Only a fifth of UK universities say they are 'decolonising' curriculum

[Parasaurolophus]

This is all important, and would be relevant in a "professional practice" course or something like that. Along with all kinds of other situations where governments, corporations, or individuals have not fulfilled their legal obligations. 

Discussing the minutiae of the ethnicity, politics, and lifestyles of all of the individuals involved, on the other hand, is immaterial.

Sure. I don't think anyone is really arguing otherwise. Gauss's role in the development of non-Euclidean geometry is cool and interesting, but a course on non-Euclidean geometry should focus on his theoretical work, not his day job as a surveyor.

You'd probably find the same kind of things happen in other countries where the small, isolated communities aren't "indigenous"; it's much more about poverty and invisibility than simply ethnicity.

There are going to be different ways of satisfying the request. If you can do so adequately through another lens, I don't think most people are against that.

That said, the Indigenous component can be relevant all on its own. Here in Canada, for example, treaty obligations and Supreme Court decisions (like Delgamuukw) are supposed to govern Indigenous-Crown relations with respect to land use. Those are specific obligations tied to Indigenous peoples and their lands (treaty lands and unceded alike), and their obligations which the Crown has a very long (and recent) history of failing to respect. Acknowledging the ways in which the Crown has failed in its legal obligations and violated Indigenous trust is often a pre-requisite to getting these projects off the ground. One of the Crown's obligations is to conduct 'meaningful consultation'; and what we've seen time and again is that consultation which does not take Indigenous concerns seriously is not at all meaningful, and does not discharge the Crown's obligation. Likewise, purely monetary 'compensation' (at levels set without due consultation!) does nothing to ease tensions. (A great case study on these issues is what happened with the Moose River Basin dam expansions in Ontario.)

STEM subjects don't typically include "names" in syllabi; it's not about "Newton, and what he thought" or anything like that. A person is only mentioned as long as their theory has value. (Can anyone in STEM name a medieval alchemist???? There were probably some who were widely known then but they were WRONG so who cares?????)

I know that. I'm simply saying that the notion of 'decolonizing' the curriuculum goes beyond syllabus tinkering, and can manifest itself in different ways in different parts of the university. I don't know what the best of doing so are for most STEM subjects, but I trust that it doesn't take a huge imaginative leap to find some such ways. In fact, I'm sure that appropriately-informed others have already given it some thought, and I'm happy to defer to their judgement (since it is, after all, better-informed than mine is).

(But also, FWIW, plenty of medieval alchemists were right about all sorts of things. Just not transmutation into gold, or the philosopher's stone. They were basically just chemists.)

As for "land acknowledgements", there are lots of places where archeological evidence indicates that different groups occupied the same areas at different time periods during the centuries before Europeans arrived. Should all of those groups be acknowledged?

Land acknowledgements recognize historical treaty obligations and lands which are not covered by treaties but which are the traditional and ancestral lands of some people, and which were in their possession when Europeans came and encroached on it. They recognize historical and contemporary Indigenous presence.

Borders are and were not static. So, yes, it's customary to acknowledge all of the different peoples who lay claim to the relevant lands. Where I'm from, that's a single tribe; where I now reside, it's five different bands (well, one where I live, but five for the land my university is located on).

The fact that "almost everything written on the subject is in thrall to the Greek conception" is not nearly as interesting as comparing the two concepts. If there are societies which exhibit characterisitics of one or the other which can be compared then that would be great, without having to get bogged down in who got more publicity.

You can't perform an adequate comparison of the two without noting that virtually all of the historical and contemporary scholarly work on virtue ethics derives from the Greek conception. That's because a lot of people have given a lot of thought to the different problems facing one approach to the core idea, and have suggested different ways of articulating it in response to those problems. But on the other side of the coin, the scholarship is extremely under-developed. So you aren't really comparing apples to apples. Or, you are, but you're comparing the merits of a variety that's been domesticated and cultivated for hundreds of years, with all the tweaks involved, to a variety which isn't. And when you do that, it's very easy to give the impression that the wild variety is worthless or inherently inferior--or, where ideas are concerned, not worth pursuing. And that's simply false (especially the 'inherent' bit, since you're actually comparing cultivated to inherent properties). It just means that there's more work to be done to properly situate it in the discourse.

A professional will see that pretty easily. It's what we do, after all. A disinterested undergrad, however, is not likely to see or understand the difference without guidance. Which is how you end up with misguided people who think that something like the art historical canon is a compendium of the greatest artworks ever made.

[mamselle]

^ Agreed.

A disinterested undergrad, however, is not likely to see or understand the difference without guidance. Which is how you end up with misguided people who think that something like the art historical canon is a compendium of the greatest artworks ever made.

