I called a student's remark un-American last week. It was current-events time in my introductory American-government class, and he brought up the controversy over the so-called "Ground Zero mosque." That is a topic about which I believe there is only one morally defensible position. The student's morality, unfortunately, pointed in the other direction. So after explaining the various reasons why I couldn't see the protests against the mosque as motivated at their base by anything other than bigotry, I averred that such expressions were, well, you know.
Here is the thing: I never do that.
In nine years of teaching, I have always obeyed a strict policy of checking my own political views at the door. My philosophy has long been that students should just be told the facts; it is up to them to formulate whatever conclusions they wish to reach on the basis of those facts. And while I believe my own political positions are based on the firmest data and logic (don't we all?), I never assume that my conclusions must be everyone's.
Moreover, ever mindful of the power differential between professor and student, I have always viewed even discussing my own beliefs in the classroom as out of bounds. In my own college career, my academic adviser was a government professor whom I liked a great deal. Nevertheless, simply knowing he was a Republican—an affiliation, I should point out, that he never evangelized in the classroom—made me hesitant to critique his party in tests and papers. That fear was very likely misplaced. But in my own teaching, I have opted to avoid the matter entirely by simply remaining outside of politics when I walk through the classroom door.
And yet in the past few years, I've found myself re-evaluating that position, culminating in last week's little outburst. Specifically, what I keep running up against is this question: What is a professor supposed to do when the facts themselves are "biased"—that is, when a controversy exists in society, but the evidence falls overwhelmingly toward a single position? And where are the precise boundaries between fact, which a professor may legitimately discuss in terms of right and wrong, and opinion, which does not lend itself to such binary discussion?
Much has been written lamenting how our media and political environment allow individuals to pick their own facts—but, of course, that isn't really true. A large portion of the public may be convinced that health-care legislation will lead to "death panels," or that the president is secretly a radical Muslim, but the popularity of such beliefs does not make them true. And yet denouncing such notions as the fantasies they are risks undoing a professor's hard-earned reputation as an evenhanded broker of the facts.
That's not a matter only for those of us who teach in hot-button fields such as politics and religion. Skepticism abounds in this country regarding topics on which experts have reached an evidence-based consensus, such as climate change, vaccine safety, and the religious views of the Founding Fathers. In every case, those are matters of scientific or historical record, and in every case, attempts to teach our best understanding of the facts can be construed by misinformed partisans as an attempt to ram an ideology—usually liberal—down students' throats.
No doubt this column will seem like useless hand-wringing to some. I have known plenty of professors who have no problem informing their students of the "correct" answers even to legitimate controversies. Others view the classroom as the intellectual equivalent of a gladiatorial arena, with the instructor in the role of the lion. In that view, part of the educational process is to learn how to push back against the professor and defend one's views, even though the attacks come from on high. I understand those approaches, and I envy their adherents' level of moral certainty. But as an introvert, I also sympathize with the students who find such environments paralyzing rather than challenging.
So I keep my own views to myself, which leaves me continually evaluating how to deal with situations in which a set of facts is generally accepted among the experts but is met with doubt in the larger society.
My conclusion is that all points of view are not, in fact, created equal. One of my central obligations as an instructor is to teach students how to separate the wheat of evidence-based claims from the chaff of those that lack substance. Whatever it may do to my reputation for evenhandedness, then, I cannot pretend that certain ideas are valid or rational when they are not, because when I do, I am not modeling the behavior I want students to learn. Under this new understanding of what it means to conduct an ideology-free class, I can (for instance) talk about the existence of anthropogenic climate change as fact because that existence is what the overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates, regardless of the popular debate.
If the conundrum ended there, it might be manageable. Unfortunately, whether one intends it or not, allowing such ex cathedra pronouncements, even in areas of fact, is on the edge of a slippery slope—a slope, I should hasten to add, that is precisely where we as instructors belong.
And that brings me back to my outburst about the Islamic-center protests. Having come to the conclusion that there are not always two scientifically equivalent sides, I was now faced with an issue in which the positions were ethically unequal.
I should note that my conclusion was not simply a gut reaction; I thought and read much before deciding that the issue was stark enough that I could not in good conscience hold my tongue about it in class. And while I publicly apologized to the student involved for any embarrassment I may have caused, I do not regret making my stand, nor even its admittedly extreme wording.
I still believe that such righteous anger should be reserved for those few instances when the ethical contrast of the controversy is absolute. But just as there are times when facts compel us to take sides against ignorance, no matter how prettily dressed it may be, there are times when reason and conscience compel us to call indecent behavior by its proper name.
