tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post4781273163043585116..comments2024-03-26T01:10:13.720+00:00Comments on Teach Me Tonight: Class Report #1E. M. Selingerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00426524354823232002noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-38820146281501671362008-03-02T20:55:00.000+00:002008-03-02T20:55:00.000+00:00I almost missed this lovely debate. Very interest...I almost missed this lovely debate. Very interesting.<BR/><BR/>I had the best (or worst) of both worlds. My undergrad degree is in French Lang and Lit with minors in English Lit and History. (Why, one wonders--I can only say it seemed like a good idea at the time.)<BR/><BR/>When I examined my career choices as a non-native speaker, teaching French on the collegiate level, I was fairly certain I would wind up in a junior college in Topeka. <BR/><BR/>So I went to medical school.<BR/><BR/>Med school taught me the value of a liberal arts education. Oddly enough. The bio nerds were all about science and proof, but less so about being analytical and deductive. Problem solving as a skill set came from the undergrad profs not the med ones. That still strikes me as peculiar. I spend all day, every day, problem solving for people. Yet, problem solving wasn't even addressed at my med school. I think that that is a large deficiency in the medical education system today. <BR/><BR/>I agree that no one should be forced to learn calculus, although I did it.<BR/><BR/>Someone in my undergrad assigned The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich--at least one volume, IIRC. I was disgusted, horrified, appalled, but I read it. It would never have occurred to me to object to the prof about the assignment.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, my med school class was instrumental in getting rid of live dog labs (vivisection, what a lovely word). We did it, because we had to, but our representations about how distasteful the class was got it removed from the curriculum the next year.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly the aim of a liberal education is to teach you to think.<BR/><BR/>--Jackie L.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-70635664269246149682008-02-23T13:08:00.000+00:002008-02-23T13:08:00.000+00:00I attended a one-room, eight-grade, school house. ...I attended a one-room, eight-grade, school house. We didn't learn Latin, because the teacher didn't know Latin, but because the teacher spent so much time with other grade levels, we were expected to read whenever we weren't working on lessons. I made it through the World Book Encyclopedia two and a half times before they sent me on to high school in 1952.<BR/><BR/>The art teacher came one afternoon, once a month. The music teacher came one afternoon, once a month. They spent the other mornings and afternoons of the month visiting other rural schools.<BR/><BR/>There was one bookshelf, 36 inches by 8 shelves, in addition to the storage room that held obsolete textbooks. Once a month, the bookmobile came, took away whatever was on the shelf, and replaced them with a different set of books.<BR/><BR/>The capacity level of the students in the one room ranged from "slow" to "advanced." They didn't use "gifted and talented" back then.<BR/><BR/>My high school graduating class had 21 people in it. The teachers were very stretched to cover all the mandatory subject matter.<BR/><BR/>Education fifty years ago wasn't that much more wonderful than it is now. I think one of the main differences is that since the schools were so much smaller, there was much less pressure for uniformity.<BR/><BR/>VirginiaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-1649582877814461392008-02-23T08:17:00.000+00:002008-02-23T08:17:00.000+00:00Sarah, my point was that before modern "educationi...Sarah, my point was that before modern "educationism" came in, no one thought of splitting off the less academic. They were encouraged to learn Latin and such in their one-room schoolhouses, if they wanted to, and many of them could and did.talpiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978075304795724185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-4215593513763110352008-02-22T14:12:00.000+00:002008-02-22T14:12:00.000+00:00I haven't read the Graves book, Talpianna, so I'm ...I haven't read the Graves book, Talpianna, so I'm talking on opinion and personal experience here, and we all know how much that is worth, but I do want to say that I'm always leery of arguments that start "50 years ago our education was so much better." 50 years ago, our education ignored huge swaths of the population who dropped out after middle school, including a huge number of agrarian and ethnic minority students. So while our drop out rates suck today, they sucked 50 years ago, too, but weren't documented as well. And once a goodly portion of your population drops out, especially the underprivileged part, it's definitely easier to teach the rest. FWIW. YMMV.Sarah S. G. Frantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12806353006812086825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-60392825624915084482008-02-22T07:12:00.000+00:002008-02-22T07:12:00.000+00:00Has anyone else here read THE GRAVES OF ACADEME by...Has anyone else here read THE GRAVES OF ACADEME by Richard Mitchell ("the Underground Grammarian")? It's available online here:<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/2rh3es<BR/><BR/>It's an indictment of what the education theorists have done to education, especially in dumbing it down. Compare the low expectations of, and poor performance by, so many students today with the one-room schoolhouses so memorably depicted by Jesse Stuart in THE THREAD THAT RUNS SO TRUE over half a century ago.talpiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978075304795724185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-65293283953881148832008-02-22T05:36:00.000+00:002008-02-22T05:36:00.000+00:00But that's due to a different cultural perspective...