UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote: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?
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]
quote:Ryan Rotella, almost getting the point of the lesson:
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote:Clearly it's been a while since you've been in college. Note also this is Florida.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is someone who's managed to get admitted to college?
quote:Well that's my point. Your attachment to symbolic stuff should not mean more than, say, real people. You should easily ignore it.
Originally posted by mdijon:
... the apparently arbitrary jumble of consonants and vowels mean[s] something and we can't easily ignore that.
quote: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.
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?
quote:Symbols represent things and in some cases people, the Person in this case being Jesus. It is a big deal.
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??
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.
quote:I agree.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Religion elicits this sort of stupidity. It's fucked up.
quote:Abso-bloomin-lutely .
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Yorick:
When people kill people because a prophet is depicted in a cartoon, the symbols are more important than people.
quote:If the whole point was to encourage discussion, then why bother with the visual aid at all?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:If the whole point was to encourage discussion, then why bother with the visual aid at all?
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.
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.
quote:Count me in likewise.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Yorick:
When people kill people because a prophet is depicted in a cartoon, the symbols are more important than people.
quote:Why ever use visual aids?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:If the whole point was to encourage discussion, then why bother with the visual aid at all?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
From the lesson plan:
quote:Ryan Rotella, almost getting the point of the lesson:
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote: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?
Originally posted by Boogie
Just like symbols can be powerful, visual aids can be a powerful way of teaching and learning.
quote: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.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote: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?
Originally posted by Boogie
Just like symbols can be powerful, visual aids can be a powerful way of teaching and learning.
quote:Except, unlike you, I am looking at the evidence.
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.
quote: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.
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.”
quote:What the student hasn't learnt the teacher hasn't taught them.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Boogie:
When I was acting headteacher in a CofE school I had a similar discussion with the vicar.
quote:But who is arguing that?
Originally posted by Yorick:
But that symbols should matter MORE than real people is plain wrong
quote: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.
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.
quote:Depends on the circumstances in which you're being asked/made to say it, surely?
Originally posted by mdijon:
Is it a desirable state of affairs to be able to say "I hate my children" without any emotional reaction internally?
quote:I could be wrong, but EE seems to be defending the actions of the Mormon student. The claim is made that symbols are important (which nobody can deny), but no concession is made in this defence for the more important issue- that the lecturer received treats of violence. I pointed out the Mahammed cartoon thing, and EE proceeded to complain about philosophical materialism, missing the point by eighteen nautical miles.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:But who is arguing that?
Originally posted by Yorick:
But that symbols should matter MORE than real people is plain wrong
quote:I couldn't agree more. To deprive your family of father/son/uncle etc for the sake of doing something like this would be utter (self serving? self pitying? martyr complex?) madness.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Someone else mentioned a situation where people were told to tread on a crucifix, and the ones who refused were executed for being Christians. Well I think that anyone who refused was really fucking stupid. It's just a crucfix - it's not really Jesus. It won't really hurt Him if you tread on it in order to save your life. And it's not like you even have to mean it - you can tread on the thing at the exact same time as silently praying an apology to Jesus if it makes you feel better.
quote:I don't think everyone responds to this kind of thing as you do, Marvin. The illusionist Derren Brown (an atheist, so presumably no religious hang-ups) once said something like this: if someone says to you that images don't have power, then get them to take a photo of the person they love most in the world and stab it repeatedly with a pair of scissors.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I can sit here, right now, and say "I hate my parents" or "I hate my wife" (I don't have kids, or I'd add that one too) without the slightest flicker of emotional reaction. And that is because I know I'm lying.
Someone else mentioned a situation where people were told to tread on a crucifix, and the ones who refused were executed for being Christians. Well I think that anyone who refused was really fucking stupid. It's just a crucfix - it's not really Jesus. It won't really hurt Him if you tread on it in order to save your life. And it's not like you even have to mean it - you can tread on the thing at the exact same time as silently praying an apology to Jesus if it makes you feel better.
quote:Did you get threatened with violence and the loss of your job?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The illusionist Derren Brown (an atheist, so presumably no religious hang-ups) once said something like this: if someone says to you that images don't have power, then get them to take a photo of the person they love most in the world and stab it repeatedly with a pair of scissors.
