Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[marshwiggle]

NPR: A Florida professor says his contract was terminated for teaching about racial justice

For years, Joeckel's class included a unit on the Black experience in the U.S., where he touched on the work of historic figures such as W.E.B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington, as well as long-standing racial disparities in mass incarceration and educational attainment, as WLRN previously reported.

But recently, administrators took issue with Joeckel's curriculum, saying that they received a complaint from a student's parent about his lessons related to race, the professor said. Joeckel's contract was subsequently put under review last month. A few days ago, the instructor learned his contract would be terminated early.

From the article:

The school did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment on Joeckel's contract. But in an internal memo written last month and obtained by The Palm Beach Post, Provost Chelly Templeton said the school was investigating Joeckel's curriculum to "better understand the pedagogical rationale for including these extensive lectures in a Composition II class."

She added, "It is important that the Composition II objectives remain the focus of the course."

Whether this is the primary issue or just window dressing, it does raise a valid question. To what extent can an instructor inject any particular ideology into a course where that isn't the focus of the course in question. (To give an example from the other end of the political spectrum, in a biology class about the reproductive system, how much freedom should a pro-life instructor have to raise the *morality of abortion?)

*Taking an approach of "studying" the biological dangers of abortion would be a way to push a viewpoint without technically raising it. I'd imagine "studying" wrtings about racial inequality in an English class would similarly be a way to push a viewpoint without technically doing so.

[downer]

NPR: A Florida professor says his contract was terminated for teaching about racial justice

For years, Joeckel's class included a unit on the Black experience in the U.S., where he touched on the work of historic figures such as W.E.B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington, as well as long-standing racial disparities in mass incarceration and educational attainment, as WLRN previously reported.

But recently, administrators took issue with Joeckel's curriculum, saying that they received a complaint from a student's parent about his lessons related to race, the professor said. Joeckel's contract was subsequently put under review last month. A few days ago, the instructor learned his contract would be terminated early.

He may be an English professor, but what course was he teaching. There are no ENG courses listed on their website.
http://catalog.pba.edu/content.php?catoid=43&catoid=43&navoid=3079&filter%5Bitem_type%5D=3&filter%5Bonly_active%5D=1&filter%5B3%5D=1&filter%5Bcpage%5D=4#acalog_template_course_filter

Looking over student reviews at Niche.com, I found this:

If you are not a conservative Christian, I urge you not to go here. You will be judged and ridiculed beyond comparison. Students here seemingly never outgrow the "high school" mentality. I was outcasted and didn't feel safe voicing my opinion or my work. While many students who go to PBA claim to not have any religious affiliations, they still lack the critical thinking skills required to show empathy and respect to others. Staff and faculty are great people and very supportive. Everything else will make you question your entire education.

Sounds like the kind of school that will be struggling in today's climate -- a small religious school. The administration is probably keen to keep the religious parents happy. Talking about the racist history of the USA is not likely to keep them happy.

But it is right next to the sea. I'm ready for a day on a beach. Let's go and show our support for the Prof.

[Wahoo Redux]

NPR: A Florida professor says his contract was terminated for teaching about racial justice

For years, Joeckel's class included a unit on the Black experience in the U.S., where he touched on the work of historic figures such as W.E.B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington, as well as long-standing racial disparities in mass incarceration and educational attainment, as WLRN previously reported.

But recently, administrators took issue with Joeckel's curriculum, saying that they received a complaint from a student's parent about his lessons related to race, the professor said. Joeckel's contract was subsequently put under review last month. A few days ago, the instructor learned his contract would be terminated early.

From the article:

The school did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment on Joeckel's contract. But in an internal memo written last month and obtained by The Palm Beach Post, Provost Chelly Templeton said the school was investigating Joeckel's curriculum to "better understand the pedagogical rationale for including these extensive lectures in a Composition II class."

She added, "It is important that the Composition II objectives remain the focus of the course."

Whether this is the primary issue or just window dressing, it does raise a valid question. To what extent can an instructor inject any particular ideology into a course where that isn't the focus of the course in question. (To give an example from the other end of the political spectrum, in a biology class about the reproductive system, how much freedom should a pro-life instructor have to raise the *morality of abortion?)

*Taking an approach of "studying" the biological dangers of abortion would be a way to push a viewpoint without technically raising it. I'd imagine "studying" wrtings about racial inequality in an English class would similarly be a way to push a viewpoint without technically doing so.

Kind'a right.

Many comp classes are structured around a "theme."  I never taught that way, and it has its pros and cons, but the point is to engage students with "real world" issues and to task theme with writing sourced arguments.  I instituted the "real world" dictum after 9/11 when I was getting papers on "we should have an extra taco night in the cafeteria" or "the dorms need carpeting."