<I>But that's due to a different cultural perspective: in Mexico and Venezuela, for example, all the stuff in the 'general education' part of the US college degrees (60 out 120 credits while I attended college in Florida a few years ago), is actually taken in high school. Humanities, literature (both in the main language and universal), history (idem), math up to calculus, basic anatomy, chemistry, biology, etc--all by the time you turn 18.</I><BR/><BR/>I never know what to do with these experiential comparisons. I guess I need more context to figure out what they mean. Here's part of what stymies me.<BR/><BR/>Florida's secondary schools are ranked almost the worst in the US, so some of that may be remedial coursework. On the other hand, as I said above, US secondary schools end in year 12, but many students in the US *do* complete all of the above coursework before then. And as much as secondary curricula vary, US university curricula vary even more--far more widely than in most developed countries. Those international differences are partly about scale and decentralization. There are also differences in structures and philosophies--but countries group differently by educational philosophy than they do by scale. So there isn't really a fixed group of educationally similar countries.<BR/><BR/>It's also difficult to compare because in aggregate, at the upper educational end (university-bound students), inter-country differences are small in many domains. It's often the less academically-inclined students who take very different paths in different countries.<BR/><BR/>Also complicating comparing educational structures is the fact that countries can have fundamentally different goals for education, and different scales of common curricula. E.g. the US isn't one enormous school system; it's 15,000 public (free) school systems with considerable autonomy, plus private (fee-based) schools. US schools have libraries and extracurricular activities, whereas those facilities are a civic function rather than a school function in some countries. There are other big structural differences to account for too, in making comparisons.<BR/><BR/>On a more philosophical level, I'm not sure that pushing everyone through calculus, etc, as early as possible is the right thing to do. Particularly in light of the vocational-educational discussion above. Secondary school, and even early undergrad, is still a time of discovering one's interests and skills, so there's an argument to be made for providing a broad curriculum that doesn't advance students as fast into specialized directions.<BR/><BR/>The "liberal arts" educational model oriented toward breadth and discourse has a lot to be said for it. As does the specialty-oriented approach. Two different philosophies, both with merits. There's room for both, particularly in a heterogeneous system, but you can't evaluate the systems' performance the same way.<BR/><BR/>Anyway. It's hard to explore these topics in depth in this setting, but I love seeing that as soon as Sarah posts on teaching, we all get passionate and, ahem, wordy about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-52763080809441432982008-02-22T03:04:00.000+00:002008-02-22T03:04:00.000+00:00Talpianna, we don't have "course announcements" or...Talpianna, we don't have "course announcements" or descriptions beyond the generic or anything like that here. Basically, students are in the class because they need it to graduate. There isn't a choice between my junior seminar and a competing junior seminar that might be on a topic more suited to the feelings or sensibilities of various students. I announced on the first day of class what the texts were about, but that's as far as "forewarning" went.<BR/><BR/>As for a neo-Nazi or similar in class, well, there I would be unwilling to compromise, because that kind of feeling is generally accepted as wrong and creates a very unsafe space in the classroom. So, no, I wouldn't be willing to deal with a student like that on the same level as I've dealt with this student. And I would hope that this would go without saying.Sarah S. G. Frantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12806353006812086825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-30748257347821612722008-02-22T02:56:00.000+00:002008-02-22T02:56:00.000+00:00I have been enjoying this discussion mightily alth...I have been enjoying this discussion mightily although my time constraints have made me lurk instead of contribute. There hasn't been much for me to say, really, as you have touched on most of the points I might have made. So much insight here, and so many good perspectives.