Which is exactly why I began teaching Indian, Chinese, Korean and Japanese art (and requiring museum visits, since the school I was teaching at, at the time, had a great collection right nearby) as well as African and South American in addition to the usual "western canon" early on.

The importance of this was underscored in the first midterm I gave, in which, on a map component, students put France in Finland, Greece in India, etc.

They'd never had geography in HS, it's not taught except as a "non-college track" course, and their history classes had all been in western Euro/US history, so they had almost no idea of where in the world they even lived.

M.

[marshwiggle]

That said, the Indigenous component can be relevant all on its own. Here in Canada, for example, treaty obligations and Supreme Court decisions (like Delgamuukw) are supposed to govern Indigenous-Crown relations with respect to land use. Those are specific obligations tied to Indigenous peoples and their lands (treaty lands and unceded alike), and their obligations which the Crown has a very long (and recent) history of failing to respect. Acknowledging the ways in which the Crown has failed in its legal obligations and violated Indigenous trust is often a pre-requisite to getting these projects off the ground. One of the Crown's obligations is to conduct 'meaningful consultation'; and what we've seen time and again is that consultation which does not take Indigenous concerns seriously is not at all meaningful, and does not discharge the Crown's obligation. Likewise, purely monetary 'compensation' (at levels set without due consultation!) does nothing to ease tensions. (A great case study on these issues is what happened with the Moose River Basin dam expansions in Ontario.)

One of the basically intractable problems is that Indigenous communities essentially have two independent systems of government. There are the elected band councils, and the hereditary chiefs. Each effectively has a veto. So a negotiation supported by not only the band council, but by a majority or residents, can be derailed by the hereditary chiefs, and media will always sympathize, no matter how extensive the negotiations with the community. (On top of that, if a few members of the community object, potentially without the support of either the band council or the hereditary chiefs, and a formal blockade of a road or railway is initiated, it can continue for a long time because no-one wants to be charged with racism. A similar blockade by non-Indigenous people would be quickly followed by arrests with likely no media sympathy.)

In other words, ANY kind of dissent, no matter what kind of negotiations and agreements preceeded them, will essentially have veto power.

The irony is that this means that the ignoring of negotiated agreements formerly engaged in by the governement can now be undertaken by members of the the Indigenous communities. It may be karma, but it means that economic development opportunities largely supported by communities are going to be scuttled by a small minority. Eventually any sort of projects will stop being proposed in the first place.

[Hegemony]

Just to note that whenever anyone wishes to discredit the objections of someone else, without actually addressing the content of those objections, they frame it as "whining." That's why I know that when I see the word "whining," I'm reading the comments of someone who doesn't really want to grapple with the ideas; they just want to ridicule.  It's like a little red flag that says "I operate by contempt, not by ideas."

"But," I hear you say, "those people really are whining!"

No — they're raising objections, and you're making clear that you have contempt for those people rather than speaking about the content of their objections.

"Yeah, but if they're going to be contemptible, then I can't be expected — "

Oh yes you can, and you will be.

[Caracal]

I'd welcome anyone to disagree with me, but in my experience, the "history" part of most science courses is barely significant, and rarely shows up on any test. (The main vestige of history is a person's name on a theory, method, or equation. Most people completing a course would be hard pressed to tell you anything about Gauss, except that there's a law named after him. So his national origin, ethnicity, politics or personal habits are completely off the radar, beyond what can be inferred from the name.)

Sure, although I'd argue that this isn't necessarily a strength of sciences, and often leads scientists to think that they are impartial and objective, when in fact they are reproducing cultural ideas. One of the best examples of this is eugenics, which at one point was a respected branch of science, promoted by all kinds of eminent scientists. My impression is that lots of scientists think that this changed because eugenics was disproven, but that is a distortion of the history. The thing that really made eugenics disreputable was the rise of Nazism in the early 1930s. The scientific consensus that eugenics was a pseudo science came after this, not before.

Without much grounding in this history, it seems to me like it encourages scientists to not consider the ways in which their own cultural beliefs aren't objective and grounded in "reality."

[Hibush]

I'd welcome anyone to disagree with me, but in my experience, the "history" part of most science courses is barely significant, and rarely shows up on any test. (The main vestige of history is a person's name on a theory, method, or equation. Most people completing a course would be hard pressed to tell you anything about Gauss, except that there's a law named after him. So his national origin, ethnicity, politics or personal habits are completely off the radar, beyond what can be inferred from the name.)