Several things get me about this.  The prof in question has taught this course for 20 years already.  We suspect parents complained----and when did Christians become such snowflakes (rhetorical)?  And when did the concept of racial equality become taboo, particularly among Christians?...that is only partly rhetorical.  I understand the frustrations that lead to demands for equity, I am frustrated too, but I am tired of feeling attacked.  The liberal talkers will need to modulate and refashion their message if they are going to reach these obdurate, blindered conservative reactionaries.

[kaysixteen]

Two things here, perhaps:

1) It is without any question that we have experienced vast cultural changes in this country, and those changes are more or less all in the direction of vastly altering the prevalence of Christianity and mainstream normativity of traditional Christian values and behavior.   It is just not reasonable to expect no blowback to these changes, even though we here recognize that blowback in the area of criticizing critiques of racism is not a good idea (nor defensible biblically, for that matter, either).

2) Like it or not, most colleges nowadays are almost parallel universe environments compared to the attitudes and experiences of conservative, mostly rural/ Bible belt evangelicals.

[Wahoo Redux]

WTAMU President provides reasoning on canceling on-campus drag show in letter to students, staff, faculty

In a letter sent to students, faculty and staff at West Texas A&M University on Monday that was obtained by MyHighPlains.com, West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler announced that a planned drag show for later this month will not happen, stating his view that drag shows exaggerate and stereotype women in "cartoon-like extremes."

[Wahoo Redux]

Two things here, perhaps:

1) It is without any question that we have experienced vast cultural changes in this country, and those changes are more or less all in the direction of vastly altering the prevalence of Christianity and mainstream normativity of traditional Christian values and behavior.   It is just not reasonable to expect no blowback to these changes, even though we here recognize that blowback in the area of criticizing critiques of racism is not a good idea (nor defensible biblically, for that matter, either).

2) Like it or not, most colleges nowadays are almost parallel universe environments compared to the attitudes and experiences of conservative, mostly rural/ Bible belt evangelicals.

I've been fascinated with this blowback since I was a little kid.  The blowback is having a reverse effect, I think, from what it is meant to enact. 

And blowback is fine, but the problem arrives when Christians expect heathens such as myself to follow their moral precepts.  Be mad all ye want, but don't expect me to cowtow to your sense of morality.

And I think it is not just college which is a parallel universe to the Evangelical experience.  I expect it is a good deal that comes before and after that is a parallel universe.

[kaysixteen]

1)I get that most non-evangelicals do not necessarily want to have evangelical mores rule society.   Problem is, some morality has to be the ruling legal and moral ethos of society, nonetheless.

2) There are other parallel universe areas, to be certain, but college is pretty darn near the top of the heap here, and academia is, like it or not, more or less run by people whose views are essentially secular and lefty, vastly different from many areas where one can find many secular lefties, but these lefties do not run the show with no checks and balances.

[Wahoo Redux]

1)I get that most non-evangelicals do not necessarily want to have evangelical mores rule society.   Problem is, some morality has to be the ruling legal and moral ethos of society, nonetheless.

True.  But who says the Christians get to decide what this moral ethos is?  The Christian moral ethos I am familiar with is often extremely judgmental and narrow, even hateful, predicated upon damaging anyone outside their limited scope of belief.  And we see a good deal of hypocrisy and extremism in Christianity broadly defined (Catholic sexual abuse, multi-million dollar megachurches, firearm obsession, and Mormon cults, for instance).  I'm not sure organized religion of any stripe is good for the philosophic undergirding of society, just ask Iran.

And we have a moral ethos already.  It may or may not coincide with Christian moral ethos, although usually it does.  Importantly, our moral ethos is evolving and investigating what is best for a just and free society.  I'm not sure I see Christians actually doing this if it conflicts with ancient dogma.

2) There are other parallel universe areas, to be certain, but college is pretty darn near the top of the heap here, and academia is, like it or not, more or less run by people whose views are essentially secular and lefty, vastly different from many areas where one can find many secular lefties, but these lefties do not run the show with no checks and balances.

Agree with all of that.  And I think "lefty and secular" is the way to go.  The conservatives have worked very hard to turn "left" into a pejorative, so hard, in fact, that they actually believe their own  hatemongering and now use it as their moral base.  The right these days really only has hatred of the nebulous concept of "left," personified in their minds with "wokism" at the moment (later it will be something else), as a philosophy.  So give me well-educated, thinking, left-leaning (not left-extremist!) adults.  Most of the rest of the world is okay with "lefty and secular"----how long has it been since the Republicans have won a popular election?  What is Donald Trump's reputation around the world?

I sometimes think the evangelicals should actually withdraw from culture instead of pretending in the style of "The Duggars" that they are part of it.  The retreat will turn out horribly for them as they become more and more extremist, but they will have brought it upon themselves.