<BR/><BR/>I think that the journey and the destination of both art and faith are similar--for me, both are about making meaning. A work of art can disgust me ("Clockwork Orange," for example), but I can still find meaning in it, and regard it as important and enlightening. Faith helps me interpret my life and my experiences in a way that brings meaning and value to them. <BR/><BR/>Another thought--as I read the Gospels, I see the ministry of Jesus as being all about stepping outside one's comfort zone and learning to embrace "the other." It's all about turning outward, learning and growing--not turning inward to protect and insulate. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the great discussion.RevMelindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09266250590472359357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-5804841930432654992008-02-22T01:13:00.000+00:002008-02-22T01:13:00.000+00:00Just some passing thoughts:(1) If only one student...Just some passing thoughts:<BR/><BR/>(1) If only one student reads the inspirational romance, how do you teach it? Have her give a detailed report on it to the class?<BR/><BR/>(2) This won't happen in your current situation, but what if you put an AA or interracial romance on the reading list and a student objected because of religious/moral beliefs. (Yes, there are people other than neo-Nazis who hold such beliefs.) Would you excuse her from reading it? Give her an alternate? Or tell her to read it or leave the class?<BR/><BR/>Just out of curiosity, did the course announcement include the fact that some of of the reading material would contain explicit sex? Or did they only find out after enrolling for it? If not, that would be one way to keep out the objectors.talpiannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13978075304795724185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-66013059992248069972008-02-21T01:40:00.000+00:002008-02-21T01:40:00.000+00:00I agree with what you said about biases, agtigress...I agree with what you said about biases, agtigress. And I don't think they're all formed by religion or politics either, although certain religions have a very clear world view that an adherent to the religion endorses, which therefore provides a more 'standard bias' than that created by your own personal experiences, preferences, what have you.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, in regards to Sarah's original post, I can understand why she would disagree with the student's request. Certainly in the context of an academic classroom experience one needs to challenge one's assumptions, beliefs, and even comfort levels. All I was objecting to was some of the comments which seems judgmental towards the student's religious preferences. Now with clarification, I don't think they necessarily *meant* to be judgmental.<BR/><BR/>Now, I must return to my current work-in-progress, which, in light of the most recent post, could fall under the multicultural heading as the hero is a sheikh...<BR/><BR/>KateKate Hewitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01430037634763307748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-2863093773810725472008-02-20T22:46:00.000+00:002008-02-20T22:46:00.000+00:00Tigress, I guess I would point out that my student...Tigress, I guess I would point out that my student IS aware of her biases and did what she thought was appropriate in coming to me and discussing them. I obviously didn't agree with her request that I change the syllabus, but she was acting within a reasonable standard of behavior and with recognition of her own issues with the texts. The point I was trying to make was not that I thought she'd done something wrong in the first place--I think she dealt with her issues in a very mature manner--but that I disagreed with her request for specific reasons. I want to make that very clear. I have a lot of respect for this student as a person, no matter what I think of her opinions about specific issues in some of the texts we're reading.Sarah S. G. Frantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12806353006812086825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-17087466303399845332008-02-20T22:35:00.000+00:002008-02-20T22:35:00.000+00:00I wholly agree that we all have a biased view of l...I wholly agree that we all have a biased view of life: it is unavoidable. But it may have little or nothing to do with religion or political ideology - in other words, it need not be deliberate or conscious at all, and that is often when it is most insidious and dangeroys, because the person believes those views to be universal standards. At bottom, it is <I>culturally</I> determined. <BR/><BR/>If I were to decide, after appropriate study, to become a Buddhist, it would change quite a few of my innate internal biases, but it would not change all of them: it would not change my past life experiences, which have moulded much of my personality, nor many of the prejudices and peculiarities of my own nationality and generation. <BR/><BR/>Biases are unavoidable. What is important is to be aware of them, and to accept that, even when one believes oneself to be 100% right and enlightened, not everyone will see things in the same way. That is where one needs to step aside, and try, however difficult it may be, to see through the other person's eyes. The world will look different then.