jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (09/09/86)
I can't believe all the fuss about this posting here! > The AIA is worth sponsering. It may appear to single out > liberal/leftist teachers, but this is not because of their > political leaning, rather, it is because they are the major > source of disinformation on campus. At least on my campus. Allow me to clear up a few mistakes and ambiguities, OK? > The AIA is worth sponsoring. It may appear to single out > liberal/leftist teachers, but this is not because of the AIA's > political leaning, rather, it is because the AIA is the major > source of disinformation on campus. At least on my campus. There. Is that better? Jeff Winslow PS to the Real Rich Rosen - your article made it here. Before anything it referred to did!
good@pixar (You can't have everything. Where would you put it?) (09/10/86)
In article <652@midas.UUCP> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: >In article <2066@sdcsvax.UUCP> cs195@sdcsvax.UUCP (EECS 195) writes: > >> The AIA is worth sponsering [sic]. It may appear to single out >> liberal/leftist teachers, but this is not because of their [sic] >> political leaning, rather, it is because they [sic] are the major >> source of disinformation on campus. At least on my campus. > >This is a joke, right? Of course not. 1) They are likely to be the major source of disinformation on most campuses because they are in the majority on most campuses. 2) The original poster probably learned spelling from a pinko. -- --Craig ...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good
alan@mn-at1.UUCP (Alan Klietz) (09/11/86)
In article <652@midas.UUCP>, jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: > In article <2066@sdcsvax.UUCP> cs195@sdcsvax.UUCP (EECS 195) writes: > > > The AIA is worth sponsoring. It may appear to single out > > liberal/leftist teachers, but this is not because of their > > political leaning, rather, it is because they are the major > > source of disinformation on campus. At least on my campus. > > This is a joke, right? > > [Jeff Winslow] I took a survey course in European History. The first quarter covered the end of the Middle Ages through the Renaissance. My TA gave our section the following class assignments, o Discuss the relationship between European serfdom and modern rural land practices in Guatemala and Honduras. o Identify some of the immediate and underlying causes of the rise of the Bourgeoisie in the 13th-16th centuries and their effects on the working class. o Compare the role of the Church in the lives of individuals in the 13th-16th centuries with the role of the state in a Marxist society. These were the only assignments given by the TA during the quarter. Approximately 30% of class time was spent discussing the events in Nicaragua. We did not cover Da Vinci, the Hapsburgs, New World Explo- ration, Rise of Spain, the Protestant Reformation, or anything else.
ilacqua@bucsb.bu.edu.UUCP (;-) (09/11/86)
In article <1061@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> > The AIA is worth sponsering. It may appear to single out >> > liberal/leftist teachers, but this is not because of their >> > political leaning, rather, it is because they are the major >> > source of disinformation on campus. At least on my campus. >> > - Roger Bly Jr. >> >> This person should not be allowed to breed! > >Your ideas on eugenics have been tried before -- fortunately the >Allies won the war. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) Good lord! Do you mean I have to fill sarcastic mesages with smilies for people who can figure it out for themselves. ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) There, understand now? -- +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | I never make mistakes. I thought I did once, but I was wrong. | |UUCP: ...!harvard!bu-cs!bucsb!ilacqua | |ARPANET: ilacqua@bucsb.bu.edu | |CSNET: ilacqua%bucsb@bu-cs BITNET: engemnc@bostonu | +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
henry@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Henry Mensch) (09/12/86)
You only tell part of the story here. What did *you* do about this injustice? Did you complain to department chairpeople or curricula committees? There *are* places to take care of these problems before outfits like Accuracy in Academia. By the way, I'm still waiting for the material that I requested from them. When I get it, you'll see a summary here in net.college. Follow-ups will go there, too. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Henry Mensch | Technical Writer | MIT/Project Athena henry@athena.mit.edu ..!mit-eddie!mit-athena!henry
WDMCU@CUNYVM.BITNET (09/15/86)
In article <171@mn-at1.UUCP>, alan@mn-at1.UUCP (Alan Klietz) says:
>
>I took a survey course in European History. The first quarter
>covered the end of the Middle Ages through the Renaissance.
>
>My TA gave our section the following class assignments,
>
> o Discuss the relationship between European serfdom and
> modern rural land practices in Guatemala and Honduras.
>
> o Identify some of the immediate and underlying causes of
> the rise of the Bourgeoisie in the 13th-16th centuries
> and their effects on the working class.
>
> o Compare the role of the Church in the lives of individuals
> in the 13th-16th centuries with the role of the state in
> a Marxist society.
>
>These were the only assignments given by the TA during the quarter.
These sound like very well thought out assignments. They give the students
a chance to do extensive research, to think about and compare medieval and
modern society, to consider what changes have occurred over the years and
in what ways societies have remained the same or similar.
>Approximately 30% of class time was spent discussing the events in
>Nicaragua.
That still gives us 70% of the time unaccounted for...what was discussed then?
>We did not cover Da Vinci, the Hapsburgs, New World Explo-
>ration, Rise of Spain, the Protestant Reformation, or anything else.
First: This was a survey course: not everything gets covered.
Second: What happened to independent study and intellectual curiosity.
Three: The assignments mentioned above would, if done properly, give one
a broad understanding of both the era in question AND a chance to see how
different historical eras connect; how history effects us today , etc.
Draw your own conclusions as to who was the more dogmatic: you or your TA.