[marshwiggle]

The conservatives have worked very hard to turn "left" into a pejorative, so hard, in fact, that they actually believe their own  hatemongering and now use it as their moral base.  The right these days really only has hatred of the nebulous concept of "left," personified in their minds with "wokism" at the moment (later it will be something else), as a philosophy.  So give me well-educated, thinking, left-leaning (not left-extremist!) adults. 

The sad irony is that the extremists feed off each other. The more extreme one side gets, the more that fuels extremism at the opposite pole, which pushes the first group farther away, ad nauseum.....

(And I really blame the media and academia for giving so much more attention to the extremists on both ends than on the vastly more sane positions nearer the centre.)

Most of the rest of the world is okay with "lefty and secular"----how long has it been since the Republicans have won a popular election? 

The US. is kind of unique in this. While the number of people identifying as religious in the US may be somewhat higher than in many other countries, the issue is more that explicitly religious language is more prevalent in the US. (Which is, of course, also fed (see above) by the explicit emphasis on "separation of church and state".) Lots of people in other countries have strong religious principles, and consider them important for society, but they realize that a pluralistic society will have people with lots of different viewpoints, and arguments will have to be made that will appeal to a broad range of people beyond their own ideological bubble.
Just to clarify: It's not that people feel they have no right to win people over to their way of thinking, but that they have to do it by appealing to values of the other people.

NPR: A Florida professor says his contract was terminated for teaching about racial justice

For years, Joeckel's class included a unit on the Black experience in the U.S., where he touched on the work of historic figures such as W.E.B. Du Bois and Booker T. Washington, as well as long-standing racial disparities in mass incarceration and educational attainment, as WLRN previously reported.

But recently, administrators took issue with Joeckel's curriculum, saying that they received a complaint from a student's parent about his lessons related to race, the professor said. Joeckel's contract was subsequently put under review last month. A few days ago, the instructor learned his contract would be terminated early.

From the article:

The school did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment on Joeckel's contract. But in an internal memo written last month and obtained by The Palm Beach Post, Provost Chelly Templeton said the school was investigating Joeckel's curriculum to "better understand the pedagogical rationale for including these extensive lectures in a Composition II class."

She added, "It is important that the Composition II objectives remain the focus of the course."

Whether this is the primary issue or just window dressing, it does raise a valid question. To what extent can an instructor inject any particular ideology into a course where that isn't the focus of the course in question. (To give an example from the other end of the political spectrum, in a biology class about the reproductive system, how much freedom should a pro-life instructor have to raise the *morality of abortion?)

*Taking an approach of "studying" the biological dangers of abortion would be a way to push a viewpoint without technically raising it. I'd imagine "studying" writings about racial inequality in an English class would similarly be a way to push a viewpoint without technically doing so.

Kind'a right.

Many comp classes are structured around a "theme."  I never taught that way, and it has its pros and cons, but the point is to engage students with "real world" issues and to task theme with writing sourced arguments.  I instituted the "real world" dictum after 9/11 when I was getting papers on "we should have an extra taco night in the cafeteria" or "the dorms need carpeting."

The sad thing here is that it's precisely (in my opinion) the move to "activism" that has made these opportunities to raise important issues so divisive. I remember early in COVID there was an unusual article in the news that actually pointed out a few people with specific medical conditions that prevented them getting vaccinated. As someone who has always been firmly in favour of vaccinations, I was impressed that the article actually injected some legitimate nuance into the discussion.

Activism, on the other hand, abhors nuance.

[nebo113]

Two things here, perhaps:

1) It is without any question that we have experienced vast cultural changes in this country, and those changes are more or less all in the direction of vastly altering the prevalence of Christianity and mainstream normativity of traditional Christian values and behavior.   It is just not reasonable to expect no blowback to these changes, even though we here recognize that blowback in the area of criticizing critiques of racism is not a good idea (nor defensible biblically, for that matter, either).

2) Like it or not, most colleges nowadays are almost parallel universe environments compared to the attitudes and experiences of conservative, mostly rural/ Bible belt evangelicals.

Is stoning a traditional Christian value?  Slavery.  Wife + concubine?

[marshwiggle]

Two things here, perhaps:

1) It is without any question that we have experienced vast cultural changes in this country, and those changes are more or less all in the direction of vastly altering the prevalence of Christianity and mainstream normativity of traditional Christian values and behavior.   It is just not reasonable to expect no blowback to these changes, even though we here recognize that blowback in the area of criticizing critiques of racism is not a good idea (nor defensible biblically, for that matter, either).

2) Like it or not, most colleges nowadays are almost parallel universe environments compared to the attitudes and experiences of conservative, mostly rural/ Bible belt evangelicals.

Is stoning a traditional Christian value?  Slavery.  Wife + concubine?

While those were all Old Testament practices, they had all pretty much gone by the early church. (And yes, centuries later in the US and other places people brought back the idea of slavery for commercial purposes. In the vast majority of Christendom through the centuries, slavery was not practiced. So it's not a "traditional" Christian practice.)

