minds about other topics.  Therefore, they choose a more isolationist approach to raise _their_ children in, and go to the same school to learn the same things.  Over and over again this happens until our society begins to revert away from our current system and ends up back in a tribal society, where people don't leave the ideals of their group of compatriots.  

Perhaps this is an extreme example, and somewhat of a naysayers outlook, but this is a forum for debate, and I'm throwing it out there for conversation.    If you would like a more real world example, take a look at the amish and their ideas about outsiders with differing opinions than their own.

Please note I'm not promoting something inheirently dangerous for children, but as they grow and learn to think on their own, I do believe the kid gloves should come off and some thought provoking questions should be asked.


----------



## ginshun (Feb 25, 2005)

Great response, this is what I am looking for, peoples opinions.  There are no right or wrong anwers here.



			
				OUMoose said:
			
		

> The problem with public opinion is that you'll never have a unanimous decision. That's what makes this society so great. Not only free speech but free _thought_.  Please allow me to indulge in an illustration briefly.
> 
> Your child and many others are enrolled in a school. You're a good parent and are involved in PTA and whatnot. Come to find out, there's a history teacher expounding on something that happened in the past that you don't agree with. However, some of the other parents in the school do agree with the teacher. In this case, you are in the majority of public opinion, though. Therefore, your group of people has the teacher removed. Some of the other parents pull their children out of the school citing various reasons, and put them in a different school more akin to _their_ opinions. This cycle continues until everyone in the school meets with your approval, and everyone in the other school meets with the other people's approval. What just happened? You segregated the student population based on an ideal.


 OK, I see your point, but given this example, isn't it just as likely (if not moreso) for the same thing to happen if the teacher *isn't *removed? i.e. since the majority of the parents don't like the teachers opinion, they pull there kids out and send them to the other school?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Feb 25, 2005)

What if there isn't another school?

What if you can't afford private school?


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Great response, this is what I am looking for, peoples opinions. There are no right or wrong anwers here.
> 
> 
> OK, I see your point, but given this example, isn't it just as likely (if not moreso) for the same thing to happen if the teacher *isn't *removed? i.e. since the majority of the parents don't like the teachers opinion, they pull there kids out and send them to the other school?


Perhaps, although it will be the parents who _choose_ to move their children that do so.  The parents who espouse freedom of thought, and would like to expose their children to diverse opinions will not be _forced_ into this type of pigeonholing scenario.


----------



## TigerWoman (Feb 25, 2005)

And then we have teachers who have tenure.  What job in this day and age has that kind of security?  I've seen some really baaad art teachers who could not only not draw, could not teach the subject with any enthusiasm, and didn't care how he graded or if the student came a way with any improvement or love of art. He handed out assignments and graded them. Period.

Also a music band teacher with tenure.  Discouraged and demoted the talented band students because they didn't get on the bandwagon in the summer _prior to even joining band_ and raise money for a trip to be the week of Christmas.  That was just one of the things he did.  So many lives he affected negatively just like the art teacher but worse.  He went out of his way to be mean.  I was glad he finally "retired" at 45.  I fought, talked to the counselor, principal, school board and music boosters.  But I know I wasn't the only parent upset but we had not way of knowing who we were.  I firmly believe the story that he had a public appointed job and tenure so he was immune-no recourse, to be wrong wrong wrong.  And no there was not other band in town other than the really old guys getting together in the summer.  

This may be soapbox since this has long been over but teachers AND principals, curriculum directors, etc etc. should not be autonomous. I don't know how many times I was talked to condescendingly to have changes later appear in the curriculum. And our school board should not have been so spineless.  I know, I probably should have ran for school board, but had enough on my plate.  TW


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2005)

TigerWoman said:
			
		

> And then we have teachers who have tenure..... but had enough on my plate. TW


How exactly is this related to the topic of the thread?  I believe the discussion is specifically addressing free speech in the classroom, not job security, not subject knowledge, etc.


----------



## TigerWoman (Feb 26, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Should anything a teacher says in his/her classroom be up for debate, or can they say anything they please?
> 
> Is there a limit, or a line that should not be crossed?  Should public opinion have any say in it?



I took this as what a teacher says to a student as in demeaning. Also what a teacher can do as well as say.  The music teacher crossed the line.  If this doesn't add anything to the topic, delete my post. Sorry!  TW


----------



## BrandiJo (Feb 26, 2005)

Im in college now, and my major is elem ed, i know there will be limits on what i am allowed to teach, but i dont think it should be that way, but everyone has to answer to someone and if the person you are answering to disaproves then you dont get to do things how you had them planned. But the best you could do would be alter the plans to make everyone happy but still keep your lesson in mind. 

 Teachers should be free to express there own thoughts and ideas too, as long as they are not forceful, or harmful of another, i see no reason why we should censor what is said ...keeping in mind the age group being taught.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 26, 2005)

As someone who recently was tenured--after seventeen years of assorted work after grad school!--I could try to explain the reasons for tenure. Or I could try and explain what's life's like for those of us stupid enough to go into academics...which, while it certainly isn't as stressful as, say, living in Palestine, does have its little problems.

But that won't do the slightest good. Too many folks have either, a) bought the right-wing party line on this subject, b) lost sight of their own issues while projecting them onto teachers, c) bought into the idea that because they're treated unfairly by the culture and the economy we've all built, everybody else should suffer too.

So what I'll say is this: if anything shows why there should be tenure, it's this thread. Where, it seems to me, the basic idea is that "the community," (led no doubt by those of high moral principle and crystal-clear insight) should decide what science is, what books are, what our history is--even though they can't be bothered to learn about any of these things. So wave good-bye to evolution, to Freud, to feminist discussions, to explanations of "godless," religions such as Islam, to Judy Blume's books, to, "Huck Finn"--the good folk, leading the rest of Salem Village, are on the march. 

And yes, that's exactly what's being argued for, here. Funny, though--nobody who brings this stuff up ever seems to be upset by stuff like Christian fundamentalists shoving their beliefs down students' throats, or history profs making up stories about civil-rights cuddly Pilgrims and Crusaders who "just wanted to help," (yes, somebody on this thread's actually arguing that). It's just the lefties and the liberals...imagine my surprise.

Sheesh. Sorry, but if your kids are coming home wide-eyed over What Teacher Said, if you and your community are Arguing About Books, it's probably because somebody in that school is doing their job. Sorry, too, that a couple of decades of religious fanatic propaganda and advertising for capitalism uber alles have left so many people unhappy with the best aspects of American education.


