onegoodmove

You actually had a student who TRIED TO TAKE OVER YOUR CLASS??? boggles

Rana

Take-over omg lol. He's got his part right. Say I love to hear some depth into the ccontradictions, thanks.

I suppose we just have to hope that Republicans will start infighting so that way the rest of us can figure out how to fix this country.

If you're taking a philosophy class, you're probably gonna run into ideas that you gasp don't agree with! I know and have heard of people with limp spines, but this is ridiculous!

Sorry, but I'm less than sympathetic. Education is a dialogic exchange between pupil and teacher. Quote Plato all you want, but the beauty of the Socratic method was the philosopher's ability to lead his conversation partner, through dialectic, to an understanding of his own internal logical contradictions.

I don't care how much training or accreditation you have, you also have a moral obligation to respect the diverse experiences and perspectives of your students. So what if they don't read and they watch Fox news? You were hired to teach them how to think. If your political commitments make this impossible, you should not be teaching.

We are careening towards mob rule, and it isn't by accident.

Those currently in power want to replace the rule of law with the rule of men--because they're currently the "men".

They want mob rule because they rule the mob.

It isn't just academia; they're after the judiciary, too. That's another arena in which facts matter more than spin--so it has to go.

What's at stake is our freedom.

"a moral obligation to respect the diverse experiences and perspectives of your students"?

Students have an obligation to deal with facts and reality, not "perspectives" based on ignorance. We're all entitled to our own opinion, but not to our own facts.

Moreover, a teacher has an obligation to the other students to keep the class reality-based.

That she's aware of where the right-wing students are getting the nonsense--and the notion that they can get their way by demanding it--doesn't alter the fact that it's nonsense.

Go back to basics: A is A. Reality exists. Truth matters.

Without truth there is no justice; without justice there is no freedom."

First: Let me preface this with the statement that I am a Christian. This doesn't mean that I agree with what many of the religious right are saying at the moment.

You're absolutely correct. According to our faith, moral absolutism is unavoidable. They obviously put themselves higher than other people, including yourself, which is wrong in the situation.

I've been an avid reader of your weblog for the past seven or eight months, and I especially enjoy the clips of the Daily Show, which I don't get to watch often on TV, being a Canadian with basic cable.

As a student myself, and a member of the upper 2% in intelligence, (prideful, sorry) I have to say that in that situation, you should have completely crushed them. Although it was a philosophy class, and they had every right to disagree with what you were saying, that kind of violent rebellion isn't helpful to any of the people in the class - including themselves.

Sincerely, Dave. (Dagfari AT gmail.com)

Moreover, a teacher has an obligation to the other students to keep the class reality-based.

Hogwash. A teacher has an obligation to teach. Every single student. If you only want to teach liberal students who agree with you, go to Vermont. If you've made a commitment to being an educator, then you've taken on the responsibility to engage a diverse student population. You don't have to sell "truth" down the river, by any means. You have to be savvy and seductive to get the job done.

Students inclined to be disruptive? Tell jokes and deflect conflict. Students want to grind axes? Set up debates with clearly defined parameters. Students challenging your authority? Get Socratic and force them to defend themselves at length. Never ever let them think they've undercut your pedagogical authority or you're dead in the water.

Teaching at the College level is a privilege. You get the best and brightest students, each one of whom has a vision of themselves they are putting into practice. To have the chance to influence them and put them on the path to sensitive, critical engagement with the world around them is a precious gift.

Again, this woman should not be teaching. Liberals can be just as dogmatic and polarizing as conservatives. If she's picking fights with her college students, she should step aside and let someone more skilled do her job. There is no dearth of willing applicants.

"So what if they don't read...?"

If you only want to teach liberal students who agree with you, go to Vermont.

So you see no connection between facts, knowledge, reality, and "teaching"? It's all just about referreeing "opinions", no matter how untethered to reality?

Including the "opinions" of "the best and brightest students" who "don't read" but have "a vision of themselves"?

Wow, has conservatism become relativist! Every crackpot notion worthy of equal time! Dare to shake the faith of the students who "don't read" and you "should not be teaching"!

And meanwhile the other students--the ones who read--can go to hell?

We've come a long way from Kevin Phillips and Bill Buckley.

Dude, you don't know me. At all. My progressive politics are dearly held. But I'm also a University teacher and have had to manage some pretty polarized classrooms. I'm speaking from experience here.

The University is not an us vs. them environment. We're not in Bill O'Reilly land. We're in a laboratory where principles are worked out and concepts are tested. Nothing is heretical and every student has an equal right to learn.

I try in my classroom to teach students to respect one another and to listen to every idea and measure its worth. This is a hell of a lot more important than voicing the "correct" opinion on BushCo. or Iraq or a judicial nomination. More than left vs. right, it's the breakdown in basic respect and tolerance that is what's wrong with this country today. If you assume I'm conservative simply because I criticize this woman, then you're part of the problem.

Nighttime here in the Commonwealth--time to go. Glad to have discovered this blog.

This discussion reminds me of a lengthy forum I saw on a right-wing site in which opinion was unanimous that Marbury v. Madison actually established the supremacy of the legislature over the judiciary. Sure it did!

Fiddlee-fee, fiddlee-fo, and the moon is made of green cheese. Hannity said so!

To paraphrase Douglass Adams: once "Conservatives" have convinced themselves that black is white...they should beware at the next zebra crossing.