In those rare cases where every datum directs us toward the same moral conclusion, we can only conclude that the facts are biased, and we should conduct ourselves accordingly. Abandoning truth in the name of balance only deprives students of an essential life lesson: When forming opinions—even in an area as slippery as that of ethical behavior—demagoguery and sleight of hand are no substitute for evidence.
Comments
1. usc158 - September 29, 2010 at 09:11 pm
Mr. Hill, you seem to be saying here that this is an open-and-shut case, and that you are on the right side....therefore anyone else's opinion is wrong. You could just as easily have told the student he/she was wrong because .... But to call the student "un-American" was definitely not called for. It is the type of vitriolic attack used by extremists to silence their critics, and since you already have your bully pulpit and all of its power....
Shame on you! You owe the student an apology.
As a libertarian, I also believe that many of the arguments against the center are based on bigotry. But here is one angle which many don't bring up or discuss: is it just possible that those who proposed the mosque are being un-American? Let's ask ourselves if Japanese-Americans would have suggested building a Shinto Shrine next to the Arizona in Pearl Harbor, 9 years after the attack?
NO, and I posit that the reason was/is that they thought/think of themselves as Americans FIRST, and Japanese second. I further posit that these proponents of the center near ground zero think of themselves FIRST as Muslims, and as Americans second (or maybe even third after their home country). That is un-American.
And the average American wonders why our students are so brainwashed with liberalism???
2. truthfirst - September 29, 2010 at 10:00 pm
This is no surprise some professors are humiliating graduate students like this face to face
in the classroom. I have seen this first hand where a Professor went after a graduate student
year after year. The thing is some universities support this kind of behavior because of
the history the faculty and university have together. If a professor has a lot of publications
and a excellent reputation in the academic community then they most like feel they can
do and say anything to a graduate student and get away with it. And they often do.
If you think in these types of situations the university will support the student, think again.
3. jffoster - September 29, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Is calling an American citizen "unAmerican" unAmerican?
And in a Political Science class to boot.
No, 1, I concur with you and add re one of your examples that the Japanese are too porite to have erected a Shinto shrine next to the Arizona Memorial, even if they had thought of themselves as Japanese first.
4. petemorris - September 29, 2010 at 11:43 pm
There is a fundamental flaw with the Pearl Harbor analogy. In no uncertain terms, Japan--and the official forces of the Shintoist Japanese emperor--attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. Islam did NOT attack the Twin Towers in 2001; a small but lethally organized group of terrorists did. They may have been inspired by their personal faith, and they may have taken it upon themselves to represent their co-religionists around the world. But even if they had/have thousands--even millions--of sympathisers, that is still a far cry from saying they were acting on behalf of Dar al-Islam.
Isn't allowing the actions of a few tarnish the reputation of the many the very heart of bigotry? I agree with Prof. Hill; this particular issue IS an open-and-shut case.
5. frankiesull - September 30, 2010 at 06:14 am
I prefer and practice professorial neutrality in the classroom on controversial issues while recognizing the legitimacy of giving one's own opinions. But this author's outburst is indefensible bullying and so quite unprofessional. A public apology to the student is indeed in order.
Btw, the facts aren't capable of bias or neutrality, only rational beings are.
6. stevenlberg - September 30, 2010 at 06:31 am
I establish a classroom environment where we respect informed arguments and learn that we can disagree with each other without being disagreeable.
Four reasons I am able to effectively participate in class discussions is that (1) I truly respect informed arguments even if I disagree with them, (2) I do not attack students with whom I disagree (e.g. Lion example above), I am willing to modify my positions in light of evidence/insights provided by students, and (4) I do more than pay lip service to my belief that an open exchange of informed ideas is desirable.
A couple of years ago after attending a presentation given by my students, a colleague told me that she was initially surprised that a student gave a presentation on the immorality of homosexuality in front of his openly gay professor. Then she thought, "How great is that!"
Of course, I am also the overtly liberal professor who was the faculty sponsor for a dance sponsored by the college Republicans so that they could earn money to bring speakers-such as gubernatorial candidates and the secretary of state-to campus. I have not voted for a Republican since these students were in diapers, but that is not the point. I think their efforts to bring quality speakers to campus should be supported.
If we respect students, we can enter into collegial discussions with them; discussions in which we can share our informed opinions.