----------



## Melissa426 (Feb 26, 2005)

You are a nun hired to teach theology at a Catholic seminary. You will be teaching future priests.
Are you allowed, outside classroom activities, to espouse your beliefs that the Catholic's church's position that forbids ordination of women as priests is wrong ?

Not according to St. Meinrad School of Theology in St. Meinrad, IN, who fired Sister Carmel McEnroy for signing a letter to Pope John Paull II that called for ordination of women as priests.

Is this different from other cases because it is a religious private institution?

Melissa


----------



## Phoenix44 (Feb 27, 2005)

> Is this different from other cases because it is a religious private institution?


Well, yes.  Private religious institutions have always had a degree of insulation from secular law.  (I happen not to agree with the decision, BTW)

In my mind, there's a difference between teaching young children and teaching college students.  College students are free to disagree with the teacher.  The college I went to had one economics professor who taught the superiority of capitalism, and another who taught the superiority of socialism.  They taught the same course, for cryin' out loud!  They just had very different opinions.  The school didn't fire anybody, and the students were free to choose one professor over another.  

I don't think that anyone's opinion on "tenure" has any relationship to their opinion on the expression of opinion.  You can be dead set against tenure, but still respect freedom of speech.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Feb 27, 2005)

I'm tired of people who think "freedom of speech" is an aegis under and behind which they can say whatever they like without incurring any sort of consequence whatsoever.

The natural consequence of loudly expressing unpopular opinions is _being unpopular_.  If you say vile things about murdered citizens of the United States, you really ought to expect every decent man, woman, and child within a two mile radius of you and your raving to think you're a stinking lowlife.  If you compound your comments by going on at great length about how you wish the entire nation of the United States would be destroyed, ceasing to exist forevermore, you really ought not be terribly shocked when a plurality of your fellow Americans consider you a traitorous agitator who seeks -- however indirectly and intellectually -- to _murder them_.

When the result of all of this is that your employer begins to wonder if it ought to employ you because of the incredibly bad press brought on it by your proximity to it, the issue is not one of freedom of speech -- for no government agency has attempted to tell you that you cannot stand on the highest mountaintop shouting your murderous, treasonous filth at all who pass by.  You are certainly free to go on vomiting on the fresh graves of your fellow Americans to your heart's content.  You simply cannot act shocked or otherwise seek to hide behind your First Amendment-protected freedoms when the majority of those around you would sooner see you burn alive than put you out with a sledgehammer.

The hypocrisy of wishing for the destruction of the very nation whose governing framework permits and even guarantees you the continued freedom to loudly proclaim your desire to see it salted and plowed under is lost on this Churchill's most ardent defenders.  More simply, however, this is not an issue of "freedom of speech."  This is an issue of accepting responsibility for one's words and one's actions.


----------



## Adept (Feb 27, 2005)

My thoughts - 

 1 - I dont know what tenure is. Is it some kind of fixed period of service contract? If we have it in Australia, we probably call it something else.

 2 - As everyone knows, freedom of speech is limited. You can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre. All that remains is to decide where to limit it in this instance.

 3 - Teachers have a lot of influence over children. Not all children have parents at home who will help them, or challenge the views of a teacher.

 4 - Bearing this in mind, I feel teachers should be as morally and politically neutral as possible.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 27, 2005)

Actually, Phil, the issue with the Churchill comments (which are in a different thread with a different topic from this one) is not merely freedom of speech, but _academic freedom_.  Churchill isn't employed by a private company, but a university.

 Everyone in America is free to hate Churchill for what he said, but the moment educational institutions start firing people who say unpopular things, we paralyze academia's ability to research and discuss and teach things that may not please the majority of people.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Feb 27, 2005)

No, it's not an academic freedom issue.  If he was "teaching" the joys of man-boy love and advocating child molestation, he woudl be every bit as unfit to teach our nation's children as he is in advocating the destruction of the United States while pissing on the graves of those murdered by terrorists.

At what point do we decide that there are standards of decency and professionalism, the violation of which renders one unfit to be an employee of a given employer?


----------



## TigerWoman (Feb 27, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> At what point do we decide that there are standards of decency and professionalism, the violation of which renders one unfit to be an employee of a given employer?



Exactly what I was trying to say!  TW


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 27, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> No, it's not an academic freedom issue. If he was "teaching" the joys of man-boy love and advocating child molestation, he woudl be every bit as unfit to teach our nation's children as he is in advocating the destruction of the United States while pissing on the graves of those murdered by terrorists.
> 
> At what point do we decide that there are standards of decency and professionalism, the violation of which renders one unfit to be an employee of a given employer?


 Mr. Elmore, it does not take a genius to recognize that the "joys of man-boy love" nor "the advocating of child molestation" are not viable nor acceptable subjects which a student must study for the betterment of the mind. Questioning authority is most definitely indicated as part of stretching and growing the intellectual and moral capacity of our youth. 

 An act of piracy gets attention and, though I do not necessarily agree with all that Mr. Churchill has to say and agree that his background is suspect, I think once one peels away at the smelly outside layers of his comments, the core is certainly considerable.

 As to your statement of standards of decency and unfit employees, in this instance, this is based PURELY on opinion. The educational model must be one of openmindedness to a degree. Even to an almost alarmist degree. And his employeeship is up for discussion there. All kinds of whackos are teaching our kids, he is just one. The point is to make people think and discuss ... especially young minds who, until that point in their lives, have been taught that they must follow all rules unquestionably. 

  Squashing teachers and their curriculi isn't the answer.


----------



## TigerWoman (Feb 27, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> My thoughts -
> 
> 
> 2 - As everyone knows, freedom of speech is limited. You can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre. All that remains is to decide where to limit it in this instance.
> ...



I agree with this.  Teachers shouldn't be quashed but neither should they have full rein especially those in grade school.  College, students have to have both sides and formulate their opinions again with neutrality.  But I've seen teachers in a Christian college influence greatly these young formulative minds too, to the point that what parents said was literally  shut out. Brainwashed?  TW


----------



## Phil Elmore (Feb 27, 2005)

> Mr. Elmore, it does not take a genius to recognize that the "joys of man-boy love" nor "the advocating of child molestation" are not viable nor acceptable subjects which a student must study for the betterment of the mind.



By the same token, it does not take a genius to recognize that advocating the destruction of the very nation of which one's students are citizens while proclaiming that those mass-murdered by cowardly terrorist attacks _deserved what happened to them_ are neither viable nor acceptable subjects that a student must study for the betterment of the mind.

This is not a freedom of speech issue and it is not an academic freedom issue -- any more than shouting "Fire!" or perhaps "Let's go murder some people!" in a crowded theater or classroom would be protected by said freedoms.