I really do have to go, but I'm dying to know what you teach.

You've completely misstated the situation. She didn't pick a fight with her students, some of them picked a fight with her. She didn't make it us vs. them--they did. She didn't make it Bill O'Reilly land--they did.

She challenged their opinions on factual grounds and they couldn't deal with it. What else is her job? Change reality for them? Give them a blue star for having "a vision of themselves"?

You said teachers have "a moral obligation to respect the diverse experiences and perspectives of your students. So what if they don't read...?"

Is that the way you run your class? No one is expected to defend their opinions with facts? Every opinion equally valid? Everyone entitled to their own set of facts?

I teach religion. Last year I taught at a state school in the Bible Belt. There is nothing more polarizing, let me tell you.

I hold her responsible for letting things get as bad as they did. She's giving us a narrative that begins in media res. Sure, clearly her students were behaving disgracefully. But I assume, from some experience, that their behavior was a direct reaction to her earlier actions. If a student feels obliged to attempt to "take over the class" to get his opinion heard, then the teacher is not doing her job.

If, on the odd chance, she was specifically targeted by campus republicans or something and her classroom was invaded by disruptive students, then I'm terribly sympathetic. She should go to her department head or dean and seek disciplinary action against the offenders. But as long as these are students who entered the class in good faith with a willingness to learn, then the situation as it transpired is her fault. She's a professional, it's her responsibility to keep the train on the rails.

Honestly, the left got fat and lazy during the 1980s and 1990s. Especially the academic left. When I went to University, it was an echo chamber filled with self-contratulation and political correctness. We've forgotten what dialogue feels like and how dangerous real political debate can be. This story reads like a lament for lost privilege, not of an academy beseiged.

Two statements that just rubbed me the wrong way:

1-"As a student myself, and a member of the upper 2% in intelligence."

Although I somewhat agree with the statements you made concerning the inappropriate reaction by the student, informing the readers of your intellect detracts from your argument. It comes across as though we should agree with your points because you're smart and not because they are logical. I'm sorry for commenting on a detail like that, but I can't help but see the irony in it.

2-"this woman should not be teaching...If she's picking fights with her college students, she should step aside and let someone more skilled do her job"

(a)Weren't the students picking the fight with her?

(b)Even if she did pick a fight with her students, it doesn't mean that she is not skilled at her job. She could still provide a wealth of knowledge, along with clear and focused lectures. She could be an excellent teacher for the majority of the class, but may not bode so well for those who threaten to overrun her.

Holy shit!

Ricky Bones, I agree with your point on what I said. I merely said that because if I had stated that I was a seventeen year old who attends a Christian school, you may have disregarded my point.

I apologize.

-Dave

dagfari at gmail.com

Felix who teaches religion apparently doesn't think a teacher has an obligation to keep the class reality-based I suppose he's being consistent considering what he teaches. Does he not challenge students when they get their facts wrong. A student who claims in class that no Iraqi civilians were killed needs to be challenged. All opinions are not equal. Does Felix allow his students to teach his classes simply because they want to. There is no evidence whatsoever that she doesn't have control of her class, or that she doesn't allow discussion. Her job is to teach the subject matter of the course. It is her responsibility to structure the class in a way to accomplish her task. Felix is right she has an obligation to teach and if there are students that attempt to disrupt the class it is her obligation to control her class. It sounds like that is exactly what she did. Felix without any evidence to the contrary attempts to make the teacher into the villian here. On the basis of this one article he has come to the conclusion that she should not be teaching, but then he is likely quite adept at jumping to conclusions on the basis of little evidence. The teacher has no obligation to respect their ideas. In fact if the students spout bullshit, it is her obligation to challenge them, to do otherwise would indeed disqualify her as a teacher.

Norm. Just...wow.

I just hope that more than a few students who find themselves in traditionally conservative classes such as, but not limited to, those that deal in business, law, taxation, accounting, economics, etc. sue the pants off of any professor who does not teach liberal theories such as those that help the poor and middle class. And any professor that teaches "trickle-down-economics" should be sued and deprived of a job in an AMERICAN University. The same goes for any professor that even mentions religion in a classroom in an inappropriate way. Conservatives need to be taught that being an asshole goes both ways, and liberals need to get some balls and actually fight back.

John:

As an economics student, I'm afraid I must tell you that trickle down economics is typically taught in one of the principles classes as an example of economic policies that suck, are misunderstood or are misapplied. It's SUPPOSED to be supply side economics, which means you help businesses out a little (with research assistance, keeping costs of natural resources down, etc.) so that they become capable of serving, believe it or not, the public's interest. Trickle-down economics, meanwhile, suggests that if you give tax breaks to the rich, you help everyone out. I actually think this kind of policy hurts everyone, including the rich, because the value of the dollar depends on our budget surplus/deficit, which drops when the rich pay fewer taxes than everyone else. But the rich have invested in foreign capital anyway, so I guess it's a moot point.

Anyway, you'd have to fire all my professors, and I simply cannot allow that. I love them all dearly, even the one who gave me a D (after I failed her class the first time). They're wonderful people and have made me a better person.

My entire department is pretty liberal...if you consider a liberal to believe in fiscal responsibility, environmental preservation, and observing empirical evidence to make sensible business and policy decisions. Supposedly this is a Republicans ideal, but recent actions and evidence would suggest otherwise. 10 years ago they'd have been middle of the road.