I've issued that challenge myself, when teaching about the power of images. Nobody has ever stabbed the photo.
quote:I offer it as an exercise; I don't instruct or compel. And often (because many people don't carry photos around) it's a thought-experiment anyway. The imaginary scissors are refused as firmly as real ones would be.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Did you get threatened with violence and the loss of your job?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The illusionist Derren Brown (an atheist, so presumably no religious hang-ups) once said something like this: if someone says to you that images don't have power, then get them to take a photo of the person they love most in the world and stab it repeatedly with a pair of scissors.
I've issued that challenge myself, when teaching about the power of images. Nobody has ever stabbed the photo.
This prof did.
quote:Yorick, I think it may be you missing the point.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:I could be wrong, but EE seems to be defending the actions of the Mormon student. The claim is made that symbols are important (which nobody can deny), but no concession is made in this defence for the more important issue- that the lecturer received treats of violence. I pointed out the Mahammed cartoon thing, and EE proceeded to complain about philosophical materialism, missing the point by eighteen nautical miles.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:But who is arguing that?
Originally posted by Yorick:
But that symbols should matter MORE than real people is plain wrong
quote:Well sure, if there's no good reason to do it then why would you do it? I'm not saying that symbols (or photos) don't have meaning, I'm just saying that that meaning isn't more important than every other concern.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
The illusionist Derren Brown (an atheist, so presumably no religious hang-ups) once said something like this: if someone says to you that images don't have power, then get them to take a photo of the person they love most in the world and stab it repeatedly with a pair of scissors.
I've issued that challenge myself, when teaching about the power of images. Nobody has ever stabbed the photo.
quote:One is tempted to point out that if someone is so easily motivated to do immoral things, they can't be taking Jesus that seriously to start with...
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The issue under discussion is really much more whether the professor should have anticipated the power of symbols, even to the point of their abuse motivating people to do things that are undoubtedly immoral.
quote:Ah, the stupidity of the martyrs. On the blood flowing from such stupidity the Church was founded, on Marvin-style pragmatic cleverness, not so much.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Someone else mentioned a situation where people were told to tread on a crucifix, and the ones who refused were executed for being Christians. Well I think that anyone who refused was really fucking stupid. It's just a crucfix - it's not really Jesus. It won't really hurt Him if you tread on it in order to save your life. And it's not like you even have to mean it - you can tread on the thing at the exact same time as silently praying an apology to Jesus if it makes you feel better.
quote:Who has been saying that?
Originally posted by Ricardus
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.
quote:Where did I say that symbols matter more than people?
Originally posted by Yorick
But that symbols should matter MORE than real people is plain wrong (and most likely makes Jesus very fed up too, dontcha think?).
quote:Stamping on words, burning books, reviling people's faith etc is all a prelude to something far worse, if any account is taken of the historical record. So, indirectly, it is perfectly reasonable to interpret the encouragement of this kind of action as a kind of deferred "death threat".
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.
quote:I apologise for the way I worded it. However, it was a specific response to your claim that my comments were simply a product of my imagination (which, in my view, was not the friendliest of comments). I agree I should not have worded it in the way I did, but I think you should agree that claiming that I am just dreaming up my comments without any regard for the evidence, is just below the belt, frankly.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
...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.
quote:The kind of regime that would execute Christians for refusing to step on a crucifix doesn't strike me as being the kind of regime that would respect their human rights ever after. And seeing Christian martyrs described as being 'fucking stupid' is a first for me.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Someone else mentioned a situation where people were told to tread on a crucifix, and the ones who refused were executed for being Christians. Well I think that anyone who refused was really fucking stupid. It's just a crucfix - it's not really Jesus. It won't really hurt Him if you tread on it in order to save your life. And it's not like you even have to mean it - you can tread on the thing at the exact same time as silently praying an apology to Jesus if it makes you feel better.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
I've always thought it was the regimes who viciously persecuted people for being the wrong religion/colour/whatever who were in the wrong, not their victims. quote:Blimey. And now the martyrs are ‘self-serving’ and 'self-pitying'.
Originally posted by Boogie:
]I couldn't agree more. To deprive your family of father/son/uncle etc for the sake of doing something like this would be utter (self serving? self pitying? martyr complex?) madness.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:'Symbolic voodoo games' ... I like.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
After all, I don't write the names of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris et al on bits of paper and spend my life spitting at them. I disagree with their views (even angrily at times), but I don't play symbolic voodoo games with them as people.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:I don't think the martyrs were stupid. But if large numbers of Christians hadn't burnt the pinch of incense, how much of the church would have been left?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Ah, the stupidity of the martyrs. On the blood flowing from such stupidity the Church was founded, on Marvin-style pragmatic cleverness, not so much.
quote:I am reminded of an experiment I was once asked to participate in.
