I really don’t want to get into this, but it well-covers a subject that has been bugging me a bit since I first stepped onto a college campus. At Asymmetrical Information, there is an entry entitled, “A Hell of a Long Post on Conservatives in Academia.” Shouldn’t be long, since there are damn few, but that’s her point.
Now I probably lean to the left, with a firm grip on certain conservative values. I don’t mind sex and politics entering into courses that are definitely relative, as I strongly feel that these elements have driven the history of the world and rightfully belong in History, Literature, and hey–Political Science!–among some others. And I agree with the concept that its purpose is to provide a thought process towards application of the course being studied. However, I feel it is often being shoved down the throats of students who are hopefully approaching higher education with an open mind, and after all, this is a bit one-sided. Extreme liberalism seems to feel liberal towards the rights of everyone except conservatives. There’s little room for diversity in this area anyway.
Example: A conservative professor in English Comp in an election year who suggested a paper on who we would likely vote for (strongly encouraging the students to vote) and why. This subject was challenged and brought up to higher authority as a violation of privacy. Maybe, maybe not; this was, after all, a writing exercise and didn’t need to be an open declaration but a valid argument. The only instructor whose political affiliation I didn’t know by the end of the first class was one of my Algebra teachers.
Another example: Liberals are quick to stick labels on people, yes, really. In first semester Spanish I learned that blond was rubio/a and brunette was moreno/a. In second semester Spanish, being asked to describe my lovely classmate who was a Polish/African brunette, I said, “morena.” Well, I was quickly corrected and made aware of the fact that I was a white, middle-aged woman and my response was expected but should have been more politically correct. Frankly, the reason I don’t make a lot of noise about homo/hetero, or black/white/purple is simply because I don’t see the difference in people and see no need to point it out. The differences I do see, while products of ethnicity and culture and upbringing, is in the individual. These are good things. The difference between piorogi and ravioli is a couple eggs.
There are good and bad points on both sides of this topic, but I don’t see good reasoning behind the intensity with which politics enters every classroom. Sex is more natural and acceptable, and, I suppose, less open to controversy. But presidential bashing isn’t, to me, a great thing to be teaching. I didn’t notice a lot of it going on when Clinton’s flaws came to light, but I felt that thank goodness the man gave us something as acceptable as oral sex to focus on; it took the spotlight off his shady financial dealings and lies.
Why not make Political Science (probably the only required unbiased instructor) a first year course requirement and be done with it? It’s certainly a valuable study for all students regardless of program of study, and will be used throughout one’s lifetime–more than Algebra, surely–even in the day to day politics we face with each other.
Anyway, it’s worth checking out the weblog entry and the comments.
The Lost Children: A Charity Anthology
Susan.
I love you.
(((hug)))
TOLERANCE only works one way, Susan. Don’t you know?
This word TOLERANCE, I think, is some sort of throw back to a counter-culture code-word. I don’t believe I’m being conspiritorial by saying this. I’ve made it my purpose in life to not only pay attention to what people say but to observe their actions.
And there are plenty republicans I dislike and even hate, especially in Connecticut, but democrats scare the crap out of me…with the exception of a handful who hold on to a party they should have left a long time ago. I’m specifically referring to politicians when I vent my spleen in this manner. I don’t begrudge the average person.
But getting back to TOLERANCE…because apparently, I have masochistic tendencies…I think I’ve decifered TOLERANCE to actually mean ACCEPTANCE.
So now, in the twenty-first century, it’s not only enough to respect an individual out of, if not Christian values, but common courtesy, but now I am forced to sanction a particular lifestyle, or choice, or belief, or annointed vision. And I have no choice in this matter for fear of hatecrime/ thoughtcrime legislation.
If there is one thing that I despise, to the point of of rage, in this world, it would be imposition.
DIVERSITY…now this one’s a good one. I’ve decoded this one to actually mean DIVISIVE.
This one could lead to our undoing. Especially now that holocaust survivors and WWII veterans are dying off, God bless them. Our collective lack of memory and certain peoples’ arrogance and ignorance may lead to our undoing. Maybe in a generation or two…so technically, it shouldn’t effect us…wink and a smile.