I don't see how this classroom situation couldn't spiral out of control. When confronted by a student who asserts that there "are no civilian deaths in Iraq," who but a saint could repress a knee-slapping belly laugh. And why repress it anyway? In the world of physical reality, a student who believed she could flap her arms and fly would soon meet Mr. Gravity and the problem would solve itself; getting slapped in the face with a derisive laugh seems a small price to pay for such willful ignorance. If I taught this class, the next session would have been an unedited silent slide show of Iraqi corpses, heavy on the children.

As a Limey I find it singularly amusing to watch the nation with more Nobel winners than the rest of the world combined, more world class universities, more cutting edge laboratries, and more high tech enginering companies than any other country, proscribing science wholesale. In favour even of inconsistent relgious and political blinkers.

Possibly you ought point out to your government that your nation is the world's sole superpower because of her scientific and technical might.

Alternately you could let Asia eat you for breakfast, it's all good.

The reality gap widens more every day.

This is not the first time that enlightnement virtues have come under attack, nor will it be the last.

Let the morons have their day and bully their way into imposing their narrow and ignorant views upon us all.

All fundamentalist/anti-intellectual movements have died nearly as quickly as they began because of their rejection of scientific method and reason for the soothing balm of faith-based superstition. One day they'll wake up and realize that faith does not make electric generators run or heal wounds or solve complex math problems, and they will grow up and re-join the elightnement.

In the end, truth cannot be swept under the rug by religious or political expedience.

the modern conservative movement reminds me of a quote:

"If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit."

the movement lives on the drama of the fake crisis. only with time and facts can these be brought down. true, there will be many lost in the meantime but brownshirts never win.

Let's quote from the Scriptures:

On Society as God

"Society is not at all the illogical or a-logical, inherent and fantastic being which has too often been considered. Quite on the contrary, the collective consciousness is the highest form of psychic life, since it is the consciousness of consciousness. Being placed outside of and above individual and local contingencies, it sees things only in their permanent and essential aspects, which it crystallizes into communicable ideas. At the same time that it sees from above, it sees farther; at every moment of time it embraces all known reality; that is why it alone can furnish the minds with the moulds which are applicable to the totality of things and which make it possible to think of them" (quoting Durkheim, Emile. Translated in 1954, The Elementary forms of the Religious Life. Translated by J.W. Swain. New York: The Free Press, p.444).

Highest form of psychic life? Oh, how we all loved 'Ghostbusters.' All seeing Spirit in the Sky?

Please. We clearly have the talking in tongues, all that is missing from this clearly a religion is the rolling of the eyes in the back of the head.

And, the little merely once intructed robots of this religion, laughingly parading about as Cargo Cult scientists, long ago instructed by former waves of the merely instructed, now scoff at competing religions, as if their 'S'ociety='G'od gibberish wasn't the same old same old, as once explicitely acknowledged by the Apostle Durkheim.

A leg lifting exercise by a competing religion.

Walk outside your door, and look for 'S'ociety and it's Spiriet in the Sky animistic wants and needs that can only be divined by elitist high priests claiming to hear it speak. All you will find, endlessly, is people speaking for themselves, thank you.

...until you get to the religious whackos, the Social Scientologists. Then, their eyes roll back into the head, and we are treated to endless mumbo jumbo transcendental splendor.

Exactly the pudding headed nonsense that opened up the door to the real brownshirts, back during the great German Volksgemeinschaft, when that part of the world was swimming with this 'S'ociety='G'od nonsense.

According to Durkheim and his many modern religious worshippers, 'S'ociety = 'G'od.

Let's see how clever marketing has trashed the 1st Amendment: Slap 'science' on your religion, see if the boobs take notice. Sure, a 'science' that is brimming with 'Sociologists believe...'

Well, no crap, the Apostles believed, too.

Society = God

Society=State.

State=God.

Forget about 'separation of church and state,' a century old religion has rendered the whole idea moot, is firmly entrenched, and today abuses the 1st Amendment only to keep the once breeched gates firmly closed to all other mere competing religions.

But, by all means, this debate about 'keeping the fundamentalists from overwhelming the schools' is absolutely riveting, a real hoot.

Proceed with the delusion that it wasn't accomplished long ago.

Students labor under the false presumption that philosophy is about the expression of “their” opinions and that all opinions are equally valid. Never mind that most students haven’t read a single philosophy book in their entire lives.

Despite my agreement with the other points our host raises (and my having sent a strongly-worded letter to both my state Senator and Representative, as I live in Florida), this comment sticks in my craw. Maybe it's the remembrance of a decade-old D-minus I got in an Intro to Philosophy course when I was a student - my mindset going in was "I'll study philosophy to be taught how to -think-." Instead, the curriculum was nothing more than rote recitation and parroting of a bunch of old-school philosophers, none of whom had presented ideas (or Ideas) that came close to inspiring my agreement, or much of anything but reasoned criticism from my perspective. Merely having read books of philosophy doesn't make one a great thinker, it simply lets you know what other thinkers were fortunate to get published (or have survive the ravages of time). Reading Shakespeare doesn't make you a better writer of sonnets.

I laugh at the denial of objective reality espoused by the current administration and their various toadies daily and vigorously, and occasionally come up for air long enough to ask someone why they buy the bullshit. It hasn't made me popular around the water cooler, to be sure.