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
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 . . . "now let's talk about WHY you had that reaction." Sad to think that level of narrowness still exists in college students.
quote:Note the question marks. I didn't imply that they are, I implied that they may be. I know people who are 'martyrs' and they are definitely self pitying! I just wonder about those who defend a symbol of their faith rather than their families.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
quote:Blimey. And now the martyrs are ‘self-serving’ and 'self-pitying'.
Originally posted by Boogie:
]I couldn't agree more. To deprive your family of father/son/uncle etc for the sake of doing something like this would be utter (self serving? self pitying? martyr complex?) madness.
quote:I don't understand why you can't see the comparison. Suppose I, as a Christian, feel personally insulted by someone stamping on a piece of paper with the name 'Jesus' written on it. That is no different from someone feeling insulted by being given the finger. After all, the finger is not hurting them physically, and it is just as physical an object as the piece of paper. It's just a finger.
Originally posted by George Spigot
Are symbols important? I suppose so. I don't think EE's comparison is very good. Standing in the street giving people the finger etc, That's insulting people. Being asked to step on a piece of paper? I don't see the comparison.
quote:Which just confirms that my comments about materialism were justified.
It's just a piece of paper.
quote:I don't see the point in dying for a belief (or for pretty much anything short of a spur-of-the-moment action to protect a loved one, come to think of it). I just fail to see what it would achieve.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Ah, the stupidity of the martyrs. On the blood flowing from such stupidity the Church was founded, on Marvin-style pragmatic cleverness, not so much.
quote:I'm talking about lying to a persecutor, not actually changing my beliefs. Let's not forget that for every first-century martyr who went to the lions there were dozens of Christians who outwardly appeared to be perfectly normal Romans, using secret symbols (like the alpha fish) to identify themselves to one another while doing their utmost to avoid suspicion. Those people built the Church just as much as the ones whose only Christian act was to get eaten by a big cat. After all, if everyone had been martyred then the religion would have died right then and there. Someone has to stay alive to pass the Good News on to the next generation...
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - Groucho Marx
quote:It's a reality that I really, really like. Far beter to have everyone tolerating each other and allowing all beliefs to coexist than to have a society where one dominant belief system seeks to destroy all others.
People still laugh about that, out of reflex. But as Marvin et al. reveal, Groucho simply predicted the socio-cultural reality of the 21stC decadent West...
quote:So do I, but I don't confuse these types with actual, real martyrs who faced actual, real torture and death.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I know people who are 'martyrs' and they are definitely self pitying!
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:Christians were martyred along WITH their families. We modern Westerners don't have a clue. Even though horrendous persecution is happening right now in the 21st century, in North Korea and other places.
I just wonder about those who defend a symbol of their faith rather than their families.
quote:The regime that would force you to say out loud that you renounce Jesus is the regime that would want to control and own your soul forever afterward. There is a lot more to this than mere words and symbols, and the regime knows it.
The symbol is not the faith. Stepping on a symbol is not renouncing faith. Even saying 'I renounce Jesus' is not renouncing faith. Nobody can do anything to me to remove my faith. It is in my heart, and only God knows my heart.
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The Japanese example is rather different from that of the students because the soon-to-be martyrs were in what Lutherans call a "state of confession", meaning that whatever they did or did not do was going to be interpreted ( and yes, publicized!) as a clear statement of their inner convictions. In such a case you are up the proverbial creek without a paddle--even actions you would normally take or not take without bothering your head too much are now fraught with meaning. So while I would have no heartburning to discover that I had dropped the church bulletin at home and thus accidentally trod on the name of Jesus, the action is rather different if done intentionally in a public setting like the university (I would have refused, nonviolently, of course!); and it is straight up impossible when the local government is demanding it as a public proof of abandoning Christ himself.
quote:I expect my line is a bit further along than yours, but agree mine isn't quite at the crucifixion end either.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Where my line between "do it" and "don't do it" lies I'm not sure, but it's nowhere near that far along.
quote:Me too.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And that's the thing - you may not like people who aren't willing to die for their beliefs, but if that means they're also not willing to kill for their beliefs then I'll call it a fair trade, thanks.
quote:The reason I said "stupid" was because burning the pinch of incense then going on with their Christian lives was clearly an option. Unless anyone is going to say that all the ones who did that weren't really Christian. Anyone?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I don't think the martyrs were stupid. But if large numbers of Christians hadn't burnt the pinch of incense, how much of the church would have been left?
quote:He did not threaten the professor with physical harm. He said he would like to hit him, but he did not raise his fist. He used the fist of one hand to hit the other hand. I see this as a clear symbol that he could contain his anger.
