Yes, I think it’s mostly people fighting the hypothetical and positing scenarios where the professor isn’t a transparent boogeyman and is, instead, a real professor.
What the hell do I care what it suggests to you? My posts aren’t some sort of Rorschach test, I’m not trying to find out what sort of latent projectionism you suffer from.
Woah, dude, are you telling me people have different opinions? MIND=BLOWN.
Meanwhile, if you have anything substantive to say, bated breath and all.
I understand the concept of religious objection, therefore I do not agree this was a valid one. Making students take oaths against their faith is one thing. Writing on a piece of paper an objectionable statement, even if religious in nature, without the accompanying affirmation of that truth of that statement, is to me a neutral objection. It would be as if the professor told them to write “I like big butts”. I think he can force them to do that if he has a valid reason
Yes. You honestly think that a student, failing to to an easy one, should not be given a harder, optional one to make up for his initial failure?
Again, I don’t see his objection as religiously valid. He was not asked to renounce his faith, I don’t believe there’s a 1st Amendment issue here at all. He was asked to write an objectionable statement on a piece of paper without swearing allegiance to it. I think that is fine. In fact, I would be fine for any professor of any teaching level forcing students, on the threat of passing or failing, to write any short sentence on a piece of paper as a condition of passing the class, so long as they are not beholden to swear on the truth of that paper and so long as all students are given the same assignment, with some small caveats. So “God is dead” is fine. Forcing students to write “God is real” is fine. Forcing students to write “Gays are evil” is fine (though, writing “Gays should die” falls into the above caveat, I think that’s inciting violence). So yeah, I’m generally ok with it. Another caveat, if you must know, is that it has to be valid for the class. So no writing about religion in math class, but yes in religion class or philosophy class.
I would consider that to be outside the scope of the assignment. Even in a religious or philosophy class, and even if the professor claims its to expose students to other ideas, I would object under the grounds that it is too onerous. I also have a problem with going out and doing things or having things done to you as opposed to writing on a piece of paper, which I consider more to be speech (though if the professor said everyone had to use a particular Jesus pen, I might object too). Since baptisms are a sacred rite done for conversion purposes, then to me it falls outside of simply writing an objectionable statement. I think one can consider themselves divorced from a statement even if they write it but not something like a baptism.
I think your analysis showed more that you’re hostile to forms of teaching you disagree with. Granted, I wouldn’t personally think that all of the examples I gave are good ways of teaching (and the pencil thing was clearly a joke), but I would not behoove a professor to teach in that way. It doesn’t ping my radar as serious enough to warrant change
Because not everyone agrees its persecution
Harder? Harder??
Asking the student to assemble a car from scratch would have been harder.
Asking the student to disassemble then rebuild the Philosophy building would have been harder.
Asking the student to paint the Great Wall of China would have been harder.
He asked the student to prove the existence of God!
“To you” being the key. It’s not up to you to decide if writing the phrase was objectionable to the religious beliefs of the student, it’s up to the student.
Note also the lack of a valid reason. To the extent the trailer and official plot summary make this clear, the professor desired this written affirmation to somehow empower him to skip teaching the religious aspects of philosophy in his philosophy class. In this light, he clearly was asking for an affirmation of the truth of the statement, he was asking them all to agree that God was dead so he didn’t have to teach the religious aspects of philosophy (which is asinine to start with, 100-level philiosophy courses need to cover the history of philiosophy, not the professor’s personal beliefs).
He didn’t fail it, he objected on religious grounds.
It wasn’t an assignment in any meaningful sense (a good rule of thumb is that if a first grade student can complete a college-level assignment, it’s not an assignment, it’s an activity), writing three words on paper has no academic value. Given this, no make-up assignment should be necessary, but if one was, it should be of comparable difficulty, like writing a different three-word phrase.
And again, that stance makes preventing religious discrimination impossible. When the authorities get to decide the validity of a religious belief, there is no religious freedom.