All those lining up to defend Ward Churchill (while paying lipservice to his right to "free speech") have outed themselves as no better than the aforementioned child molesters, terrorists, and mass-murdering thugs.  As the old saying goes, when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 27, 2005)

Interesting, cuz I'm not itchy in the least.

 Again, I do not support all that he says.  The core of his argument has already been emphasized here and, if it is that easy to ignore the fact that our government set us up for this kind of tragedy, then the presidentail doghouse is quite full apparently, though I would not know.

 To react to the more simplistic elements of this man's speech can be appropriate.  I would never dream of saying nor subscribing to the idea that people that sacrificed their lives that fateful day deserved what they got.  However, surely even the most, erm, canine of us can admit that 9/11 was a wake-up call and the agencies that allowed these men to remain in our country were slack and we, as an American people, need to be aware of our failings and the failings of our government.  And since our government is *cough* of the people *spit*,  *ahem* by the people *cough cough* and *sputter* for the people **********, we the people are partly accountable in failing to recognize and respond to internal threats, no? 

 How is thrashing one unpopular, cowardly, misguided misfit going to fix the problems that led to 9/11?  How is firing him going to get us to question how INS operations allowed these men to stay and who is accountable for that?  How is squashing rude, noisy opinion by the educational circuit going to keep it from happening again?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 27, 2005)

Ah. Well, now we're reaching a point of clarity.

If you teach something that the good townsfolk of Salem find discomforting, it's absolutely unacceptable. Apparently the Constitution does not protect (and neither does the vague principle of academic freedom) a speaker or teacher's interest in articulating ideas that disturb the Way Things Are--oh wait, I forgot, that's exactly what the Constitution and academic freedom are there for. To make it possible--not necessarily safe, nor comfortable, just possible--for teachers and students to discuss unhappy ideas and realities. 

Incidentally, academic freedom is written into the Education Code out here in California, but I feel sure that minor issue will be written off as just another of those wacky things liberals do. After all, there are all those sad stories about the ACLU presenting the Bill of Rights as a petition every July 4th, and a majority of respondents either not recognizing it, or demanding to know why somebody's circulating an un-American petition.

Perhaps more to the point, the interesting thing is that apparently teachers teaching uncomfortable issues in a classroom is immediately to be equated with terrorism and child molestation--but a magazine that has lots of little ads selling the trinkets of violence, pandering to boys' fascination with things that go boom, and offering 'thought pieces,' that glorify violence, deny the reality of moral responsibility, and present a picture of reality that in its distortion of the world and legitimation of violence is not to be equalled outside the pages of survivalist sf novels like "The Wingman," well, hey, no problem whatsoever. 

I'd be curious as to whether any of you folks have ever read the following:

1. "Lysistrata...." ancient Greek play; women go on a sex strike to stop men's wars.
2. "Oedipus Rex," Greek play...."He was a good boy/he loved his mother."
3. Petronius, "The Satyricon." Wall-to-wall hermaphrodites and orgies. 
4. The Old Testament....don't ask.
5. Juvenal, "Satires." Roman emperors and boys.
6. Plato, "Symposium." Socrates, drunk philosophers, the nature of love, and cute young Alcibiades.
7. Chaucer, "The Miller's Tale." "I never knew a woman had a beard...," and let's not even discuss, "The Prioress' Tale."
8. Boccacio, "The Decameron." Sex and the Black Death.
9. William Shakespeare, "As You Like It," (cross-dressing!), "Romeo and Juliet" (gang violence, pre-marital sex, teen suicide), or "King Lear" (find out what the phrase, "That dark and vicious place in which thee he got/Cost him his eyes") means...
10. And then let's not even get into "Confessions of an English Opium Eater," Twain's "Huck Finn" (let alone Leslie Fiedler's hilarious essay, "Come Back to the Raft Ag'in, Huck Honey"), Oscar Wilde's whole life, Henry Miller's books, Hemingway's radical college professor in "For Whom the Bell Tolls," running off to Spain to fight with the Communists....

And oh whoops, I left out "Spoon River Anthology," and its "Dulce et decorum est," James Jones' "The Thin Red Line," Tim O'Brien's, "The Things They Carried," all of which fall short of the flag-waving glorification of stupidity in war that is apparently now de rigeur.

All of which I mention because there's a lot of hooey written on these forums about separating the clean, good tradition of Western culture from the filthy, dirty products of sick liberal minds. That way, the fantasy goes, we can just teach the clean and vilify the dirty.

What a load. Only people who don't know jack about the very tradition and culture--and I deliberately picked a list of stuff by Dead White Guys, books that're on everybody's list of Great Books--could possibly argue that.

So I'd be fascinated to know--how exactly do y'all propose organizing and teaching this squeaky-clean, sanitized-for-your-protection canon? Where do you plan to get it from? Mars? 

Or is it that you've simply bought the current politically-correct Party Line: teachers should only be giving kids information on A Useful Profession or How To Get A Job and Be An Ant?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Feb 27, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ah. Well, now we're reaching a point of clarity.
> 
> If you teach something that the good townsfolk of Salem find discomforting, it's absolutely unacceptable. Apparently the Constitution does not protect (and neither does the vague principle of academic freedom) a speaker or teacher's interest in articulating ideas that disturb the Way Things Are--oh wait, I forgot, that's exactly what the Constitution and academic freedom are there for. To make it possible--not necessarily safe, nor comfortable, just possible--for teachers and students to discuss unhappy ideas and realities.
> 
> ...


1,2,3,4,6,7,9,and 10, to be exact. Some in junior high, some in high school, some in college.

I must've grown up in a real anti-establishment place, huh. Like suburbia. Gone to a good school? Yep -- public.

Can't paint everywhere with the same brush. However, Robert, _our_ generation (yes, yours and mine, although I'm your chronological senior by a year or two *chuckles*) was exposed to much more because there weren't the vigilantes of properness breathing down our teacher's backs.

I certainly hope you remember how lucky you were to have read all of the above and I also certainly hope your teaching style reflects same.

Oh yes.  You left out Oscar Wilde, and my guy Chuck [Darwin]...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 27, 2005)

Sorry, Wilde's in there....

But I actually simply took pretty much the list from the "Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces," that I recently used as a class text, sticking to white guys who're considered essential to the Western canon (a book list, a set of reading methods, some notions about the social use and moral teachings of literature) that the, "liberals are destroying the precious bodily fluids of our youth," boyos would pretty much have to agree are mainstream.