Originally posted by George Spigot
I'd hope no one on these boards would act like the student did. EE appears to be claiming that threatening someone with physical harm and raising your fist is also a symbol.
quote:I think that by the standards of the times, they had something to confess. And I'm sure that many who did burn the incense went away from it with a great weight on their conscience. There was a great controversy, remember, about whether those who had thus "apostosised" might have to be rebaptised. (Was it St Cyrpian? Third century?)
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The reason I said "stupid" was because burning the pinch of incense then going on with their Christian lives was clearly an option. Unless anyone is going to say that all the ones who did that weren't really Christian. Anyone?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I don't think the martyrs were stupid. But if large numbers of Christians hadn't burnt the pinch of incense, how much of the church would have been left?
quote:Do we know that's not exactly what he did?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
One of the clearest things coming out of this thread for me is that the professor didn't know when to call it a day. If it had been me, then as soon as I saw the revulsion on the faces of some of the students, I'd have said, "There! That's the power of the symbol. Experiment over."
quote:The Novatianists and Donatists both thought this, and were declared heretical for it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The reason I said "stupid" was because burning the pinch of incense then going on with their Christian lives was clearly an option. Unless anyone is going to say that all the ones who did that weren't really Christian. Anyone?
quote:Really? Wow.
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
Finally, I seriously question the sincerity of the professor's statement that he confesses Jesus as his Lord and Savior if he is willing to let Jesus be an accessory to this little trick of his.
quote:One could compare this with flag-burning. The Professor has the right to stamp on the Name that is above all names, just like he has the right to burn the flag. I defend his right to do either.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It's not "just a piece of paper". It's information on that paper which has meaning and significance. Stamping on that meaningful information is a meaningful gesture which conveys a threatening feeling to anyone for whom that information is important and significant.
quote:Yes, what could dying for anything but self-defence possibly achieve. Self-sacrifice never changes anything...
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't see the point in dying for a belief (or for pretty much anything short of a spur-of-the-moment action to protect a loved one, come to think of it). I just fail to see what it would achieve.
quote:And who has spoken against any of that? Nobody. It is one thing to avoid the persecution. It is another thing entirely to abandon your principles over fear for your life, when caught. Martyrdom is not equivalent to having a death wish, indeed, if you are merely seeking death then you are devaluing the martyrdom.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Let's not forget that for every first-century martyr who went to the lions there were dozens of Christians who outwardly appeared to be perfectly normal Romans, using secret symbols (like the alpha fish) to identify themselves to one another while doing their utmost to avoid suspicion. Those people built the Church just as much as the ones whose only Christian act was to get eaten by a big cat. After all, if everyone had been martyred then the religion would have died right then and there. Someone has to stay alive to pass the Good News on to the next generation...
quote:Neither do I, not has anybody here given the slightest indication that they think so. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about denying your religion, precisely when the persecutor has taken hold of you and is giving you the choice to either reject your religion or suffer/die. Apparently, you think people who opt for the latter are "fucking stupid". Well, the Church doesn't. Rather, it honours their memory through the ages.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And for a more recent example, were the 16th Century Catholic priests who used priestholes to escape persecution somehow less faithful to Christ than the ones who were caught and executed? I think not.
quote:That is a terribly false contrast, and it will come back to bite us in the butt. Because if one tries to reduce all beliefs down to the tame "barely worth mentioning" level, then one is just opening up the field for future fanatics to take over in a storm. The only way forward is strong beliefs that have learned to live with each other. That is meaningful toleration, the false secular peace is merely hedonism before its fall.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's a reality that I really, really like. Far beter to have everyone tolerating each other and allowing all beliefs to coexist than to have a society where one dominant belief system seeks to destroy all others.
