Articles
Most recent posting below. See other articles in the column to the right.
2 comments - Last on 11/04/2009
Intellectual Diversity or Nonsense?
October 28, 2009 By Ashley Thorne
Two professors at Pennsylvania State University at Abington have published an intriguing article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription required). They tell about a class they team-teach, "Religion in American Life and Thought," from two fairly divergent perspectives:
We could not be more different. Mel Seesholtz has a reputation for criticizing the dogma-based sociopolitical agenda of organized religion; Bryan Polk is the chaplain at Abington College. Mel is a James Joyce scholar; Bryan prefers to study Neolithic stone circles in England. Although we both teach English classes, Mel focuses on literature and courses on science, technology, and society; Bryan teaches religious studies and mythology. Mel is a laid-back facilitator of classroom discussions; Bryan is a more formal lecturer. Mel is a vegetarian (heading toward vegan); Bryan is a gourmet cook who enjoys virtually every kind of meat.
The professors describe how their teaching method - of listening to and learning from one another's views - captivates students' attention:
For instance, during a class discussion of the debate over the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, Mel suggested that the phrase turned the pledge into a public prayer. Bryan then opined that, for him, the problem was not with the word "God" but with the word "under," because it privileges faith systems that believe in a masculine, sky, warrior deity. The students immediately picked up the "aha" expression on Mel's face, and his "I never thought of it that way" restarted the dialogue with a different focus.
They boast, "Our classroom has become an arena for the free exchange of ideas in which everyone's opinion is welcomed and respected." A free exchange of ideas sounds wonderfully refreshing...but what about the second half of the sentence - "everyone's opinion is welcomed and respected"? Should everyone's opinion be welcomed and respected? Is that what intellectual diversity means? Hearing different arguments and making no judgments on the merits of any? Or should we, after hearing various sides of the issue, weigh each one's accuracy?
One commenter on the article brought up the problem: "But how the word 'under' can be construed to 'privilege[] faith systems that believe in a masculine, sky, warrior deity' is beyond me. In fact, it's nonsense."
Another commenter rebuked the first one:
What we need are fewer people declaring that the viewpoints of others are "nonsense" and more people learning to disagree in a way that promotes constructive discourse. How about saying that you can't understand this idea or how it could be supported? By admitting that as soon as you read something you disagreed with (i.e., found "nonsensical") you stopped reading, you've demonstrated your unwillingness to "engage in a civil debate."
Still another supported the "nonsense" theory: "I'm certain that calling anything 'nonsense' offends the delicate sensibilities of many in our profession, but a fair amount of what passes for discourse today is nonsensical, narcissistic rambling, unsupported by anything except strong feeling and emotion."
So readers, what do you think? Does the method employed by the two professors in the article stimulate debate or simply proliferate relativism? How should scholars present and evaluate diverging viewpoints? What does it really mean to listen to and learn from different perspectives?
RSS Feed 
del.icio.us 
Digg this 
Share on Facebook
The approach you're describing, Ashley, sets up a fake claim to intellectual diversity because the two professors offer variants of the same viewpoint, which is posited as "diversity". There is certainly intellectual diversity, but it is not to be found in universities. Why pretend?
Moreover, I would suggest that debating whether to have "under God" in the pledge of allegiance is something more appropriately done on "Oprah!," "Rush Limbaugh", or "Charlie Rose."
I wonder how many of the students in that class have studied a foreign language or calculus? No wonder American business has fled the country. All the employees want to do is argue about opinions more appropriately discussed on "Dr. Phil."
When I was in college, I was interested to learn about Greek philosophy and studied both German and classical Greek. I went on to become a business professor but that education stayed with me. I doubt very much a debate about the pledge of allegiance would have contributed to my intellectual development. American education has reached a new nadir.
by Mitchell Langert Posted on 10/29/2009
Just because we respect another's opinion doesn't mean it should be given the same weight as another. If I believe that the law of gravity doesn't apply to me then you should still respect me and what I want to believe, then though I am woefully ignorant of a basic law of physics. However, this doesn't mean that I am correct in my opinion. On the contrary, I am completely false and should be respected enough to be told so. All opinions are not the same. Truth should be pursued at all costs, even if someone's feelings get hurt or they feel inferior because of it. To correct someone is error is the ultimate sign of respect. It shows that you care enough to say so, instead of ignoring and continuing on in apathy.
by Home School College Counselor Posted on 11/04/2009