Steven L. Berg, PhD
Associate Professor of English and History
Schoolcraft College
7. tjfarrel - September 30, 2010 at 07:12 am
The question here is the meaning of the term "un-American," for which Hill supplies the unusually (although not unheard-of) technical sense, "contrary to the constitution of the United States of America." But in general usage, "un-"American more often means something like "contrary to the principles underlying American society," a much squishier term, susceptible of a great deal of individual bias. Had Hill opined that the student's anti-mosque position was unconstitutional--surely germane in an American Government class--he would be in a more defensible position.
8. firstyearttguy - September 30, 2010 at 07:58 am
I think it is perfectly acceptable in a case like this one to give our own opinion, however, the author of the article seems like a bit a bully and a jerk to me. Why? Because of the massive power differential between professor and student... to say that you disagree with the student is one thing, to label the student's position with an ad hominem label is another. At worst, the student strikes me as poorly informed. I hope the student mentions this in your evaluations. Do you really think your leftist opinions don't get enough air time on campus?
By the way, I think it is perfectly American to disagree with the Mosque's placement in a controversial location... doesn't the political left constantly insist that Christian symbols belong in some places but not others? I agree with the author that the Mosque is and should be perfectly legal, but that does not at all end the discussion about its appropriateness. I'm sorry such nuanced opinions evade the 'unAmerican' author of this article.
9. bloomthinking - September 30, 2010 at 08:01 am
Un-American = Reception Centres?
3. jffoster - September 29, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Is calling an American citizen "unAmerican" unAmerican?
And in a Political Science class to boot.
No, 1, I concur with you and add re one of your examples that the Japanese are too porite to have erected a Shinto shrine next to the Arizona Memorial, even if they had thought of themselves as Japanese first.
4. petemorris - September 29, 2010 at 11:43 pm
There is a fundamental flaw with the Pearl Harbor analogy. In no uncertain terms, Japan--and the official forces of the Shintoist Japanese emperor--attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. Islam did NOT attack the Twin Towers in 2001; a small but lethally organized group of terrorists did. They may have been inspired by their personal faith, and they may have taken it upon themselves to represent their co-religionists around the world. But even if they had/have thousands--even millions--of sympathisers, that is still a far cry from saying they were acting on behalf of Dar al-Islam.
Isn't allowing the actions of a few tarnish the reputation of the many the very heart of bigotry? I agree with Prof. Hill; this particular issue IS an open-and-shut case.
"Two-and-a-half months after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the notorious Executive Order 9066. As a result, more than 110,000 Japanese, virtually all the Japanese-Americans on the mainland, were 'evacuated to concentration camps' in remote parts of America's mountain states. The words were his, though they were soon replaced in official parlance by the euphemism, 'reception centres'."
The Consequences of Terror, Japanese Internment in America (book review); The Economist (London); Sep 22, 2001. Source: www.wordsmith.org
10. duchess_of_malfi - September 30, 2010 at 08:25 am
What a jerk. The argument that this outburst--loss of control--is not only excusable but a moral imperative is a post-hoc justification for bad behavior. Hill has constructed a reality in which those of us who do not use the classroom power difference to verbally abuse our students are shirking responsibility. His students learned a life lesson, but not the one he thinks.
My students are often wrong on facts and sometimes have opinions contrary to my moral views. I always correct the first. I occasionally ask questions that might indicate my thinking about the second. They are not the same thing and I do not have anything like an equivalent responsibility for talking about them. Reasonable people can disagree, and civilized people can do so without being disagreeable. Does the behavior we want to model for students consist of bullying them into what to think--or showing them how to think?
11. ethan56 - September 30, 2010 at 08:32 am
Hill is a bully. One should never talk to a student that way.
In any case, his attitude that there is only one correct answer about Project 51 is shared by the NY Times but not by 70% of the American people. No one disputess imam Rauf's right to build a mosque wherever he wishes, as long as he is conforming to local zoning laws. No one disputes his right to put on spokesmen on national tv who had compassion for the 9/11 families and declared that any opposition to the mosque is "a plot against Islam"--though it does reveal Rauf's mindset. How do you think THAT played in Peoria? The issue is the wisdom of putting up a huge Muslim religious structure next to a place where men proclaiming they were acting on Muslim values slaughtered 2800 innocent people. Don't you think there's an issue there? The de haut en bas attitude towards opposition to the Project 51 mosque is typical of elites.