Sure, although I'd argue that this isn't necessarily a strength of sciences, and often leads scientists to think that they are impartial and objective, when in fact they are reproducing cultural ideas. One of the best examples of this is eugenics, which at one point was a respected branch of science, promoted by all kinds of eminent scientists. My impression is that lots of scientists think that this changed because eugenics was disproven, but that is a distortion of the history. The thing that really made eugenics disreputable was the rise of Nazism in the early 1930s. The scientific consensus that eugenics was a pseudo science came after this, not before.

Without much grounding in this history, it seems to me like it encourages scientists to not consider the ways in which their own cultural beliefs aren't objective and grounded in "reality."

Understanding how scientists really worked in the past, and how ideas developed is extremely useful if one wants to do science effectively. We all learn the protocols needed to do particular experiments, and sometimes the rigorous experimental design to make evidence-based progress. But that is far from enough.

The Eugenics movement was a pathological one, where many otherwise rigorous scientists ignored big holes in the reasoning in what seemed like an effort to better mankind. Something similar can easily happen again, so it is more valuable to study how the eugenicists evolved through that movement than it is to demonize them from the outset.

One area of science where I see practitioners ignoring established science to make unlikely claims is where venture capital money comes into play. I run into it will smaller inventions that might have commercial potential. But some highly visible examples are Theranos, where the technology claims were unbelievable, some things out or the MIT Media Lab lately.  These are not stupid or credulous people, but the are convince of their nonsense because the VC environment reinforces the alternative reality.

[marshwiggle]

The Eugenics movement was a pathological one, where many otherwise rigorous scientists ignored big holes in the reasoning in what seemed like an effort to better mankind. Something similar can easily happen again, so it is more valuable to study how the eugenicists evolved through that movement than it is to demonize them from the outset.

One area of science where I see practitioners ignoring established science to make unlikely claims is where venture capital money comes into play. I run into it will smaller inventions that might have commercial potential. But some highly visible examples are Theranos, where the technology claims were unbelievable, some things out or the MIT Media Lab lately.  These are not stupid or credulous people, but the are convince of their nonsense because the VC environment reinforces the alternative reality.

Even in these examples, it's not really about science research; it's about the application of science. (In the case of Theranos, my understanding is that they chose backers and board members who were not from a science background, so the unsupprotable claims weren't as carefully scrutinized as they would likely have been by people who specialize in science ventures.)

Probably a bigger threat to scientific research objectivity comes from things like publication bias, where negative results are less likely to get published than positive ones. And in that case, the consequence is mostly going to be wasted resources in pursuing avenues that have already been found to be fruitless.

I would like to hear of any example of any scientific model, produced by research influenced by a particular funding source, which was accepted as basically sound for a significant period of time, which was eventually shown to have been entirely without merit. I'm not denying it happens, but I think it's relatively uncommon, and it's certainly much more likely to be influenced by profit than by any sort of social ideology.

[Caracal]

I would like to hear of any example of any scientific model, produced by research influenced by a particular funding source, which was accepted as basically sound for a significant period of time, which was eventually shown to have been entirely without merit. I'm not denying it happens, but I think it's relatively uncommon, and it's certainly much more likely to be influenced by profit than by any sort of social ideology.

I'm not a historian of science, but my understanding is that eugenics would qualify. Both Rockefeller and Carnegie money supported eugenics research and programs. Even beyond eugenics, all sorts of racial science was fully mainstream in the 19th century and it was supported by all sorts of government and private money.

[marshwiggle]

I would like to hear of any example of any scientific model, produced by research influenced by a particular funding source, which was accepted as basically sound for a significant period of time, which was eventually shown to have been entirely without merit. I'm not denying it happens, but I think it's relatively uncommon, and it's certainly much more likely to be influenced by profit than by any sort of social ideology.

I'm not a historian of science, but my understanding is that eugenics would qualify. Both Rockefeller and Carnegie money supported eugenics research and programs. Even beyond eugenics, all sorts of racial science was fully mainstream in the 19th century and it was supported by all sorts of government and private money.

Where does the line get drawn between "racial science" and genetic research? Some of the cutting edge research in things like cancer treatment are based on therapies that are based on an individual's DNA. There are all kinds of health conditions that have genetic factors. To avoid considering any kinds of treatments which take those factors into account would be a big setback for medicine.

[Caracal]

I would like to hear of any example of any scientific model, produced by research influenced by a particular funding source, which was accepted as basically sound for a significant period of time, which was eventually shown to have been entirely without merit. I'm not denying it happens, but I think it's relatively uncommon, and it's certainly much more likely to be influenced by profit than by any sort of social ideology.

I'm not a historian of science, but my understanding is that eugenics would qualify. Both Rockefeller and Carnegie money supported eugenics research and programs. Even beyond eugenics, all sorts of racial science was fully mainstream in the 19th century and it was supported by all sorts of government and private money.