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-34263667294504602492008-02-20T21:51:00.001+00:002008-02-20T21:51:00.001+00:00I agree, we are using disgust/disgusting in differ...I agree, we are using disgust/disgusting in different ways, and mine is perhaps closer to shame although I think it still falls under disgust in terms of a strict definition... you're right, some people would find certain sexual practices disgusting, or repellent, and that is different than being disgusted by one's reaction to the material--although Freud might have a field day with sexual repression/disgust masking desire/etc!<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/>I have to say that, for a scholar, being unable to perceive any part of the world, past or present, other than through the filter of his own religious or political convictions, is a profound fault.<BR/><BR/>I agree, and I was not clear on what I meant. What I was trying to get at was that people view the world--*their* world--through their bias willingly, because their beliefs naturally affect their life choices. You still may try to step away from your own biases/beliefs to understand where someone else is coming from; how else could we hope to understand other people? But when it comes to making your own decisions, choices, or how you perceive the world *for yourself*, then that is through the bias of your belief. <BR/><BR/>Sorry I have not been clear on what I mean in previous posts. All I was trying to point out was that there is a tendency (or so it appears to me) that Christians/theists have this 'bias' that everyone else seems naturally excluded from. Not that anyone said this specifically on this forum; it's just a pervasive feeling I've received from various sources/comments. So all I wanted to point out was that *everyone* has a bias, and while we might try t o shed that bias when we want to study or understand other people and cultures, it is still the filter with which we view our world and make our decisions... otherwise why have a belief system at all?<BR/><BR/>Does that make sense? I'm typing with three children carousing around me and am losing my train of thought as I write!Kate Hewitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01430037634763307748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-19942469060026511972008-02-20T21:51:00.000+00:002008-02-20T21:51:00.000+00:00Could I just add that I have really enjoyed this d...Could I just add that I have <B>really</B> enjoyed this debate and the patience and courtesy with which it has been conducted by all concerned, even when there have been quite wide divergences of opinion.<BR/><BR/>Would that all internet debates were as seemly!<BR/><BR/>:)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-61954073480740968212008-02-20T21:37:00.000+00:002008-02-20T21:37:00.000+00:00Kate: I think we may be using rather different def...Kate: I think we may be using rather different definitions of 'disgust/disgusting' here. '...the man who is aroused by pornography, *disgusted* by his reaction, but still is tempted by it.' This is surely a usage that is close to 'mortified' or 'ashamed'. It is an intellectual or emotional rejection of a physical attraction, not an instinctive rebellion against something viscerally repulsive. If something is viscerally repulsive, it cannot tempt.<BR/><BR/>I meant 'physically nauseated, repulsed, revolted', and this is the usage, too, that Kim is assuming in her post above. There certainly are some sexual practices that <I>many</I> people would find 'disgusting' in the latter sense, and this was what I took Sarah to mean when alluding to her student's response. <BR/><BR/>Your comments about 'willing' bias are truly alien to me. Personal bias really must be set aside as far as possible when studying other people and other cultures, however much one believes that one's own viewpoint represents the truth, simply because not everyone shares that belief. We cannot study other cultures, past or present, in the context of our own and by the standards of our own, because the result will be violently skewed. We have to try to imagine the context in which people behaved as they did in the past, or in other places.<BR/><BR/>I do not see this as being a problem for good scholars who have deeply felt religious convictions. I know people in my own profession who are deeply committed theists, but who, in working with the evidence of past, pagan societies, try to see those through objective eyes as far as they are able. I have to say that, for a scholar, being unable to perceive any part of the world, past or present, other than through the filter of his own religious or political convictions, is a profound fault.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-43306768374795242492008-02-20T21:03:00.000+00:002008-02-20T21:03:00.000+00:00Just to clarify, I think disgust and temptation ca...Just to clarify, I think disgust and temptation can go hand in hand when dealing with matters of a sexual nature, especially in someone who has been brought up as a Christian and has strict sexual morals in place already. For example, the man who is aroused by pornography, disgusted by his reaction, but still is tempted by it. *Not* comparing romance to pornography, just trying to explain how this young woman might feel about reading a book with explicit sexual content. If she objects so strongly, though, I would think the better course of action would be drop the course than try to change the sylllabus and thus affect other students' experiences.