Why do I say this? Pres Obama objected last week to A-jad's nutso assertions that 9/11 was a U.S. govt plot, especially because (the President said) this assertion was done in Manhatten, so near the site of the slaughter. Well, imam Rauf has invited Dr. Faiz Khan to preach at the site of the projected mosque twice in the past year, and Faiz Khan, like A-jad, has publicly asserted that 9/11 was a U.S. plot, an inside job. Is Faiz Khan, like those who claim that opposition to the mosque is "a plot against Islam", going to be the sort of person at this mosuqe? What holds for Pres Obama's objections to A-jad's crazy assertions holds for opposition to someone like Rauf's friend Faiz Khan being given a huge platform 600 feet from ground zero.
12. ethan56 - September 30, 2010 at 08:33 am
That's: "who had NO compassion" for the 9/11 families...
13. jdbeatty - September 30, 2010 at 08:34 am
The fundamental flaw to the criticism of the Pearl Harbor analogy is that Japan as a nation did not attack, the samurai leadership did. Japan as a nation was not consulted; the Showa emperor was presented with the attack plan as a fait accompli, and he signed off on it as he always did. Thus, history has tarnished the many with the actions of the few for more than half a century, and will doubtless continue to do it because it is the conventional picture of the conflict.
The case that "Islam didn't attack" would be stronger if some of those of the faith, as the samurai did, didn't regularly point to the sucesses of the attacks as a sign of western weakness while others of the faith, like the Japanese, stand aside and let it happen. Other Muslims might have stopped it or sounded the alarm, but they did not. They might now publicly condemn the actions of the few, but they don't. They might now ostracize the few, but they do not. They could cut the violent few off from all support, but they do not. In their silence and aquiescense we may not see consent or even agreement, but we do see acceptance of the idea that all non-Islamic thoughts should be eradicated.
The "Islam did not attack" attitude is that of a mugging victim: if I give these what they want, they won't hurt me. Guess again, and again, and again. Want to call my attitude "bigotry?" Knock yourself out while I defend your neck against threats that you don't agree exist.
As for keeping personal views out of the classrom: it is not possible or even reasonable to discuss. However, reacting to someone else's ideas that you do not agree with by insulting their integrity or even their patriotism is unconsionable and should have been followed by disciplinary action. Academic freedom includes being free to speak without fear. As gatekeepers to our student's future, stifling their freedom to express themselves is about as unscholarly as you can get.
14. cdconstant - September 30, 2010 at 08:34 am
This article is a perfect example of everything that is wrong in higher ed.
15. thomas34 - September 30, 2010 at 08:51 am
I have absolutely no problem with the "ground zero mosque," but Hill is completely off-base if he thinks that there's "only one morally defensible position." Ultimately, I think analogies like the Shinto-shrine-at-Pearl-Harbor analogy aren't persuasive, but it's going to way too far to label them morally indefensible. Hill needs to realize that sometimes people of good will are going to disagree with one another, and it's not helpful to assume that everyone on the other side is un-American.
16. washingtonwarrior - September 30, 2010 at 09:54 am
If Republicans could call Democrats "Communists" during the 1940s and 50s, why can't Democrats call Republicans "bigots" now?
17. ethan56 - September 30, 2010 at 10:10 am
The issue, washingtonwarrior, is what is permissible along this line in a classroom. We are dealing with a teacher who has power over a student--in this case, a student who has been insulted in class over a political issue where the teacher very wrongly (as has been pointed out here by several people) believes there is only one possible moral position. The teacher then uses his classroom power and authority to impose his personal position, bullying and insulting a student in public.
I agree that Hill could be brought up on disciplinary charges. I'm not saying that he will be, or necessarily ought to be. But in my opinion he could be.
18. stannadel - September 30, 2010 at 10:29 am
Ethan 56 wrote ". No one disputess imam Rauf's right to build a mosque wherever he wishes, as long as he is conforming to local zoning laws." That is simply false, there are many who dipute that.
jdbeatty wrote "They might now publicly condemn the actions of the few, but they don't." That is also false, s/he may not know about it but milions of Muslims condemned the attack of 9/11.
Like our students, they are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.
19. 12080243 - September 30, 2010 at 10:54 am
What a wonderful environment! Universities thrive on exploring differences and diversity (including thought), evidence and facts, reasoning and logic. Unless your education is over, celebrate what makes universities great, alert students to differences and diversity even among their teachers, but let's not rush to punish it. Mr. Hill offers a learning opportunity.