If the prof is indeed to blame for allowing the problem to escalate, wouldn't any attempt on her part to keep the train on the rails be grounds for a lawsuit under this proposal? I suppose professors will have to take out insurance policies for lawsuit protection, much in the way that businesses and doctors do.

I'm of two minds on the issue, really. In my four brief years in college, I certainly had exposure to tenured profs who stopped learning and gathering knowledge decades ago and whose sole purpose in teaching was to make students buy their book for class. And my friends who have continued on to graduate school have had even more up-close and personal experiences with tenured profs who make it quite clear that grad students are merely there to serve as their gophers and secretaries, not to question their superiors or present new ideas or even heaven forfend think for themselves. After all, I've got tenure, I know all there is to know!

But as corrupt as the tenure system can sometimes be, I'm not sure the judiciary is the place to be checking the balance. Having too little structure in the learning process can be just as detrimental as too much structure, I think.

The conservatives have already taken over all three branches of government, most local public school boards and they control the 24 hour cable news cycle. Now they want to direct their infinite greed to take over the universities?

On a related note, Juan Cole shows how conservative anti-academic David Horowitz and his Stalinesque crew have been slandering university professors.

When you move current events to the center of a philosophy class, you shouldn't be surprised when the discussion devolves into a bunch of kids spouting their opinions. Also don't be surprised when many of those opinions are ill-informed and more conservative than you might like.

One idea is to teach the text in its original context and leave it to the students themselves to reach conclusions about todays political questions. By making facile ( and highly disputable) "points" about Iraq in your class, you turned it into a "bull session." If you teach the text in its original context then it is very easy to humiliate students into line when they start in with their foxnewsy nonsense. Simply ask, "and where do you find that in the text?"

Of course your main point about not wanting students to be able to sue teachers is well taken. It is also true that students are not, and should not be, on equal footing with professors.

Thanks, Norm, for talking about this--it is an incredibly crucial issue for anyone who cares about the quality of academic life.

On the one hand, it's a great example of the "DuToitification of the American Conservative"--they talk tough but they're such bed-wetters that they can't even stand up to a nerdy guy in tweed. Instead they run to a GOP mommies' web site, or they sue. Of course there are conservatives who are successful in academia, both as students and as scholars, but they opted for shutting up and defending their ideas rather than whining about unfairness.

I have a friend who got "cited" on noindoctrination.org for being a leftist radical whose syllabus is unbalanced. His worst crime is that he openly announces his political views (it's actually quite hard to be brainwashed when someone declares himself to be a partisan right off the bat). It takes only one student in all the courses you've ever taught to label you a radical and you're a target of an increasingly powerful blacklist.

The fact is that students, collectively already have a great deal of power over professors' fates at universities. They get to choose if they want to take a course; if it's required, they can choose to wait until their preferred prof. is teaching it; most of all, they get to write teacher evaluations. If they don't like the professor, or his views, or even his or her race or religion they can make up lies about the prof. on the evaluation and they will never get in any trouble for it. The only check is that each evaluation is balanced with all the others.

"are no civilian deaths in Iraq" When faced with a student's lack of information, as a teacher, I asked why they thought that was true? We ended up in a discussion of how words are twisted, quotes pulled out of context and how when it comes to politics it is incredibly difficult to understand what is the 'truth'. Her approach was to escalate the situation and make the discussion about how stupid the student was. That IS NOT teaching. As a teacher, you learn more everyday because of your students and their questions and their perspectives. As a teacher, you should guide them to developing the tools to develop the skills necessary to determine fact from fiction. The examples she gave show her passion for one side of the issue instead of passion for education. She had interest in proving she was right and he was wrong, fact from fiction, instead of developing the students' ability to investigate statements on their own. Attacking someone's views only makes them go on the defensive, not educate them or change their mind. Investigating their view, questioning why they have that view, that is how everyone learns.

In the end, we rely on second hand news, retelling of stories, subjective clips of events to try and tell us the truth of what is going on. To say YOU KNOW one way or another is ridiculous, but the best we can do is try to get as many points of view on the subject and make the best judgement we can. Thinking your judgement is ever complete, exact and right is pure hubris.

Krugman does it again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/29/opinion/29krugman.html?hp

"So, you want to take my class? Sign this Waiver. Take it back to your counselor and have them sign it. Underage? Have your parents sign it as well. Waivers are available on my school based website, so you'll have it before the first day of class. If you have questions about the waiver please contact XYZ school organisation."

I

Sloan: I agree with you that the teacher in question probably handled the situation badly. Maybe he's a bad teacher all around. But this issue has nothing to do with making teachers better. Even if it was, are threats of lawsuits and blacklists the way to go about it?

If you have a political science teacher who hates rational choice theory, charicatures it, makes fun of it, and makes fun of you for entertaining it, you can mention it on their end-of-semester evaluations. If your teacher loses half your papers, never gives comments, and hands the rest back the day before finals, you can complain to the department. If your teacher only calls on brown haired people and gives them better grades, you can report them to the department. But if the problem is alleged insensitivity or unfairness to conservative viewpoints, you have a whole political movement, and a whole set of laws being passed to make sure not only that you can go through all those other channels, but also that you can sue and ruin that professor's career. It has nothing to do with making teachers better and everything to do with making it very costly to question conservative views. The result is that professors must simply adopt a conservative message or start talking about things which are totally irrelevant to real life.

