intellectual diversity

[identity-X]

I call for a much needed movement on campuses across the United States. for far too long professors have been indoctrinating their students with viewpoints that are far too narrow and ideological, thus limiting their understanding of the world

I propose:

Professors teaching courses on religion spend the same amount of time addressing evolution as they do on creationism and intelligent design

Economics students be required to have a firm grounding in Marxist economic theories

Psychologists, geneticists, biologists and the like give equal consideration to the role of the social world in shaping thought, interaction, and human development.

Sociologists teach more about the role of psychology, genetics, and biology in the shaping of thought, interaction and human development.

The creation of men's studies and white studies departments to provide a counter to women's studies and black studies departments.

The creation of war studies or conflict studies departments to provide a counter to peace studies departments.









add on...

[x - calli]

mens studies????

ill bring the cigars

[UnbrokeN]

I concur.

[NisLaniF]

Make mine a Romeo y Julieta Churchill. If I can, I'll sneak in some cubans. For the record, I partially agree. I don't think these people are likely going to be qualified to teach both sides of the road. Can you imagine if Ghet were to get his PhD that he'd be able to accurately teach both sides of the political agenda? How about Teq?

I think these things all need to be part of the curriculum, but not part of the same professors syllabi...

[Riz]

Originally Posted by identity-X

Psychologists, geneticists, biologists and the like give equal consideration to the role of the social world in shaping thought, interaction, and human development.

I do. I can only speak for the course in my university/country, but in the first year I did Sociology of Health & Illness 1 and 2. In the next year I'll be doing Social Psychology. Even the biological modules that I studied last year stressed the importance that society and environment plays in not only symptoms but also in the definitions of mental health.

But I generally agree with you. No theory one can come close to accounting for all the variables that will inevitably be involved... so it's best to learn about as many different variables as possible.

[identity-X]

Originally Posted by NisLaniF

I think these things all need to be part of the curriculum, but not part of the same professors syllabi...

that's just it...

people who claim universities have such a huge liberal slant have never stepped foot into an Economics or Business class at the University of Missouri.

The Business School building is frightening. You walk into to this HUGE (and relatively new...thanks in part to contributions from Ken Lay) building and before even stepping into the classroom will see no more than 5 HUGE screen projectors tuned to CNBC and other channels with the Stock Market ticker going across the bottom.

the balance is there in terms of the curriculum.

but goddamnit...don't come into my sociology class and expect me to teach anything but sociology. if you want to talk about how genes or hormones affect behavior (and they, of course, do) then take a biology or psychology class. if you're in my Deviance class and claim that drug abuse and infidelity are deviant because God says so, I'm taking off points.

yet I have students come to my office every semester claiming that they're struggling because they "don't agree" that social structure influences behavior, that behavior is entirely psychological and individualistic, and that I shouldn't dock them points for pointing this out (while failing to provide any sort of sociological analysis mind you...). i don't care if you don't agree...you're still going to have to learn the concepts and attempt to apply them if you want a passing grade.

[iLL Rich]

u call for this?

u mean, on rm, not in the real world

[Ghet for Prez]

Professors teaching courses on religion spend the same amount of time addressing evolution as they do on creationism and intelligent design

Economics students be required to have a firm grounding in Marxist economic theories

Psychologists, geneticists, biologists and the like give equal consideration to the role of the social world in shaping thought, interaction, and human development.

Sociologists teach more about the role of psychology, genetics, and biology in the shaping of thought, interaction and human development.

The creation of men's studies and white studies departments to provide a counter to women's studies and black studies departments.

The creation of war studies or conflict studies departments to provide a counter to peace studies departments.

Professors teaching courses on religion spend the same amount of time teaching realist theology, hubris, and the historical power struggle involved.

Economics students be required to be taught Marxist economic theories for the sole reason of disproving them.

The powerful alliance between psychologists, geneticists, biologists and modern governments/ideologies is exposed from a modern historical standpoint up to the current age, forcing us to be wary about what they have to offer us. The same way our Constitution forces us to be wary about government.

Sociology is removed as a major.

The promotion of a race-independant and class-independant interpretation of materialsit information history.

[iLL Rich]

Originally Posted by Ghet for Prez

Sociology is removed as a major.

excellent

also

philosophy is removed as a major

[identity-X]

I'm ALL FOR intellectual diversity where needed, but these whackos (David Horowitz is the first to come to mind) who are demanding professors teach topics outside of their expertise (or even their field) in the name of "intellectual diversity" are so misguided and driven by politics that it's sickening.

[identity-X]

(for some reason I couldn't post the above sentence with the rest of the below sentences. wtf?)

He wrote an article about a number of professors on campus (from English, Peace Studies, Black Studies, Sociology [my dept) exposing their "one-sidedness" by using quotes from the professors' lectures and syllabi (which also means that there are students in our classes that are feeding this information to Horowitz...THAT's some scary shit).

He went on a rant about how sociologists should not teach about the ways gender is socially constructed because of the mounds of evidence showing that men and women are different biologically..

...um...DUH. But teaching about such differences is NOT teaching sociology. Save that for biology or psychology or genetics courses. Teaching about how social structure influences our behavior and mediates biological differences between all of us IS teaching sociology.

Horowitz & Co want anything BUT "intellectual diversity"

[identity-X]

In sum...

Originally Posted by Ghet for Prez

fuck intellectual diversity

at least ya'll are honest about it

[identity-X]

Originally Posted by identity-X

(He wrote an article about a number of professors on campus (from English, Peace Studies, Black Studies, Sociology [my dept) exposing their "one-sidedness" by using quotes from the professors' lectures and syllabi (which also means that there are students in our classes that are feeding this information to Horowitz...THAT's some scary shit).

found it...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=27299



that fuck is clueless...

[Ghet for Prez]

You mad about Alan Sokal?

[McGirth]

This is stupid. you propose that teachers teach "the other side" as if there are only 2 sides and the world is black and white.

What's important is that students be creative/rational thinkers not people who can recite two different opposing arguments.

Your practice of rewarding sycophants and punishing those who challenge you is sickening and runs against helping critical thinkers improve themselves. However, I think its typical of a university lecturer as opposed to a prof. Profs generally don't feel insucure like lecturer's and realize that challenges to what they say may not be 100% perfect and they may not agree 100%, yet are none the less good things.

its idiotic that you would grade students who disagree with your opinions lower then those who happen to copy what you say. Yey, this isn't the first time you post up somethign that is ethically questionable though concernin your students. So i'm not reallly suprised.

also, you do realize that the clever students just repeat back to you what you want to hear, get their A, and go on to do precisely the opposite of what you teach never beleving a word you say. I.E. your not convincing anyone of anything by rewarding sycophants, your merely cushening the blow to your ego of the possiblity that maybe what you've studied is a waste of time.

[identity-X]

hey Girth...the entire thread is sarcastic. I, mostly, disagree with the proposals in the first post and agree with you almost 100%.


except for the "waste of time" part.