3.161 education and universities, cont. (116)
Willard McCarty (MCCARTY@VM.EPAS.UTORONTO.CA)
Fri, 23 Jun 89 18:16:53 EDT
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 161. Friday, 23 Jun 1989.
(1) Date: Thu, 22 Jun 89 22:20:51 EDT (14 lines)
From: db <BOYARIN@TAUNIVM.bitnet>
Subject: Re: 3.151 education and universities, cont.; journals (94)
(2) Date: 23 June 1989 06:35:20 CDT (25 lines)
From: "Ouden Eimi " <U20678@UICVM>
Subject: teaching values, discovering them
(3) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 89 10:13 EDT (29 lines)
From: John McDaid <MCDAID@NYUACF.BITNET>
Subject: RE: 3.159 education and universities, cont. (35)
(4) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 89 14:04:01 EDT (18 lines)
From: David Megginson <MEGGIN@vm.epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: 3.159 education and universities, cont. (35)
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 89 22:20:51 EDT
From: db <BOYARIN@TAUNIVM.bitnet>
Subject: Re: 3.151 education and universities, cont.; journals (94)
It seems to me that one significant way that we can legitimately teach
values (which for me includes a significant commitment to the full
humanization of all reified people--women, Orientals etc.) is by demonstrating
the constructedness of social practices that appear to be natural entities,
thus opening them up to critique from a value point of view. Thus teaching
the constructedness of the gender relations in our society and thereby
showing students that it does not have to be that way is a significant
political move that does not violate the spirit of liberal inquiry and
freedom on which the idea of a university is based.
Daniel Boyarin
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------28----
Date: 23 June 1989 06:35:20 CDT
From: "Ouden Eimi " <U20678@UICVM>
Subject: teaching values, discovering them
Teaching values makes me nervous. I think what we need to do instead is
to preserve the practice of disinterested inquiry and let the values
come of themselves. The illiberality I spoke of has taken aim from both
sides (in many ways one side) against such inquiry, which
threatens the tight band of commitment to a limited program. And not
always an openly published program either. How many of us still
understand what the word "disinterested" means? How many of us
understand the serious problem that historical provincialism makes for
opening the mind? Especially when we are so ready to take peculiarly
modern ideas, march back a few centuries, and stomp all over a culture
with very different notions than our own -- and without a second's
hesitation? Those who stomp tend not to hesitate, I think, because they
don't even notice the differences in ideas, or will not allow themselves
to notice. Those with a commitment to a limited program, right or left,
cannot afford to let themselves notice such things. Doing so would
threaten their identity, which is a pretty anxious thing anyhow.
Disinterested inquiry can only be managed by a confident people, and I
think we are not so confident anymore.
OE
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------38----
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 89 10:13 EDT
From: John McDaid <MCDAID@NYUACF.BITNET>
Subject: RE: 3.159 education and universities, cont. (35)
>What exactly is it that would be lost if we were to oh, say, close all
>the universities.
Neil Postman has suggested, in "Teaching as a Conserving Activity," that
the real function of universities is to preserve alternative visions.
Especially in the scenario of private-sector "life long learning" and
"on the job training" which will always be motivated, at bottom, by
economics. We have given television over to this force; do we want
education to follow? You don't need quantum mechanics to flip burgers.
On the other hand, it seems likely that universities, as presently
constituted, cannot survive the digital revolution. Life-long learning,
and delivery of education to publics not now served become possible
when the installed base of PC's and ISDN create a true "network nation."
The university, then, will no longer be in the business of selling
seats in a classroom, but rather of facilitating dialogue; helping
people make connections, problematizing discussions.
The "universities" may well close. Their offspring, however, if
alternative visions are to be preserved, must be able to walk a fine
line between integrating technology (and market forces) and retaining
critical perspective. The people most ready for this challenge are
reading this right now.
-John McDaid
(4) --------------------------------------------------------------23----
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 89 14:04:01 EDT
From: David Megginson <MEGGIN@vm.epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: 3.159 education and universities, cont. (35)
In response to the letter from the semi-anonymous devil's advocate
(that's a semi-anonymous advocate for the devil, not an advocate for a
semi-anonymous devil), professors are people who like to make a lot of
speeches and have power over others. If they did not have universities
to play in they would probably move into
P O L I T I C S
Politicians are already bad enough. Remember, it only costs a little
more to keep a professor in a university than it does to keep a felon
in the pen, and yields even greater benefits to society.
David Megginson