Chauncey M. DePree, Jr., DBA
Professor
School of Accountancy
College of Business
University of Southern Mississippi
20. usc158 - September 30, 2010 at 10:59 am
After reading the responses here, my morning mood has been made much better. My faith in the academy is partially restored by all of the responses and comments which state quite clearly the overall opinion of Mr. Hill's behavior and statement of moral absolutism: he was wrong on both counts.
21. andrew_orr - September 30, 2010 at 11:17 am
There's nothing wrong with holding different opinions, but there are more professional, dignified ways to disagree with a student. An outburst like this in the business world would have very real consequences.
Calling a person "unAmerican" is just another way of staying "I think your opinion is stupid because it is different from mine," and it's precisley this kind of polarizing, my-way-or-the-highway kind of reasoning that is eroding political discourse in this country.
It's too bad a comment like this way made in a college classroom. So much for providing a safe intellectual space for students to question and kick ideas around. The author seems to take pride in the fact that he took a stand, when really he probably just ended up silencing (and humiliating?)a student.
22. ethan56 - September 30, 2010 at 11:28 am
stannadel:
1. I have heard no one in this disupte say that Rauf does not have a Constitutional right to build the mosque/community center. That is always conceded, as far as I can see. It's a different question: whether it is wise (or moral) to build such a huge edifice celebrating Islam 600 feet from where 2,700 innocent people were slaughtered by people who claimed their action was sanctioned by Islamic values.
2. And as for that latter point, a Pew Poll in 2003, two years after 9/11, showed that Osama Bin Laden, the perpetrator of 9/11, was viewed as an outright Islamic hero by anywhere from 40% to above 70% of Muslim respondents around the world.
23. bburchet - September 30, 2010 at 11:32 am
The proper response would be to ask probing questions. For example: "Do these public protests present a risk to property rights?" "Isn't land use an issue for local governments to decide?" "What does the federal nature of our constitutional regime mean for this issue?"
24. duchess_of_malfi - September 30, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Hill's department website at Doane College lists him as assistant professor:
http://www.doane.edu/Academics/Majors/Crete/p-z/Political_Science/Faculty/26045/
But in this article, he is described as associate professor. I wonder if he was recently given tenure.
25. creamcity - September 30, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Puzzling in this is the shift from "un-American" to "unethical" -- and then equating them as one and the same. This shows the fundamental flaw in the argument.
The aim, we are told, is laudably to encourage students to question incorrect and/or biased information. However, then the pedagogical strategy is obvious and at least as old as Socrates: Question the student, question the student's evidence, question the student as to the source of the information.
This is not just how we teach; this is what we teach: The process of learning, in hope of encouraging them to continue to do so long after they have left us and are left asea amid this MisInformation Age.
26. gomiller - September 30, 2010 at 12:39 pm
I do not understand how building the "ground zero mosque" can possibly be interpreted as anything other than an expression of complete solidarity with American values and a tribute to the lives that were lost.
That aside, I interpreted Hill's "unAmerican" comment in the context of the American Government course he was teaching - a constitutional evaluation, however much the student (and some of the commenters here) apparently would like to sensationalize as a personal judgment of the student. Though I admit that point probably could have been clarified for the student, and there's no indication that Hill made such a clarification.
I agree with Hill on all counts here.
27. jaysanderson - September 30, 2010 at 12:55 pm
George: "I'm going to tell her the truth".
Jerry: "You mean the truth as YOU see it"?
George: "Yes, the truth as I see it".
Mr. Hill's believes there aren't enough professors telling students how to think. That's the truth as he sees it.
28. writingprof - September 30, 2010 at 01:35 pm
If Hill had called a student unAmerican for expressing SUPPORT for the mosque, all the tenure in the world wouldn't save him.
And that's a fact.
29. dank48 - September 30, 2010 at 01:39 pm
Mr. Hill will doubtless have learned a lot from the preceding comments, and so I see no need to pile on.
It's revealing, though, to see his list of topics on which he considers the debate over, the matter settled, and so let's move on. I work with and otherwise encounter quite a few people whose views on e.g. anthropogenic global warming, evolution, vaccine safety, the religious beliefs of the founding fathers, among other topics, do not agree. That is, the opinions, convictions, beliefs differ widely. And wildly. To claim that "evidence-based" discussion has settled these questions once and for all is to assign the officially approved "correct" view the status of dogma.
Some of these opinions strike me as insane. Some strike me as odd. Some as true. But where does any teacher get off playing God and deciding what is or isn't true?
Look, we all want to know and understand things. But as Richard Feynman among others has pointed out, we have an amazing ability to fool ourselves. That's unfortunate but quite typical.
