Blurb:
Academics, in their own minds, face an almost insoluble problem of time. How, in only four years, can they disabuse students of the notion that the capital, risk, productivity and military sacrifice of others have contributed to human dignity and to the prospects of a decent society? How can they make them understand, with only four years to do so, that capitalism and individual- ism have created cultures that are cruel, inefficient, racist, sexist and homophobic, with oppressive caste systems, mental and behavioral? How, in such a brief period, can they enlighten "minorities," including women (the majority of students), about the "internalization" of their oppression (today's equivalent of false consciousness)? How, in only eight semesters, might they use the classroom, curriculum and university in loco parentis to create a radical leadership among what they see as the victim groups of our society, and to make the heirs of successful families uneasy in the moral right of their possessions and opportunities? Given those constraints, why in the world should they complicate their awesome task by hiring anyone who disagrees with them?Link via Tigerhawk, who says this of his late father, who was a professor:
He told me once that the highest compliment he had ever received from a student came from a smart radical activist in the seventies who told him at the end of the semester that he had no idea what my father's political opinions were.You know, I aspire to being that way too. The classroom lectern is not a bully pulpit for profs and instructors to spout their own personal political opinions/neuroses/activist positions. Frankly, I don't think my students should know what my politics are, because that'll squash any pretense at open, honest discussion of all relevant perspectives and evidence in a given issue or topic.
2 comments:
"that he had no idea what my father's political opinions were"
Hmmm, that's a little plus & minus. Some of my favorite profs were the younger ones whom I could have a beer with after class. With that kind of thing it's hard to stay completely away from politics - so they couldn't make that boast.
But it ought not come out in class, particularly in grading class-work. I had one prof as a senior who dropped an A-quality paper half a grade because he didn't like the conclusion. So I bearded him after class and asked him whether there were any obvious faults in the writing, research, or Nope.
'In that case you shouldn't have dropped it half a grade' I told him. 'Unless you are looking for students to spout your opinions back at you that is. I can do that!'.
To give due credit he saw my point and restored the grade, nor did he repeat it.
Tried that with another prof, a 'development economist' - it didn't work . I didn't expect it to - it was a pretty good piece of work but this joker gave it an 'F' because he didn't like the reasoning. Ripped me a new orfice (or tried to). I answered in kind - told him I'd call him a communist except that would be an insult to some communists I knew (it would too). So I settled for 'Stalinist'. Should have called him a Lysenkoist c'ept I didn't know who Lysenko was then. Dropped the class straightaway - not because I can't handle disagreement but because he was abusing his power.
That wasn't a common think when I went to school but I gather it has become so in more recent times. Shame.
In closer relations with professors, politics can come out in social circumstances, and that's fine. But I'm convinced that they shouldn't be spouted in the classroom, especially as part of a lecture because that is simply crushing -- and in my view an abuse of a teacher's sacred trust.
Good thing you got out of that class with the Stalinist. That sort of poisonous atmosphere stifles the mind.
Post a Comment