I don't think anyone has argued that legislation is a good idea. There has been argument about how the teacher handled the situation, but nothing saying that they agreed with the idea of legislating this issue. It is as ridiculous as the posturing with gay marriage and Schiavo. Our politicians are wasting our money.

Part of the problem here comes from the term 'academic freedom'. Louis Menand argues in The Metaphysical Club that the idea of 'academic freedom' arose in the United States as a response to privately funded universities wanting to protect themselves from the influences of both the State (from which they'd be protected by the 1st amendment anyway (remember that?) and also those privage interests which paid for them. It does not, as some students seem to believe, mean that academics (and by proxy their students) can make whatever claims that they want -- it does mean that the University is responsible for regulating the discourse that goes on within its grounds. 'Academic freedom' is better read as 'freedom of the academy', rather than 'freedom of all academics'. This system is largely self-regulating, of course, with refereed journals and the like, but presumabley if an academic started to espouse views that lay so far outside of what is, despite the claims that Universities are full of 'liberal dictators', a very broad church of opinion, then the University system is able to censure her or him. Holocaust deniers in a number of places have been stripped of their positions, and sometimes even degrees, for instance. The notion of 'academic freedom' also extends to the idea that the academy should be free to set and maintain standards as an institution (and of course the threshold seems to have been set very high, so that academics do, by and large, enjoy a great deal of freedom).

Just as those who espouse old-fashioned conservative views say that 'with rights, comes responsibility' (although it's getting harder to tell these days), so with academic freedom, comes academic rigour. In other words, we're not able to just make things up. An academic is required to think through issues and come up with positions that are informed, defensible, and can be demonstrated with whatever evidence is most appropriate to their discipline and methodology. This might be the bit that our host’s students might struggle with -- if they take positions that they can't back up, then you are free to point out the flaws in their argument, and grade them accordingly. They should not be able to then sue you for infringing on their 'academic freedom', which they don't actually have. So, of course, no professor should have to fear intervention from the judicial system for what they teach in class (and it unfortunate that the United States is the sort of litigant society in which the courtroom is the first, rather than last, resort).

I think that most of the people who have posted to this site would more or less agree with this position. If a student says that 'there were no civilian casualties in Iraq', they must be able to demonstrate that this is true; clearly, they will have a hard time doing this. However, I also agree with Felix, in that I don't think that the appropriate response is to humiliate the student. Despite what you think of your 'academic freedom', a professor has an ethical obligation to bring students into the debate, rather than make ad hominem attacks. As Ira Shor argues in a number of books, the power relationship between students and teachers is grossly imbalanced, and if we want to live in a democratic society, with democratic ideals, we have a responsibility to approach teaching in a democratic fashion, by returning power to students who have spent most of their lives in institutions which disempower them. It seems to me that, given what has been related here, our host has a tendency to believe that students are there to learn from her, and that their participation in the thought process (which is what philosophy is, the study of thought), is somehow not required. The students are expected to sit there, understand what is being told to them, make the connections that the professor wants them to make, and to not actively engage with the ideas -- especially if it is to disagree with them.

This, to me, is exemplified by the student who tried to take over the class. Sure, his ideas were probably flakey, but it smacks of a student trying to reassert power in an environment in which he felt deeply disenfranchised. I imagine that if you were a student in a class that espoused only morally conservative, far-right Christian views, and wouldn't brook any debate, and call you anti-american for disagreeing, for instance, you might think of doing the same thing. So, rather than assume that your institutional authority, and the number of degrees you have automatically makes you the only voice worth listening to, it might pay to bring those students in to the debate, so that they can learn to think about things rigorously, and thoroughly, and either come around to your way of thinking; or come to consistent and well reasoned philosophical positions from which to argue their case for, for instance, war in Iraq. It's the old 'how to think, not what to think' thing. Your responsibility is to engage your students with ideas about what the mind is, how we might approach the world ethically, and most importantly how we might engage in civil debate about what we want to world to be like. To be citizens, in other words. It is not to exercise the power you have over them, and make them feel stupid for holding their beliefs, even if you think what they believe is stupid. Of course, it’s impossible not to let one’s own biases into one’s teaching, it’s natural and probably healthy, and I don’t think the argument for teaching philosophy only in its historical context is particularly helpful – what could be more off-putting for students, except for having their own views ignored by the person who symbolises, for them, the academic institution? Students should be made to defend their positions, of course, but in a constructive manner, they shouldn’t be made fools of for expressing them. You simply have to give them space to have their voice heard, so that they can refine, revise and defend their ideas, otherwise they'll never learn anything, drop out of the class, become anti-intellectuals who vote Republican their whole lives and not think twice about supporting a law that curbs your 'academic freedom'.

"if we want to live in a democratic society, with democratic ideals, we have a responsibility to approach teaching in a democratic fashion, by returning power to students who have spent most of their lives in institutions which disempower them."

This is a load of nonsense. Sure it is important to build a student's confidence and give them a chance to enter into a dialogue. I agree that a professor should not humiliate their students. However, this psuedo-political language is inappropriate here. Student's are empowered by gaining knowledge about the world, not by having their false views given the stamp of approval by a professor. We don't get to vote on what is true, we argue for it with reason and evidence. Of course there is an imbalance of power between the student and the professor. The professor is the expert on the topic of the class for fuck's sake. This doesn't mean the class has to be a lecture with no discussion, but it sure as hell does mean that what the professor says carries more weight. Egalitarianism doesn't apply to everything my friend. An "democratic" epistemology is just another name for the most idiotic sort of relativism. It undercuts the academic rigour that you argue for above. It certainly does not teach students good habits in civic debate.

