|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Prof fired for asking students to stomp on the word ‘Jesus’
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Prof fired for asking students to stomp on the word ‘Jesus’
quote:
A Florida Atlantic University professor is on forced leave after asking students to stomp on pieces of paper labelled “Jesus.”
The activity required students to write “Jesus” on paper and after a period of reflection, stomp on it, according to the Herald. They were then supposed to discuss how that made them feel.
The issue of stomping on the word Jesus was brought to the school’s attention after one student, Ryan Rotela, refused to participate and was suspended from all class activities, according to NBC.[/qb]
WTF? Seriously? And look at Professor Crook's lame-ass defense. "Universities are not the place to tip-toe around everyone’s little insecurities and sensitivities." I'm sorry, but there's a continent of land between tip-toeing around little insecurities forcing somebody to do something they find morally repulsive. Hello?
[ 04. April 2013, 04:08: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
My big problem with the situation is that the student who protested the assignment was suspended from the class. If he had skipped an assignment under normal circumstances it would at most have dinged his grade average for the class. The prof's over-reaction has bitten him in the butt.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The prof's overreaction rather makes me think there was something going on here other than just an exercise in discussing feelings.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
On the other hand...
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Thanks, Demas. If the bit about the threat is true, then that quite changes the picture.
I wonder why the other paper failed to report on that detail. Or indeed interview Poole. Then again they misspelled Poole's name at least once (still), so I'm thinking the journalism quality isn't as high as all that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
From the lesson plan:
quote:
Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can’t step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture.
Ryan Rotella, almost getting the point of the lesson:
quote:
Any time you stomp on something, it shows that you believe that something has no value. If you were to stomp on the word ‘Jesus,’ it says that the word has no value.
So in a lesson about how words aren't just words but have symbolic value, a student gets mad because it's clearly demonstrated that words have symbolic value and aren't just words? This is someone who's managed to get admitted to college?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is someone who's managed to get admitted to college?
Clearly it's been a while since you've been in college. Note also this is Florida.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Also the second story says the prof. is on leave for reasons of personal safety, not "forced leave."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
I can't be the only one who remembers the miniseries Shogun. In one scene, a group of Japanese people who were suspected of having converted to Christianity were required to step on a crucifix. The Christians, of course, would not do that.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
AmyBo
Shipmate
# 15040
|
Posted
There's a scene in Silence by Shusaku Endo that describes something similar- I believe those who refused to step on the icon were crucified.
Posts: 122 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
Indeed you're not, Josephine - as it happens, I just finished watching it again on Netflix last week. The depiction of e-fumi (stamping on images) is slightly anachronistic; according to Wikipedia it wasn't instituted until a few decades after the action in the miniseries, after the Tokugawa shogunate had been established.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I find this whole thing fascinating and depressing.
The power of symbols is amazing. That some cannot step on the paper, even though they are not being asked to disrespect or disavow anything, even though they should be able to understand the concept of the experiment is fascinating. Though thoroughly predictable. That an acknowledged thought experiment could incite feelings of violence, shameful.
The public reaction is just depressing.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
This exercise, reportedly, has been used for 30 years at this university with no fuss.
This instance shows to me - not the power of symbols - but the power of the Internet to blow situations out of all proportion.
There have been several examples in he last couple of weeks.
It's worrying.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
This sorry business is an indictment of religion, depressingly reminiscent of the stupid Muhammed cartoon crisis. It was a piece of paper, for fucks sake, with a bit of biro ink on it. Symbol schmimbol.
The irony is, of course, that even Jesus Christ Himself would presumably think what a crock of ridiculous hysterical shit it is. In fact, didn’t He say something about idolatry and false gods and stuff?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I don't think it is as simple as that Yorick. It's a very interesting exercise to think what would happen if one was asked to trample on a picture of one's children.
Of course it is just a picture and doesn't harm them. But I wouldn't really want to do it. (Of course I would under threat of crucifixion but that would be further down the scale of not wanting to do it).
It isn't a question of idolatry - certainly not in the case of my children - but symbolic actions are important. So are words. There are any number of statements about Jesus or about my children that I wouldn't want to make. The words don't actually hurt anyone and aren't magic. But the apparently arbitrary jumble of consonants and vowels mean something and we can't easily ignore that.