See above, the students were being asked to attest to the truth of the statement (when the student says he can’t write it, the professor’s response is “If you cannot bring yourself to admit that god is dead, you will have to defend the antithesis”. Not “write” that god is dead, admit that god is dead.), though, again, it doesn’t matter what you think the theological implications are. I don’t think there are any theologicial implications whatsoever for drinking alcohol. That doesn’t mean I can tell Muslim students to either drink, or fail the class.
And this student couldn’t consider himself divorced from the statement. That’s his right.
Sure, it’s just applying a litmus test for a belief, then punishing people who hold it. That could never be persecution.
I said this above to j666. To ask someone to write down a statement, absent any additional context, generally is understood by default to amount to asking them to affirm whatever it was they were asked to write down.
This seems to be the bit of info we on this side of the conversation are privy to that you guys are missing. I mean, it seems so blatantly obvious to me that it’s silly to even have to say it (almost as bad as having to say “when people make noises that sound like words, they generally mean others to think that what they’re saying means something”) but perhaps I really am wrong about that.
And let’s not forget the context of the actual trailer, though granted this wasn’t mentioned in the OP–that the prof wasn’t asking them “just to write some words down” absent any significance to that writing, but rather, was doing it as a way to “jump over unnecessary debates,” or words to that effect, which can only be interpreted to mean he was telling the students “by writing this down, you thereby sign on to the sentiment therein expressed.” Otherwise, no debate would have been forestalled.
This makes no sense. The arguments you gave that it’s okay to force them to write the other sentences undermine any support for the idea that forcing them to write “gays should die” is inciting violence. It would only be incitement to violence if he required them to endorse the words they’d just written down. But you have already said that simply requiring them to write the words down is not a requirement that they endorse them.
Now, you’re wrong about that. Requiring them to write the words down, absent any further context or commentary, is most naturally and justifiably interpreted as a requirement that they endorse the words. But though you’re wrong about this, since you do think they’re not being required to endorse when required to write, consistency requires you think the same of “gays should die,” and hence you ought to be okay with making them write that down as well.
Movie response: The kid’s gonna do it, so no problem cause god can be proven easily with flowerly prose, appeal to ignorance, and a lip-quivering emotional plea
Hypothetical classroom response: The teacher expects him to fail, but may give him points for good arguments and use of logic. If he’s evil, then its an exercise in futility. If he’s not, he may let him off the hook if the student was at least internally consistent
Well, who’s perspective should I be writing from if not mine? If your objection is simply that my logic is wrong or my arguments aren’t clear, then say that. But don’t say that something that makes sense to me should not make sense simply because I’m biased towards myself. Why am I wrong? Argue that. Personally, I find my reasoning to be sound
Movie response: We don’t know that. An intro philosophy course could leave religion to more specific classes. It could simply start with Greek philosophers, negating the need to mention Christianity at all.
Hypothetical classroom response: I disagree that putting certain items off limits, knowing the kind of hijack it would bring, is wrong. There could be a good reason the professor didn’t want to broach the subject at that point in time (you know, the first day of class)
His objection lead to his failure, since he objectively did not complete the assignment. Lets not get semantic here, he didn’t do the assignment, he failed it, and the real discussion is on whether his objection is valid, not whether he did or did not fail the assignment because he did
I don’t believe your rule of thumb is universally accepted.
The activity, as you call it, could have lead to deeper academic value, ones I’ve stated above. And don’t diminish it by claiming it didn’t have meaningful sense. It had sense to the professor, both the movie one who has been given a biased motivation by the filmmakers, and the hypothetical one given sense by me
The authorities don’t have to decide what religion is valid, they can define how valid objections are made equally across the board. I’m a total militant atheist and I’m fine if a Christian professor makes all students write “God is real” as a pass/fail criteria, because the idea that I’m going to take a forced assignment of that simplicity as an infringement upon my beliefs is laughable. Others will disagree, I’m for forcing kids to write stupid shit
My mistake, I read past the “admit” part. I think in that case, the student has a case. I wouldn’t take his side though. Also, I think the professor would be totally in the right 100% if he and used the word “write” instead like you said.
