Random Thoughts Anew

[marshwiggle]

I agree with the points you are making in your last post, marshwiggle.

But why would a video training module be irrelevant to this?

I looked back through this thread to see if I was mistaken about what kind of training was being discussed, and here is the original:

Is there the slightest evidence that making people take training courses to educate them not to abuse students or staff has any effect on people's behavior?

That was my point of reference; "How Not To Be An Abuser" rather than "How To Help Someone In Crisis".

The latter might have some merit; the former is likely going to be self-righteous, condescending,  and annoying.

I thought it was fairly typical for the trainings to include guidance on how to do exactly what you're describing. Mine have always included example scenarios of what to do if a student or colleague confides in you to say they are in crisis or have been the target of assault or harassment. It's basically mental health first aid (including the importance of not trying to directly counsel the person yourself) and how-to advice on either encouraging that person to reach out to appropriate resources or how you yourself can alert the appropriate campus services of the situation.

(Edited to add) I'm also curious as to why, on a different thread, you said you thought expecting a professor to pick up a phone to pass the situation on to people trained to help someone in crisis was not reasonable, because it goes beyond what that professor would be required to do in a normal professor-student relationship (I.e. one in which the student does not have "issues" that make them "much more work").

I guess in that last case the question is how imminent the danger seems to be. If a student in the lab says they're not feeling well, and may leave the lab early, that's different than if they suddenly double over clutching their stomach. When people are adults, I expect them to make their own decisions about their own situations. (If the situation were reversed, I wouldn't expect them to decide for me unless I was somehow obviously incapacitated and in need of immediate assistance.)
So in the case of a person in some sort of crisis, for which help is available on campus, and for which the person has no immediate impediment to availing themselves of it, I'd leave it to them to act.  For me as an introvert, I'd hate to have everyone in the room focussed on some apparent crisis of mine. It would be mortifying. Being able to be as low key about it as possible would be vastly preferrable. So that's the way I tend to assume other people would feel as well, even though of course it won't be that way for everyone.

[mahagonny]

I don't see why this is a tenure/NTT/adjunct division. Most students can't tell the difference. When I adjuncted, I had a student talking about her next semester's courses who said, "I don't want to take a course with a part-time instructor next semester. They don't care about their students. I want to take a course with someone like you." Student was flabbergasted to learn that I was part-time. Students don't notice private offices vs. the large and crowded adjunct office (or, at least, not enough to see it as a distinction in rank). Every faculty and staff member should be paid to take the training, and take it, because the last thing a student in distress needs is to be blown off.

AR.

Sure, years ago a student told me his father had been beating him up. I told him I was very sorry to hear it it, he doesn't deserve that, and the university has counseling services who would like to help in confidential discussion if he chooses. I think I also told him when I was a very young kid there was a big girl in our neighborhood who would slap my face till I cried when no one was around, and so I know these things are frightening and leave scars. Now that I've had training, I'd handle it the same as I did then. It's rare, but it can happen.
The students have my sympathy. The institution, not so much. These seminars are becoming national trends largely because of things like an epidemic of deeply tenured philosophy professors who feel entitled to get in the pants of their graduate students. People who have a lot invested already and need the prof to recommend them later. I'm not cheerful about having someone insert their needs into my personal time schedule to give the appearance of taking care of problems they continue to neglect, that are not related to my 'outsider' teacher group.

As for your account of the adjunct instructor who 'doesn't care about the students' that may well be a valid impression on the part of the student, but if the institution cared about the students they would pay people to teach at a level where they should be in a position to expect healthy enough morale.

[smallcleanrat]

I agree with the points you are making in your last post, marshwiggle.

But why would a video training module be irrelevant to this?

I looked back through this thread to see if I was mistaken about what kind of training was being discussed, and here is the original:

Is there the slightest evidence that making people take training courses to educate them not to abuse students or staff has any effect on people's behavior?

That was my point of reference; "How Not To Be An Abuser" rather than "How To Help Someone In Crisis".