quote:Do you want a medal for naivete, or something? People have always been, and will always be, more ready to kill others for their beliefs than be killed for their own. The idea that you can get rid of the former by getting rid of the latter is just plain dumb.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And that's the thing - you may not like people who aren't willing to die for their beliefs, but if that means they're also not willing to kill for their beliefs then I'll call it a fair trade, thanks.
quote:The news link in the OP says that students were "required" to participate in the exercise. I'd have introduced the exercise with the thought - the mere possibility of stomping on the name. If that got the reaction, then that's where the experiment would have ended. "Required" wouldn't even come into it.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Do we know that's not exactly what he did?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
One of the clearest things coming out of this thread for me is that the professor didn't know when to call it a day. If it had been me, then as soon as I saw the revulsion on the faces of some of the students, I'd have said, "There! That's the power of the symbol. Experiment over."
quote:I disagree. Symbols of ideologies are somewhat different from symbols of people (and for Christians, Jesus is a real person, whether you believe it or not), but even they have to be handled with sensitivity, because they may have great meaning for some people. Of course, it is easy to perform this act on a swastika, given that Nazism is despised (but remembering that the Nazis borrowed the swastika from the Hindus).
Originally posted by George Spigot
Just a small example to try and make my thoughts clearer. Say someone painted a swastika onto the side of a house owned by a Jewish family. There we can clearly see a symbol being used to directly hurt and insult someone.
But the situation in the class room is far closer to an example where someone is asked to step on a piece of paper with a swastika on it. Or a peace sign. Or the amnesty or CND logo on it.
quote:Sorry, but I don't see the difference. Doing the second thing is avoiding the persecution, isn't it?
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is one thing to avoid the persecution. It is another thing entirely to abandon your principles over fear for your life, when caught.
quote:Ads - if you read Demas' link and the other articles it links to (This one, for example) you will note that the version in the OP is disputed. If Demas' information is correct, then what is described is considerable closer to what you'd do than it has been reported.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:The news link in the OP says that students were "required" to participate in the exercise. I'd have introduced the exercise with the thought - the mere possibility of stomping on the name. If that got the reaction, then that's where the experiment would have ended. "Required" wouldn't even come into it.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Do we know that's not exactly what he did?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
One of the clearest things coming out of this thread for me is that the professor didn't know when to call it a day. If it had been me, then as soon as I saw the revulsion on the faces of some of the students, I'd have said, "There! That's the power of the symbol. Experiment over."
quote:Hmm - I think they might mean different things to different people. I tend to agree with the professor, according to my understanding of the terms.
And as for the other professor who opines that writing the name on the paper doesn't make it magical or holy, he clearly needs to go and read up on what "magical" and "holy" mean.
quote:Yes, but it is an inanimate object with meaning and significance for some people. It communicates something, and therefore the way it is treated also communicates something. If an important symbol is abused, then that sends out a message, which may be threatening to those for whom the symbol is important.
Originally posted by George Spigot
I've always thought that a symbol was just an image. An inanimate object. Are others people here seeing it differently?
quote:I'd accept it.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
...Therefore I declare that we do not need this old book, and I sling it in the fire. A true, honest and genuine materialist would have to accept that my actions were correct.
quote:As do I in a narrow technical sense. But if he/she is suggesting that based on that lack of magic or holiness the students who didn't want to trample on the name were misguided then I'd say they have missed the point.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I tend to agree with the professor, according to my understanding of the terms.
quote:Which as far as I can see it wasn't
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:As do I in a narrow technical sense. But if he/she is suggesting that based on that lack of magic or holiness the students who didn't want to trample on the name were misguided then I'd say they have missed the point.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I tend to agree with the professor, according to my understanding of the terms.
Added to which such a lesson ought not to be about didactic descriptions of what is magic or holy,
quote:Which as far as I can see it was.
but learning to discuss and challenge our ideas about it.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
...Therefore I declare that we do not need this old book, and I sling it in the fire. A true, honest and genuine materialist would have to accept that my actions were correct.
quote:For my money EE muddies the experiment by making it about Darwin and science. Although I must say I'd feel quite sentimental about an original signed copy of the origin of the species.
Originally posted by Yorick:
I'd accept it.