I also don't see the connection between running a class in a "democratic fashion" and living in a democratic society. Presumably for a democracy to work, its citizens need accurate information and not a validation of whatever view they happen to have or want to have.

I'm sorry but I don't understand the disenfranchisement and the humiliation and the power between students and teachers, etc.

I had professors that were good and I had professors that weren't. I didn't worry about being disenfranchised --- Are you saying you aren't getting called on? Is that what's going on?

Was I able to give a measured opinion? Sometimes the teacher would dismiss my comment (in which case I thought they were an @sshole), but more often that part of the discussion would be left to the students and if you didn't have your ideas together, the students would take them apart. But, the next time you brought up your point, you would be ready with a more complete defense. You learned.

And what's the big fear? A good teacher could change your world but it is very unlikely they could change any closely held beliefs (and if they could - better the teacher than a cult). Maybe they will actually open your eyes up to being able to see an overall larger picture - that doesn't mean you agree.

But with teachers - what finally ends up being most important (since that affects so much), did you get the grade you felt you deserved? If not and you believe it's because you don't agree with the teacher - then let's hear your complaint.

But, if everyone is so worried about the disenfranchisement of these students, I am curious what life they are being prepared for. The real world? Guess what - people aren't going to always agree with you until you become the CEO. Have you ever tried to make a stand against a full conference room? If you haven't prepared for this, you aren't going to do it. The funny thing is, if you do do it, you actually might get others who agree with you but were too afraid to say so and even end up in a higher position because of it. And, you might get disenfranchised and pretty soon you don't even know there are meetings. Real world.

And - there is also a sense of entitlement here that is being nurtured. Now, granted, when Daddy has donated a whole lot of money to the school and then owes the company you are going to work for, you might as well feel entitled because that's how everyone is going to treat you but....it might be nice if we tried to keep that attitude to a minimum in the workforce. Right now, I am meeting way too many...

OK, since people seem to be drifting away from Ms. Marcus's original article, for the record, here's what she said regarding the civilian casualties:

One student screamed in a fit of rage that “there are NO civilian deaths in Iraq!” In response, I asked, “What planet are you on?” All right, I confess to being a tad bit sarcastic. But come on! No civilian deaths?! What an idiot. So sue me! No wait! I’m kidding.

Yes that's right: she said, "What planet are you on?" Is that "humiliation"? She doesn't even describe what transpired after that; for all we know, she could have asked him to support his contention with facts and sources. We just don't know, based on that one paragraph... yet that doesn't stop people here from presuming to know what went on in that classroom. "Humiliation"?? Please.

In a Sunday School class I think it's important to treat everyone's experience and opinion with some degree of respect. The idea behind that is that the teacher is as often as not just some guy with a few ideas to share that spark a class discussion, a discussion among equals, more or less.

In a university classroom the discussion isn't among equals. As Chris pointed out, there is no room for democracy in a classroom. The whole idea of a liberal education is that the school masters know better than the school boys (and girls) what the school boys should study. This is why some classes are required. The school masters are better suited to judge mastery in a given subject than are the school boys. That's why the school masters give out the grades.

I had a GE History class once. It was taught like a Sunday School class. Some of the students would propose things that seemed to me to be absolutely silly, and the professor still treated both the person and their viewpoint with respect. I'm all for respecting the person but their opinions are fair game. Things like, oh I don't remember, but it went a little like this:

Professor: So what were the factors leading to the fall of the Roman Empire?

Student raises his hand and answers: Maybe it was so big that the horses got tired from delivering messages, so the postal system collapsed and thus did the empire.

Professor: Well that's one way to look at it I suppose, thanks for responding. What an interesting idea. Hmm, I'd never really thought of that before, but maybe we could focus on the effects of the constant barbarian invasions and the cost of defending Rome's long european borders... but before we move on does anyone else have any [lame ignorant] thoughts to share?

After a while I got sick of it. I felt it was a waste of my time to listen to him entertain crazy ideas so I just showed up for the first 5 minutes of class, took the quiz, and left for the labs. I'd probably do the same thing if I felt the professor was wasting my time ragging on president Bush.

So the upshot is I think lawsuits are a terrible idea. Tyrrany in the classroom is a time-honored tradition, and easily avoidable by means other than lawsuits. I think Ms. Marcus (the author) handled the situation badly by belittling both the student and his opinions but a lawsuit is certainly uncalled for. Her opinion of the student is clear when she says "what an idiot."

Does anyone disagree with felix's characterization of education (March 28, 2005 07:24 PM) at least as a characterization of philosophical education? "Education is a dialogic exchange between pupil and teacher. Quote Plato all you want, but the beauty of the Socratic method was the philosopher's ability to lead his conversation partner, through dialectic, to an understanding of his own internal logical contradictions." I think it a good one myself. But the Socratic method is not all powerful. While Thrasymachus was tamed, Euthyphro walked away unscathed and Callicles continued to rant. The invincibly ignorant and the ideologically committed, those who lack the power to change their minds and those who have the power to maintain their mindset against all contrary evidence and argument, are beyond the reach even of Socrates. How many Callicles' are out there? In eighteen years of teaching philosophy I have seen very few. Ms. Marcus apparently sees many more. (I see more Euthyphros, though not all that many of them either.) I am sorry for her plight. When I feel embattled like this, I find it useful to remind myself that I am not the last legion between Rome and the barbarians. The future of our civilization is not my responsibility. My task is to think as clearly as I can, to offer what enlightenment I have to offer, and to model the practice of disciplined investigation, of a search for truth that does not equate true with emotionally satisfying. This is a big task. I am one person and one of modest ability. If Euthyphro doesn't get it, or Callicles rejects me...oh, well. Let's hope someone else is more successful with them.

