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
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (09/19/86)
Actually, this whole AIA issue brings up what I consider a more serious, more general issue. There seems to be, more and more, a "consumer" attitude by college students towards college. Now I suppose one could argue that college costs a lot of bucks, both in expenses and lost salary (hopefully all more than made up for in the long run), I suppose one could sue their church for not having been saved after lots of donations...But what do I say to a student who comes in to speak about a (well earned) 'F' and uses as an argument that s/he has been "ripped off" if s/he doesn't get course credit for their money? I know, we say "that was your fault, not mine", but if you think reason and logic is useful in such a situation then, well, obviously you don't deal with such situations. Worse, when they figure out they have to pay for the course again to get credit they accuse the professor of being in cahoots with the administration to steal their money (and worse.) [no dear, if we could be rid of you and your money entirely we would be very happy...] Ok, that's an extreme example (but it has happened to me), I have noticed a trend towards a similar method of evaluating courses, such as judging them only on what they would be worth dollar for dollar in landing a job later (this often comes up in an advising conversation when trying to convince a student they should take a theory course.) It's kind of sad. The merchandising of America marches on...too bad they don't realize THEY are becoming the merchandise. -Barry Shein, Boston University
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
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
thakur@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Manavendra K. Thakur) (09/27/86)
I have been following this debate for some time with greate interest. I'd like to speak up and put in my two cents worth. In article <530@meccts.UUCP> mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) writes: > > Actually I haven't been very impressed with the nature of this whole > debate. On one hand, I see the proponents of AIA who claim it will > stop "DISINFORMATION". Yet I haven't seen any messages really defining > academic disinformation. Nor have I read anything on the methodology > to use to make sure you don't squelch academic freedom. Nor have I seen > any messages showing that there are any situations which can't be solved > internally. > > On the other hand, there are the critics of AIA who seem to view > AIA is a group of Nazi thugs who want to eliminate all academic freedom > in the US. The contention seems to be that the power of the AIA is > so strong that harassment is perfectly acceptable. (Even to the > point of using dial-up modems to harass their toll free number.) > > None of the critics have bothered explaining why AIA is that powerful, > or what exactly AIA has done that they are so incensed about. I > seriously doubt that even the strongest AIA critics on here > would use such tactics against 99% of the thousands of organizations > in this country that they are disagree with. > Just a moment; the very point that no real charges of disinformation have surfaced and that no problems have been found that cannot be addressed internally point to some deeper and perturbing reasons for the existence of Accuracy in Academia. First, I'd like to point out that I've known about AIA since July 1985 when The Washington Post published an article on them. A bit of history and context will give ample reason why everyone should be concerned about the effects of AIA. First, AIA is an offshoot or spinoff of (or in any event closely based on) Accuracy in Media, an organization founded by Reed Irvine (or something like that) that publishes from time to time a newsletter about the alleged abuses and mistakes made by the media. Another similar group is Fairness in Media, a right-wing group in North Carolina that "monitors" the local press for abuses. They have ties to Jesse Helms, if I remember correctly. But back to Accuracy in Media: their examples of editorial misconduct have consistently been explained as editing errors or typos or what have you. The few instances where they found legitimate errors, the newspapers published corrections or retractions. The basic point is that this organization exists to remove the "liberal bias" that they find so prevalent in the news media. The news media works very hard to maintain its integrity and fairness (except for the gutter press like "The New York Post"). In 1980 and 1984, just about as many papers endorsed Reagan as endorsed Carter or Mondale. Without getting into AIM too much, the point I'm trying to make is that this organization has NOT done anything that the news media does not already do and has done for a long time. The similarities to AIA I think are fairly obvious. The answer to Mike's point as to why we should be concerned about AIA is that again, the group does not do anything that cannot already be addressed by existing procedures, be they internal or external to the university or college. For what reason, therefore, does the group exist? It is very instructive to note that both AIM and AIA want to eliminate their perceived "liberal bias." AIA can only do that by stifling intellectual debate and freedom on the campus. They are not a public interest group, no matter how they describe themselves. They are a political, partisan, conservative group that tries very hard to maintain an aura of respectability. I ask again: for what reason does this group exist? They serve no useful purpose other than harassing and intimidating professors and administrators. The experience of the political science professor at Arizona State University is instructive. He was accused of making all sorts of comments and statements "inappropriate" to the classroom. Apparently, he had a running feud with a conservative student newspaper on that campus, and that touched off the report by AIA. The professor denied