/*--------------------------------------------------------------------*/
/* Bill Michtom - work: (212) 903-3685 */
/* */
/* WDMCU@CUNYVM (Bitnet) Timelessness is transient */
/* BILL@BITNIC (Bitnet) */
/* */
/* A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking. */
/*--------------------------------------------------------------------*/
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (09/15/86)
In article <171@mn-at1.UUCP> alan@mn-at1.UUCP (Alan Klietz) writes: >In article <652@midas.UUCP>, jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: >> In article <2066@sdcsvax.UUCP> cs195@sdcsvax.UUCP (EECS 195) writes: >> >> > The AIA is worth sponsoring. It may appear to single out >> > liberal/leftist teachers, but this is not because of their >> > political leaning, rather, it is because they are the major >> > source of disinformation on campus. At least on my campus. >> >> This is a joke, right? > >I took a survey course in European History. The first quarter >covered the end of the Middle Ages through the Renaissance. > >My TA gave our section the following class assignments, > > o Discuss the relationship between European serfdom and > modern rural land practices in Guatemala and Honduras. > > o Identify some of the immediate and underlying causes of > the rise of the Bourgeoisie in the 13th-16th centuries > and their effects on the working class. > > o Compare the role of the Church in the lives of individuals > in the 13th-16th centuries with the role of the state in > a Marxist society. > >These were the only assignments given by the TA during the quarter. >Approximately 30% of class time was spent discussing the events in >Nicaragua. We did not cover Da Vinci, the Hapsburgs, New World Explo- >ration, Rise of Spain, the Protestant Reformation, or anything else. So? I don't see any inaccuracy or disinformation there. Or are you now going to complain about teachers who don't present the subject matter you expect as well? Sounds to me like the TA, having encountered any number of classes of bored students, merely tried to liven things up by relating events in that period to events in this. And, given the capacity of the net to generate high volume tangential discussions like this one, it doesn't surprise me in the least that 30% of class time ("class" being what the TA taught, which was half or less than the total with the lecture, right?) was spent discussing as controversial a modern issue as Nicaragua. I'm sure now that it was a joke. Jeff Winslow
hh1@mruxe.UUCP (H Hottmann) (09/15/86)
>In article <652@midas.UUCP>, jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: >I took a survey course in European History. The first quarter >covered the end of the Middle Ages through the Renaissance. >[he goes on to state that his TA's assignments were >leftward-leaning in nature and focussed more on current events >in Central America than on European history during the Middle >Ages...] OK, so you didn't get out of the class what you bargained for, at least not from your TA. What about the prof? Was his treatment of the subject any more focussed on the subject at hand (European History)? Whatever your answers to these questions, did you ever consider going to the prof to complain about your TA (I'll admit this would not work as well if the prof were teaching the course much as you described your TA doing.)? And what good would Accuracy in Academia do in this instance? I'm sure the History department has its own internal procedures for dealing with TA problems (of course you may feel the entire department is infected with leftward-leaning syndrome :-). In all of your story, aside from pointing out that you weren't taught what you had expected to be taught, you didn't say you were taught opinions in the guise of knowledge. Rooting out such teaching is (or so I gather from the many postings on the subject) the job AIA has taken upon itself to do. So WHAT GIVES!?!? hagen (as in -Dazs) mruxe!hh1
hh1@mruxe.UUCP (H Hottmann) (09/16/86)
Sorry about that, Jeff Winslow. I had mistakenly attributed the European History class story to you when it was Alan Klietz's story. hagen (as in -Dazs)
rjn@duke.UUCP (R. James Nusbaum) (09/17/86)
In article <171@mn-at1.UUCP> alan@mn-at1.UUCP (Alan Klietz) writes: >In article <652@midas.UUCP>, jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: >> In article <2066@sdcsvax.UUCP> cs195@sdcsvax.UUCP (EECS 195) writes: >> >> > The AIA is worth sponsoring. It may appear to single out >> > liberal/leftist teachers, but this is not because of their >> > political leaning, rather, it is because they are the major >> > source of disinformation on campus. At least on my campus. >> >> This is a joke, right? >> >> [Jeff Winslow] > >I took a survey course in European History. The first quarter >covered the end of the Middle Ages through the Renaissance. > >My TA gave our section the following class assignments, > > o Discuss the relationship between European serfdom and > modern rural land practices in Guatemala and Honduras. > > o Identify some of the immediate and underlying causes of > the rise of the Bourgeoisie in the 13th-16th centuries > and their effects on the working class. > > o Compare the role of the Church in the lives of individuals > in the 13th-16th centuries with the role of the state in > a Marxist society. > >These were the only assignments given by the TA during the quarter. >Approximately 30% of class time was spent discussing the events in >Nicaragua. We did not cover Da Vinci, the Hapsburgs, New World Explo- >ration, Rise of Spain, the Protestant Reformation, or anything else. This appears to be in support of AIA, although it is not explicitly stated. This however provides an excellent example to show how this kind of situation should be handled. Mr. Bly would have you report the professor of the class to AIA. AIA would then print his name up in their list as a 'bad' professor. The correct way to handle this (and if you didn't try and correct the problem, then you have no business complaining) would be to: 1. First talk to the TA. Express your concern about material that does not match the course description. 2. If (1) fails, talk to the professor. There is a chance that he has no idea what the TA is doing. 3. If the professor is aware of the material being discussed and does nothing about it, then talk to the department head. Express your concerns in an adult, constructive manner. 4. If all else fails talk to the administration. Ask them to let you drop the class and give you a tuition refund. Please note that I believe that the issues that were discussed in your class were important and certainly should be discussed in some class, perhaps one entitled 'Perspective on Politics in Central America'. It appears that there was a problem in your class, maybe with a TA who was letting his politics get in the way of his job, but that is no reason to involve agencies which use blacklisting and humiliation tactics. Jim Nusbaum -- R. James Nusbaum, Duke University Computer Science Department, Durham NC 27706-2591. Phone (919)684-5110. CSNET: rjn@duke UUCP: {ihnp4!decvax}!duke!rjn ARPA: rjn%duke@csnet-relay
mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (09/19/86)