I think drinking something is much more of a violation that writing something
I disagree.
I don’t think its a litmus test for believe and I don’t consider homework assignments of this nature and degree to be persecution.
I disagree. I’m comfortable writing any combination of 3 english words down on a piece of paper for a philosophy class for an assignment
With the caveat above that I think the choice of “admit” in the professor’s statement was a sticky one, I still have no problems for a professor to limit philosophical debate to an area he wants to focus on
I disagree with your logic. My concern isn’t with the students who are writing down “Gays should die”. My concern is that such an assignment might incite others who are not in the class to conclude this was a valid viewpoint to hold. The students in class would have been given the context of why they are doing the assignment (I don’t believe the claim that no context was given to be wholly believable). Therefore, it is fine for them because they know its an assignment. Others are not so fortunate to have that teaching, so it may create misunderstanding
Yes, of course it can be okay to put certain items off limits. What the professor described in the OP did is not simply “putting certain items off limits.” He didn’t say “we’re not going to talk about God’s existence” and leave it at that, he said “You all have to endorse the statement that God is dead or else fail.” That is an entirely different thing.
Universally accepted or not (and I’m surprised if it’s not, at least among college professors, tbh, but I’ve been surprised before) the sentiment is correct. Writing “God is dead” on a piece of paper, or any other set of three words as named explicitly by a professor, is not an “assignment” that should count for any kind of credit in a college classroom.
Like the Christian prof who wanted his students to step on the word Jesus, is what I suppose you’re talking about here. But the academic value would be ruined if a student had to step on the name or fail the class. And again–that wasn’t an assignment, it was an activity. (Here I define an assignment as something which a student must perform according to a standard by which he will be graded, whereas an activity is intended to help teach the student but has no grade attached.)
It’s clear that you do, but as far as I can tell from everything I have experienced, if you ask someone to write something down, they will interpret this as you asking them to endorse the written statement, unless you say something (or there is something about the context) that signals otherwise. Most people see words as inherently a vehicle of communication. Getting them to see words as objects with no communicative intent takes a lot of work in my experience. The general assumption people have is that writing words equals endorsing them. Since this is so, when we ask people to write words down, if we don’t mean them to be communicating the statement expressed by those words, then we have a responsibility to make sure this is clear.
I haven’t claimed that you would not be comfortable with this.
Of course no one here thinks a professor ought not have that power. No one has said anything to imply otherwise. Do you actually think they have, or is something else going on here?
Why would they conclude this? It would seem to me they could only conclude this if they assume that statements written down sans further context are most naturally interpreted as an endorsement of the statement. But above you said you don’t think people assume this.
Waitaminute, which claim are you talking about? Who made the claim, about what incident?
I will clarify.
It doesn’t matter whether you, or the professor, thinks the objection is valid. Here’s a list of the people who get to decide if an assignment violates their religious beliefs:
That person.
End of list. Not the professor, not a fellow student of the same religion. No one, except the person with the belief.
Therefore, any argument that seeks to judge whether another person’s religious objection is valid, fails out of the gate. How a religious objection is to be handled can depend on others’ views of what’s reasonable or what impacts the educational process, but whether the objection is valid and deserves an honest attempt at accommodation does not.
Here’s how you, as a teacher, put certain items off limits: by not bringing them up, or by saying that they won’t, and aren’t to be, discussed (like the professor mentioned earlier did with Youth Earth Creationism). This treats all students equally, and doesn’t persecute anyone.
The wrong way: ask the students to affirm that they don’t believe in the doctrines that are off limits, and punish people who won’t make that affirmation.
It is a crucial distinction. Treating a religious objection the same as not doing an assignment out of laziness means that you don’t recognize that religious objections are a valid reason to not complete an assignment.
It is an activity, one that requires no real input from the students. It doesn’t task them with demonstrating knowledge, it doesn’t teach them skills, it’s nothing.
Can you articulate how the student’s refusal to write the words harms the academic integrity of the course, or how not doing so precludes the student from gaining sufficient knowledge of philosophy to pass the course?