making any inapprpriate statements, but asserted that it was fully his right to express his opinions in his classroom. Where did AIA play a useful role other than publicizing and thereby pressuring the professor to clam up? (Although in this case they arguably failed.) That AIA is very powerful is not a serious propostion. But the very fact that in this day and age people are trying to do this sort of things is enough to raise eyebrows. Do any of you remember the days professors had to take loyalty oaths and otherwise display their patriotism? I don't, but many professors and older people do. This is not to say that AIA wants to impose loyalty oaths. But the point is that the political climate that allows AIA to be successful also easily allows for the reestablishment of the loyalty oaths and other such noxious practices. That is why those worried about academic freedom are worried about AIA: if they become successful and powerful, the political fabric may be weakened to the point that it can no longer resist a return to procedures of the 1950s. You think I jest? Then pick up a copy of Guenter Lewy's "The Federal Loyalty-Security Program," which was written in 1983. That's 1983! The recommendations in that book, if implemented, would roll back almost all the civil liberties gained over the last four or five decades. That is the mentality or climate from which academics must guard themselves. The success of AIA could potentially lead to a return to old and discredited policies. We must work to make sure that these policies remain discredited and old. The fact that AIA undertakes to report such "abuses" pose a grave threat to academic freedom and intellectual integrity. They pose a threat because they wish to suppress and stifle information and debate over viewpoints they disagree with. Anytime a group wishes to impose its views on others, or prevent alternative viewpoints to be addressed, a very serious threat is posed. The controversey over AIA has moved the professors and administrators look at what steps they have taken to protect academic freedom at their capmus. I spoke to a former provost here at MIT, and he said that he very seriously doubted that AIA would or could have much effect here (at MIT). He did say that he was worried that they could be most hurtful in state colleges and universities that are government run or funded, because they are most susceptible to political pressures from outside the campus. > The key point seems to be that no one has bothered to find out (or > at least explain to others) anything about the organization to which > they have aligned themselves with or against. This is what I think > is a little strange. > I hope the above comments put to rest your notion that no one has bothered to find out about AIA. > In the hopes of helping both sides I went out and got a > copy of the July 1986 issue of the AIA newsletter called > "Campus Report" <a long list followed, that has been deleted for space> I think it's very noteworthy that in all of the alleged incidents, the group AIA was endorsing and concentrating on the conservative viewpoints of the various disputes. That alone is enough evidence that they are just another advocacy group trying to limit viewpoints contrary to their own. The ACLU, to the other hand, is [in the incident at the Texas university that Mike mentions] helping a *conservative* newspaper regain distribution rights on the UT campus. I wont be impressed by AIA until they take up the cause of a liberal newspaper being censored or censured. The fundamental values of a university require open discourse, passionate but reasoned debate, and intellectual vigor. AIA pays lip service to these, but in reality wants to exploit them to suit their own political agenda. That is why they pose a serious threat to academic freedom, and that is why we should be concerned about them. > So folks, love it, hate it or ignore it, but knee-jerk reactions are > no longer allowed. > -- > Michael V. Stein > Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services > > UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs I did my best. I too dislike knee-jerk reactions. Please feel free to flame at me by e-mail or here if you wish. {allegra,decvax!genrad,seismo}!mit-eddie!thakur thakur@eddie.mit.edu thakur@athena.mit.edu
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (09/28/86)
I don't understand. Will somebody please explain what this group does? What special powers do they have? All I have been able to piece together from the net is that they denounce professors whose leanings they don't like and try to catch them out making errors. Isn't the right to denounce people whose political views you don't like one of the most fundamental parts of a free society? I am not sure what the fuss is. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
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."
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (09/29/86)
>In article <530@meccts.UUCP> mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) writes: >> >> Actually I haven't been very impressed with the nature of this whole >> debate. On one hand, I see the proponents of AIA who claim it will >> stop "DISINFORMATION". Yet I haven't seen any messages really defining >> academic disinformation. Let me give you some examples: To claim that Nicaragua is a South American Dictatorship is DISINFORMATION. To claim that the Sandinistas are Communists is DISINFORMATION. To claim that the Minnesota National Guard's C-140's are flying "desks and pencils on purely diplomatic missions" to Hondouran airstrips right next to the Nicaraguan border is DISINFORMATION. (Those "desks and pencils" somehow resemble tanks and helicopters. Strange.) To claim that the Death Squads have stopped operating in El Salvador is DISINFORMATION. To claim that Americans never had anything to do with helping to arm, train, advise and direct the Death Squads is DISINFORMATION. To claim that Pinochet's Chile is a "Democracy" just because it receives American foreign aid is DISINFORMATION.