In article <668@midas.UUCP> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: >>These were the only assignments given by the TA during the quarter. >>Approximately 30% of class time was spent discussing the events in >>Nicaragua. We did not cover Da Vinci, the Hapsburgs, New World Explo- >>ration, Rise of Spain, the Protestant Reformation, or anything else. >So? I don't see any inaccuracy or disinformation there. Or are you now >going to complain about teachers who don't present the subject matter you >expect as well? Excellent point! It is indeed a sick idea that a course catalog should represent the content of a college course. There is no reason at all that the person paying for the class should be told the contents of the course. Such an outlandish idea would require the bizarre assumption that the student is a responsible rational being who knows what he would like to study. Clearly, this is silly and noone would even try to defend such a ludicrus proposition! In an ideal world they wouldn't even bother printing course descriptions - instead an advisor (with only the best interests of the student at heart) could select all of the student's classes. Of course, in our imperfect world we still have to have course descriptions and the student has a limited choice about what to take... Fortunately, there are some teachers willing to forego the arbitrary, constraining course description and are willing to spend the class time preaching on unrelated material. I feel I really get to know a teacher better by him lecturing me on his beliefs about the economy, radiation, defense strategy, foreign policy, etc. There are even some teachers willing to go the extra mile and let their own opinions on these unrelated topics influence the classwork and the grades of the students. This appears to be what happened to Alan. To make it even more enjoyable, many of the most opinionated professors are also not tainted with any expertise in the derivative subjects they preach at their students. Thus they are able to give a fresh personal perspective on the material to the students Sadly, not everyone teaching today has such high standards. Many times I have taken classes from people who teach the material as defined in the course catalog. All you get from these types is a balanced look at the entire subject material. Often during the entire length of such classes, I never once heard the professor's personal opinions on the environmental effects of nuclear weapons, the biological effects of ionizing radiation or even the professor's personal political beliefs. Instead these second-class profs only deal with the subject material and provided a fair in-depth look at the material as described by the catalog description of the course. There you are paying 20 - 40 dollars per class hour and you don't get the opportunity to hear any of the professor's personal biases or intutitions on any and all endeavors of the human race. Kind of makes it all seem like a waste of time... >Sounds to me like the TA, having encountered any number of >classes of bored students, merely tried to liven things up by relating events >in that period to events in this. Absolutely. Marxist predictions about the collapse of capitalism etc, have been found to be so incredibly accurate that Marxist class analysis is truely the only methodology useable for the study of history. Any historian will tell you that no one has ever discovered any other tools in the last few centurys. In a general, introductory course Marxist class analysis is, of course, the only tool that should be used. >...it doesn't >surprise me in the least that 30% of class time ("class" being what the >TA taught, which was half or less than the total with the lecture, right?) >was spent discussing as controversial a modern issue as Nicaragua. Absolutely true. Certainly a class about history 700 years ago involving only the culture on the European continent should spend at least 1/3 of the time discussing a small South American communist regime of the twentieth century. -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs
jew@usl.UUCP (James E. Wilson) (09/21/86)
In article <171@mn-at1.UUCP> alan@mn-at1.UUCP (Alan Klietz) writes: >In article <652@midas.UUCP>, jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: >> In article <2066@sdcsvax.UUCP> cs195@sdcsvax.UUCP (EECS 195) writes: >> >> > The AIA is worth sponsoring. It may appear to single out >> > liberal/leftist teachers, but this is not because of their >> > political leaning, rather, it is because they are the major >> > source of disinformation on campus. At least on my campus. >> >> This is a joke, right? >> >I took a survey course in European History. The first quarter >covered the end of the Middle Ages through the Renaissance. > >My TA gave our section the following class assignments, > > o Discuss the relationship between European serfdom and > modern rural land practices in Guatemala and Honduras. > > o Identify some of the immediate and underlying causes of > the rise of the Bourgeoisie in the 13th-16th centuries > and their effects on the working class. > > o Compare the role of the Church in the lives of individuals > in the 13th-16th centuries with the role of the state in > a Marxist society. > >These were the only assignments given by the TA during the quarter. >Approximately 30% of class time was spent discussing the events in >Nicaragua. We did not cover Da Vinci, the Hapsburgs, New World Explo- >ration, Rise of Spain, the Protestant Reformation, or anything else. And what did the department chairman say about this when you confronted him with it? Politically-oriented instructors sometimes do abuse their classroom responsibilities in order to propagandize. It is not a joke. But what the AIA (and some others) forget is that there exist normal channels for dealing with classroom incompetence, when utilized. (And, by and large, TA's are sitting ducks.) I believe, at most schools, the existing channels are sufficient. Jim Wilson US Mail: USL P.O. Box 45147, Lafayette, LA 70504; tel. (318)231-6423 UUCP: {ut-sally, akgua}!usl!jew ARPA: usl!jew@ut-sally
chelsea@dartvax.UUCP (Karen Christenson) (09/22/86)
>>We did not cover Da Vinci, the Hapsburgs, New World Explo- >>ration, Rise of Spain, the Protestant Reformation, or anything else. > >First: This was a survey course: not everything gets covered. >Second: What happened to independent study and intellectual curiosity. >Three: The assignments mentioned above would, if done properly, give one >a broad understanding of both the era in question AND a chance to see how >different historical eras connect; how history effects us today , etc. > >Draw your own conclusions as to who was the more dogmatic: you or your TA. >/* Bill Michtom - work: (212) 903-3685 */ >/* WDMCU@CUNYVM (Bitnet) Timelessness is transient */ >/* BILL@BITNIC (Bitnet) */ I agree that it is a good idea to try to relate the past and the present. However - The Protestant Reformation is on my list of the top ten most significant events of history. The Exploration of the New World is in around the top fifty or so, and the Rise of Spain is not real far after that (without the Rise of Spain, you see, the Exploration would have been real different). DaVinci is a personal favorite, but I suppose you could get by without talking about him. The Hapsburgs were a major influence in the shaping of Europe, but you can mention the kings without discussing the clan. Any course on early modern Europe that doesn't cover the Protestant Reformation has got one huge, gaping hole. This is not just dogma, this is a matter of strong historical influence. For instance, without knowing about the Protestant Reformation, you can't really understand the settlement of New England and many of the ideas that we have inherited from the first settlers, like the concept of the "City on the Hill." Karen Christenson "Mostly harmless." ...!dartvax!chelsea Have an adequate day.