<BR/><BR/>Regarding bias: I think in certain situations you can try to leave your bias behind and be more objective but a Christian would tend to view the world through her bias willingly, as that is how she sees the world, and I imagine that anyone with a strong faith/belief system (whether theist, atheist, Buddhist, etc) would do the same. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the interesting discussion.<BR/>KateKate Hewitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01430037634763307748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-7090659539661135052008-02-20T20:25:00.000+00:002008-02-20T20:25:00.000+00:00agtigress said "Sarah mentioned that the problem w...agtigress said "Sarah mentioned that the problem was more with disgust - the very reverse of temptation - and I addressed that issue in an earlier post. Again, we encounter many things in real life that we find disgusting, and may learn to handle them better through the exercise of dealing with them in a fictional context."<BR/><BR/>Thank you agtigress. This is exactly the problem with this young lady that bothers me the most. This girl needs a real life reality check. If she is going to close herself off to things she finds filthy and disgusting she is going to have a very hard time dealing in the real world.<BR/>We all have to do things in life that we don't want to do. I don't want to fill out my tax return, but you know what, I have to do it. When my kids vomit in the car, I find it filthy and disgusting and I don't want to clean it up. But I have do it. I can't negotiate or barter with someone else, I still have to do it. I am a police officer. Last month I had to investigate a crime scene that had the victims brain matter splattered on the wall. I found it filthy, distgusting and morally degrading but I could not go to my chief and say, "sorry, but I don't want to look at this repulsive mess, get someone else to do it." I would have been fired.<BR/><BR/>When I was in college if a professor told me to read something, I read it. Period. I feel sorry for this girl, I really do. She is going to have a very hard life trying to avoid the filthy and disgusting. She needs to grow up and open her mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-49764925597023028212008-02-20T20:22:00.000+00:002008-02-20T20:22:00.000+00:00Kate, I agree that no human is exempt from biases-...Kate, I agree that no human is exempt from biases--cultural, religious, what have you. However, it is more often than not (in my limited experience as a late college student) those with fundamental religious views who loudly and proudly proclaim that their FAITH overrides knowledge, facts, and science.<BR/><BR/>These people (not by any means all religious people but those who think this way) fit Sarah's comment above. When confronted with a syllabus that doesn't agree with what they <I>know</I> because of their religious learnings, they don't examine it. They don't accept discussion or analysis; they <I>know</I>, dammit, and that's that.<BR/><BR/>If forced, because it's required to gain a degree, to take a class and produce the work, they do it in as superficial a way as they can, all the way despising having to even 'touch' the subject. Frankly, any student with that attitude, regardless of his or her reasons, is occupying space and wasting resources that perhaps someone else would be more keen to appreciate and make the most of.<BR/><BR/>(I hope that made sense)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-41468993175435633412008-02-20T19:00:00.000+00:002008-02-20T19:00:00.000+00:00Kate: certainly we are all biased. No argument t...Kate: certainly we are all biased. No argument there. One of the greatest difficulties in many fields of study is to try to step aside from one's personal and cultural conditioning, and to observe data in an objective way. Nobody can actually succeed in being completely objective, but we can all do our best to identify and allow for our own subjectivity, and to analyse the factors that skew our perceptions.<BR/><BR/>Disgust and temptation: no, I can't follow your argument, there. Things that tempt me do not disgust me: things that disgust me do not tempt me. To me they are opposites. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps, as this thread is now quite long, I ought to reiterate the assurance that I gave some way back that I have never advocated excluding anyone from some educational opportunity on the grounds of religion or ideology. But I do think that any student whose conduct, <I>for whatever reason</I>, starts to undermine the work and learning of his/her colleagues, is better removed from that course, for the sake of the other students' progress. <BR/><BR/>The reasons could be legion - from ideological convictions to intellectual limitations, from illness to sheer idleness. Many will not be the fault of the student, in the sense of a deliberate choice (the novice rider who refuses to mount the horse could be frightened, rather than recalcitrant). If I had ever enrolled for a class in advanced mathematics, my presence would certainly have held others back, as I would probably need one-to-one tuition to make any headway at all. It don't think it's my <I>fault</I> that I find maths difficult, but it would be my fault if I disrupted a class of more numerate students by insisting on staying on and monopolising the teacher's time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-64025228928067386102008-02-20T18:37:00.000+00:002008-02-20T18:37:00.000+00:00Laura: I did not make myself clear. I was not def...Laura: I did not make myself clear. I was not defining medieval thinking <I>per se</I> as chaotic; some of it is, indeed, very orderly and elegant, and though I find much of it impenetrable myself, that is my own inadequacy. There have been outstanding thinkers and scholars in all periods, working within the constraints of many different societies.