How do you decide which objections are valid, without deciding what religions are valid? If a student says they have a religious objection to affirming that god is dead, on what basis other than what you think of their religious views would you assess the validity of that objection?
See, again, you’re choosing what value other people’s religious views have to them. Another professor might decide that baptizing you is less of a violation than writing a phrase. Where does that leave you?
Can I borrow your telepathy helmet? I bet it comes in handy.
It wasn’t homework.
Ask yourself this: if the professor’s goal was to fail religious people out of his class because he hates them, how would his tactics be different from what’s in the OP?
And I’m comfortable eating pork. What’s wrong with those crazy Jews, am I right?
I’ve had worse.
What I am saying is that your posts strongly indicate that you are incapable of understanding that people who differ from you exist.
I think this is strong evidence you are incapable of seeing any validity in their opinions.
And if you don’t care what something suggests to me, you needn’t engage in discussion with me. If you do, I ask you do so civilly.
“Define the universe. Give three examples.”
If they don’t, I guess.
Are you–are you trying to refute my analysis with the accusation that I don’t like things I think are bad? Seriously, dude?
Because, Imagonna blow your mind, I OFTEN DON’T LIKE BAD THINGS. It’s one of my things. That has fuckall to do with my analysis of why they’re bad things.
Me, if I knew who taught you vocabulary, I’d behoove their ass from here to Hooverville. What do you even mean?
No other?
No they don’t.
ETA: Unless they indicate that in the same Lacanian sense that your posts indicate that you’re actually a triple-trunked elephant tree, in which case groovy.
So j666 and Yog Sothoth, maybe I’m being unfair. Maybe my impatience with you for not seeing what’s totally bleedin’ obvious to me isn’t fair. Lemme lay it out.
It’s possible to engage in a provocative activity like this in order to teach. Starting a series of lessons with a hook is a good approach.
HOWEVER, if the hook is one that causes distress, a good teacher is going to do so in order to channel that distress. If the distress is caused without a clear way to channel it into learning, the teacher’s just a sadist, and should be fired.
If the assignment is to make someone write something objectionable, then the teacher needs to be sure everyone writes something they find objectionable. If it’s only objectionable to part of the class, then the teacher’s hook fails.
If the assignment isn’t just a hook–if completing the assignment itself has learning value–then the teacher is justified in requiring it of students. If the only point of the assignment is that contemplating it causes that distress-hook I mentioned earlier, however, then there’s no value (except to a sadistic asshole) in requiring student to complete it: the mere contemplation of it achieves the learning objective.
I don’t object to the person who required people to stomp on Jesus’s name, as long as that person didn’t actually follow through on the requirement. That’s a fine–if risky–way to introduce a lecture on the power of symbolism. If the teacher requires people to follow through, however, that crosses from clever distress-hook into sadistic control-freak bullshit, however, with no discernible learning objective, and again: fire that fucker.
Two thumbs up from a fellow Lion.
Now I teach political theory at another elite private school. I tell them exactly the same thing. And still, they try to convince me that Hobbes contradicts himself. Sigh.
There is one professor I know who turns the heat up a little bit on students of faith in his moral psychology class. He’s pretty hostile in general, so I am not sure how much they really get singled out. But other than him, I cannot imagine this sort of thing happening in my Occupy university.
We can barely indoctrinate students to write coherent arguments, let alone adopt entirely different religious beliefs. If most of us were demagogues, we’d be on television and not in education.
Previous painfully unpleasant experience results in the mere notion of repeat performances psychosomatically debilitating.
—G!
You have not been “unfair”, you have been unnecessarily rude.
You have been embarrassingly narrow-minded in your inability to understand that people see your points, but disagree with you. That something is obvious to you does not mean the everyone else will agree that it is true.
I could argue that the refusal to write “God is dead” is rank idolatry, believing the word has more power and meaning than God. I would not assume every person who disagree with me did not understand my argument.
I also would not assume that every person with whom I discussed the issue was an American of primarily European descent raised as a Catholic in a city on the East Coast.