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (09/22/86)
In article <525@meccts.UUCP> mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) writes: >In article <668@midas.UUCP> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: > >>>These were the only assignments given by the TA during the quarter. >>>Approximately 30% of class time was spent discussing the events in >>>Nicaragua. We did not cover Da Vinci, the Hapsburgs, New World Explo- >>>ration, Rise of Spain, the Protestant Reformation, or anything else. > >>So? I don't see any inaccuracy or disinformation there. Or are you now >>going to complain about teachers who don't present the subject matter you >>expect as well? > >Excellent point! It is indeed a sick idea that a course catalog should >represent the content of a college course. [and a lot more blathering] Excellent point! I guess it's time to call in that champion watchdog group, "Accuracy in Course Catalogs". :-) I'm glad to see you understand there was no problem with "disinformation" in the class itself. >>Sounds to me like the TA, having encountered any number of >>classes of bored students, merely tried to liven things up by relating events >>in that period to events in this. > >Absolutely. Marxist predictions about the collapse of capitalism etc, >have been found to be so incredibly accurate that Marxist class >analysis is truely the only methodology useable for the study of history. And of course, a TA who suggests that the role of the state in modern Marxist countries may be compared to the Church in the Middle Ages must necessarily be expounding a Marxist line!????!???? In fact, there was nothing in the discussion subjects that indicated the TA favored Marxist analysis - perhaps your verbose overreaction indicates a certain phobia in that direction? Or did you perhaps fail to comprehend the original article? Must have been all that Marxist disinformation you recieved in English classes, I guess. having a good time, Jeff Winslow
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (09/24/86)
In article <668@midas.UUCP> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: >In article <171@mn-at1.UUCP> alan@mn-at1.UUCP (Alan Klietz) writes: >>In article <652@midas.UUCP>, jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: >>> In article <2066@sdcsvax.UUCP> cs195@sdcsvax.UUCP (EECS 195) writes: >>> >>> > The AIA is worth sponsoring. It may appear to single out >>> > liberal/leftist teachers, but this is not because of their >>> > political leaning, rather, it is because they are the major >>> > source of disinformation on campus. At least on my campus. >>> >>> This is a joke, right? >> >>I took a survey course in European History. The first quarter >>covered the end of the Middle Ages through the Renaissance. >> >>My TA gave our section the following class assignments, >> >> o Discuss the relationship between European serfdom and >> modern rural land practices in Guatemala and Honduras. >> >> o Identify some of the immediate and underlying causes of >> the rise of the Bourgeoisie in the 13th-16th centuries >> and their effects on the working class. >> >> o Compare the role of the Church in the lives of individuals >> in the 13th-16th centuries with the role of the state in >> a Marxist society. >> >>These were the only assignments given by the TA during the quarter. >>Approximately 30% of class time was spent discussing the events in >>Nicaragua. We did not cover Da Vinci, the Hapsburgs, New World Explo- >>ration, Rise of Spain, the Protestant Reformation, or anything else. > >So? I don't see any inaccuracy or disinformation there. Or are you now >going to complain about teachers who don't present the subject matter you >expect as well? Sounds to me like the TA, having encountered any number of >classes of bored students, merely tried to liven things up by relating events >in that period to events in this. And, given the capacity of the net to >generate high volume tangential discussions like this one, it doesn't >surprise me in the least that 30% of class time ("class" being what the >TA taught, which was half or less than the total with the lecture, right?) >was spent discussing as controversial a modern issue as Nicaragua. Sounds to me like the TA was tired of bored students who never really bothered to think about the material, but rather preferred to cram for exams with Monarch notes. Hence the request for the material found in the Monarch notes. Sort of like High School. And why is it "disinformation" to ask students to think for themselves, to invite them to go to whatever sources they like and make whatever case they choose on the given topics? They could come to the conclusion that the Marxist state is even more repressive than the Catholic Church, or that modern land practices in Guatemala and Hondouras are very unlike the European serfdom. >I'm sure now that it was a joke. > Jeff Winslow
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (09/24/86)
In article <5168@dartvax.UUCP> chelsea@dartvax.UUCP (Karen Christenson) writes: > >>>We did not cover Da Vinci, the Hapsburgs, New World Explo- >>>ration, Rise of Spain, the Protestant Reformation, or anything else. >> >>First: This was a survey course: not everything gets covered. >>Second: What happened to independent study and intellectual curiosity. >>Three: The assignments mentioned above would, if done properly, give one >>a broad understanding of both the era in question AND a chance to see how >>different historical eras connect; how history effects us today , etc. >> > I agree that it is a good idea to try to relate the past and the >present. However - > The Protestant Reformation is on my list of the top ten most significant >events of history. The Exploration of the New World is in around the top >fifty or so, and the Rise of Spain is not real far after that (without the >Rise of Spain, you see, the Exploration would have been real different). >DaVinci is a personal favorite, but I suppose you could get by without >talking about him. The Hapsburgs were a major influence in the shaping of >Europe, but you can mention the kings without discussing the clan. If these topics were in the readings assigned by the professor in charge, then these topics WERE covered. It's NOT the TA's job to recap, spoonfeed, reorganize or encapsulate the BASIC material for the student. THAT'S the student's job. It's the TA's job to get the students to think about the material in a way that the student might not have done on his or her own, generate discussion, bring in additional materials, and challenge the students in a way that is qualitatively very different than merely becoming acquainted with a body of knowlege. Unless, of course, it's an engineering or science course in which the TA is primarily there to collect homework and grade it, issue quizzes, help some students understand material that they find difficult, and give better students a deeper understanding of the material. A good student will be offended by a TA or prof that merely does his studying for him, or goes over the reading. A good student will not be offended if the TA tries to relate modern european history to current events to the exclusion of rehashing the readings for the bad students' benefit. It's pretty easy for a department chairman or faculty member in charge to spot a bad student by what he or she expects from the TA. Complaints are most welcome, and most amusing. > Any course on early modern Europe that doesn't cover the Protestant >Reformation has got one huge, gaping hole. This is not just dogma, this is >a matter of strong historical influence. For instance, without knowing about >the Protestant Reformation, you can't really understand the settlement of New >England and many of the ideas that we have inherited from the first settlers, >like the concept of the "City on the Hill." > Karen Christenson >"Mostly harmless." ...!dartvax!chelsea > Have an adequate day. And you can get most of THAT out of your average HIGH SCHOOL TEXTBOOK on modern european history. You can even get it in a more concise and clear form out of the great works of Mr. Monarch and Mr Barron, who are regularly plagiarized by much worse authors. It's mostly harmless, although a little knowlege is a dangerous thing. Have an adequate education. Cheryl Stewart