I am not addressing the issue of the legislation here, which in any case was a small part of Marcus' article. I am thinking about all the anger in her essay. The Stoics thought anger the emotion most destructive of philosophy and right-thinking in general. A little modesty goes a long way toward soothing the sources of anger. Sloane said it so well I want to repeat the passage (March 29, 2005 02:34 PM): "She had interest in proving she was right and he was wrong, fact from fiction, instead of developing the students' ability to investigate statements on their own. Attacking someone's views only makes them go on the defensive, not educate them or change their mind. Investigating their view, questioning why they have that view, that is how everyone learns.

"In the end, we rely on second hand news, retelling of stories, subjective clips of events to try and tell us the truth of what is going on. To say YOU KNOW one way or another is ridiculous, but the best we can do is try to get as many points of view on the subject and make the best judgement we can. Thinking your judgement is ever complete, exact and right is pure hubris."

That is truly worthy of Socrates. Thanks, Sloane.

I don't deny that the teacher-student relation is a power relation. As a teacher I have power which I may use abritrarily and not for the good of the student. But the questions here are how far this classroom tyranny actually goes, what checks on it are currently in place, and what alternatives there are. In general classroom tyranny has probably made some people feel stupid for a little while, and may have adversely affected a grade, but has resulted in the brainwashing of almost no one. It's child's play compared to the potential for abuse of power that husbands have over wives, parents over children, police over citizens, etc. As everyone seems to agree, there already are a lot of checks on this kind of abuse. Finally, all of the alternatives to the current system (like allowing lawsuits, setting up watchdog boards, etc.) are either impractical or make matters worse.

Like many instances of abuse of power, the source is often not malice or poor character but lack of skill. It is a difficult thing to learn to be a teacher who can take all the inchoate, incomplete ideas of a 19 year old and gently point them in the direction of something better--stroking their ego while improving their mind. It would be hard for me to take care of Thrasymachus or Euthypro, on the spot, without a good deal of preparation. But then even Socrates tended to confuse and manipulate his interlocutors at least as often as he enlightened them. So when we hear people raging on about oppression in the classroom what we're hearing in large part is that teachers aren't as skilled as we'd like them to be. I see no simple solution to this problem (besides tripling our salary).

I would like to elaborate a little on what Dende has said about Socratic dialogue. Patrick G. seems to think that using Socratic dialogue will make a class more "democratic." Dende has pointed out that Socrates often manipulated his interlocutors. I would go on to say that socratic dialogue has just as much potential to humiliate students as simply correcting them. In fact, socratic dialogue can be worse because it can put a student in a position where he just feels he must stick his foot in his mouth. This is much more humiliating than a statement like "what planet are you from?" Socratic questions can be very leading as well. If one phrases questions like Jeff Gannon, then the person answering doesn't really come up with much on his own. This is hardly "empowering."

I also agree with Dende that socratic dialogue can be more confusing than enlightening. If you hear 5 different inchoate ideas from other students then you have 5 inchoate views plus the professor's view to sort out. I think most students wouldn't want to waste time sorting through all this unecessary flotsom. Mike has expressed this frustration above. One doesn't pay thousands of dollars in tuition to here a bunch of idiots opinions. One wants to here the expert's opinion.

This is not to say that there should be a lecture and no discussion in a class. Generally, though not always, it is the students that should be asking the questions and not the professor. Let the student rather than the professor take Socrates role in the dialogue. This is both more "empowering" and more pedagogically useful.

felix said, "Education is a dialogic exchange between pupil and teacher. Quote Plato all you want, but the beauty of the Socratic method was the philosopher's ability to lead his conversation partner, through dialectic, to an understanding of his own internal logical contradictions." Exactly. Yes. And the word "lead" is operative, here. The role of the teacher is to lead the student to discovery.

Chris, I didn't say anything about a Socratic dialogue being more democratic. I implied that Socratic dialogue was more philosophical. All sorts of question and answer methods have been called Socratic, so perhaps the term is too vague to be useful. But I have something definite in mind and I thought felix described it rather well. I would emphasize two characteristics of Socratic dialogue in this sense. (1) It examines arguments rather than challenging or affirming theses directly; and (2) it restricts itself to premises and inferences that are accepted by the interlocutor.

These features do not absolutely preclude the teacher from leading, humiliating, boxing in, or otherwise constraining the interlocutor. If it did, it would be useless as a tool for education. Thrasymachus is tamed. His taming is at first a humiliation; he blushes and sweats. But eventually he becomes a friend of the argument. This is the promise that the method holds out, that the interlocutor will become gentle, i.e. one who belongs to the gens, one of us, a fellow inquirer. Socrates does not inform those who take part; he transforms them.