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
cheryl@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (cheryl) (10/01/86)
In article <676@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >I don't understand. Will somebody please explain what this group does? >What special powers do they have? All I have been able to piece together >from the net is that they denounce professors whose leanings they don't like >and try to catch them out making errors. >Isn't the right to denounce people whose political views you don't like one >of the most fundamental parts of a free society? I am not sure what the >fuss is. There's a difference between disinterested inquiry and biased harassment. For instance, I could call you on the telephone and claim that I have the right to do so, it's free speech -- 25c speech from a payphone. However, if I call you repeatedly, and insinuate nasty things with the intent of disrupting your life, that's harassment. Groups like NICPAC, AIM, AIA, the Moral Majority and Vrdolyak's buddies on the Chicago City Council use harassment tactics when they're cornered and they know that they're in the wrong. They constantly put their opponents on the defensive by calling everything they do and say into question, much the same way women who try to do something nontraditional are treated by antifeminist men and women. They have no constructive purpose, besides feathering their nests and kissing the butts of the already rich and powerful. Oh, and declaring a "war on drugs" (because it hurts people) while strafing the El Salvadoran countryside (because it kills people). Or how about their tendency to condemn abortion and support continued nuclear arms buildup in the same breath? I mean, these so-called "conservative" "Christians" are the most slimy worms on the face of the earth, and they've advocated so many clearly contradictory policies that they dare not try to speak up in an enlightened informed community such as a university. The only thing they can even *try* is harassment. Don't forget, 1955 was *NOT* a long time ago. Many, many, many faculty members in good universities were fired, blackballed, harassed, and so on during that era just because somebody called them communists behind their backs. Faculty members were AFRAID for their jobs, their families and so on -- afraid to speak up for what they thought was right. For goodness sake, Steven Smale, a MATHEMATICIAN, was awarded a prize in mathematics by a group of Russian mathematicians. The day after he got on the plane to go accept his award, he had the misfortune of being summoned before the House Committee on Unamerican Activities. Since he wasn't in town, he did not get the notice, and I think he spent some time in jail upon returning to the US. The media (and the Committee) interpreted his journey to Moscow as *defecting* -- running away from a summons that he had no idea even *existed* when he got on the plane. Sure, it was in the committee's rights to question (and even misinterperet) his actions, but do you really want to live in (or next to) a country like this? >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Cheryl Stewart
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"
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/03/86)
> In 1980 and 1984, just about > as many papers endorsed Reagan as endorsed Carter or Mondale. Without > getting into AIM too much, the point I'm trying to make is that this > organization has NOT done anything that the news media does not > already do and has done for a long time. > > > UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs In point of fact, your statement is wrong but understandable given the persistence refrains about the "liberal" press. (which may show something about just how "liberal" the press really is that such refrains get repeated with no attention to accuracy!) In fact, Reagan garnered some 70% of newspaper endorsements in 1984. If you look back at elections going back over many decades, you will find that, in fact, Republican presidential candidates are regularly endorsed by about 55% of newspapers. In fact, there is a consistent *conservative* bias in newspapers and the media which leads to such things as the latest revelation that the CIA conducted a disinformation campaign about possible attacks by Gaddafi and planned American attacks. This disinformation (as we now know it to be thanks to the Washington Post) was simply repeated as "facts" by all the major media. To give another prime example: the media have endlessly repeated Reagan's claims that he wishes to "reduce* nuclear weapons. Yet I have never seen an article, except in the Op-Ed page of the New York Times and the alternative press, which points out that in fact, Reagan has deployed 3 nuclear weapons a day since he came into office, that he plans to deploy 15,000 nuclear weapons in the next few years, and so forth. Even Mc-Neil-Lehrer had Kissinger and Malcom Wallop as commentators on Reagan's deal to swap Daniloff for Zhakarov. Kissinger advocated limited nuclear war in the 50's and was the engineer of the infamous Cambodian invasion, Malcom Wallop thinks all arms control treaties should be torn to shreds. Balanced opinions I would say! tim sevener whuxn!orb
kolding@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Eric Koldinger) (10/04/86)
In article <1060@sunybcs.UUCP> alin@gort.UUCP (Alin Sangeap) writes: > >The idea is good, but the organization is bad. Any organization that attempts to limit the free spread of ideas, especially in a university, is inately "bad". If you really want to censure a professor for his ideas, don't take his classes. If enough students disagree with him, his classes will soon end up being very small. This is the only fair way to edit classes. Our very society is based on the free flow of ideas, especially unpopular ones. If you don't like this principle, the Soviet Union (especially Leningrad) is a rather nice place. Eric kolding@cory
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? ??)