<BR/><BR/>I believe that the kind of breakdown in society that faces us all today will be chaotic, and that as you speculated, part of the reason for this will be the conflict of different ideologies, exacerbated by the insoluble problem of dwindling resources and grotesque human over-population. Climate change will be a part of that.<BR/><BR/>Those whose mind-set is most flexible and inventive ('scientific', if you like) will probably be best equipped to handle it, rather than those who take a more rigid and fatalistic view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-89456258788146569172008-02-20T18:17:00.000+00:002008-02-20T18:17:00.000+00:00I think that people who can think clearly and logi...<I>I think that people who can think clearly and logically are better armed against the forces of chaos than those who can not, and to the extent that education should teach rational thought, it is therefore part of the defence against the threatened return to a medieval mind-set.</I><BR/><BR/>I wouldn't think of medieval theology as a "force of chaos." Certainly, Aquinas's work is extremely orderly, and the medieval political theory that the secular sphere was divided into three estates, ruled over by the monarch (God's Vicar on Earth) isn't chaotic either.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you meant totalitarianism and inflexible ideologies of a variety of different types, which, though orderly in themselves, cause chaos when they come into conflict with each other? Or the chaos that may ensue as a consequence of climate change?Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-36074519636972136282008-02-20T17:49:00.000+00:002008-02-20T17:49:00.000+00:00Agtigress and Sarah, thanks for your responses. I ...Agtigress and Sarah, thanks for your responses. I hear what you're saying, and i was reflecting after I wrote the post that it certainly is a different situation when taking a course and needing to read the set texts versus what you would read in your own time, for your own pleasure.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure how far apart disgust and temptation are, to be honest--often we are disgusted by our own temptations and longings, and certainly fictional situations (movies, books, television, etc) can create temptation to act or think in a manner that one, as a Christian, would resist. <BR/><BR/>Faith makes you biased--yes, but I would argue that *no one* is unbiased. Everyone has a faith, even if that faith is a l belief that there is no God, or a belief in the power of rational thought. That is informing your world view and opinions as much as anything else, and thus creating a bias. I'm not saying that's a bad thing--just a reality for all humankind. I suppose I take exception to the idea that people with a faith in God are biased, while people who do not believe in God are not. I'm not saying you were making that point, only that it seemed an overall implication from the discussion.<BR/><BR/>Kate<BR/><BR/>KateKate Hewitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01430037634763307748noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-80256834794470344982008-02-20T17:40:00.000+00:002008-02-20T17:40:00.000+00:00I think that people who can think clearly and logi...I think that people who can think clearly and logically are better armed against the forces of chaos than those who can not, and to the extent that education <I>should</I> teach rational thought, it is therefore part of the defence against the threatened return to a medieval mind-set. <BR/><BR/>I am not very hopeful, however.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-62357762875698473712008-02-20T17:07:00.000+00:002008-02-20T17:07:00.000+00:00I believe that imperialism, capitalism and the opp...<I>I believe that imperialism, capitalism and the oppression of the workers are almost wholly independent of education.</I><BR/><BR/>Not when it comes to university funding or the amount of admin academics are expected to perform! ;-)<BR/><BR/>You do seem to think that education can have political outcomes outside the classroom. Or am I misunderstanding your statement about "there is a real danger of a global descent into a Dark Age of fragmented states and religious wars during this century [...] Education is the only antidote." And the study of imperialism and/or capitalism is certainly important to a great many academic disciplines.Laura Vivancohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906661869372622821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30203557.post-65445298958181896712008-02-20T16:26:00.000+00:002008-02-20T16:26:00.000+00:00Not really! I believe that imperialism, capitalis...Not really! I believe that imperialism, capitalism and the oppression of the workers are almost wholly independent of education.<BR/>:)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com