To recognize one's beliefs about mosque-building, AGW, religion, politics, etc. as just that--beliefs, not knowledge, not Truth written by the hand of God on tablets of stone--is one mark of adulthood. I think Mr. Hill still has a way to go.
30. oioioi - September 30, 2010 at 02:16 pm
I, for one, support the Islamic center. I would also support the Roman Catholic Church if they wanted to build a cathedral next door to Neverland Ranch. Because this is a free country. And if Republicans are so gung-ho about freedom, what's the problem? See: first amendment.
I think it's fair to point out contradictions in arguments in an academic setting, or to point out misrepresented facts (e.g., that the proposed site is a mosque). But name calling - and that's what "unAmerican" amounts to in America - is a dope's way of responding to an otherwise teachable moment.
31. ikant - September 30, 2010 at 02:57 pm
I couldn't disagree more strongly with Prof. Hill's position, both in terms of what he said, and why he said it. In my classroom, when people make statements (political, religious, and so forth) which might be controversial, I always ask other students what *they* think, thereby leading them into discussion. I hope that I would never shut down discussion, or insult a student, in the manner described above, and I'm skeptical that there's any positive pedagogical value to it.
I also think, however, that Prof. Hill (and lots of others) might want to re-evaluate their notions of "checking their politics at the door." I suggest that our ideological tendencies manifest themselves in all kinds of ways that aren't conscious or explicit, and that - in terms of opening conversation and making students feel comfortable - is something that we should all try to be more aware of, instead of imagining that we're "sticking to the facts." Even the question of what constitutes relevant facts involves an ideology of sorts. I would hope that a professor of political science would have realized that by now.
32. realtalk - September 30, 2010 at 04:35 pm
These comments are absurd.
I don't see any defensible reason why a professor should tolerate every stupid bigoted thing someone says just to maintain some fantasy version of "neutrality." And, I'm sorry, I *don't* tolerate all ideas in my classroom. If I have a Klansman in my class I don't have to pretend that I accept their views. I don't tolerate students who think they can run roughshod over lecture. I don't tolerate the idea that 2+2=5. I thoroughly reject the idea that we need to make every little special snowflake feel special and shiny and good. I reject that when it's about their "self-esteem" and I reject that when it's about their politics. The world is not obligated to affirm your worldview. I have a worldview. You have a worldview. We ajudge these positions based on evidence. If you can't take that, go somewhere else, the university is not for you.
If you say something stupid, I don't see any excuse for why the professor should have to pretend it's not stupid. And if the poor student gets their little feelings hurt, tough. The world isn't constructed to protect getting their feelings hurt when they can't defend an ignorant or bigoted position. And to use a ridiculous analogy, IF THIS WERE THE BUSINESS WORLD and the student spouted ill-reasoned hateful nonsense, that also would have some "real consequences." Get a helmet, start learning something.
33. addled - September 30, 2010 at 08:01 pm
I agree with the majority of commenters above that faculty should keep their politics to themselves in the classroom. That does NOT mean that nothing students say can be questioned. However, they should be questioned about their reasoning and evidence regardless of whether you agree with them or not. It has been suggested that liberal students get a poorer education these days because their ideas are rarely challenged.
34. truthfirst - September 30, 2010 at 09:10 pm
As far as the comment that one poster made about students getting their little feelings hurt. Well that is not what you would expect to hear coming from a faculty member. We need to remember that some of the students' ages can range from 18 to 80. If a professor objects to the way a student is conducting themselves in a classroom there is a university code of conduct in place at every single university in America. Professors are suppose to use those resources when students get out of hand. Professors who enjoy trading insults with students in a learning environment need to quit. If you don't care what kind of climate you promote in your classroom then get counseling and stop teaching.
Some students have begun to take the position that if you find no real need to respect me in the classroom and you violate my right to learn, I will see you in court. Professors who are bullies in the classroom is not going to be accepted. Students who get out of line is not accepted so why should they accept it when professors violate the university code of conduct . There have been
some nasty comments by faculty member on this forum about students. What makes you
think students who pay so much money for their education are going to take that. If you have
a bigot in your class address that with the university. The problem is some professors are
themselves instigators who use students as pawn to promote their brand of public abuse. So since
you are inviting students to leave a university because they find your endless rants hard to take, I invite those professors to get anger management counseling and figure out how to use conflict
resolution.