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (09/25/86)
Michael Stein can always be counted on for a vitriolic response: > > Sadly, not everyone teaching today has such high standards. Many > times I have taken classes from people who teach the material > as defined in the course catalog. All you get from these types is > a balanced look at the entire subject material. Often during the > entire length of such classes, I never once heard the professor's > personal opinions on the environmental effects of nuclear weapons, > the biological effects of ionizing radiation or even the professor's > personal political beliefs. Instead these second-class profs only > deal with the subject material and provided a fair in-depth look at > the material as described by the catalog description of the course. > There you are paying 20 - 40 dollars per class hour and you don't > get the opportunity to hear any of the professor's personal biases > or intutitions on any and all endeavors of the human race. Kind of > makes it all seem like a waste of time... There is not a single subject area which does not involve assumptions, presumptions, speculations and a nexus of intertwined concepts which may all turn out to be wrong. This has proven to be true repeatedly even in the supposedly "objective" study of the physical sciences. These very definitions of the field are of critical importance because they rule out certain questions from even being asked. They are an intrinsic *bias* towards a presentation of *any* subject. Thus, for the premier example, we can take the Copernican Revolution which has been ably described as a prime example of a "paradigm shift" by Thomas Kuhn in his book, "The Copernican Revolution". By changing just *one* key assumption of astronomy and physics: namely that the Earth was the center of the Universe, and did not move but rather all other heavenly bodies moved about the Earth, Copernicus ended up destroying the whole of not just Ptolemaic astronomy but also the Aristotelian worldview of physics. If the Earth moved around the Sun as a heavenly body itself then there was no longer the rigid separation between the "ephemeral and changing" substances of the Earth and the "fixed and immutable" substances of the heavens,closer to God. Was Galileo "unbalanced" to boldly defend Copernican theory against the Ptolemaic and Aristotelian views of the Universe? The Catholic Church obviously thought so, as they put Galileo on trial for challenging "Catholic doctrines". And the Catholic Church, in some sense was right. As it later turned out, Copernicanism *did* lead to challenging the whole of the medieval Aristotelian universe with its separation of the earthly and heavenly spheres. Moreover as Robert Merton pointed out in his excellent monograph on science in the 18th century, there was a definite connection between the people pursuing the new fields of inquiry opened up by the scientific revolution and Protestantism, which of course was a severe challenge to the Catholic Church. Of course it just so happened that Copernicus was right, and repressing Galileo was also repressing the truth. If this is true in the physical sciences, how much more so is it true in the hazy social sciences! Mr. Stein complains that certain areas presumed to be covered by a course were not. But it is precisely determining the very quesions to be asked which come to be most important in determining a whole paradigm and approach to studying a subject. Shall we censor all those who ask questions which challenge our own views? Shall we try the Galileos for changing the fundamental questions even asked in a field? Or shall we try to understand what they say and examine and debate its worth? tim sevener whuxn!orb
ekwok@mipos3.UUCP (Edward C. Kwok) (09/25/86)
In article <1094@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) writes: > >If these topics were in the readings assigned by the professor in >charge, then these topics WERE covered. It's NOT the TA's job >to recap, spoonfeed, reorganize or encapsulate the BASIC material >for the student. THAT'S the student's job. It's the TA's job to >get the students to think about the material in a way that the >student might not have done on his or her own, generate discussion, >bring in additional materials, and challenge the students in a >way that is qualitatively very different than merely becoming >acquainted with a body of knowlege. Unless, of course, it's an What you said is true. BUT, if I remember right, the original complaint was about the TA discussing social-economic-political environment of the wrong hemisphere of the wrong time period. I think that is stretching it a little too far. >will not feel offended if the TA relates >history to current events to the exclusion of rehashing the readings for the >bad students' benefit. > The TA, I think universally, have a primary duty to help the student FIRST understand the primary material before going in secondary material and pontification. >And you can get most of THAT out of your average HIGH SCHOOL TEXTBOOK >on modern european history. You can even get it in a more concise and >clear form out of the great works of Mr. Monarch and Mr Barron, who > Many high school textbooks fall short of the standard of academic accuracy (honesty?) in treatment of historical events. (Maybe just oversimplification). College class, albeit introductory or survey, should cover it in more depth. It will be a pity to pay $$$$ if you can get it for free, but that's beside the point; which is, the treatment in college should be of a higher standard of scholarship. >Cheryl Stewart Edward Kwok -- _____________ DISCLAIMER: I do hereby declare that I possess neither the expertise, qualification nor authority to practise law, medicine, surgery, dentistry, accounting, veterinary medicine, or any such profession normally requiring extensive training and licensing. When I speak on matters or express opinions normally reserved for such persons in the course of the practice of their profession, I do not speak with competence. No person, born and unborn, should rely and act upon opinions expressed above. He/She do so at his/her own risk. I do speak with dubious authority on matters of Electrical Engineering, late T'ang dynasty poetic forms, a cat's right to self-determination, and Computer Science.