Do you know that after 800,000 Tutsis were butchered in 1994, a law has been passed that prohibits tribal identification in Rawanda?
Ask a Rwandan what DIVERSITY means to them, specifically a Tutsi.
Just for some brief history:
Tutsi means ‘cattle owner’ and Hutu means ‘servant class.’ This is their historical classification.
Without going into boring detail…because if the spirit should move you, your own research will be more valuable…the Rwandan Massacre came down to a Class War.
This is why I become incensed when I hear instructors use marxist rhetoric. If I had a time-machine I’d transport every last marxist teacher to witness the carnage of Rwanda in 1994…to witness the fruit of divisive seed.
See, the thing is, I don’t care if an instructor is a democrat, republican, or communist…I don’t care if they share their opinions in class. The problem that I have is when I am held hostage in an environment where I am subjected to someone else’s ridiculousness, without ever having access to a profile of this person to see if it would be a personality match. And then I have a problem with being ostracized when I get up the nerve to call the Polaner Fruit, jelly.
The thing that angers me about all of this is that I pay for these classes…and my money doesn’t come from a trust fund, I wait tables and eat A LOT of fecal matter to pay my way.
And, you know…the ridulousness that I’m subjected to more often than I karmically deserve makes me understand why there are certain people who think that education should be free. Sometimes I sense that mechanism behind the agenda for free education is more about job security, free from the market’s invisible hand rather than actual concern for an educated populace.
All that being said, one of the reasons why I’ve stayed in contact with Mr. Ersinghaus is because he is, besides the B.F., a source of inspiration for me to finish my academic journey. Ersinghaus has always encouraged and challenged his students to think independently, and not force anyone, that I ever witnessed, to ‘get in line’…which is the feeling I always get in most of my other classes.
That’s a gift and a blessing. And I wanted to state that for the record lest I should put our beloved Mr. Ersinghaus on the defensive.
The gods are sometimes kind enough to give us just enough hope, as we balance on the edge of insanity, so that we don’t take the plunge out the window.
Thanks, Rina. I wish I were as knowledgeable and passionate as you, but I tend to let much go by me, and indeed, adopt as tolerant an attitude as I can except when I can’t keep my mouth shut any longer.
I do agree that it seems whenever “liberal” thinking escalates into laws, it means that someone else has to–that is, HAS to–keep their mouth shut about their feelings. I say, we should have a right to be stupid if that’s what we choose to be, or biased, or clever and openminded, or whatever. That’s what the Constitution was supposed to be about. Stupid people can always be ignored, and it’s not just ignorance that causes harm, but intelligent people who are misdirected or downright evil as well.
Two side notes: 1) In a rare defense of Mr. Clinton, I must admit that I indeed have known men who sincerely believed that oral sex was not considered “cheating” on their wives. And 2) we caught Mr. E. on a busy week, so he probably won’t even see this! You are right though, he was one to initiate thought and argument rather than acceptance. And in fact, the Spanish professor involved is one of the nicest, least overly liberal, but totally openminded instructors I’ve ever had. In this case, it was more the looks from the students that branded me.
Wow!
Who is Jane Galt?
We might be long lost sister seperated at birth…and apparently, she got all the writing talent.
Wow!
OMG. I just got my mind blown a little bit.
I might not be all so crazy after all.
Susan, Thank you.
Rina writes: “That’s a gift and a blessing. And I wanted to state that for the record lest I should put our beloved Mr. Ersinghaus on the defensive.”
I’d rather do offence, myself. By the way, no matter the rush of the weeks, I’m always wont to visit some of my favorite people, which includes both Rina and Susan.
Thanks for the nice words.
My personal ploitical views run towards the… well, I don’t know what you’d call it.
My main tenet is that when in doubt, government should leave people alone. But, I also feel that that is also the main law the population should live by.
As far as political scandal and corruption, well, duh. When are people going to get that anyone who would go through all the crap and hassle of getting elected to public office, not to mention the unholy alliances, is going to have their own agenda. This is most likely 1 (or more) of three things, filling their pockets with cash, making their life and surroundings as decadant and kingly as possible, or simply dominating others and fucking with them.