[Larimar]

Two things here, perhaps:

1) It is without any question that we have experienced vast cultural changes in this country, and those changes are more or less all in the direction of vastly altering the prevalence of Christianity and mainstream normativity of traditional Christian values and behavior.   It is just not reasonable to expect no blowback to these changes, even though we here recognize that blowback in the area of criticizing critiques of racism is not a good idea (nor defensible biblically, for that matter, either).

2) Like it or not, most colleges nowadays are almost parallel universe environments compared to the attitudes and experiences of conservative, mostly rural/ Bible belt evangelicals.

Is stoning a traditional Christian value?  Slavery.  Wife + concubine?

No, those are not traditional Christian values. Jesus prevented the people from stoning a woman caught in adultery. He never said anything supporting slavery and advocated treating everyone well. And Paul declared that any leader in the early church had to have only one wife. (At that time, some converts already had more than one wife.) Real Christian values do not include judgmentalism and hypocrisy. Those are the characteristics that Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees "a nest of vipers" and "whitewashed tombs" for. I am Christian but not evangelical. It really grieves me that people think that Christian equals judgmental hypocrite. Those are traits of Christianity gone off the rails and not following Jesus. Christianity is about love, not judgement. Jesus said that he did not come into the world to condemn it but to save it.

Larimar

[Kron3007]

Two things here, perhaps:

1) It is without any question that we have experienced vast cultural changes in this country, and those changes are more or less all in the direction of vastly altering the prevalence of Christianity and mainstream normativity of traditional Christian values and behavior.   It is just not reasonable to expect no blowback to these changes, even though we here recognize that blowback in the area of criticizing critiques of racism is not a good idea (nor defensible biblically, for that matter, either).

2) Like it or not, most colleges nowadays are almost parallel universe environments compared to the attitudes and experiences of conservative, mostly rural/ Bible belt evangelicals.

Is stoning a traditional Christian value?  Slavery.  Wife + concubine?

No, those are not traditional Christian values. Jesus prevented the people from stoning a woman caught in adultery. He never said anything supporting slavery and advocated treating everyone well. And Paul declared that any leader in the early church had to have only one wife. (At that time, some converts already had more than one wife.) Real Christian values do not include judgmentalism and hypocrisy. Those are the characteristics that Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees "a nest of vipers" and "whitewashed tombs" for. I am Christian but not evangelical. It really grieves me that people think that Christian equals judgmental hypocrite. Those are traits of Christianity gone off the rails and not following Jesus. Christianity is about love, not judgement. Jesus said that he did not come into the world to condemn it but to save it.

Larimar

The issue is that many do use Christianity to defend/justify their bigotry.  Many Christians may not agree with this, but they are generally not very vocal about their disagreement (with some exceptions of course).  As a result, the loud (hopefully) minority seem to speak for Christians.

It also dosn't help that the pope and catholic church have long promoted all sorts of bigotry and anti-science stances.  I realize he dosnt speak for all christians, but he has the biggest soap box.   

[Wahoo Redux]

Real Christian values do not include judgmentalism and hypocrisy. Those are the characteristics that Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees "a nest of vipers" and "whitewashed tombs" for. I am Christian but not evangelical. It really grieves me that people think that Christian equals judgmental hypocrite. Those are traits of Christianity gone off the rails and not following Jesus. Christianity is about love, not judgement. Jesus said that he did not come into the world to condemn it but to save it.

Larimar

This is generally the argument, and it is valid, of course. 

The trouble is that people DO use Christianity for all sorts of things.  Often they have support from other Christians.  So if we view this debate in purely practical terms, you are correct, but that does not stop the weirdos from thinking they are doing Christ's work by claiming allegiance to some Biblical tenet. 

[marshwiggle]

Real Christian values do not include judgmentalism and hypocrisy. Those are the characteristics that Jesus called the scribes and Pharisees "a nest of vipers" and "whitewashed tombs" for. I am Christian but not evangelical. It really grieves me that people think that Christian equals judgmental hypocrite. Those are traits of Christianity gone off the rails and not following Jesus. Christianity is about love, not judgement. Jesus said that he did not come into the world to condemn it but to save it.

Larimar

This is generally the argument, and it is valid, of course. 

The trouble is that people DO use Christianity for all sorts of things.  Often they have support from other Christians.  So if we view this debate in purely practical terms, you are correct, but that does not stop the weirdos from thinking they are doing Christ's work by claiming allegiance to some Biblical tenet.

Putin claims he is protecting ethnic Russians in Ukraine. People will use all kinds of justifications for their actions; that doesn't mean that others will think those justifications are sufficient or even rational. Some of my ancestors came from Northern Ireland. That doesn't make me agree with everything done by either "side" during The Troubles.Not remotely.