35. truthfirst - September 30, 2010 at 09:38 pm
You know the fact that professors are becoming so aggressive and disrespectful is not about
learning. There is something else at work here and university officials need to reign that
kind of behavior in. I am reminded of the professor who not to long ago went on a killing spree.
We need to consider that as much as we may have some students with dangerous opinions
we may also have professors who are operating in a dangerous mental state. Professors are
human too. Just because you have a lot of educational accomplishments behind your name
does not mean you are perfect. Certainly if you don't know when you have crossed the line
and become a classroom bully instead of a teacher you are not operating in safe mental
capacity for any university.
36. realtalk - September 30, 2010 at 10:02 pm
A hearty LOL @ the notion that students are being intimidated and bullied by professors. This is the most pampered and infantilized generation of university students in the history of higher ed. It is also the most vulnerable and contingent generation of faculty in history.
Right here in this thread the consensus is that professors have no right to assert scientific fact (evolution, climate change) or material reality (there is no such thing as a 'ground zero mosque'), because that might offend students fragile sensibilities or (horrors!) challenge their existing notions of the world. I should have realized that students are paying all of this money to find out that they already know everything they ever need to know.
The only reason that educators exist is to promote certain values: logic, thought, reasoning, culture, skill, technique, critique, taste, etc. There literally is no other reason for education to exist.
Nobody's advocating denigrating students or beating them with sticks. But if you say something stupid, I'm not going to tell you it's great, it's fine and dandy. I'm an educator, not your affirmation agent.
37. truthfirst - September 30, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and we thank you for yours
38. truthfirst - September 30, 2010 at 10:33 pm
But let me add this I am a college professor and my son is working on his Phd. So please don't make
blanket statements about all us I do not want to be included in your line of thinking.
39. ethan56 - September 30, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Realtalk:
According to Hill's account, the confrontation with the student wasn't over facts, it was over the morality of building the Project 51 mosque and Muslim Community Center 600 feet from Ground Zero. Hill's position was that there was only "one morally defensible position"--his, in favor of the mosque. Anything else was "unAmerican". This is not a question of facts about the mosque/community center, Realtalk: it is a question of the morality of building it. Hill asserts that his is the only acceptable position on this, and that he has the right to bully the student on it.
40. voralex - September 30, 2010 at 10:54 pm
When I read "un-American", what comes to mind is not whether the view is constitutionally applicable to the United States, as an above comment would offer; instead, I always think of "un-American" as the "U" in HUAC, as an incitation to excess. It's the kind of empty rhetoric you throw around when you have run out of legal arguments to try to counter a policy, the way one could say that universal health care is "un-American" regardless of how the Supreme Court would be expected to rule on any such proposal. That's a trump card to put an end to debate, not an argument.
I can understand that, in some cases, political affiliation might be a touchy subject, especially in a discipline such as political science where your students are most probably involved in political parties. But shouldn't political science try to rise above such petty card-carrying concerns?
41. msho2574 - September 30, 2010 at 11:09 pm
What about when a chinese postdoc has never heard of Judiasm and won't give you an extension on a project. I had to drop a class at the University of Michigan because of an un-american chinese postdoc.
42. arrive2__net - October 01, 2010 at 12:27 am
Based on what I learned, simple policies may be appealing because they make your job easy, but they are unlikely to succeed in truly complex situations. Professor Hill is wise to rethink his policy of 'checking his political views at the door'. Such a policy means the prof didn't have to really think through what situations could occur. So in the encounter he ended up "shooting from the hip", not having thought over how to handle that situation ... and then being uncertain as to whether he was right or wrong.
A simple strategy 'checking your political views at the door' also invites students with 'a yen to show-up the professor' to bring up controversial political subjects knowing you, the professor, won't say anything and will just look stymied and goofy. Silence can be regarded as agreement, so the prof does need a policy of when to speak up and how, not just a policy of blind silence on political questions. Another factor is the principle that 'all that is needed for evil to triumph is for the good people to remain silent'... so given that you have a policy respecting your 'superior' roll as professor (not to humiliate the student), you need a reasonable policy, or at least an idea, of how to handle the those delicate situations. I think a part of that policy has to be how you will identify the point where you will say "but this is a political science class, and we need to get back to Morgenthau's theory (or whatever)"
Professors have to do their job but I don't think professors are perfect, or that they need to be to be perfect to be great professors. As a prof you have to expect to learn from encounters with challenging students ... it goes with the job.
Bernard Schuster
Arrive2.net
43. colorlessblueideas - October 01, 2010 at 10:08 am
While many commentors have noted the unethical behavior of the article's author in employing ad hominem attacks against one of his students in class, discussion of a very large elephant in the room has been lacking.