Unless, of course, they actually turn out to be fundamentally opposed to the philosophical and moral traditions they claim to be defending...which, I suspect, is the problem right there.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Feb 27, 2005)

How thoroughly unsurprising.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 27, 2005)

Ah, the old, "I am too superior to engage in discussion of the issue," tactic! Always good to see the antiques trotted out.

Just incidentally, there are all sorts of ways for Churchill's college and administration and groups like the AAUP to deal with his arguments and ways of expressing them without the hooraw from people who obviously haven't troubled themselves to do the slightest research on the topic.

Personally, the hooraw and the sleazy remarks from the hoorawers is beginning to convince me that this is just another right-wing, politically-correct witch-hunt from guys who want everyone else suppressed so they can sell more stuff.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 27, 2005)

Sharp Phil said:
			
		

> By the same token, it does not take a genius to recognize that advocating the destruction of the very nation of which one's students are citizens while proclaiming that those mass-murdered by cowardly terrorist attacks _deserved what happened to them_ are neither viable nor acceptable subjects that a student must study for the betterment of the mind.
> 
> This is not a freedom of speech issue and it is not an academic freedom issue -- any more than shouting "Fire!" or perhaps "Let's go murder some people!" in a crowded theater or classroom would be protected by said freedoms.
> 
> All those lining up to defend Ward Churchill (while paying lipservice to his right to "free speech") have outed themselves as no better than the aforementioned child molesters, terrorists, and mass-murdering thugs.  As the old saying goes, when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.



As someone who regularly influences the young mind of our youth, I'm reminded constantly by administrative folks how political hot button issues should be avoided, lest some irate parents call and complain, or heaven forbid, take it to the school board.  

My principal put it rather succinctly, "Teachers have tenure.  Administrators do not.  When parents complain and the school board listens, we get fired.  Therefore, what choice do we have other then to reign in our teachers..."

Idealistically, I found the above discussion repugnant.  The free flow of ideas should be more important then any silly job, (realistically, I know that doesn't put food on the table, but wtf).  Nor does it deal with the realities of the materialistic culture that we have created.  Things have become more then words and we have become fat and lazy with our riches.  

With the above in mind, I would like to state that I would put my career on the line if someone told me not to teach evolution.  I would put my career on the line if someone handed me a list of "approved" topics.  Yet, I think that there is a line and Mr. Churchill crossed it.  

Yes, I know what his underlying message was and I may agree with parts, but expressing it by saying what he did is like me going in front of my class and expressing my dislike of President Bush's environmental policies by saying, "we should kill the son of a ***** for cutting down all of the trees."

Academic freedom is one thing, irresponsibility is another.  Mr. Churchill's comments were an abuse of academic freedom in my opinion.  What does society do about it?  I don't know.  The slippery slope, as has been correctly pointed out, is letting the catagory of who is abusing academic freedom get overly broad.


----------



## Adept (Feb 27, 2005)

Robert, I'm sensing a lot of vitriol. What exactly _is_ your point? I'm sure it's in there, but it must be carefully concealed.

 Do you simply disagree with limiting the subjects available for discussion when teaching?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Feb 27, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sorry, Wilde's in there....
> 
> But I actually simply took pretty much the list from the "Norton Anthology of World Masterpieces," that I recently used as a class text, sticking to white guys who're considered essential to the Western canon (a book list, a set of reading methods, some notions about the social use and moral teachings of literature) that the, "liberals are destroying the precious bodily fluids of our youth," boyos would pretty much have to agree are mainstream.
> 
> Unless, of course, they actually turn out to be fundamentally opposed to the philosophical and moral traditions they claim to be defending...which, I suspect, is the problem right there.


And, upon re-reading the post (for probably the fourth time or so since it's rife with possibilities...), yes, you do mention him -- 'his whole life'.  I was looking for a specific citation and got caught up in the --- anyway,

I agree that the concept of academic freedom is what is important here.  And yes, there are too many nay-sayers who wish to *sanitize* what is taught (read:  conform it to their way of thinking.)  However, as with anything good and right, there need be parameters within which *one* operates.  Academia seems to have some of the widest, but they should be observed, not abused and used to obfuscate.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 27, 2005)

Well, citing, "vitriol," (because one just knows that those liberals are prone to hysteria...) is easier than discussing the issues.

Let me try to be more explicit:

1. I'm in favor of academic freedom.

2. I support the Bill of Rights.

3. I dislike the idea that well-paid talk show hosts should decide who's a good American. I also dislike the fact that these entertainers are often confused with intellectuals.

4. I am opposed to the glorification and commodification of violence.

5. I wish people who complain about teachers and about what they teach knew something about what they're attacking, or that they would find out about the traditions they're attacking. 

6. I dislike the bad manners, abusive discourse and fake morality of guys like Michael Savage. 

I realize that such ideas--which I consider pretty pedestrian and obvious--are taken as radical, these days. Sorry. They come out of my having been raised and educated  in an older, more-traditional America, unlike the one in which the Almighty Dollar reigneth.


----------



## Adept (Feb 27, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. I'm in favor of academic freedom.


 Yet I'm sure you realise that some boundaries must be in place.



> 2. I support the Bill of Rights.


 Not entirely relevant on an international message board.



> 3. I dislike the idea that well-paid talk show hosts should decide who's a good American. I also dislike the fact that these entertainers are often confused with intellectuals.


 Everyone decides for themselves who is a good American, and who is not.



> 4. I am opposed to the glorification and commodification of violence.


 How do you percieve violence to be glorified?



> 5. I wish people who complain about teachers and about what they teach knew something about what they're attacking, or that they would find out about the traditions they're attacking.


 Agreed.



> 6. I dislike the bad manners, abusive discourse and fake morality of guys like Michael Savage.


 I also agree. While I don't know who Michael Savage is, not being an American and trying my hardest to keep out of political news in general, I can only assume he is the rights answer to Michael Moore?



> Sorry. They come out of my having been raised and educated in an older, more-traditional America, unlike the one in which the Almighty Dollar reigneth.


 

 Oh yes, the 'good old days'.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 27, 2005)

Gosh, you mean that freedom is not licence? "Tis meet I write that down...oops, "Hamlet," and then there's that whole, "Lay my head in your lap," to which the response is, "Do you mean country matters?" thing, just One More Sign Of The Way Professors Are Corrupting Our Youth.

Again, part of my point would be that right-wing talk-show hosts from G. Gordon Liddy through Tom Leykis all the way to Michael Savage, as well as TV preachers like Robertson and Falwell, as well as university Presidents like Bob Jones, say and write things every week that are far, far worse--and more inciting of violence--that anything Ward Churchill's on record as having said or written.

