Academic Freedom Bill of Rights: or, Doesn't Everyone Love Orwellian Language?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Who said you have to be a believer in the faith?

You just have to learn about the belief. The belief has to be taught.

You have, and if you don't think that, wth have you made your postings ?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BlackCat
My point has been that relgion as a belief has only one place in university, and that is in the theological department.

Why?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You have, and if you don't think that, wth have you made your postings ?

Um... no I haven't. I've said religion is important to learn in the university. It explains many subjects much more in detail than without it. There has been a turn to try to 'get religion out' of the study of many subjects and that just leads to confusion over origins.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Why?

Because I don't wan't religion to decide what is the thuth. If that was the case, this planet would still be flat.

[Whaleboy]

In the sciences, if evolution is considered liberalism then tough ****. You can't refute a theory by the back door and red tape. In politics, or anything where verifiability is lost to subjectivity, then it's more complex. Ideally it should be neutral to allow the student his/her own opinion, but in the real world an intellectual professor is more likely to be liberal and so his best students. They signed onto the course, the course is under no obligation to provide bland neutrality. If conservatives object to it, then they should brush up their debating skills and defend their views, it's what's called a healthy discussion.

If their views are being suppressed, or their opinions are used against them by teachers beyond the debate then that's crossing the line, and it's not liberalism. Educational institutions and dogma have never mixed.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BlackCat


Because I don't wan't religion to decide what is the thuth. If that was the case, this planet would still be flat.

Professors don't decide what the truth is for anyone else but themselves. That's for the student to decide for themselves.

[Whaleboy]

Um... no I haven't. I've said religion is important to learn in the university. It explains many subjects much more in detail than without it. There has been a turn to try to 'get religion out' of the study of many subjects and that just leads to confusion over origins.

True, but I'd want it taught like history. There's a modal difference in the teaching of, say, Nazism, and the espousal of Nazism. Same thing goes for religion.

Like I said earlier, science should be taught on its merit, not by the politics of those who don't like the conclusions but lack the evidence and argument to refute evolution and the like. It's a question of truth and method, not of social dogma.

[Whaleboy]

Professors don't decide what the truth is for anyone else but themselves. That's for the student to decide for themselves.

But the student signs on to the course on the understanding that they will learn something, the professor is under no moral obligation to be neutral, the student on the other hand is under obligation to listen. A good professor will try to stay neutral and I'm sure the majority do (an inherently liberal thing to do of course) but he's not obliged to do so.

[Kontiki]

This whole thing, including alot of the discussion on this thread, makes me really wonder about the quality of post-secondary education in many universities. I have an undergraduate degree in International Relations, meaning I've taken a good number of political science, history and other social science courses. I don't think I can recall a single instance where subjectivity of any sort was present by any of my professors, except for English classes where many of my profs had obvious biases towards certain literary styles and authors. Sure, discussions would occur in classes and tutorials, but my professors never ventured into the realm of "that political/economic/religious/philosophical viewpoint is just wrong" or "this viewpoint is superior to that viewpoint".

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


But the student signs on to the course on the understanding that they will learn something, the professor is under no moral obligation to be neutral, the student on the other hand is under obligation to listen. A good professor will try to stay neutral and I'm sure the majority do (an inherently liberal thing to do of course) but he's not obliged to do so.

I don't think professors need to be neutral in college. Why do you think it's bad not to do so?

edit: added "not"

[Bosh]

Oh dear god, what an idiotic piece of legislation! We have enough useless lawsuits already without having a student getting his feelings hurt because his prof disagrees with him grounds for a lawsuit. Besides having legal costs that push up the cost of tuition if you want to see what this bill will do to education just pick up a US high school history text book.

American high school history text books are some of the worst pieces of writing in the known universe. Its as if someone was purposefully trying to remove all the interesting bits of history and bore the poor kids to death. Textbook publishers have to please everyone that has a good lobby so nothing bad gets said about anyone and every minority or pack of loudmouths get their favorite person, event or idea represented so that the big picture is lost in a bunch of useless details. The bonanza of lawsuits that this bill would unleash (in the unlikely event that it passes and isn't struck down and unconstitutional) would have exactly the same effect, which is damn frightening.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kontiki
This whole thing, including alot of the discussion on this thread, makes me really wonder about the quality of post-secondary education in many universities. I have an undergraduate degree in International Relations, meaning I've taken a good number of political science, history and other social science courses. I don't think I can recall a single instance where subjectivity of any sort was present by any of my professors, except for English classes where many of my profs had obvious biases towards certain literary styles and authors. Sure, discussions would occur in classes and tutorials, but my professors never ventured into the realm of "that political/economic/religious/philosophical viewpoint is just wrong" or "this viewpoint is superior to that viewpoint".

When I was studying IR (as an introduction, as my specialization is Political Systems), my prof was a fan of economy, and had his own pet theory on the matter. All the literature he provided was completely one sided (and it was utterly moronic half of the time) even though he didn't directly compare his economic opinions with others in class.

Similarly, my dissertation prof (on political behaviours) is much less opinionated, but he does draw all his usual literature from the same gang. At least in my experience, the bias was expressed by the interests and the favourite literatures of the profs, rather than by blatant propaganda in class.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You have, and if you don't think that, wth have you made your postings ?

Um... no I haven't. I've said religion is important to learn in the university. It explains many subjects much more in detail than without it. There has been a turn to try to 'get religion out' of the study of many subjects and that just leads to confusion over origins.

It may have been a long way, but I think we agree. I certainly want religion out of any study if it dictates how the study should be performed, but as a mean to understand f.es. history, then it is a natural part. In that case religion has a much broader view because paganism, northern mythology, hebrew mythology etc all are equal in the sense that they are participants in history.

When I stated that religion has only one place, and that is in the theological faculty, I was talking about the beliefs of people living and studiyng now. I guess that it is here we got wrong - I don't like that religious beliefs shall dicatate neither the current state or the future,

Edit : Bad quotes

[Whaleboy]

I don't think professors need to be neutral in college. Why do you think it's bad not to do so?

It's not bad... it's just a characteristic of excellent teachers as opposed to merely good ones... they are just the means by which the student teachers himself.

I don't think I can recall a single instance where subjectivity

Trouble is that whereas a reasonable person would try to be neutral, tolerant and non-dogmatic, there are some conservatives who see *that* as being inherently liberal, and to an extent they may have a point. To a lot of people, if a teacher isn't dogmatically patriotic, militaristic, Christian etc, then that teacher now is automagically liberal spouting a leftist agenda of tolerance and acceptance .

Which of course begs the question of how such a student can find themself in a place of higher-learning

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
It's not bad... it's just a characteristic of excellent teachers as opposed to merely good ones... they are just the means by which the student teachers himself.

In my opinion and experience it's just the opposite. I don't think that any of my professors have been neutral. Even in business classes they express their opinions.