jew@usl.UUCP (James E. Wilson) (10/09/86)
In article <3331@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> thakur@mit-eddie.UUCP (Manavendra K. Thakur) writes: >That AIA is very powerful is not a serious propostion. But the very >fact that in this day and age people are trying to do this sort of >things is enough to raise eyebrows. Do any of you remember the days >professors had to take loyalty oaths and otherwise display their >patriotism? I don't, but many professors and older people do. You don't have to remember back too far. As of three years ago, the state of Florida was still requiring these oaths of all teachers and professors in their public schools and universities. I believe they still have this requirement. If I am correct, I believe Georgia also requires this. 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
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
webber@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber) (10/13/86)
In article <967@usl.UUCP>, jew@usl.UUCP (James E. Wilson) writes: > In article <3331@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> thakur@mit-eddie.UUCP (Manavendra K. Thakur) writes: > >.... Do any of you remember the days > >professors had to take loyalty oaths and otherwise display their > >patriotism? I don't, but many professors and older people do. > > You don't have to remember back too far. As of three years ago, the > state of Florida was still requiring these oaths of all teachers and > professors in their public schools and universities. I believe they > still have this requirement. If I am correct, I believe Georgia also > requires this. add New Jersey to that list. more to the point, is there any state that doesn't? my understanding is that such things get put in the system in time of paranoia (e.g., McCarthy era) and then no one ever pulls them out unless you can get the Supreme Court in on the act. [who wants to be "disloyal"?] ---------------------- BOB (seismo!topaz!webber)
cher@ihlpf.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (10/14/86)
I guess I will cross-post to soc.culture.jewish, the issue belongs there. Barry Shein, about a statement by an economics instructor that "large percentage of Soviet MDs are Jewish, therefore Jews have large influence in the USSR": > The point is (whatever the original poster's intention was) that > such things are arguable. How you refute it, false or not, is subtle. > 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. Boy, would I be embarrassed if Barry meant the above to be a joke. Like old Gorby said in Paris: where else do Jews live better then in the USSR?... Or to quote Don Black: what genocide? OK, here's the refutation of the claim that the Soviet Jews are influential: the state persecutes manifestations of cultural and religious life, state-conducted antisemitic campaign (some first-hand experience here) includes hiring, job promotions, university admission policies. As a result hundreds of thousands of Jews risked their hides for a chance to emigrate. The influence (as if Barry Shein did not know) comes from the party apparatus. The intelligentsia, according to the official ideology, is a social subclass, inferior to workers and peasants in their dedication to communist goals and ideals. Regular Soviet docs are paid no more then workers. Rather then "find methodology", do "measuring and defining ... as a function", and go to great lengths to prove the obvious, I suggest that Barry try to defend the idea of big Jewish influence in the USSR (if he believes it); i.e: I'm dying to know what the manifestations of that influence are. Did the Jews use this influence to screw themselves? About AIA: a person who makes indefensible statements discredits him/herself. AIA or not, weeding out incompetent instructors whether they teach about Aryan superiority or Soviet prosperity is highly desirable. I did not understand the blurb about cowardice. Mike Cherepov
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (10/14/86)
> I don't understand. Will somebody please explain what this group does? > > What special powers do they have? All I have been able to piece together > from the net is that they denounce professors whose leanings they don't like > and try to catch them out making errors. > > Isn't the right to denounce people whose political views you don't like one > of the most fundamental parts of a free society? I am not sure what the > fuss is. > -- > Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 The fuss is that those with unorthodox views have a long history of being persecuted, harassed, and ultimately fired for their beliefs in this country. During McCarthyism thousands of people were victimized, not merely for being Communists, but even for having a friend who had a friend who was Communist. Or having ever read a leftwing newspaper or magazine. Those days are not gone yet, I am afraid. Every year one can hear stories of Marxist professors being fired for their views. Just recently here in New Jersey, a high school teacher was fired for agreeing to sponsor a "Young Leftists" Club which met after school. Students protested that the teacher was one of the best teachers they ever had. Over 500 students signed a petition stating that this teacher was one of the best teachers they ever had and urging the school board not to fire him. At this point to no avail. So if you want to know why people are concerned about Accuracy in Academia this is precisely why: because these people have no concern with legitimate debate but are primarily concerned with harrassment which could ultimately end in many good teachers being fired. tim sevener whuxn!orb
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