The latter might have some merit; the former is likely going to be self-righteous, condescending,  and annoying.

Fair enough.

I guess I thought of them as linked because, in my experience, these topics were always bundled together in the same training.

I've also had training that included subtopics like "This is NOT Abuse" with example scenarios involving behavior many people would understandably find discomfiting or even mean, but would not meet the definition of abuse that would make it a university policy matter or a legal matter. I have no idea if this has the same problem as a "Don't be abusive" message in that people who need it explained to them are the least likely to care about such a message.

[mahagonny]

When I adjuncted, I had a student talking about her next semester's courses who said, "I don't want to take a course with a part-time instructor next semester. They don't care about their students. I want to take a course with someone like you." Student was flabbergasted to learn that I was part-time. Students don't notice private offices vs. the large and crowded adjunct office (or, at least, not enough to see it as a distinction in rank).

More about this:  published articles that are ostensibly sympathetic to exploited adjuncts are usually used to fortify and expand the  tenure track by sowing doubt about adjunct faculty performance. They tend to conclude with advice for the consumer such as 'find out what percentage of the school's teaching faculty are full time and if it's too small a ratio, avoid that school.' They seldom address adjunct's needs directly, i.e. contain advice for the prospective student such as 'look at the Adjunct Project online to find out what your classroom teacher is likely being paid. If the pay is exceedingly low, look for a school that treats its faculty better.' People reading these articles may get the impression that adjunct faculty will teach poorly. These kinds of articles likely played a role in where your student got their impressions.

[ergative]

Regarding the required 'how not to be an abuser' training: I view it as akin to the statement in a syllabus about plagiarism, and the links to university guidance on what is and is not plagiarism. We don't really expect students actually to read them carefully. We just want to be able to point out that they have no excuse not to know what it is.

Likewise, if a company wants to fire an abuser for being an abuser, it's helpful if everyone has already completed the required training, so no one can claim, 'Oh, I didn't know that complimenting women on their bodies was inappropriate; I thought I was just being friendly!'

It may not change behavior, but it removes the possibility of claiming ignorance as an excuse.

[mahagonny]

Regarding the required 'how not to be an abuser' training: I view it as akin to the statement in a syllabus about plagiarism, and the links to university guidance on what is and is not plagiarism. We don't really expect students actually to read them carefully. We just want to be able to point out that they have no excuse not to know what it is.

Likewise, if a company wants to fire an abuser for being an abuser, it's helpful if everyone has already completed the required training, so no one can claim, 'Oh, I didn't know that complimenting women on their bodies was inappropriate; I thought I was just being friendly!'

It may not change behavior, but it removes the possibility of claiming ignorance as an excuse.

Amusing, perhaps: near the beginning of 2020 we were shown a video tutorial on how to use the zoom platform. As the class began the female professor complemented the first female student to arrive on how pretty she looked. Which of course, we dirty old men must never do.

[marshwiggle]

Regarding the required 'how not to be an abuser' training: I view it as akin to the statement in a syllabus about plagiarism, and the links to university guidance on what is and is not plagiarism. We don't really expect students actually to read them carefully. We just want to be able to point out that they have no excuse not to know what it is.

Likewise, if a company wants to fire an abuser for being an abuser, it's helpful if everyone has already completed the required training, so no one can claim, 'Oh, I didn't know that complimenting women on their bodies was inappropriate; I thought I was just being friendly!'

It may not change behavior, but it removes the possibility of claiming ignorance as an excuse.

Amusing, perhaps: near the beginning of 2020 we were shown a video tutorial on how to use the zoom platform. As the class began the female professor complemented the first female student to arrive on how pretty she looked. Which of course, we dirty old men must never do.

Would it be a problem if the female prof was gay?

[mahagonny]

Regarding the required 'how not to be an abuser' training: I view it as akin to the statement in a syllabus about plagiarism, and the links to university guidance on what is and is not plagiarism. We don't really expect students actually to read them carefully. We just want to be able to point out that they have no excuse not to know what it is.

