Friday, August 01, 2003
Believe you me, I'm right
The UC Academic Assembly decided to give professors the go-ahead to preach their political views rather than teach when it comes to classes. In a justification that boggles the mind, ammendment drafter Robert Post (who isn't even a UC professor) explains that political motivations don't matter: "It doesn't matter why you write something. The issue is, is it good scholarship? Is it professional scholarship?" I don't disagree, but when it comes to classrooms, it's not a matter of writing a research paper. Research papers have political motivations. Otherwise, there'd be no point. But there's a huge difference between writing a research paper and teaching a class of (paying) students. The students are there to learn about a subject, not to be bombarded by the professor's views.
Good ol' outgoing prez Atkinson insists that the 21st century has different rules of logic which make turning classrooms into intellectual orgies okay. "blah blah blah academic freedom blah blah," he says. Just out of curiosity, who's idea was "academic freedom"? We're paying them. Money. People get paid money to do jobs, not to have freedom. In fact, you accept payment as part of an agreement where you give up a certain part of your freedom. That's how jobs work. Instead of doing whatever the hell you want to do, you do something in particular, in exchange for pay. "Academic freedom" would be like walking into a McDonalds, asking for a hamburger, and getting a toothpick in the name of fast-food cooking freedom.
In any case, I'm hoping that none of these "motivations don't matter" folks ever mention the ol' "This helps the rich" or "It's for oil companies" arguments again. Motivations don't matter. Trent Lott is a racist? Big whoop. If racist actions he takes make the world better in some way, let's go praise him! Hooray for racism! Motivations don't matter!
. . .
|
. . .
|