[ 04. April 2013, 08:05: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
... the apparently arbitrary jumble of consonants and vowels mean[s] something and we can't easily ignore that.
Well that's my point. Your attachment to symbolic stuff should not mean more than, say, real people. You should easily ignore it.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I can see why I should be able to ignore it when my life is at stake (for instance) but I can't see why I should be perfectly happy ignoring it.
Is it a desirable state of affairs to be able to say "I hate my children" without any emotional reaction internally?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sylvander
Shipmate
# 12857
|
Posted
It sounds like an interesting and powerful teaching exercise to me. Presumably (the reports do not say, but the textbook quoted indicates it), the purpose of the exercise is fulfilled if some participants hesitate or refuse to step on the paper.
Does it say anywhere the prof did not stop the exercise at that point because it had shown what is was intended to show, i.e. the power of the symbol? Does it say he pressurized students to go further?
I'd still hesitate to use it in my teaching because I'd be dismayed at the ease with which some students would step on the paper.
But then that is something I'd say one has to deal with in modern society (just like Mohammend and Jesus cartoons). Combining the exercise with showing the relevant scene from the film "Silence" would be very efficient teaching IMO. (It is one of the most nightmare-inducing films I have ever seen, btw).
--------------------
A martyr is someone living with a saint.
2509
Posts: 1589 | From: Berlin | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Let's just all agree that next time they should write "democracy" on that piece of paper. Or "free speech". Or perhaps "gays" or "blacks" or "Jews". Or for a more individual touch, how about "mum"?
After all, it is just a thought experiment teaching us to step back and look at the power of symbols. There is nothing to worry about when in the course of it people intentionally throw a piece of paper with the word "Jews" on the ground, and then lift their feet to stomp on that with their boots (well, shoes). The only thing such a practical exercise conveys to the participants is academic detachment about symbols, right?
Because for academics, symbols live in neat little boxes, cleanly separated out for one purpose only, and have on-off switches. And that is a good thing. Apparently.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
That’s just silly. Nobody's suggesting this. But I would be surprised if anyone disagreed that however important symbols may or may not be, they are ONLY symbols, and people are more important than that. Right?
Right??
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
This sorry business is an indictment of religion, depressingly reminiscent of the stupid Muhammed cartoon crisis. It was a piece of paper, for fucks sake, with a bit of biro ink on it. Symbol schmimbol.
The irony is, of course, that even Jesus Christ Himself would presumably think what a crock of ridiculous hysterical shit it is. In fact, didn’t He say something about idolatry and false gods and stuff?
This is an expected materialistic reaction, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny or fit reality. We could say this about any physical action that does not actually involve direct physical harm to another person. So, for example, if someone were to stand in the middle of the street giving other people the finger, no one should feel upset, because, hey, it's just a finger, FFS; it's just a configuration of bone, skin etc... Racist or fascist gestures should just be dismissed as being of no consequence, because they are just mere configurations of the body and nothing more.
Or suppose someone decided to paint a mural on the side of his house which depicted a child being sexually abused (something drawn from his warped imagination, but which did not involve any real child being abused). Could we really expect people to accept it on the basis that, hey, it's just paint, FFS?! Errmm... I think not, somehow.
I would certainly refuse to tread on the word Jesus, and not because I regard the paper and ink as having acquired some magical, consecrated property. It is simply because that act has meaning, in the same way that the examples I gave above have meaning. Life cannot be reduced to the material in the way that you are suggesting.
Suppose the class decided to pick one student at random, write his or her name on the paper and then stamp on it in full view of the student. How would that student feel? How would you feel? A meaningless act? Don't be daft.
Or suppose the 'N' word was plastered on billboards all over Florida? Could we really argue that no one should be upset, because "it's just ink on paper, FFS"?!
By the way, the professor was being quite hypocritical anyway, because he felt threatened by the student hitting his balled fist into his other hand. Now, of course, there was a verbal threat, but the threat was not carried out, and why should the physical action of what the student did to his own hand worry the professor? From a materialistic point of view, we could just argue that it was simply skin, bone, muscle, tendons etc moving in a certain way and nothing more.