Likewise, if a company wants to fire an abuser for being an abuser, it's helpful if everyone has already completed the required training, so no one can claim, 'Oh, I didn't know that complimenting women on their bodies was inappropriate; I thought I was just being friendly!'

It may not change behavior, but it removes the possibility of claiming ignorance as an excuse.

Amusing, perhaps: near the beginning of 2020 we were shown a video tutorial on how to use the zoom platform. As the class began the female professor complemented the first female student to arrive on how pretty she looked. Which of course, we dirty old men must never do.

Would it be a problem if the female prof was gay?

Coming soon to a college near you.

[AvidReader]

As for your account of the adjunct instructor who 'doesn't care about the students' that may well be a valid impression on the part of the student, but if the institution cared about the students they would pay people to teach at a level where they should be in a position to expect healthy enough morale.

More about this:  published articles that are ostensibly sympathetic to exploited adjuncts are usually used to fortify and expand the  tenure track by sowing doubt about adjunct faculty performance. They tend to conclude with advice for the consumer such as 'find out what percentage of the school's teaching faculty are full time and if it's too small a ratio, avoid that school.' They seldom address adjunct's needs directly, i.e. contain advice for the prospective student such as 'look at the Adjunct Project online to find out what your classroom teacher is likely being paid. If the pay is exceedingly low, look for a school that treats its faculty better.' People reading these articles may get the impression that adjunct faculty will teach poorly. These kinds of articles likely played a role in where your student got their impressions.

I agree that the articles and impressions they leave behind can be unhelpful, and I'm not trying to get into a debate on the treatment of (or attitudes towards) adjuncts, since we have whole threads on that. (This student was in the first semester of college, so I don't think that comment came from personal observation.) The point I was trying to make is that students are generally oblivious about the status of their instructors, so it is equally likely that a student in crisis would approach an adjunct as a tenured full prof, thus anyone whose main job is to instruct students and hold office hours should have at least rudimentary training in handling these sorts of student crises. It sounds as if you handled yours just fine. Having adjuncted at quite a few institutions by now, I usually find that the most useful part of the training is learning how to recommend the student to the larger support network, which varies (and has a different silly name) at every institution.

AR.

[smallcleanrat]

The infuriating thing about the woke busybodies is that they think they invented basic human decency. What people have been taught for decades, at least, as normal civil behaviour is presented by the wokerati as some sort of revelation.

(How many peoples' parents taught them not to make fun of people, and not to treat people differently because of things like their appearance?  Yes, just because that is the ideal doesn't mean people have always or will ever completely live up to it, but that doesn't change the fact that the standard is well understood.)

Separate from the topic of whether a video training course will cause enough positive behavioral change to be "worth it," I'm not sure about the assertion that the *standard* for decent behavior is well understood. People have different ideas regarding 1) what constitutes decent behavior and 2) who deserves to receive it (e.g. I know people who say it's mean to make fun of someone based on their looks, but have exceptions to their own rule regarding overweight women or short men).

And it is not always true that because someone already values being decent and not harming people it means they have nothing to learn. Assuming "decency" includes avoiding unnecessary harm to others, a decent person who becomes aware of a harm done inadvertently would be motivated to learn from it to avoid harming someone that way again.

I'm not arguing that you should accept anyone else's criteria for what constitutes harm whether it makes sense to you or not. I'm saying it's possible for someone to realize they have been acting against their *own* values and concept of decency simply because they lack understanding of other people's experiences and perspectives.

[marshwiggle]

The infuriating thing about the woke busybodies is that they think they invented basic human decency. What people have been taught for decades, at least, as normal civil behaviour is presented by the wokerati as some sort of revelation.

(How many peoples' parents taught them not to make fun of people, and not to treat people differently because of things like their appearance?  Yes, just because that is the ideal doesn't mean people have always or will ever completely live up to it, but that doesn't change the fact that the standard is well understood.)