And part of my point, too, would be that the very people most hot to bay after professors for what they teach seem to be those most very ignorant of the tradition they claim to be supporting. 

Hey, I went out and bought (Barnes and Noble, remaindered at 4.99 today) what so far looks like an intelligent, thoughtful book by Patrick Brantlinger titled, "Who Killed Shakespeare: What's Happened to English Since the Radical Sixties."

Anybody out there who's been demanding that them liberal professors be silenced who plans to read the book so they'll have a decent clue as to what they're talking about?

Oh well. I know you're busy picking out a new tactical folder, and it is a whole 201 pages long...

For the other pointy-head intellectuals--I was thinking of Wilde's, "Ballad of Reading Gaol," his, "Picture of Dorian Grey," and--just to be perverse--his, "The Selfish Giant."

Then there was Joanna Russ' great short story about Wilde's being offered the choice of Achilles by Satan, which I read in "Fantasy and Science Fiction," back when I was a kid..."Oscar Wilde, poet, dead at forty-four, broke the board over his knee..."


----------



## kenpo tiger (Feb 28, 2005)

[b said:
			
		

> Adept in[/b] *bold*
> *How do you percieve violence to be glorified?*
> 
> Seen any *good* movies lately? Read the newspapers?  Watch the news on television?
> ...


----------



## Adept (Feb 28, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Seen any *good* movies lately? Read the newspapers?  Watch the news on television?


 Well, in most action movies I don't see violence as glorified. I see the determination to do violence, for whatever reason, as being glorified. Things like self defense, the defense of others, devotion to a cause, etc. It's not so much 'shooting people is cool' as 'protecting your family from jamaican voodoo drug lords is cool'.



> I've got to agree with Robert again. As he and I are of an age, I can relate to what [I think] he's saying. We were each given a classical (if you will) education -- the three Rs -- in spite of growing up in different places. Because of political correctness these days, teachers are hamstrung as to what they can and can't say or do in the classroom, and discipline isn't as stringent as it once was.


 I got the impression that Robert was referring more to society as a whole, rather than just education.

_"an older, more-traditional America, unlike the one in which the Almighty Dollar reigneth."_

 I find much wrong with such an implication.


----------



## ginshun (Feb 28, 2005)

The arguments here for "Academic Freedom" seem pretty circular to me.  Everyone seems to agree that there is a point somewhere that should not be crossed, but it all comes back to the teachers themselves are the only ones who should be able to decide what those limits are. What it comes down to is that you saying that a teacher has absolute power over what is taught in his / her classroom.  That I just can't agree with.

 I don't have kids in school yet, but basically what you are telling me is that once I do, I should't have any say in what they are taught.  Sure, I can pull them out of the school, but according to some here, that means that I would somehow be harming their academic developement.

  I don't think that the teachers should all teach a single goverment produced and regulated cirriculum either, but there has to be some middle ground, and some way that it doesn't have to lead to one extreme or the other.

 I will admit that I haven't read many of the books on that list, but I also fail to see how that somehow makes my opinions inferior to yours, as is obviously implied.  I am sure that without reading them (and doing a bunch of other stuff) I couldn't do your job, but I doubt that you could do mine either.

 And as far as all the talkshow hosts go, I don't put much stock in any of them, but I do listen in on occasion, and I have yet to here any of them say anything that offends me as much as the things that Ward Churchill said (or wrote as the case may be).  Thats only my opinion though.


----------



## loki09789 (Feb 28, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> This question has been spawned from the Ward Churchill debate in the other thread. The question just seems to keep popping into my head, and I thought it was a little out of the scope of the other thread.
> 
> Should anything a teacher says in his/her classroom be up for debate, or can they say anything they please?
> 
> Is there a limit, or a line that should not be crossed? Should public opinion have any say in it?


What is the purpose of the class? Is it to use debate to deepen student understanding of the curriculum? Is it a platform for a teacher's personal views to be presented on students?

Personally, as a teacher, I say yes there should be limits. Limits of propriety, of topic, of language use (if we don't want them to swear and talk about 'pimpin' in the classroom we should set the example), of the amount of time a teacher devotes to certain topics/tactics of teaching ..... Teachers are not in the room to serve their own agendas. Teachers are in the room to teach the curriculum within the mission and philosophy of the district - to include some 'citizenship/character' education by the way teachers set up class management rules and how they enforce them regardless of the content area. No class runs well without a good 'classroom culture' as the teacher speak goes.  I think that as professionals, the burden is on us to either know (or ask where the boundaries are if we aren't sure) based on the district philosophy and mission.

Do we just throw out things like "Sentry take outs and Quick Kills in 3 easy steps" for children's classes?  

We can put our own signature style on that with interpretation and expression, but there are and should be limits.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Feb 28, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> Well, in most action movies I don't see violence as glorified. I see the determination to do violence, for whatever reason, as being glorified. Things like self defense, the defense of others, devotion to a cause, etc. It's not so much 'shooting people is cool' as 'protecting your family from jamaican voodoo drug lords is cool'.
> 
> 
> I got the impression that Robert was referring more to society as a whole, rather than just education.
> ...


That those movies as a genre exist and _do well_ at the box office is indicative of two things to me:
1)  maybe thinking people view them as esacpism and entertainment
2)  maybe those who take them at face value could be using what's presented as a primer (I'm reading _way _too many crime novels right now which deal with very violent crimes against the young.)

When I was growing up, the bad guys were the USSR - the Communists of all stripes too.  The Cuban Missle crisis was averted by our President -- and we were safe.  Just in case, we had air raid drills where we went either under our desks or out into the hallway of the school (would've done lots of good...)  Women were burning their bras.  The Yippies were preaching on campus.  Four students were murdered by the National Guard sent to Kent State by Nixon.  A war we probably shouldn't be in.

Today?  Nuclear war (a la The Terminator trilogy).  Street gang violence (not the Jets and Sharks).  A war we probably shouldn't be in.  Civil war and genocide in Africa.  AIDS.  Tsunamis.  Global warming.

See the difference?  Wasn't about corporate America when we were growing up -- or, if it was, we weren't aware of it.  The threats were real, but many of the acts were idealistic and _paved the way for you all to have the freedoms you do -- women are a viable part of the workforce and in important positions, equal rights for persons of color has come a long way_ -- and so on.  The difference?  Maybe we didn't know better then, but corporate America had seemingly little impact on our daily lives.  The media weren't as powerful and did not have a great an influence on our lives as yet.