This sorry business is not an indictment of religion, but of reductionist materialism, and its vacuous and fatuous attempt to reduce everything in reality to matter. It doesn't fit reality, and it is never applied consistently.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
That’s just silly. Nobody's suggesting this. But I would be surprised if anyone disagreed that however important symbols may or may not be, they are ONLY symbols, and people are more important than that. Right?
Right??
Symbols represent things and in some cases people, the Person in this case being Jesus. It is a big deal.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
That’s just silly. Nobody's suggesting this. But I would be surprised if anyone disagreed that however important symbols may or may not be, they are ONLY symbols, and people are more important than that. Right?
Right??
![[Confused]](confused.gif) Who has claimed that symbols are more important than people? I don't understand what you're arguing against.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
When people kill people because a prophet is depicted in a cartoon, the symbols are more important than people. When a lecturer receives threats of violence because he asked his students to stomp on the written word 'Jesus', the symbol becomes more important than people.
Religion elicits this sort of stupidity. It's fucked up.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Maybe he should have got them to write "Professor Crook" on the paper and he could have also seen how he felt.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I am sure that the Prof was intending to provoke just this kind of discussion.
He wasn't arbitrarily asking students to stamp on a symbol which could be important to them. He was using it as a teaching tool to lead into discussion.
There is nothing whatever wrong with that.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
When people kill people because a prophet is depicted in a cartoon, the symbols are more important than people. When a lecturer receives threats of violence because he asked his students to stomp on the written word 'Jesus', the symbol becomes more important than people.
Religion elicits this sort of stupidity. It's fucked up.
I agree.
But I would say "When Religion (or politics or anything else) elicits this sort of stupidity. It's fucked up."
It doesn't usually - it bumbles along happily without comment.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Religion elicits this sort of stupidity. It's fucked up.
Except that the exercise had been used for 30 years, in one of the most loudly Christian countries in the developed world, with no problems. It would seem the Mormon student's threat of violence was an exception, not the norm.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
This instance shows to me - not the power of symbols - but the power of the Internet to blow situations out of all proportion.
Abso-bloomin-lutely .
Yesterday I heard account of a RE teacher suspended for getting a classroom of kids to do the 'Harlem Shake' . It was filmed on a phone, ended up on the Net .
Mind you sounds like it involved other stuff that sounded like an error of judgement.
For some reason we seem to think the Internet is a totally uncensored medium where anything goes.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
When people kill people because a prophet is depicted in a cartoon, the symbols are more important than people.
Count me among the few trying to occupy a nuanced middle-ground in between the "kill the blasphemer" and "don't mean shit" camps regarding symbols.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Can I suggest that everyone commenting read Demas' link? It puts a very different complexion on things.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
He wasn't arbitrarily asking students to stamp on a symbol which could be important to them. He was using it as a teaching tool to lead into discussion.
If the whole point was to encourage discussion, then why bother with the visual aid at all?
Yorick is completely wrong in justifying this nonsense. If the word 'Jesus' was merely ink on paper, then it was just a scribble that by sheer fluke happened to look like the word Jesus. So, strictly speaking, from a materialistic point of view, the students should have been given the liberty to write anything they liked on the paper, and then stamped on it. The fact that this squiggle had to look like the word 'Jesus' destroys the materialist's case, because it shows that this was not simply about mere paper and ink, but it was about meaning. And this applies to all areas of life - see the examples I gave in my last comment.
If someone here were to write a very serious insult and threat against Yorick, I suspect that he would feel upset and certainly the hosts would have something to say about it. Could that person really just plead "it's just pixels! Stop being so stupid!"? Of course not! Words matter. Gestures matter. Actions matter. They are not just reducible to atoms and molecules, as if the meaning of these things is illusory.
We live in a world of meaning. The materialists' desperate attempt to undermine this reality is the real delusion here.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
He wasn't arbitrarily asking students to stamp on a symbol which could be important to them. He was using it as a teaching tool to lead into discussion.
If the whole point was to encourage discussion, then why bother with the visual aid at all?