Yorick: a true, honest and genuine materialist.
quote:I was responding in isolation to the comment about holy/magic writing in isolation reflecting ones views or not.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I may be thicker than a whale omelette, but what I'm seeing, in general, on this thread, is a lot of taking the OP report at face value and then describing how such a lesson should happen, which seems to be very much like what, if Demas' reports are correct, actually did happen.
quote:Which is exactly what the prof's class was all about.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If I happen to walk on a bit of Jesus paper, or a US flag, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
But ask me to do so deliberately, and now the bit of cloth or paper is in a symbolic context, and so stepping on it, or burning it, has symbolic meaning.
quote:That bit was a general observation, rather than specific to you.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:I was responding in isolation to the comment about holy/magic writing in isolation reflecting ones views or not.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I may be thicker than a whale omelette, but what I'm seeing, in general, on this thread, is a lot of taking the OP report at face value and then describing how such a lesson should happen, which seems to be very much like what, if Demas' reports are correct, actually did happen.
I think we have to take it that the accounts of the episode are rather sketchy, inconsistent with each other, and prone to different interpretations. (Hmmm, sounds familiar).
And I don't see how you can make a whale omelette, by the way.
quote:Interesting. I think I muddied the waters in that my post was a response to the tangent about the early Christian martyrs, rather than directly to the OP.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Ricardus, your post has made me wonder if my problem with understaning a lot of the comments on this thread is down to semantics. For example, a hunger strike, where someone literally begins to starve their body, does real physical damage and can lead to death. I've always thought that a symbol was just an image. An inanimate object. Are others people here seeing it differently?
quote:On another thread you accused me of resorting to the tu quoque fallacy, but what we see here is a variant of it. I am defending the actions of the Mormon student, insofar as he refused to stamp on the name of Jesus. But, in your opinion, because he also threatened the professor, that somehow invalidates the legitimacy of his earlier protest. He was right to be upset, but wrong to issue a threat. Where did I say that he was justified in threatening the professor?
Originally posted by Yorick
I could be wrong, but EE seems to be defending the actions of the Mormon student. The claim is made that symbols are important (which nobody can deny), but no concession is made in this defence for the more important issue- that the lecturer received treats of violence. I pointed out the Mahammed cartoon thing, and EE proceeded to complain about philosophical materialism, missing the point by eighteen nautical miles.
quote:Perhaps you would be so good as to let Karl: LB know that I wasn't relying on my imagination after all!
Originally posted by Yorick
quote:I'd accept it.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
...Therefore I declare that we do not need this old book, and I sling it in the fire. A true, honest and genuine materialist would have to accept that my actions were correct.
Yorick: a true, honest and genuine materialist.
quote:Fair enough, there certainly is a continuum there. I do not think that we can say for every situation and for every person that this one particular place along the continuum is always the best. But I think we can say that that the extremes are almost always wrong. It is bad to seek to sacrifice yourself at all costs, just in order to "make a point". That devalues the worth of one's own life too much. It is also bad to shrink from all self-sacrifice, just in order to save one's life (or comfort). That devalues the worth of one's principles too much.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sorry, but I don't see the difference. Doing the second thing is avoiding the persecution, isn't it?
quote:EE - for clarification, my point was about the idea that this lesson was about materialist reductionism, which you did appear to get from nowhere. Yorick seems to be fighting a corner all of his own with little to do with the intentions of the lesson as I understand it.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:On another thread you accused me of resorting to the tu quoque fallacy, but what we see here is a variant of it. I am defending the actions of the Mormon student, insofar as he refused to stamp on the name of Jesus. But, in your opinion, because he also threatened the professor, that somehow invalidates the legitimacy of his earlier protest. He was right to be upset, but wrong to issue a threat. Where did I say that he was justified in threatening the professor?
Originally posted by Yorick
I could be wrong, but EE seems to be defending the actions of the Mormon student. The claim is made that symbols are important (which nobody can deny), but no concession is made in this defence for the more important issue- that the lecturer received treats of violence. I pointed out the Mahammed cartoon thing, and EE proceeded to complain about philosophical materialism, missing the point by eighteen nautical miles.
As for my apparently misrepresenting you with reference to materialism (hence your earlier "...and I'd be grateful if you would refrain from misrepresenting my position quite so much, please"), I am pleased that you have cleared this up:
quote:Perhaps you would be so good as to let Karl: LB know that I wasn't relying on my imagination after all!
Originally posted by Yorick
quote:I'd accept it.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
...Therefore I declare that we do not need this old book, and I sling it in the fire. A true, honest and genuine materialist would have to accept that my actions were correct.
Yorick: a true, honest and genuine materialist.