Separate from the topic of whether a video training course will cause enough positive behavioral change to be "worth it," I'm not sure about the assertion that the *standard* for decent behavior is well understood. People have different ideas regarding 1) what constitutes decent behavior and 2) who deserves to receive it (e.g. I know people who say it's mean to make fun of someone based on their looks, but have exceptions to their own rule regarding overweight women or short men).

And it is not always true that because someone already values being decent and not harming people it means they have nothing to learn. Assuming "decency" includes avoiding unnecessary harm to others, a decent person who becomes aware of a harm done inadvertently would be motivated to learn from it to avoid harming someone that way again.

I'm not arguing that you should accept anyone else's criteria for what constitutes harm whether it makes sense to you or not. I'm saying it's possible for someone to realize they have been acting against their *own* values and concept of decency simply because they lack understanding of other people's experiences and perspectives.

All of this suggests that what is needed are fairly simple rules for the institution. Like plagiarism, one can spend all kinds of time talking about how it's bad to try and take credit for someone else's work, etc., but what really matters to students is that it can get you expelled.

Similarly, because people may vary on what behaviour is OK or not, it will be a lot quicker and probably less annoying to simply say "Here are the rules: ....."

For people who don't want to talk about feelings, even rules they think may be extreme will likely be followed if not doing so will get them fired. Whereas "sensitivity training" just makes people get distracted thinking about how hypersensitive others are.  External compliance is what is needed;
whether or not everyone agrees in the depths of their souls.

[smallcleanrat]

The infuriating thing about the woke busybodies is that they think they invented basic human decency. What people have been taught for decades, at least, as normal civil behaviour is presented by the wokerati as some sort of revelation.

(How many peoples' parents taught them not to make fun of people, and not to treat people differently because of things like their appearance?  Yes, just because that is the ideal doesn't mean people have always or will ever completely live up to it, but that doesn't change the fact that the standard is well understood.)

Separate from the topic of whether a video training course will cause enough positive behavioral change to be "worth it," I'm not sure about the assertion that the *standard* for decent behavior is well understood. People have different ideas regarding 1) what constitutes decent behavior and 2) who deserves to receive it (e.g. I know people who say it's mean to make fun of someone based on their looks, but have exceptions to their own rule regarding overweight women or short men).

And it is not always true that because someone already values being decent and not harming people it means they have nothing to learn. Assuming "decency" includes avoiding unnecessary harm to others, a decent person who becomes aware of a harm done inadvertently would be motivated to learn from it to avoid harming someone that way again.

I'm not arguing that you should accept anyone else's criteria for what constitutes harm whether it makes sense to you or not. I'm saying it's possible for someone to realize they have been acting against their *own* values and concept of decency simply because they lack understanding of other people's experiences and perspectives.

All of this suggests that what is needed are fairly simple rules for the institution. Like plagiarism, one can spend all kinds of time talking about how it's bad to try and take credit for someone else's work, etc., but what really matters to students is that it can get you expelled.

Similarly, because people may vary on what behaviour is OK or not, it will be a lot quicker and probably less annoying to simply say "Here are the rules: ....."

For people who don't want to talk about feelings, even rules they think may be extreme will likely be followed if not doing so will get them fired. Whereas "sensitivity training" just makes people get distracted thinking about how hypersensitive others are.  External compliance is what is needed;
whether or not everyone agrees in the depths of their souls.

Maybe I've just had different trainings. "Here are the rules: ....." is essentially what it's been for me. It does include explanations for why those rules are in place, and sure you can't force people to care about them.

Anyway, I specifically said I was making a point *separate* from the question of whether such trainings have any utility. I was speaking to your more general statement about why the trainings were useless: the people who already know how to be decent (reference to parents implying this is just the basic stuff everyone gets growing up) don't need to be told.

Well, that's not always true.

My point was some people do care about not hurting others, and being willing to learn something about the other people you interact with can help to serve that purpose.