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (09/26/86)
>We did not cover Da Vinci, the Hapsburgs, New World Explo- >ration, Rise of Spain, the Protestant Reformation, or anything else. Maybe I'm dense but what does this discussion "Re: Accuracy in Academia" have to do with AIA? The stated purpose of AIA is to correct errors of fact promulgated by professors and to publically identify the offending professors. So far, no one has claimed that any mis- or disinformation was taught in the course on early modern European history. Even if the professor and TA spent 100% of class time discussing Nicaragua, that does not imply that they taught any errors of fact. Let's distinguish between fact and opinion. "Karl Marx discovered America in 1492" is a factual error. "Marxist class analysis is the best theoretical framework for understanding modern European history" is a matter of opinion. This distinction is somewhat fuzzy. Is it fact, or extremely well-founded opinion, that humans are descended from ape-like ancestors? That's a philosophical question. But in any case most professors will explain their own opinions on the subject matter, explain the basis for their opinions, and explain the alternative points of view. That's good teaching. I have never heard of a course anywhere in which the instructor taught what he knew to be false. This underlines the essential bogosity and viciousness of AIA. The AIA people *say* they are merely correcting errors of fact. But what they *intend* is the intimidation of professors who express opinions with which they strongly disagree. If a professor teaches or publishes anything questionable, he or she will be challenged by his colleagues and graduate students, and fast -- that is the nature of academic life. There is no need whatsoever for an outside organization to monitor the views expressed by professors. But, in a democratic society, there is a *great* need for professors to be able to express their views in class or in public without feeling intimidated either by public opinion or by government pressure. Accuracy in Academia would not be out of place in Nazi Germany, and brings to mind the Hitler Youth. See the issue of *The Nation* dated about Sept. 15 for an interesting article about Accuracy in Media, Reed Irvine's equally paranoid and loony organization, whose real purpose is also intimidation in order to discourage the expression of views with which they strongly disagree. Richard Carnes
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) (09/29/86)
> And why is it "disinformation" to ask students to think for themselves, > to invite them to go to whatever sources they like and make whatever > case they choose on the given topics? They could come to the conclusion > that the Marxist state is even more repressive than the Catholic Church, > or that modern land practices in Guatemala and Hondouras are very unlike > the European serfdom. > It isn't disinformation to ask students to think for themselves, but are you sure that this TA would consider that the conclusions listed are defensible (i.e., correct in his/her own mind?). I have sort of a similar story. At MIT, I took German from a teacher who was a Marxist (not "accused of being a Marxist", but that is his public opinion). One of the reading assignments we had was parts of Das Kapital (or possibly the Manifesto, I am no longer quite sure) -- despite the fact that the German in it was rather broken, due to Marx writing it right after living in London for several years, speaking English (this, again, is not my own opinion, but was stated by the teacher before the assignment was given). He felt it was important enough as a piece of German writing rather than for the pedagogical value (despite the fact that this was nominally a course in learning to read, write, and speak German fluently). Fortunately, he was openminded about hearing criticism of the quality of the writing, and did NOT ask us to write (in German, of course :-) long defenses (or criticisms) of the content. He was disappointed, but fortunately not angry, when I opined that I liked Freud's writing (which was also assigned) VASTLY more than Marx (the two assignments were contiguous). Freud's writing, whether or not one agrees with his conclusions, was (in my opinion) BEAUTIFULLY, WONDERFULLY lucid and clear. He was an excellent writer! The point? I'm not sure I have one. I suppose it is, some instructors do push their political viewpoints into their course material, to the detriment of the course, but not all of these force their students to agree with their viewpoints. Nevertheless, when they do this, there is a DISTINCT but subtle pressure to adopt the viewpoint that might improve your grade by making the instructor more sympathetic. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA "Don't give me this intelligent life crap, just find me a planet I can blow up."
chelsea@dartvax.UUCP (Karen Christenson) (09/30/86)
>> Any course on early modern Europe that doesn't cover the Protestant >>Reformation has got one huge, gaping hole. This is not just dogma, this is >>a matter of strong historical influence. For instance, without knowing >>about the Protestant Reformation, you can't really understand the settlement >>of New England and many of the ideas that we have inherited from the first >>settlers, like the concept of the "City on the Hill." >> Karen Christenson > >And you can get most of THAT out of your average HIGH SCHOOL TEXTBOOK >on modern european history. You can even get it in a more concise and >clear form out of the great works of Mr. Monarch and Mr Barron, who >are regularly plagiarized by much worse authors. It's mostly harmless, >although a little knowlege is a dangerous thing. Have an adequate education. > >Cheryl Stewart History out of Monarch, Barron, and high school texts? Adequate knowledge of previous events, but not much history. If you think of history as a set of particulars, then it's fine. If you're interested in the princi- ples, the interrelations, the minds and attitudes of the times, then it sucks. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that high school history is enough? That doesn't mesh with the rest of the posting. Me, I have no real interest in anything after the Civil War. My own fascination is with the period starting with the Renaissance - watching all these new ideas come to light, get kicked around, carried off to a new world, kicked around some more, and sent back to Europe. Watching the US take shape and fight to get the rest of the world to accept it at its own valuation. So I can't like the idea of history as merely a chronicle of events and dates and names. Besides, it's so much more boring that way. No wonder so many high school kids hate history. Karen Christenson "Mostly harmless." ...!dartvax!chelsea Have an adequate day.
