1. A breach or rent; a breaking forth into a loud, shrill sound.
2. An harangue; a long tirade on any subject.
3. A record of her attempt to climb out of writer's block
sigh. of course they're college republicans. of course.
are they even aware of the historical resonance of what they're doing?
dumbasses.
2 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Hi,
I'm the instructor who created this information site. I've talked with some of the club's members; and I don't believe they understand the historical or political significance of their actions. In fact, they've roled their eyes when I tried talk about it. In fact, one of them twice dismissed the point, suggesting theirs action's ends justified their means.
While I am troubled by what these students did to me and my nine colleagues, I have become even more troubled by the prospect of future "Red Star" incidents. California is one of ten states currently considering a bill modeled after David Horowitz's "Academic Bill of Rights." I think the very nature of these bills promotes more "Red Star" incidents.
Consider what Horowitz's ‘Academic Bill of Rights’ says.
For example, while it makes references to well-established educational principles, it applies them vaguely. Declaring the humanities and social sciences “unsettled” topics, Horowitz directs educators to "[provide] students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate.” At first glance this seems reasonable. But what does it mean? Would it mandate educators cover all views? There simply isn’t enough time. Would it mandate educators cover only some views? Then which ones would be required? It’s unclear.
These questions are a significant; for, despite sensational claims to the contrary, it’s already standard practice for college educators to cover dissenting views.
Even worse, Horowitz is addressing disciplines which don’t teach viewpoints. They help students think about topics’ viewpoints. For example, when a teacher illustrates fallacious reasoning, the teacher isn’t criticizing the example’s view. She’s criticizing the reasoning used to support the viewpoint.
The fact the ‘Academic Bill of Rights’ muddles this distinction is significant. For, criticizing the reasoning used to support a viewpoint can be misconstrued as criticism of the viewpoint. As a result, the ‘Academic Bill of Rights’ could be used to forbid educators from pointing out flawed thinking unless they present the criticism as only another “unsettled” view. Given this, my concern is that it will have a tragic effect on a teacher's ability to help students think critically. In fact, I suspect Horowitz is deliberately targeting educators who are dedicated to teaching students to think critically.
michael, about your last point re: targeting profs who teach critical thinking: absolutely. this is absolutely what horowitz is targeting.
without critical thinking 'common sense' goes unquestioned, the status quo becomes 'natural.' external social and historical contexts get reduced to 'your own opinion.'
rambling thoughts: i was having dinner tonight with two friends of mine who teach at universities in poli sci depts and one said, "the first day of class i always say, over the course of the semester i am going to be highly critical of white hegemony. if you can't deal, you shouldn't take this course." but that caveat is not nearly enough (as much as i like its 'fuck it' attitude.)
i've always wondered what a 'conservative' reading of my old english course would be - jane eyre, for instance. as i talk about women's status, marriage and burgeoning feminist thinking in the 19th century, what would be the point of saying otherwise? what would a conservative reading of bronte be?
it'd be fucking boring and about 50 years into the past. thanks for stopping by.
2 comments:
Hi,
I'm the instructor who created this information site. I've talked with some of the club's members; and I don't believe they understand the historical or political significance of their actions. In fact, they've roled their eyes when I tried talk about it. In fact, one of them twice dismissed the point, suggesting theirs action's ends justified their means.
While I am troubled by what these students did to me and my nine colleagues, I have become even more troubled by the prospect of future "Red Star" incidents. California is one of ten states currently considering a bill modeled after David Horowitz's "Academic Bill of Rights." I think the very nature of these bills promotes more "Red Star" incidents.
Consider what Horowitz's ‘Academic Bill of Rights’ says.
For example, while it makes references to well-established educational principles, it applies them vaguely. Declaring the humanities and social sciences “unsettled” topics, Horowitz directs educators to "[provide] students with dissenting sources and viewpoints where appropriate.” At first glance this seems reasonable. But what does it mean? Would it mandate educators cover all views? There simply isn’t enough time. Would it mandate educators cover only some views? Then which ones would be required? It’s unclear.
These questions are a significant; for, despite sensational claims to the contrary, it’s already standard practice for college educators to cover dissenting views.
Even worse, Horowitz is addressing disciplines which don’t teach viewpoints. They help students think about topics’ viewpoints. For example, when a teacher illustrates fallacious reasoning, the teacher isn’t criticizing the example’s view. She’s criticizing the reasoning used to support the viewpoint.
The fact the ‘Academic Bill of Rights’ muddles this distinction is significant. For, criticizing the reasoning used to support a viewpoint can be misconstrued as criticism of the viewpoint. As a result, the ‘Academic Bill of Rights’ could be used to forbid educators from pointing out flawed thinking unless they present the criticism as only another “unsettled” view. Given this, my concern is that it will have a tragic effect on a teacher's ability to help students think critically. In fact, I suspect Horowitz is deliberately targeting educators who are dedicated to teaching students to think critically.
michael,
about your last point re: targeting profs who teach critical thinking: absolutely. this is absolutely what horowitz is targeting.
without critical thinking 'common sense' goes unquestioned, the status quo becomes 'natural.' external social and historical contexts get reduced to 'your own opinion.'
rambling thoughts: i was having dinner tonight with two friends of mine who teach at universities in poli sci depts and one said, "the first day of class i always say, over the course of the semester i am going to be highly critical of white hegemony. if you can't deal, you shouldn't take this course." but that caveat is not nearly enough (as much as i like its 'fuck it' attitude.)
i've always wondered what a 'conservative' reading of my old english course would be - jane eyre, for instance. as i talk about women's status, marriage and burgeoning feminist thinking in the 19th century, what would be the point of saying otherwise? what would a conservative reading of bronte be?
it'd be fucking boring and about 50 years into the past. thanks for stopping by.
Post a Comment