As for Republicans and Democrats, their messages both basically boil down to the same thing “That guy sucks, but I’m good.”
Jason
P.S. I’m sorry, but that whole ‘oral sex isn’t cheating’ line is a bunch of crap made up by some guy who got caught in the act. Ask that guy if it would be ok for his wife to go out and get some.
You know, I certainly understand your cynicism, Jason, but…It doesn’t have to be this way. It hasn’t always been this way. If you go back and read some of the writings of the original settlers, they’re really…inspiring…NOT utopian. Inspiring.
It’s easy to blame the politicians for being the c***suckers that a good majority of them are (pardon the vulgarity) but…WE have to take some responsibility for our tolerance (See: ACCEPTANCE) of their unethical behaviour. We have to take some responsibility. I mean, I’m no fan of President Nixon for some of the leftist legislation that was passed on his clock but, he had the decency to resign over FAR less than what Bill Clinton did. Does anybody even really remember or understand what Watergate was about anyway???
And let me be clear, I’m not talking about a blow job in the Oval Office. (Sorry Susan, “oral sex” sounds almost sanitary)
And Jason,if you don’t know what I’m alluding to, in regards to the real crimes of Bill Clinton, then I’ve made my point about the American people’s lack of responsibility in holding their politicians accountable.
But none of that mattered because he was our charismatic/ hollywood president and we loved him for all of his lip-biting and charm.
That being said, I don’t care about Bill Clinton. I’ve resigned myself to sort of reconciling his existence to theodicy. In some strange way, the guy served a purpose so…whatever.
“And Jason,if you don’t know what I’m alluding to, in regards to the real crimes of Bill Clinton, then I’ve made my point about the American people’s lack of responsibility in holding their politicians accountable.”
Wow, that was patronizing…Vince Foster? Whitewater? Are those the ones you mean? Despite appearances to the contrary, I’m not just another pretty face. }:)
As far as the musings about the good old days, well, I’m not saying that doesn’t have some merit. But how much of that was a product of the times? The leaders back then were trying to goad the bear into casting off its shackles, the ones today are all too happy holding the reins. Is the process of manipulation actually any differant?
Jason
“Wow, that was patronizing…Vince Foster? Whitewater? Are those the ones you mean? Despite appearances to the contrary, I’m not just another pretty face. }:)”
Sorry, Jason. If I had actually articulated that passage verbally, it wouldn’t have sounded patronizing. And it certainly wasn’t intended to be.
I am impressed that you even know about Vince Foster. Dude. You really aren’t just a pretty face.
However, I wasn’t even thinking about Vince Foster…Foster was no boyscout he probably deserved his fate. Does that sound mean? Yeah. Lots of good people died on Clinton’s watch as a result of his self-absorption. I mourn their loss.
And Whitewater…that one’s barely a blip on my radar as well. Whitewater is one of those things along the lines of Watergate. Depending on whether your a democrat or a republican, an individual will give one a pass, while getting all self-righteous about the other.
The things that I will not ever forgive Bill Clinton for are:
1.) rampant nuclear proliferation
2.) accepting campaign funds, ie: soft money, from the Communist Chinese government.
3.) switching the approval for arms from the DOD to the Commerce Department which he justified after having signed NAFTA into law and selling the Communist Chinese Government our most state of the art military technology.
4.) The bombings of the two American Embassies in Africa.
5.) The 18 American soldiers that died in Somolia due to his incompetence. In addition, for ever calling the military to serve after having expressed his “loathing” of the military in his deferment letter during Vietnam.
6.) The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole off the coast of Yemen.
7.) The ‘three’ seperate occassions that Osama bin Laden was offered to him, in which he refused, all three times to take bin Laden into custody.
8.) Elian Gonzales.
9.) Rwanda.
And this is just off the top of my head.
Again, sorry for the patronizing tone. I appreciate your honesty. I’ll make it a point to sit next to you during our next meeting so that you can get to know my personality and perhaps it might work as a filter so that my passion is not interpreted as snot. I realize this is a problem. It has become apparent to me that due to this lack of filter I end up debating individual egos rather than the topics themselves. Sorry.