Comments on: J’accuse

By: Mike Sacken

Mike Sacken — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 21:14:30 +0000

The students were being students – immature and self-engrossed. Their conduct is sort of age appropriate in the sense of a range of responses to education across an age-defined group. Some kids are entitled and thin-skinned, but many aren’t. Others are indifferent or absent that day. This response seems little different than the types of responses kids have usually produced. I was a 60’s undergrad – Lord, were we full of indignation!! Usually ignored until it escalated to interference w/university operation.

The admins – what’s their excuse? They are gatekeepers, and their response here, ceteris paribus, is embarrassingly immature and fearful. Universities are a stew of behaviors, and many are ill-considered or foolish, and should be overlooked or chastised, lightly. Occasionally [and that is a measure of infrequency], some behaviors are more consequential and require careful deliberation and some serious response. These situations seem good examples of why we need gatekeepers loathe to jerk knees or respond from fear of publicity.

This situation was one best handled by a department head and the goal should have been to buffer classroom dialog w/out being indifferent to student concerns. Some people discussing this case have inferred the instructor was already on thin ice and this was the last necessary act. But in the absence of pattern or practice ignoring requests from the dept., this reaction is insane and cowardly. I expect students to be foolish at times, but that’s why I hoped the adults in authority would model thoughtfulness and fair play in response. Blaming the students is kicking the wrong dog.

By: The White Peril 白禍 » Blog Archive » What’s the point in livin’ if you don’t want to dance?

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 02:04:23 +0000

[...] aren’t the major point here. To get back to that, here’s Erin O’Connor, who linked to that article and added her own comments: When I was teaching at Penn, I learned the hard way how [...]

By: Stephen M. Stillman

Stephen M. Stillman — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 03:20:54 +0000

A very disturbing story! Adjuncts are most vulnerable because their contract is usually one course at a time. They don’t have to be fired- they simply are not offered any future courses to teach. More critically, anonymous potshots from students are not only damaging to professors’ careers, but have a chilling effect on the topics they are willing to explore with their students. By avoiding whatever is cutting edge or controversial, the lifeblood is sucked from universities, thereby turning them into bland diploma mills instead of temples of knowledge.

By: david foster

david foster — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:50:51 +0000

1)”university standards of inclusivity”…the fact that something is written in “university standards” does not necessarily imply, of course, that it is *lawfully* written in such standards, much less that it is *ethically and wisely” written. Bureaucrats, for whom their institution’s policy guide represents the ultimate truth, have a very hard time understanding these points. iI hope that at least the “lawfully” point will be explored in a lawsuit filed against this institution.

2)This kind of thing seems to have reached a level such that individuals of independence and integrity should think very hard before pursuing a career in academia.

3)What happens to these anonymously-accusing students after they get out of school? Some will themselves become academics and perpetuate the problem; others will join business and government organizations and contribute to poisoning the climate there as well.

By: Erin O'Connor

Erin O'Connor — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:26:30 +0000

Prof Mondo: You make the key point that the accusing students are anonymous. They don’t have to be accountable for their claim–and there is, likewise, a lack of procedural respect for due process for the accused, who should have the right to face his accuser. It’s institutionalized moral cowardice. Posing as a victim, the student can go on the attack, do terrific damage to others, and never even have to have his or her name attached to the deed. This allows the student “not to know” what he or she has done, and so deactivates the work of conscience. I am convinced that this produces a situation rather like the famous Stanford prison study–when people have the power to anonymously dole out punishment, without fear of confrontation or reprisal, they become creepily sadistic very, very fast.

By: Prof. Mondo

Prof. Mondo — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 15:18:47 +0000

You know, for all his flaws, even Joe McCarthy’s denunciations weren’t anonymous. This sort of rampant Marcuseanism is the intellectual equivalent of foot binding. In the name of reaching some impossible standard of “beauty” (in this case, political), universities like this one are continually narrowing and contorting what they offer, ultimately stunting and crippling the user, who must thereafter rely on others to get anywhere. Of course, for some, that isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.