Dialogue is unlikely to be fruitful where the interlocutors are "a bunch of idiots". I have never experienced a class that fit such a description. If others have, I am sorry for them. It would indeed be foolish to pay tuition to hear the opinions of such persons. But if all one wants is the opinions of experts, it is foolish to pay tuition at all. Books, magazines, the internet, taped courses etc. have all of those that one could ever want.

Why do we talk (or write) to one another rather than spending our time downloading the opinions of experts?

Patrick writes that if all one wants are the opinions of experts it would foolish to pay tuition at all one could just read. What point is he trying to make, does he really believe this teacher doesn't allow questions and doesn't engage in discussion with her students? What an absurd notion, a red herring. She writes, "After we discussed Plato’s theory of Justice, I asked my students if Plato would agree or disagree with Bush’s decision to invade Iraq." Oh my, that sounds like a discussion was taking place. The question is not if she engages in discussion with her students and answers question, she obviously does, but what questions deserve discussion and which ones don't. She could have simply said your statement that "There are NO civilian deaths in Iraq!” " is factually wrong rather than what planet do you live on. I would have been inclined to a, are you fucking kidding me, but then we all have our own styles. The point is that both Patrick and Felix are attempting to frame the discussion in a way that disregards the few facts we do have. This is teacher obviously engages in dialogue with her students and is simply making judgments as to what student opinions are worth discussing and which ones are not, and that is her job.

Norm, I was responding to Chris (March 30, 2005 03:40 PM ) rather than to the Marcus essay directly. I had picked up on Felix's characterization of education and began to think about the nature of philosophical education. This seemed relevant to me because Jacqueline Marcus teaches philosophy, philosophy is a peculiar discipline and this peculiarity might dictate a different response to her situation than if she taught, for example, chemistry. One peculiarity of philosophy, so it seems to me, is its ambivalence about expertise. Socrates has as much fun with experts like Protagoras as he does with any of his interlocutors. So when Chris said "One wants to hear the expert's opinion," my interest was piqued.

You say, "Patrick and Felix are attempting to frame the discussion in a way that disregards the few facts we do have." This concern for facts is closely related to the expertise issue. I agree that facts are important. But philosophy is not, in my view, only interested in the facts per se. To revert to another of its peculiarities, it is a species of inquiry that tries to carry on in precisely those situations wherein many of the relevant facts and even the meanings of key terms are in dispute. In these situations of deep perplexity it shifts the focus away from facts themselves to the meaning of, and justifications for, describing the facts in the way one does. It strikes me as most important to keep that way open as much as one can, even in the face of genuine aporiai.

None of this is intended to suggest Jacqueline Marcus isn't doing her job. I am grateful to her for her essay. And I am grateful for the discussion here. They prompted me to think about what teaching philosophy means. It is an interest of mine. I am sorry if I side-tracked the discussion.

I think the failure to make it clear that your discussion was about what teaching philosophy means, not in the specific context of Jacqueline Marcus, but in general created confusion on both sides. Felix's earlier statement "this woman should not be teaching" set the tone for much of what followed, and your support of him without specifically distancing yourself from that comment added to the confusion. I certainly don't disagree with the jist of what you're saying about philosophy and teaching in general. I've often thought that a study of philosophy should begin with an informal logic class given the poor critical thinking skills most students have upon entering a university. In fact I think it would be an excellent start for any academic discipline.

I studied philosophy with my computer science degree for exactly the reason Norm pointed out. Regardless of her subject though, her approach was not constructive... which is what I really hold teachers like myself accountable to, whatever method is used.

Patrick G.,

Norm is right that there is confusion here. I was commenting more on the idea that socratic dialogue is an inappropriate response to a claim like "There are No civilian deaths in Iraq." I was also commenting about teaching in general, but not specifically philosophy. I cited Mike as an example of someone frustrated by a lot of irrelevent opinions and he was talking about a history course.

I agree mostly with what you say about teaching philosophy. However, even here I think Socratic dialogue is of limited use, even in the more specific sense of Socratic dialogue you laid out above. If you have a large class, there is the dangerous potential that you will benefit one interlocutor at the expense of the rest of the class. Its important to at least get the professor's reading of a text out there before entering into a lot of discussion. I think it is more important that students be exposed to a cogent and expert reading of a text than to discussion. You can get discussion with your peers at a coffee shop. THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO DISCUSSION IN A CLASS. I said that before. Speaking of argumentation Patrick, you have built a strawman in place of what I actually said when you wrote, "But if all one wants is the opinions of experts, it is foolish to pay tuition at all. Books, magazines, the internet, taped courses etc. have all of those that one could ever want." What's more, if you are right about this, why do Universities spend a bunch of money to have colloquim talks and conferences that consist primarily in uninterupted lectures. I think its because lectures CAN be a more effective ways to communicate ideas than books or journal articles. Of course at a colloquim or conference there is a question and answer session at the end. All I am saying is that the expert's opinion is more important than the student's in a teaching environment. This doesn't make lecture and dialogue mutually exclusive.

America becomes a more frightening place eveyday

Chris, concerning the straw man, I guess I wasn't very clear. Sorry! The point was not that you said that the opinion of experts was all you wanted. The argument I intended to make was a modus tollens like this: IF all one wanted was the opinion of experts, then paying tuition would be foolish. It is NOT foolish. Therefore, it is not the case that the opinion of experts is all one wants. I thought I could suppress the middle premise and conclusion because I conclude by asking, in effect, 'What more do we want?' Too squished to be clear, I agree.