(Btw... do please stay away from the rare books trade).
quote:Well, quite. The point that he was trying to make was that symbols have a powerful meaning, but then he's surprised when the response doesn't stay confined within the neat box he had hoped it would stay in. Physician, heal thyself!
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Which is exactly what the prof's class was all about.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If I happen to walk on a bit of Jesus paper, or a US flag, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
But ask me to do so deliberately, and now the bit of cloth or paper is in a symbolic context, and so stepping on it, or burning it, has symbolic meaning.
quote:That is a very different angle on the whole thing, yes. The key thing is, you need a sensitive teacher doing this so that they know not to push it too far. After all, the whole point of the exercise is the power of symbol (or of a name, or of a Name, which is even more powerful sometimes) and the teacher should already appreciate how great a power that is.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ads - if you read Demas' link and the other articles it links to (This one, for example) you will note that the version in the OP is disputed. If Demas' information is correct, then what is described is considerable closer to what you'd do than it has been reported.
quote:In anthropological terms, that's precisely the kind of action that makes something magical or holy. Even a professor of religious studies should know a little anthropology.
quote:Hmm - I think they might mean different things to different people. I tend to agree with the professor, according to my understanding of the terms.
And as for the other professor who opines that writing the name on the paper doesn't make it magical or holy, he clearly needs to go and read up on what "magical" and "holy" mean.
quote:I disagree. I think the prof is perfectly entitled to expect that his students can discuss their own reactions without threatening violence!
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Well, quite. The point that he was trying to make was that symbols have a powerful meaning, but then he's surprised when the response doesn't stay confined within the neat box he had hoped it would stay in. Physician, heal thyself!
quote:I'm not so sure that it is so different. The class were instructed to write "Jesus" on a sheet of paper, meditate over it for a while, then put it on the floor and step on it.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
That is a very different angle on the whole thing, yes.
quote:Yes, quite. Provoking a strong response, but expecting that response to remain strictly confined within the boundaries you expect, is a bit naive.
After all, the whole point of the exercise is the power of symbol (or of a name, or of a Name, which is even more powerful sometimes) and the teacher should already appreciate how great a power that is.
quote:Mythology to the contrary, most Christians weren't asked. For one thing, most persecutions focused on prominent people, leaders in the Christian community -- not the ordinary folks. And for another, most persecutions were limited in both time and place -- even the worst of what is recorded in Egypt and/or Carthage, for example, was probably not happening at all at the same time in Britain or Italy.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
EE - I was being sarcastic.
quote:I don't think the martyrs were stupid. But if large numbers of Christians hadn't burnt the pinch of incense, how much of the church would have been left?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Ah, the stupidity of the martyrs. On the blood flowing from such stupidity the Church was founded, on Marvin-style pragmatic cleverness, not so much.
quote:But in the US, "Don't Tread On Me" is a slogan fraught with meaning. I have no idea whether students would or would not have called the historical significance of "treading" to mind, but in the absense of very much agreed fact and a great deal of speculation, I thought I'd throw it into the mix.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can we remind ourselves that students were not required to "stomp" on the paper? They were invited to tread on it (and I'd suggest that whilst we're talking about symbols, the symbolic distinction between "stomping" and "treading" is quite significant), and when they hesitated, they were not then required to carry on, but discussed their hesitation?
That's how I read the lesson plan. It is in no way comparable to requiring a Hindu child to spear a picture of Ganesh with a dart.
quote:Firstly, I disagree that the reported actions of the student constitute a threat. "I want to hit you" is a statement of anger. "I am going to hit you" is a threat.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I disagree. I think the prof is perfectly entitled to expect that his students can discuss their own reactions without threatening violence!
quote:If you came up to me shaking your fist and telling me you want to hit me, I would feel threatened. I would actually quite possibly report it to the police as an assault. It is utterly unacceptable behaviour in my book.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Firstly, I disagree that the reported actions of the student constitute a threat. "I want to hit you" is a statement of anger. "I am going to hit you" is a threat.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I disagree. I think the prof is perfectly entitled to expect that his students can discuss their own reactions without threatening violence!
quote:I don't think that anything short of a threat to one's own personal safety is offensive enough to justify a violent reaction in another person, to be honest. If I did, I'd have beaten the shit out of a lot of people in the past. I haven't.
Second, I think that expecting that his students can discuss their own reactions without threatening violence, whatever the provocation, is naive at best.