Yorick is completely wrong in justifying this nonsense. If the word 'Jesus' was merely ink on paper, then it was just a scribble that by sheer fluke happened to look like the word Jesus. So, strictly speaking, from a materialistic point of view, the students should have been given the liberty to write anything they liked on the paper, and then stamped on it. The fact that this squiggle had to look like the word 'Jesus' destroys the materialist's case, because it shows that this was not simply about mere paper and ink, but it was about meaning. And this applies to all areas of life - see the examples I gave in my last comment.
If someone here were to write a very serious insult and threat against Yorick, I suspect that he would feel upset and certainly the hosts would have something to say about it. Could that person really just plead "it's just pixels! Stop being so stupid!"? Of course not! Words matter. Gestures matter. Actions matter. They are not just reducible to atoms and molecules, as if the meaning of these things is illusory.
We live in a world of meaning. The materialists' desperate attempt to undermine this reality is the real delusion here.
The point of the lesson, if you read Demas' link, was to make exactly the point you are making, EE - that symbolic actions do have meaning and we do not idly do things like stepping on Jesus' name. Since the prof himself is a Christian, I doubt if there are any materialist attempts to do anything anywhere but in your imagination here.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
When people kill people because a prophet is depicted in a cartoon, the symbols are more important than people.
Count me among the few trying to occupy a nuanced middle-ground in between the "kill the blasphemer" and "don't mean shit" camps regarding symbols.
Count me in likewise.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
He wasn't arbitrarily asking students to stamp on a symbol which could be important to them. He was using it as a teaching tool to lead into discussion.
If the whole point was to encourage discussion, then why bother with the visual aid at all?
Why ever use visual aids?
Just like symbols can be powerful, visual aids can be a powerful way of teaching and learning.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
From the lesson plan:
quote:
Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can’t step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture.
Ryan Rotella, almost getting the point of the lesson:
quote:
Any time you stomp on something, it shows that you believe that something has no value. If you were to stomp on the word ‘Jesus,’ it says that the word has no value.
So in a lesson about how words aren't just words but have symbolic value, a student gets mad because it's clearly demonstrated that words have symbolic value and aren't just words? This is someone who's managed to get admitted to college?
It all depends on exactly how the lesson was delivered, which anyone who wasn't there will never know. If the Professor merely asked if the students were willing to step on the paper and explored their feelings about whether they did or didn't feel comfortable doing so, as it seems the lesson plan intended, then it's fine. If there was any hint of ordering, or demanding the action took place, and making out that the student's refusal was invalid, then that is insensitive and unethical.
Most Christians with a fervent faith would feel deeply uncomfortable stepping on the word. But for anyone who knows a bit of Church history, this would raise their hackles considerably, as this is almost exactly what was done as a prelude to significant persecution of Christians in the past. To parallel these historical persecutions is quite dangerous, as it can be very easily misconstrued, and I would argue the lesson plan is being very unhelpful in this approach.
The student who got mad, had a perfectly valid emotional response Croesus, despite your derision. The professor, if he was worth his salt, should not have tried to perform this exercise if he wasn't prepared for such a passionate reaction, and couldn't handle it by allowing the student to express his anger, and discuss the reasons behind it, which was the whole point of the exercise in the first place.
It strikes me that this professor had no clue what he was doing. He shouldn't have played with his students' emotions and psychology like this without more training. The student didn't attack the professor, he merely expressed his anger with fierce words. He didn't threaten the professor that he would hit him, just said that he would like to hit him. The professor should have been aware this could be someone's response, and been ready to ask why the student felt this way, and help the student explore such a reaction. IMO there's a big difference.
In this exercise, the professor was using his students as test subjects in a psychological experiment. He had an ethical duty to them to not only provide a safe environment for them, but also to properly debrief them afterwards. I think the professor showed professional cowardice and ignorance of waht he was doing throughout.
What I also found interesting in the story is that only one student refused to step on the name. To me, this shows that the entire point of the exercise no longer works in the modern world. The exercise is both unhepful, as well as, nowadays, unenlightening for the majority.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
Just like symbols can be powerful, visual aids can be a powerful way of teaching and learning.
Point taken. So therefore, since you acknowledge that visual aids can be powerful, then you will presumably sympathise with the student who did not wish to participate?