The author is a professor of political science. The faculty web page indicates that he specializes in "American politics". Yet, he is not only unable to articulate possible moral reasons for protesting the "Ground Zero Mosque", he is unable to even think of any motivation besides "bigotry". This is a serious professional failure, and calls into question not only his own education at Furman and Ohio State, but also the vetting and tenure process at Doane College.
What is worse, the fact of his revealing this in the Chronicle indicates that he does not recognize the expectation that a professional academic -- especially a self-described "educator" -- should be capable of such reflection. In an article in the Chronicle recently by "Thomas H. Benton" of Hope College (http://tinyurl.com/2cvx7tg), several of the commentors laud the liberal arts for teaching deep and critical thinking skills to students. An element of this skill set involves understanding not only one's own point of view, but also that of others. Such skills apparently are neither valued nor taught in the Doane College political science department, at least by its senior faculty member.
This may not be entirely his fault: he is at a small college, and may not have pertinent and significant interactions with peers of a wide variety of political persuasions. Yet while it is understandable that he would be unfamiliar with various points of view outside his own field (e.g., climatology), such lack of knowledge is much less forgivable within it -- and eminently less so within his specialty. He has a professional responsibility to seek out and to understand (not necessarily to agree with) alternate points of view in areas of controversy before making classroom dicta. That is one of the differences between being credentialed and being educated. Requisite humility would also require acknowledging limitations on knowledge as well as the possibility of error in one's own thinking.
44. trendisnotdestiny - October 01, 2010 at 04:08 pm
We over-estimate and over-value neutrality. However, I do think that the professorate must avoid self-indulgent fixations leading to dichotomous conclusions averse to context.... Again, I find myself straddling the notion of finding a balance.
We all maintain biases. Also, we do affect the lives of others with our decisions. The most ethical stance, as far as I can see, is to put out our biases front and center (as experiences thus far) but also model for students that we are capable of change in the consideration of those viewpoints that most challenge our own.... In other words, let us not bullshit them with neutrality or an overblown sense of certainty. The only thing we truly know for sure is that we know our own experiences.
45. 11127485 - October 02, 2010 at 08:20 am
If we seek to instill open-mindedness and truth-seeking, we need to be guardians of those values in our classrooms at all costs -- to model the types of inquiry we wish to instill in our students.
Modeling single-sided or emotional arguments should only be done with clear purpose in mind. It is a slippery slope.
46. iconoclast - October 03, 2010 at 06:16 pm
Be very careful, Mr Hill. They can run you out of Dodge for trying to have an opinion, or to instill open-mindedness, with your haughty 'elitist' professorial Power of Sargon. Your students are 'customers' and 'clients' and do not have to conform to academic standards save the dollar bill and their whim.
47. mccaugheym - October 03, 2010 at 07:04 pm
I don't read the article as a defense of the outburst (calling a student un-American)--but rather as a way in to a discussion about what sort of "neutrality" and "balance" professors are pressured to maintain. The tension comes in when the research in one's field all points in a specific direction and yet many of one's students will not want to believe that research/data/set of findings because for various reasons it runs counter to public opinion. In these cases, we must not buckle under the pressure to be "balanced" when no real academic debate exits on the topic. Our responsibility is to present the facts and the current research, not what some taxpayers think we should be presenting. Obviously, this issue affects biology professors who still face pressure to "balance" their instruction about evolution with theories of intelligent design.
48. ethan56 - October 04, 2010 at 08:31 am
Hill wasn't presenting facts, he was presenting an opinion about "the only morally defensible position" possible on the Project 51 mosque and Islamic community center, according to him--and he was enforcing it by bullying the student in public.
49. colorlessblueideas - October 04, 2010 at 11:47 am
mccaugheym (47): in cases where, within one's field, there is really no academic debate, a solution which maintains the integrity of both professor and iconoclastic student is to tell the class, "You don't have to believe the explanation I'm presenting, although (I believe) it is currently the best assessment of those of us who have studied the matter in depth. However, you are required to be able to know what this assessment *is* and my explanation of how it was arrived at."
iconoclast (46): you fail to understand the problem. Prof. Hill's unethical conduct is not that he has an opinion, but that he is modeling *close*-mindedness and using reprehensible techniques to browbeat a student. This is a separate probelm from his professional failing in not being able to articulate or understand opinions which differ from his. Both ways show that he failed to maintain academic standards in this instance.