Teachers stuck to the curriculum and taught us things which made us good citizens and fairly moral people for the most part.  Our lives were much simpler.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 28, 2005)

KT, is it possible that your take on the difference has more to do with your frame of reference, with respect to your age and experience, as opposed to a real and significant change in the Way Things Are?


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 28, 2005)

One of the missing peices of this discussion is the importance and relevance of government mandated standards.  I teach in MN and I am required by law to teach certain material.  I *cannot * just do whatever I want.  Do people view standards as an abridgement of academic freedom?  Some do.  Some don't.  What do you think?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 28, 2005)

In the first place, if you go through various forums and threads on martial talk, you will see all sorts of glorifications of violence: advertisements for various cruel little toys for boys, joyful announcements of having found this really kewl way to break a neck, swaggering about fighting prowess and about having hurt some guy last night, hoots about how neato it would be if we just blew up more human beings, and on and on and on. Often, this crap--which is understandable in teenagers, and less and less acceptable in grown-ups--is presented anonymously, or coupled with fundamentalist Protestant ideology (sorry, but I haven't seen a lot of Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Catholic or Epsicopalian ranting about sending unbelievers to hell), with extreme nationalism, with homophobias.

I find this stuff far more offensive than anything a college professor might have said in a public forum, where he was invited to speak because of his controversial views and where the audience had the right to protest, to complain, to ask questions.

As for the changes in American society, the first point I'd make is that the commonest justification for violence on these forums is that Things Have Gotten Worse and This Country Is Going To the (Godless) Dogs. So, guys and gals, that means that folks like me and KT grew up and were educated in a better, more moral, more decent America. It means we know more than you, and are more moral than you--and since that's a ridiculous argument, perhaps you oughta think through the next claim about how much this country has slid downhill. 

I took the "Almighty Dollar," from H.L. Mencken, of course, who was pissed about the trend in the 1920s and 1930.  So, it's been with us a while. However, things really took off around Reagan's second term, in all sorts of ways. The work-week's longer, real wages have dropped, education is harder for working class people to access, etc. etc., etc.--and to really put the cherry on, anybody who even slightly questions the Way Things Are draws attacks (personal, as well as ideological and intellectual) that I've only read about....because I was a kid when Senator Joe McCarthy was running around loose.

And that's what a lot of this stuff is--McCarthyism. It's red-baiting, or whatever the, "new," terms are. How do I know this? First, because the language is exactly the same. For that matter, it's the same as a century ago, when groups like the AFL were getting called unpatriotic Commies up and down the land. 

Second, it's McCarthyism because the hallmark of McCarthyism is ignorance. Just a minor question: how many of you guys actually tracked down exactly what Churchill said before you started yelling about it? Did you look up his writings, his books, his record? Or did you just take a coupla sound bites off the TV, a bit o'this and a bit o'that from O'Reilly or Savage, and launch?

Yeah, that's what I thought. And the fact of the matter is, it doesn't surprise me at all: it's one of the classical intellectual effects and products of advanced capitalism, where knowledge is always presented fast, in little bits, divorced from material reality and identified as purified technology of one kind or another. 

I'm not surprised either, because this stuff is endemic in the martial arts--always with the latest and the kewlest, always with the short-cuts, always with the divorce of one's technical proficiency from the simplest moral developments, always with the chortling about hurting other people.

It's at that point that you might consider the extent to which Funakoshi's remarks about the point of the arts being the improvement of character, together with Marx's, "The point, however, is not to understand the world, but to change it." But then, these guys are dead, and the books take a long time to read and think about, and anyway Marx killed millions....

You wanna criticize Churchill? Great. Find out what he actually said, and go git 'im. Then, think about this--did it ever occur to you that the REAL criticism is that when college profs say this stuff, it has no effect on reality whatsoever, that it's just more hot air from the privileged, that you're pissed because your society is trying to erase the whole world of literature, the arts, and ideas from your lives, replacing everything with football, the swimsuit issue, and the, "ideas," of shows like "Crossfire?"


----------



## kenpo tiger (Feb 28, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> In the first place, if you go through various forums and threads on martial talk, you will see all sorts of glorifications of violence: advertisements for various cruel little toys for boys, joyful announcements of having found this really kewl way to break a neck, swaggering about fighting prowess and about having hurt some guy last night, hoots about how neato it would be if we just blew up more human beings, and on and on and on. Often, this crap--which is understandable in teenagers, and less and less acceptable in grown-ups--is presented anonymously, or coupled with fundamentalist Protestant ideology (sorry, but I haven't seen a lot of Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Catholic or Epsicopalian ranting about sending unbelievers to hell), with extreme nationalism, with homophobias.
> 
> I find this stuff far more offensive than anything a college professor might have said in a public forum, where he was invited to speak because of his controversial views and where the audience had the right to protest, to complain, to ask questions.
> 
> ...


Gee whiz Robert. I had written all kinds of things about McCarthyism and deleted it. Scary when you and I are on the same wavelength, if on different coasts and in different time zones. I started getting a bit worried when you stated so baldly that you and I know more than the rest do, etc., but I realized you were, of course, making a point, which became clearer in the next few paragraphs. And yes, it scares me to be around a group of martial artists to whom it's so very cool to be able to inflict all sorts of pain on someone *because you can*. Lately I've been accused -- no, it's been _*pointed out to me* _that I'm not overly aggressive with kenpo which can be a highly aggressive martial art once that particular line is crossed by the opponent/attacker. I've considered why that is the case and have come up with a partial answer: omitting all that about my being a woman, not wanting to hurt my training partners (been there, had it done to me) and so on, what it comes down to, in the final analysis, is my education and upbringing.

I dislike bullies, whether they're oratorical or physical bullies. Our generation was the peace, love, and understanding (c'mon people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another right now) group. Where have the majority of us disappeared to? Those of us in the martial arts are still pacifists (interesting that fist appears in that word, isn't it...) who are training in the martial arts for the more spiritual as well as the physical. I'm not the next Million Dollar Baby, kids. I'm not getting into the ring with _anyone_ for the sake of glory and a trophy. Why? It's not who I am nor is it who I want to be as a martial artist.

Dan, you asked if it was the context within which I grew up. The answer is, resoundingly, yes -- and I believe it goes for Robert as well, if his post is any indication.