To call something 'powerful' and then fail to understand why some people don't regard this action as completely trivial, is, to my mind, a complete contradiction.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
Just like symbols can be powerful, visual aids can be a powerful way of teaching and learning.
Point taken. So therefore, since you acknowledge that visual aids can be powerful, then you will presumably sympathise with the student who did not wish to participate?
Absolutely - but that was the teaching point as far as I can see. There was no compulsion to do it, just the recognition that some symbols are incredibly important to some people.
We will all have different 'hot button' symbols and things which we simply could not do.
The sad lesson here, for me, is how frightening and job-threatening Internet culture can be for teachers and others in the public eye.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
Since the prof himself is a Christian, I doubt if there are any materialist attempts to do anything anywhere but in your imagination here.
Except, unlike you, I am looking at the evidence.
From the article linked to in the OP:
quote:
Zeba Crook, an associate religion professor at Carleton University, said he thinks the professor’s activity was “perfectly valid.”
“It was, as far as I can tell, intended to make students think about what makes them uncomfortable, and to get a discussion going about that,” Crook said via email.
Crook said if the situation called for it, he would even hold a similar activity in his class. He said he believes that writing the name Jesus on a piece of paper does not suddenly make it something “magical and holy.”
Note the implications of the last sentence: an obvious attempt to strip the act of any meaning, and to reduce it to mere paper and ink.
So, no, it is not my imagination. And remember that my responses were to Yorick (whose philosophical views are well known).
[ 04. April 2013, 09:54: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
As a teacher, I read this as a pretty clear case of a student entirely missing the point of the assignment and not having either the intelligence or the patience to actually listen to what they were supposed to get out of the exercise. It's a hazard anytime you propose something that's basically a thought experiment as a basis for further discussion (though it doesn't usually escalate to this point). There'll always be a student whose reaction to the initial prompt is so strong, and whose thinking is so limited, that it's difficult to move them towards, "Looks like you had a really strong reaction to being asked to step on that piece of paper ... now let's talk about WHY you had that reaction." Sad to think that level of narrowness still exists in college students (as a high school teacher I'd have hoped those kids had gotten weeded out and channeled into more appropriate programs before the university stage) but apparently it's still a danger.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
The symbol isn't magical or holy.
It's how we see it that matters, not the symbol itself.
A candle is a candle, but to some they are deep symbols, set apart for the worship of God. Not for me - they are just a pleasant source of relaxing light to me. That doesn't mean we can trash other's candles. It simply means that we are all different.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
But I'd agree that writing the name Jesus on a piece of paper doesn't make it "magic and holy". I don't see that as materialistic reductionism at all.
The point is not that the paper changes; it's that our feelings about it change because it has acquired symbolic significance.
I still think you're seeing things that aren't there, and I'd thank you to leave off the "I'm looking at the evidence unlike you" stuff which is pretty damned close to a personal attack.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Unless this exact exercise was prescribed by the teaching materials, the University should sack the professor. Also, knowing a little of how the US flag is symbolic for US citizens in a way that doesn't apply to our own flag, it should have sacked the other one who was suspended and has now resigned over the flag exercise. However, if the exercise is prescribed in that form by the teaching materials, then in stead, the person who wrote them and/or the head of faculty should be sacked.
This exercise is offensive and is a version of the Stanford Experiment. Young and impressionable students should not be pushed by an authority figure into doing something that might, quite correctly, offend their better and thoroughly legitimate sensibilities.
Would we regard it as legitimate to build a teaching exercise round telling a group of students, some of whom might be Muslim, and some of whom are not, to tread on a Koran.
End of story. Nothing more to discuss.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
When I was acting headteacher in a CofE school I had a similar discussion with the vicar.
I had bought a candle from Dunelm and was using it in assemblies (which were mini services). The vicar was a little shocked and asked if the candle had been blessed. She then suggested we had a special assembly to bless it. I was fine with that, and we did so, but afterwards I asked if the candle had changed at all.
We had a long discussion, but she didn't convince me!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
As a teacher, I read this as a pretty clear case of a student entirely missing the point of the assignment and not having either the intelligence or the patience to actually listen to what they were supposed to get out of the exercise.