[mahagonny]

As for your account of the adjunct instructor who 'doesn't care about the students' that may well be a valid impression on the part of the student, but if the institution cared about the students they would pay people to teach at a level where they should be in a position to expect healthy enough morale.

More about this:  published articles that are ostensibly sympathetic to exploited adjuncts are usually used to fortify and expand the  tenure track by sowing doubt about adjunct faculty performance. They tend to conclude with advice for the consumer such as 'find out what percentage of the school's teaching faculty are full time and if it's too small a ratio, avoid that school.' They seldom address adjunct's needs directly, i.e. contain advice for the prospective student such as 'look at the Adjunct Project online to find out what your classroom teacher is likely being paid. If the pay is exceedingly low, look for a school that treats its faculty better.' People reading these articles may get the impression that adjunct faculty will teach poorly. These kinds of articles likely played a role in where your student got their impressions.

I agree that the articles and impressions they leave behind can be unhelpful, and I'm not trying to get into a debate on the treatment of (or attitudes towards) adjuncts, since we have whole threads on that. (This student was in the first semester of college, so I don't think that comment came from personal observation.) The point I was trying to make is that students are generally oblivious about the status of their instructors, so it is equally likely that a student in crisis would approach an adjunct as a tenured full prof, thus anyone whose main job is to instruct students and hold office hours should have at least rudimentary training in handling these sorts of student crises. It sounds as if you handled yours just fine. Having adjuncted at quite a few institutions by now, I usually find that the most useful part of the training is learning how to recommend the student to the larger support network, which varies (and has a different silly name) at every institution.

AR.

Absolutely. If we took away all of the work, including moral support, provided by adjunct faculty, higher ed would be in serious trouble within a week. Most of it.
I'm in favor of helping students, but if they move to require additional training without a stipend, I'll take it to the union. Especially when we've got such wealthy full profs and retirees and filthy rich (no other words for it) upper admins. Our full time faculty, with the exception of two friends of mine and one retiree, have been totally AWOL in resisting horrible stinginess the administration inflicts on us. No excuse not to pay.
I'm glad to learn and help where I can within reason, as far as time available. Where I'm less on board is the recent hysteria over the need to put the 'anti-racism' brigade in charge. But certainly bullying and harassment have been serious problems.
Just for comparison, my other school, which has no tenure track, provides regular seminars that we get paid for attending. How much good they do I can't say, but there's no harm in giving it a try as long as all participants get due consideration. Some of these presentations are Ibram X. Kendi fans and assorted lunatics, so I generally skip those. Unfortunately they're also taking over the union, which in my opinion has a serious duty that should keep them plenty busy, advocating for the worker.

[downer]

Faculty should get paid to get trained to learn how avoid abusing students?

Let's see how that goes over with whoever pays for the training.

[mahagonny]

Faculty should get paid to get trained to learn how avoid abusing students?

Let's see how that goes over with whoever pays for the training.

Right, that's how they would get out of paying. By insinuating that you might be an abuser, rather than a counselor who is being helpful to victims of abuse, which would be an extra service to the college, beyond educating people in your field, warranting another stipend. And that's why I hate those stories about so-and-so who got away with it for years because some combination of (a) he was bringing in a lot of grant or other money or publicity, or (b) it was considered too much trouble and expense to get rid of him.
Generally, we and the students have been paying for the training, because of the misdeeds of a few special folks.

Why is it that counseling and diversity staff get full time pay and benefits without teaching, yet we should teach and also do a piece of their job, without salary or benefits.

If it's only telling the student there's help available or calling security if someone's acting weird I guess it's no big deal for us.

on edit:  I think contemporary liberal hysteria is a  contributor too. You know, the folks who are so well above average in their sensitivity to the myriad ways we are offensive/violating to each other in public, that they are compelled to educate the rest of us brutes. How a few short months ago Joe Biden was a woman molester and a racist, and now that you need him he's savior of the free world.