We all have our points of view regarding what's good and right and moral. Those points of view become skewed toward what society becomes. Robert and I grew up in a time of great turmoil and change in this country, when many people were just beginning to speak out (and getting assassinated for their trouble) with radically different ideas -- ideas which ultimately changed our society. I'd like to think most was for the better. I also think that Robert and I have led (and still lead) lives which are vastly different from many of those led by people here, as we do have a geographic commonality to our formative years. That we both work in environments which are highly tolerant of and encourage radically different ideas and concepts is a common denominator as well. Perhaps that's a window into what goes on in our minds when freedom of speech, academic freedom, and freedom in the arts comes under fire.  Doesn't make it - or us - better, or more moral, Robert.  Just different.

Of course, *one* cannot generalize about martial artists as a group. We're like any other -- with radicals and conservatives in our midst. That's part of why kenpo is so fragmented with so many different variations and such virulent politically-based arguments about which is the *correct* one occur. I recently met quite a few masters and other high-ranking kenpoists when I went to visit Mr. Parker at a camp held at Master Sean Kelley's school in Florida, all of whom practice varying styles of kenpo. I refused to engage in a political discussion about the Tracys with someone, mainly because I wanted to discuss _kenpo_. It is fascinating to see how much in common we all have when we let politics fall by the wayside.

All this goes to the basic premise of this thread, which is that the free exchange of ideas is paramount in a free society.


----------



## ginshun (Feb 28, 2005)

> Second, it's McCarthyism because the hallmark of McCarthyism is ignorance. Just a minor question: how many of you guys actually tracked down exactly what Churchill said before you started yelling about it? Did you look up his writings, his books, his record? Or did you just take a coupla sound bites off the TV, a bit o'this and a bit o'that from O'Reilly or Savage, and launch?
> 
> Yeah, that's what I thought. And the fact of the matter is, it doesn't surprise me at all: it's one of the classical intellectual effects and products of advanced capitalism, where knowledge is always presented fast, in little bits, divorced from material reality and identified as purified technology of one kind or another.


 Honestly, its obvious that you are a well informed and well educated person, but talking to the rest of us in this condesending pompus tone isn't going to do anything to further your points. sheesh.

 For information, I did track down and read a bunch of the guys essays. I will admit that I haven't heard him speak (and don't ever plan on it), so what I have actually heard is limited to soundbites.
  Is it so hard to believe that someone else can be well informed on a subject and still have an opinion different from your own?

 I'm sorry, but every time you post you covince me more and more that you are of the "If you don't agree with me, you its because you're not smart enough to understand the subject" wing of acedemia. Whateve, you have a great time with that.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 28, 2005)

Oh, stuff and nonsense. I couldn't care less if you think I'm knowledgeable or whatever--that's your fantasy and ideology, not mine. And the fact that you are bound and determined to find any intellectual tone to be condescending and pompous is an excellent sign that my comments about how you've been bamboozled are pretty much on the money. 

You say you read some of what Churchill wrote. OK, fine. Excellent. So here's how to show that I haven't got a clue--cite the work, quote a quote or two, point out what your disagreement is, back up what you say with better facts and better ideas that Churchill has to offer. Instead, you offered exactly soundbites and repeats of stuff I heard Savage and the rest of that pack of multi-millionaire dogs say. 

It's your problem on several levels, this bit about not being "smart enough." It would do a bit of good for me to point this out, but there's no place that I said or even implied that, it's not what I think by a long shot--what I actually said, what I actually wrote was that many were too darn much in a hurry, that their society and its teachers encouraged this hurry, that some were simply repeating the big fat lies they'd been carefully taught. 

And again--one of the big fat lies you've been carefully taught, a big fat lie you can hear any time on Savage and the rest, is that guys like me look down on guys like you. It's complete bushwa--a word that, obviously, it's time to bring back into common parlance.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 28, 2005)

I had to look it up, and thought I'd share for everyone's reference:

bushwa


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 28, 2005)

Nice one, FL. I just took it from common sppech of, say, 1945--kinda like "Wouldn't know how to pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel," was popular back in the Civil War...


----------



## Adept (Feb 28, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Rant rant rant rant rant...


 Well, that was long, and your grammar was acceptable, but you forgot to include a point, apart from being well informed on a subject before you speak.

 Which horse, exactly, do you still have in this race?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 28, 2005)

Please explain precisely which aspects of this discussion you are interested in, knowledgeable about, or have troubled yourself to research. 

Incidentally, your first sentence has a parallellism error in it.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Feb 28, 2005)

Adept said:
			
		

> Well, that was long, and your grammar was acceptable, but you forgot to include a point, apart from being well informed on a subject before you speak?


 Are you actually going to contribute to the discussion, or just jump on the "Robert's smart so I'll insult him" bandwagon?


----------



## Adept (Feb 28, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Please explain precisely which aspects of this discussion you are interested in, knowledgeable about, or have troubled yourself to research.


 Hey, no fair. I asked first.


----------



## Adept (Feb 28, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Are you actually going to contribute to the discussion, or just jump on the "Robert's smart so I'll insult him" bandwagon?


 It seems to me that Robert tends to spin off into tangential and often unrelated rants given the slightest opportunity. We went from a general disucssion of what is acceptable in the classroom to a post about how great the sixties were, Joe McCarthy (whoever _he_ is) and a commentary on contemporary attitudes to violence.

 IMHO limits should be placed on teachers. Especially teachers in grade and high school. I dont know what Churchill said, or even who he is. There is a whole other thread for that, and I'm keeping out of it. If you want to make comments about him, take them to that thread. That goes for everyone.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 28, 2005)

I know you weren't talking to me, but I'd like to mention a couple of things.





			
				Adept said:
			
		

> It seems to me that Robert tends to spin off into tangential and often unrelated rants given the slightest opportunity. We went from a general disucssion of what is acceptable in the classroom to a post about how great the sixties were, Joe McCarthy (whoever _he_ is) and a commentary on contemporary attitudes to violence.


 It isn't really Robert's fault that you don't undertand all of the references that he cites.*  Beyond that, it seems to me that you mainly take issue with his argumentative style.  That's too bad, but I believe that it is his perogative to contruct his writings according whatever style he chooses.  You're not the style police.  Beyond that, he's not breaking any rules, so, put him on ignore if you don't care to read what he says.  If you have a genuine interest is his opinions, read on.


> I dont know what Churchill said, or even who he is. There is a whole other thread for that, and I'm keeping out of it. If you want to make comments about him, take them to that thread. That goes for everyone.


No, I think that if references to Churchill are being used to support a proposition related to the topic, that is acceptable, thanks.  Recall that this thread was begun specifically in the context of the Churchill one, and the issues for some are quite connected.

*Bear in mind here that I neither can claim to understand all, most, or even many of the references Robert cites. :asian:


----------



## Adept (Feb 28, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> it seems to me that you mainly take issue with his argumentative style.