Where does the line get drawn between "racial science" and genetic research? Some of the cutting edge research in things like cancer treatment are based on therapies that are based on an individual's DNA. There are all kinds of health conditions that have genetic factors. To avoid considering any kinds of treatments which take those factors into account would be a big setback for medicine.

By racial science, I mean scientific ideas based around the notion that white people, or sometimes northern European people, were superior. The belief was that the concept of race was not social, but biological. That isn't the same thing as studying human differences. That said, I'd argue that geneticists would do well to know something about this history and have an understanding of the ways in which race and racism have played a role in their discipline.

[Wahoo Redux]

We might acknowledge that history is not equally important in all disciplines.

For the humanities, and I think for the liberal arts in general, a reckoning is very important. 

Science, maybe not as much.  I do wish scientists and engineers had a deep background in ethics, however, which is where history comes in.  The benefits of science are overt, but so are the monstrosities and liabilities.

[Katrina Gulliver]

"Decolonising the curriculum" has been a trend in my field for a while, and I'm deeply skeptical of its outcomes. From what I've seen in indigenous groups, the decolonisation they want to hear about involves getting their land back, not changing the reading list of a grad seminar at some tony college.

The loudest advocates of it (at least in my area) are white people, generally patting themselves on the back. In a really "decolonised" curriculum, they wouldn't be teaching that class.

[downer]

"Decolonising the curriculum" has been a trend in my field for a while, and I'm deeply skeptical of its outcomes. From what I've seen in indigenous groups, the decolonisation they want to hear about involves getting their land back, not changing the reading list of a grad seminar at some tony college.

The loudest advocates of it (at least in my area) are white people, generally patting themselves on the back. In a really "decolonised" curriculum, they wouldn't be teaching that class.

No doubt there is a whole lot of virtue signalling going on regarding curriculum reform, and I also wonder how far up the list of priorities this should be in opposing racism and overcoming the effects of colonization. But the virtues in question do seem to be good ones. So regarding the outcomes, wouldn't they at least be improvements in the curriculum?

[Katrina Gulliver]

Adding more non-white authors to a reading list? Sure that's great.

But calling it "decolonisation" is ridiculous. A white prof telling white students to read Chinua Achebe isn't decolonising anything.

[marshwiggle]

"Decolonising the curriculum" has been a trend in my field for a while, and I'm deeply skeptical of its outcomes. From what I've seen in indigenous groups, the decolonisation they want to hear about involves getting their land back, not changing the reading list of a grad seminar at some tony college.

The loudest advocates of it (at least in my area) are white people, generally patting themselves on the back. In a really "decolonised" curriculum, they wouldn't be teaching that class.

No doubt there is a whole lot of virtue signalling going on regarding curriculum reform, and I also wonder how far up the list of priorities this should be in opposing racism and overcoming the effects of colonization. But the virtues in question do seem to be good ones. So regarding the outcomes, wouldn't they at least be improvements in the curriculum?

The problem with virtue signalling isn't that the virtues aren't good; it's that signalling doesn't have much correlation with actions in the real world.  (For Christians, the apostle Peter is the best example; "Lord, even if everyone else abandons you, I won't". Within  a few hours he had blown that all to pieces. Was it a noble sentiment? Sure. Did he mean it? Sure. Did he have the slightest idea what it would require? Not. A. Freaking. Clue.)

If a child were trapped in a burning building, I'd like to think I would be willing to risk my life to save her, but unless and until I'm in that situation, no-one including me can say what I would actually do. How many stories have you heard about the "male feminist" who turns out to have been cheating on his wife, or sexually harassing female coworkers, etc.

Talk is cheap. And that's what virtue signalling is. (Even a protest is basically virtue signalling.) Remember Kony2012?

Slacktivism is the religion of the 21st century. If you supposedly care about homeless people, volunteer in a shelter, don't go in some stupid march.

To paraphrase an old expression, "virtue is what you display when no-one else is watching."

Justin Trudeau got all kinds of virtue signalling points for having a "gender balanced" cabinet, "because it's 2015". (Whatever that means.) Two female cabinet ministers eventually left the party to sit as independents. One was his justice minister, because he pressured her to not investigate a large company. So how many "virtue signalling" points does he deserve?

If you want to know whether soemone is a racist, forget about whther they wear a BLM t-shirt; talk to their neighbours, colleagues, students, etc. and see how they treat actual people.
What they advertise is inconsequential.

Remember the trope of the used-car salesman, e.g. "Honest John's Used Cars". If they put "honest" in the name, hang on to your wallet, and don't blink.