thakur@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Manavendra K. Thakur) (09/30/86)
In article <1057@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) writes: > > I have sort of a similar story. At MIT, I took German from a teacher who was > a Marxist (not "accused of being a Marxist", but that is his public opinion). > One of the reading assignments we had was parts of Das Kapital (or possibly > the Manifesto, I am no longer quite sure) -- despite the fact that the German > in it was rather broken, due to Marx writing it right after living in London > for several years, speaking English (this, again, is not my own opinion, but > was stated by the teacher before the assignment was given). He felt it was > important enough as a piece of German writing rather than for the pedagogical > value (despite the fact that this was nominally a course in learning to read, > write, and speak German fluently). Fortunately, he was openminded about > hearing criticism of the quality of the writing, and did NOT ask us to write > (in German, of course :-) long defenses (or criticisms) of the content. <comments deleted> > The point? I'm not sure I have one. I suppose it is, some instructors do > push their political viewpoints into their course material, to the detriment > of the course, but not all of these force their students to agree with their > viewpoints. Nevertheless, when they do this, there is a DISTINCT but subtle > pressure to adopt the viewpoint that might improve your grade by making the > instructor more sympathetic. > -- > John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 > ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA You don't have a point. Any course in a foreign language will teach from renowned books in that language. When I took Latin in high school, we read from Caesar and other famous people of Rome. A lot of it was about the military tactics and exploits of Caesar. Does that mean that the teacher was trying to get me to write pro-military papers? I certainly don't think so (even though the teacher was a bit authoritarian). We had interesting discussions in class, and at the end of the year, he asked us as to which texts we liked the best and which the least. Your German professor may have been an avowed Marxist. He may have even "pressured" you to write in favor of Marxism. There are three observations that should be made here: 1) Your professor has a right to be a Marxist. He also has the authority to choose the texts and materials used in his course. So the fact that he chose one of Marx's books does not constitute a violation or abuse of that authority. 2) And even if he did choose Marx's books with an ulterior motive, he certainly didn't penalize you for not writing pro-Marxist papers. How many people in your class do you actually think wrote such papers to get a better grade? Again, he has not abused his position. 3) Finally, let's assume that your professor *did* indeed give better grades to students that wrote pro-Marxist papers. You have several administrative procedures for appeal available to you (especially at MIT). If you seriously believe that your grade suffered, you can appeal. And if you can prove your accusation (the professor is innocent until shown guilty), relief will be granted. Groups like AIA are NOT needed to deal with these problems. That last sentence of mine exlains why I am so critical of AIA. They are simply out to quash any introduction of Marxist or "subversive" ideas. That is not protecting academic freedom, no matter how you look at it. You can be sure that AIA does not try to worry about English classes taught to foreign students that may use texts proclaiming the values of capitalism. They simply try to harass and intimidate professors whose ideas disagree with what AIA thinks is "acceptable." As I said in my last posting, I will not be impressed with AIA until they start looking into right-wing professors that try to make conservative Reaganites out of their students. AIA as an organization is dangerous to the protection of academic freedom. The gains made in academic freedom over the last 25 years must be defended from organizations such as AIA. I hope that those who think AIA is ineffective and unworthy of concern will rethink that position. That AIA has been as unsuccessful that it has been is a sign of healthy watchfulness on the part of the academic community. But the community cannot let its guard down! If we do, the problem may grow until it becomes unmanageable. That is why so much fuss has been (and should continue to be) made over AIA. {allegra,decvax!genrad,seismo}!mit-eddie!thakur thakur@eddie.mit.edu thakur@athena.mit.edu
cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (10/02/86)
Being a CS major I did not take too many classes in which political slants of the instructors had a chance to surface. However, I can clearly recall an introductory economics class where the instructor was trying to peddle some unorthodox ideas. He remarked that an unusually high percentage (%25) of medical doctors in the USSR were Jews, which attested, in his view, to the high success and influence of Jews in the Soviet society. The man had several fish to fry, I guess. Being closely familiar with the issue I scoffed at the conclusion, but other people in the class might have accepted this as plain truth... AIA-like organization can be instrumental in curtailing such looney outpours, although I don't know AIA well enough to voice my support for its activities. Mike Cherepov (BTW, even given that his figures were correct, medical doctors aren't at all a privileged lot in the Soviet society - the avg. salary of an MD is lower then that of a worker, and at least 70% of MDs are women. As for the influence of the Jews....)
alin@sunybcs.UUCP (Alin Sangeap) (10/03/86)
The idea is good, but the organization is bad. I don't like the biases of this organization period Instead how about an organization under the nationwide student organization (whatever its name is), dedicated to giving STUDENTS a say in college courses. Everybody else seems to have influence. Of course every college administrator and professor would be against any meddling in their affairs. Of course students should be the last group on earth that has any right to decide what they are taught. But a nationwide student organization should look out for its members. Alin Sangeap alin@gort.UUCP? "and what else is new"
awinterb@udenva.UUCP (Mr. Poot) (10/05/86)
>was trying to peddle some unorthodox ideas. He remarked that an unusually >high percentage (%25) of medical doctors in the USSR were Jews, which attested, >in his view, to the high success and influence of Jews in the Soviet >society. The man had several fish to fry, I guess. >AIA-like organization can be instrumental in curtailing such looney >outpours, although I don't know AIA well enough to voice my support for >its activities. > > Mike Cherepov >(BTW, even given that his figures were correct, medical doctors aren't at.... In the academic community, we would check to see if his figures were verifiable. Then, if the figures were correct, we could examine his conclusions. The distance between data and conclusion is measured. This is a scientific method. You are a computer scientist. Did you employ the scientific method? Art. W.