 All I'll say here is, yes. His argumentative style leaves much to be desired.

 Any further comments can be addressed to me via PM. We are dragging this thread wel off-topic.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 1, 2005)

> I had to look it up, and thought I'd share for everyone's reference:
> 
> bushwa
> __________________


 good word.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 1, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> One of the missing peices of this discussion is the importance and relevance of government mandated standards.  I teach in MN and I am required by law to teach certain material.  I *cannot * just do whatever I want.  Do people view standards as an abridgement of academic freedom?  Some do.  Some don't.  What do you think?



More and more of what we can and cannot teach is being mandated by the government everyday.  I have checklists of things that I have to cover in my classroom.  It is a very short step indeed for states to begin to require that *only * the stuff on the checklists be taught.  By 2008 in my state, all of the core subjects will have a standardized test that students must take/pass before they graduate.  So, here is my question, where is the _academic freedom_ in that?  Where is this coming from?  

It all flows downward from NCLB.

In MN, higher education is asking for money from the State Legislature.  The Governer (a Republican) has promised to deliver only if they can demonstrate some _accountability_ and _local control_.  Accountability and _local control _ is codeword for standards.  The things that are happening K-12 are going to happen to higher ed.  Checklists and state mandated graduation exams.  Again, we have the same issue.  Where is the _academic freedom _ in this?

Ward Churchill.  I read the speech in question and probably should post it on the other thread.  I agree with a lot of his points, but I don't like the way he said some things.  Regarding academic freedom and how this is being spun, one only needs to turn on the radio listen to the screams of Savage, Hannity, and Limbaugh.  All of them are saying that what he said is wrong and that he shouldn't be allowed to say that.  All of them are crying for...guess what????..._accountability _ and _local control _ in all of our schools.  

Ah, the codeword again..._accountability _ = standards and standardized tests.

upnorthkyosa

PS - no body ever really seems to see the conflict between the concept of _local control_ and state mandated standards and tests...I wonder why?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 1, 2005)

Upnorthkyosa,

I think that local control is dangerous within the particular context of the conservative agenda. That opens the door to all those wonderful things conservaties would love to see in the classroom - prayer, for one, only Creationism as opposed to presenting all sides, and so on. 

As to standardized testing, I suppose it could be perceived as a necessary evil, since those tests are used for determining particular types of funding by the state and federal governments.

Our state university system (SUNY) is a good one, with three of the four universities competitive and sought-after schools both in and out of state. The state colleges have also gotten much much better over the past few decades. Students here all take Regents exams, which I view as basically achievement tests but also serve as a tool for admission and financial awards and scholarship awards to those state residents attending our state universities and colleges. I'm not so sure that that would qualify as local control in your book, but I'm tossing it out there.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 1, 2005)

Is there something wrong with standardized tests?

 I think that especially in grammar school and high school, there are things that all the students *should *know before they should be moving to the next grade or graduating.  IMHO if you can't multiply two numbers without a calculator, and you can't find the USA on a map, you have no buisness graduating from high school.

 Surely in higher education, these tests whould have to be major specific, and perhaps even more specific than that.  Obviously you can't expect an anthropology major to know the same things as and engineering major or visa versa.

 I suppose maybe the problem comes in as to who gets to decide what who should know. Its not like it doesn't happen in the real world though, once these students leave the world of shooling behind.

 There are plenty of stadardized tests that people have to take to be a part of the professional world.  CPA's, docters, lawyers, engineer's, ect.   We expect people in the proffessional world to hold a certain amount of compatency in what they are supposed to know before they are allowed to acually practice their profession.

 Why should it be any different while these individuals are in school?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 1, 2005)

I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer that I think the situation with Ward Churchill, in which a smallish group of conservatives who are funded by somebody who has a political and economic stake in attacking "liberals," traces back at least as far as the smallish group of conservatives who supported Joseph McCarthy, somebody who had a political and economic stake in attacking, "liberals."

I'm also not sure how I can more-clearly make the point that these attacks on, "intellectuals," generally speaking, come out of a historical situation in which the scummy likes of Michael Savage are paid very, very well to lie about reality and to tell poor people, working class people, and most of the middle class that taking the time to understand, taking the time to find out what you're talking about, and taking the time to read a few books, these are all Bad Things that real men do not do.

Sheesh, whyn't you just yell, "Four-eyes!! Four-eyes!!" and throw my schoolbooks in the mud puddle? 

The nice thing about books, though, is that anybody who's willing to put in the time earns the right to talk about them. You don't have to be an intellectual, a collitch boy, or anything--or actually, that's the older America, the one before the culture started pushing the idea that ordinary people have no right to discuss ideas seriously, and anybody who says otherwise is an enemy.

This is a big chunk of the reason Churchill's in trouble. 

From here on out, I think I'll just respond by posting far more-appalling public statements like Falwell's, "9/11 is God's just punishment for gays, liberals, lesbians and the ACLU...."


----------



## bobster_ice (Dec 5, 2005)

I say that there should be a limit.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Dec 5, 2005)

When I teach in martial arts I encourage people to challenge what I'm teaching. Gives them critical thinking skills. Should they be aloud to say anything..that depends on what you think anything is..but I'm not going to debate that. They should be able to teach what they think is appropriate...they should also be able to dictate that the class is to listen to their teachings and respect them...but they should also encourage debate upon some issues. This can be a really complicated matter in which can get many people outraged. Religious Groups, Parents, GrandParents, and many more people could have a problem with what is being taught...but does that mean that opinion should not be explored. Myself I try to keep an open mind...but I also have my beliefs and stick by them...the key is to not be totally closed minded to other peoples views..even when it hurts yours. Nobody will ever agree on everything...matter of fact I actually got in arguments with my teachers in high school and most the time got in trouble for it...arguments in college are much more structured and they don't get you in trouble....well at least not me....lol.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Dec 5, 2005)

Oh this reminds me of a couple books that point out inaccracies in history text books... 

Lies My Teacher told me
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History

Both have some very good points...

Another thing is the fact that they teach that people thought the world was flat when Columbus sailed...which is far from the truth. Aristotle in 384 (?) B.C knew that the world was round....and the ancient greeks, myans, and others had a good hunch that it was round also. What was one of the reason Columbus couldn't get funding....they didn't think he could make it around the globe with the ships that they had....meaning they would all die and the money would be spent on nothing...they did not know that the Americas where there....

If I recall correctly there is a book called 1442 that puts the notion that a Chinese vessel actually reached America....hmmm

The winners always write the history books...and they don't always give all the details.....


----------