What the student hasn't learnt the teacher hasn't taught them.
It seems to me this is an entirely predictable hazard of teaching this particular lesson and one ought to have a strategy for dealing with it.
It isn't clear to me from either of the two reports we have links to on the thread that the teacher has a clear idea of what they are using the lesson for.
It seems to me legitimate to be using an illustration as a discussion of materialist vs non-materialist views or as a discussion of the power of symbolism. But I don't think it proper that one have a didactic point to make with a lesson like this as there is no single right answer in response to the illustration.
Calling for sacking seems OTT to me. They may have handled the lesson entirely appropriately and had an unlucky outlier reaction, but then not quite got the handling of that reaction correct. If so, anyone can make a mistake. The point would be whether the school and teacher learns from the episode.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Unless this exact exercise was prescribed by the teaching materials, the University should sack the professor. Also, knowing a little of how the US flag is symbolic for US citizens in a way that doesn't apply to our own flag, it should have sacked the other one who was suspended and has now resigned over the flag exercise. However, if the exercise is prescribed in that form by the teaching materials, then in stead, the person who wrote them and/or the head of faculty should be sacked.
This exercise is offensive and is a version of the Stanford Experiment. Young and impressionable students should not be pushed by an authority figure into doing something that might, quite correctly, offend their better and thoroughly legitimate sensibilities.
Would we regard it as legitimate to build a teaching exercise round telling a group of students, some of whom might be Muslim, and some of whom are not, to tread on a Koran.
End of story. Nothing more to discuss.
Well, clearly we're reading the accounts differently. My understanding of it was not that the prof coerced, forced or required the students to step on the paper (which would, as you say, obviously be wrong) but that he asked them to do it, and then discussed with them whether they were reluctant to do so and what that reluctance meant.
I'm reminded of an essay-writing activity I did many years ago with a group of high school seniors where one of the options (they got to pick) was to go around for a day without speaking and write about how the experience made them feel. One of the girls who chose that option got very upset, angry and hostile partway through the school day -- I think she gave up the vow of silence (or else communicated this in writing, I can't now remember) and told me how angry she was at me for "making" her do this stupid thing. I reminded her that she had chosen the activity and she was free to quit at any time, but that her anger at being silenced was in itself a very interesting response and that she should use that in her essay, explore why being silenced (even voluntarily) made her so angry. She was a good student and it led to a good essay if I recall correctly, but as someone mentioned above, if a teacher introduces this kind of activity they do need to have the skills to process it with the students and take into account any reactions they may have, including angry ones.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If someone here were to write a very serious insult and threat against Yorick, I suspect that he would feel upset and certainly the hosts would have something to say about it. Could that person really just plead "it's just pixels! Stop being so stupid!"? Of course not! Words matter. Gestures matter. Actions matter. They are not just reducible to atoms and molecules, as if the meaning of these things is illusory.
We live in a world of meaning. The materialists' desperate attempt to undermine this reality is the real delusion here.
Utter bullshit. What matters more: that a piece of paper with Jesus written on it is or is not stamped on, or that a person does or does not receive death threats? Answer this, please, without prevarication.
If someone insults me and I'm offended, that's bad. If, in response, I bash their head in, that's more bad. Symbols and meanings matter- nobody disputes that (and I'd be grateful if you would refrain from misrepresenting my position quite so much, please). But that symbols should matter MORE than real people is plain wrong (and most likely makes Jesus very fed up too, dontcha think?).
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
When I was acting headteacher in a CofE school I had a similar discussion with the vicar.
I don't think that is a similar discussion at all. One can have a reaction to trampling on a symbol aside from any belief about ontological change. And I doubt many Christians finding an emotional reaction to the paper trampling do so because of any belief about ontological change or holiness.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But that symbols should matter MORE than real people is plain wrong
But who is arguing that?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Utter bullshit. What matters more: that a piece of paper with Jesus written on it is or is not stamped on, or that a person does or does not receive death threats? Answer this, please, without prevarication.
Ker-pow! All the posters on this thread who have been arguing that death threats are less serious than stomping on a piece of paper now stand comprehensively refuted.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