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (10/05/86)
In article <5211@dartvax.UUCP> chelsea@dartvax.UUCP (Karen Christenson) writes: > >>> Any course on early modern Europe that doesn't cover the Protestant >>>Reformation has got one huge, gaping hole. This is not just dogma, this is >>>a matter of strong historical influence. For instance, without knowing >>>about the Protestant Reformation, you can't really understand the settlement >>>of New England and many of the ideas that we have inherited from the first >>>settlers, like the concept of the "City on the Hill." >>> Karen Christenson >> >>And you can get most of THAT out of your average HIGH SCHOOL TEXTBOOK >>on modern european history. You can even get it in a more concise and >>clear form out of the great works of Mr. Monarch and Mr Barron, who >>are regularly plagiarized by much worse authors. It's mostly harmless, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>although a little knowlege is a dangerous thing. Have an adequate education. >> >>Cheryl Stewart > > History out of Monarch, Barron, and high school texts? Adequate >knowledge of previous events, but not much history. If you think of history >as a set of particulars, then it's fine. If you're interested in the princi- >ples, the interrelations, the minds and attitudes of the times, then it >sucks. I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that high >school history is enough? No, I'm suggesting that the understanding of hisory you seem to advocate in your original posting is at about high school level. > Me, I have no real interest in anything after the Civil War. My own >fascination is with the period starting with the Renaissance - watching >all these new ideas come to light, get kicked around, carried off to a new >world, kicked around some more, and sent back to Europe. Watching the >US take shape and fight to get the rest of the world to accept it at its >own valuation. So I can't like the idea of history as merely a chronicle >of events and dates and names. Besides, it's so much more boring that way. >No wonder so many high school kids hate history. > Karen Christenson >"Mostly harmless." ...!dartvax!chelsea > Have an adequate day. Oh, you think it was IDEAS that shaped the American Revolution and the drafting of the constitution. *RENAISSANCE* IDEAS at that! This is an interesting theory of yours, Karen. Please do compare and contrast your theory with those of DeToqueville and Schlesinger for the rest of the class, Karen. That's what *we* covered in High School. Cheryl
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (10/06/86)
There is an amusing story I once heard about John Reed that seems to somehow fit into this discussion. John Reed was an American journalist and social reformer who went to Russia around 1917 to fight for the Revolution. He is the character played by Warren Beatty in his movie "Reds". John Reed is the only American who is buried in the Kremlin (and, I believe, the only American ever awarded some very high honor or another from the USSR.) The story is that while John Reed was at Harvard he was taking a course which covered Marxism. Apparently the professor spent the first semester arguing the side of Marxism. Reed, according to memoirs of his classmates, became enamored with the professor's arguments and Marxism in general. He left Harvard and proceeded on the path which led him to Lenin's side. Apparently, the professor then (as always) spent the second term arguing against Marxism, supposedly as convincingly as he had argued the first term for Marxism (which was the professor's actual intent, to first present Marxism's arguments as convincingly and fairly as possible, and then criticize them.) Of course, Reed never stayed for the second half of the course. I fear that today's John Reeds might make a similar mistake and have such a professor thrown off campus before the second semester. Of course, instead of just one student losing, the entire community would lose. Even if it's not the same professor who makes the counter-arguments to what you don't believe in, but have had to study, be careful about silencing or refusing to listen to those whom you believe you do not agree with. Things may not be what they appear to be. Many professor's are wiser than you give them credit for. -Barry Shein, Boston University
cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (10/06/86)
> The distance between data and > conclusion is measured. This > is a scientific method. You > are a computer scientist. Did > you employ the scientific method? It is unclear to me what your point is. I presume you do not believe that I have the reason to dismiss "high percentage of Jews in USSR are doctors => Jews are influential in the USSR" as garbage. I explained that being a doctor in the USSR does not means neither much infuence nor much money. I also said that the conclusion contradicts some commonly known facts (I can e-mail you a list). To me, this constitutes a sound proof. This is as scientific an approach to analyzing qualitative judgements on social matters as I have ever seen. Mike Cherepov (move it out of soc.college to talk.rumors?)
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (10/08/86)
>> The distance between data and >> conclusion is measured. This >> is a scientific method. You >> are a computer scientist. Did >> you employ the scientific method? >It is unclear to me what your point is. I presume you do not believe >that I have the reason to dismiss "high percentage of Jews in USSR are >doctors => Jews are influential in the USSR" as garbage. The point is (whatever the original poster's intention was) that such things are arguable. How you refute it, false or not, is subtle. Would you prefer professors stand in front of a room and, with a glazed and zomboid look, repeat "ONE PLUS ONE EQUALS TWO" over and over again? You don't seem to dispute that a high percentage of doctors in the USSR are of Jewish background*, just that this implies influence. It seems to me that a medical doctor in any reasonably technological society will have some sort of influence with someone (surely they hold some influence over their patient's health for example, more reasonably I would be surprised if they have no social influence over some they come in contact with, other doctors, nurses, patients etc, how can one be a doctor and not be granted any influence? even if just over medical decisions?) So, go refute the conclusion if you disagree, find a methodology for measuring and defining "influence" in the USSR as a function of occupation or whatever. But to discredit the person who made the claim (as AIA seems to wish to do) seems a cowardly way to accomplish this. -Barry Shein, Boston University * I haven't the vaguest idea whether or not "a high percentage of doctors in the USSR are Jewish" is true or not, I'm not even sure what "a high percentage" means (>50% ? >the percentage of Jews in the general population? >than in other countries? ??)
pataky@umcp-cs.UUCP (Bill Pataky) (10/10/86)
In article <3089@pixar>, good@pixar (You can't have everything. Where would you put it?) writes: > In article <652@midas.UUCP> jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) writes: > >In article <2066@sdcsvax.UUCP> cs195@sdcsvax.UUCP (EECS 195) writes: > > > >> The AIA is worth sponsering [sic]. It may appear to single out > >> liberal/leftist teachers, but this is not because of their [sic] > >> political leaning, rather, it is because they [sic] are the major > >> source of disinformation on campus. At least on my campus. > > > >This is a joke, right? > > Of course not. 1) They are likely to be the major source of disinformation > on most campuses because they are in the majority on most campuses. Well, if you follow that logic and apply it to American voters, then people who voted for Reagan are "likely to be the major source of disinformation" in most states "because they are in the majority" in 49 states. Very interesting. I wonder if Reagan realizes this. Maybe you should explain it to him, Craig. With insight like that, you could have Meese's job. > 2) The original poster probably learned spelling from a pinko. I'm not touching this one. Bill Pataky Laboratory for Parallel Computation Computer Science Department University of Maryland ARPA: pataky@maryland.umd.edu UUCP: {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!pataky CSnet: pataky@umcp-cs
mob@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Mario O. Bourgoin) (10/15/86)
Oh! I just *love* people who want to protect me from other's ideas! --Mario O. Bourgoin
mob@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Mario O. Bourgoin) (10/15/86)
In article <763@ihlpf.UUCP>, cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) writes: > I also said that the conclusion contradicts some commonly > known facts (I can e-mail you a list). To me, this constitutes a sound proof. Do! Please mail me your commonly known facts. And please! Include your sources so I can find more interesting tid-bits. I would like to make my own comparison. After all! Isn't this what the AIA would _really_ like me to do? --Mario O. Bourgoin