I'm sure we can all imagine some pretty offensive provocation that would drive many people to violence, or at least violent thoughts. Is the only difference is that you don't think Jesus-stomping is offensive enough?
quote:I have, on occasion, punched walls very close to the head of someone who I was very very angry with, and there was never the merest hint of suggestion in my mind that I would actually hit him. So my perspective isn't quite the same.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've been very angry with people over the years, but I've never, ever, come close to doing something like that, so it seems a very extreme and threatening response to me.
quote:If you ever meet me, don't do that to me, because I would consider it a threat to my personal safety and might well get my defence in first, if I didn't think I could outrun you. How do I, or indeed the teacher of this class, know that there's no suggestion that you're actually going to do that?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:I have, on occasion, punched walls very close to the head of someone who I was very very angry with, and there was never the merest hint of suggestion in my mind that I would actually hit him. So my perspective isn't quite the same.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've been very angry with people over the years, but I've never, ever, come close to doing something like that, so it seems a very extreme and threatening response to me.
quote:Maybe it is just my understanding of the meaning of the words, but if somebody "steps" on my foot and somebody "stomps" on my foot, I expect to feel more pain from the stomping. In my mind, it carries the implication of added force. "Stomp" therefore strikes me as a little more inflammatory a word than "step." But I suppose reasonable minds could differ on that.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I don't think the difference between "step" and "stomp" is significant.
quote:Speculating here, but the prof may not have had much choice. With the multiple school shootings that have occurred in the U.S. over the past several years, it is my understanding that school administrations want all threats to be reported--even if the hearer of the threat does not personally believe that there is any intent to carry out the threat.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
As is reported in the professor's version, the student asked the professor after the class "How dare you disrespect someone's religion?" and hit his balled fists into his other hand, saying that he wanted to hit the professor.
That's not a threat. That's a statement of anger, and the professor knew he was doing something which would arouse strong feelings. So his response (to report threats to the administration) shows that he didn't really approach the class very well.
quote:well... and you don't think that the person whose head you nearly but not quite hit should feel threatened by this? becuase, unless I knew you very very well, and you did this, I'd be calling 911 as soon as I could get far far away from you! You may not have intended to hit me, but since I am not a mind reader, I can't know that, and it's about as obvious a threat as I think can be made! Even if I can see that you didn't intend to hit me at that point, I would read "this time I hit the wall.. next time it could be your head!" I don't know anyone who wouldn't react the same way to your described action!!!
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:I have, on occasion, punched walls very close to the head of someone who I was very very angry with, and there was never the merest hint of suggestion in my mind that I would actually hit him. So my perspective isn't quite the same.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I've been very angry with people over the years, but I've never, ever, come close to doing something like that, so it seems a very extreme and threatening response to me.
quote:Terrifying for the person on the receiving end.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I have, on occasion, punched walls very close to the head of someone who I was very very angry with, and there was never the merest hint of suggestion in my mind that I would actually hit him. So my perspective isn't quite the same.
quote:I don't disagree, if by "violent reaction" you mean actually attacking someone. My point, though, is that I think we're all aware that many people would offense and throw a punch in response to, for example, crude insinuations about their mother. It is reasonable to expect that in a class of students, some would respond in that way. It is therefore unreasonable to expect that the class would all sit and discuss it calmly and rationally.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think that anything short of a threat to one's own personal safety is offensive enough to justify a violent reaction in another person, to be honest. If I did, I'd have beaten the shit out of a lot of people in the past. I haven't.
quote:They would, but we don't consider it acceptable behaviour, do we? I mean, if we give a class a homework assignment it's reasonable to expect that some of them will fail to do it, but they still get detention. Physically threatening a teacher is another level of unacceptable; if I threatened someone at work, whatever the provocation, I'd expect to be fired. We're expected to control our anger, and if we react in a way that makes someone feel threatened, as this student did, we've failed to control our anger in the way expected of us, even if we don't actually throw a punch.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:I don't disagree, if by "violent reaction" you mean actually attacking someone. My point, though, is that I think we're all aware that many people would offense and throw a punch in response to, for example, crude insinuations about their mother. It is reasonable to expect that in a class of students, some would respond in that way. It is therefore unreasonable to expect that the class would all sit and discuss it calmly and rationally.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think that anything short of a threat to one's own personal safety is offensive enough to justify a violent reaction in another person, to be honest. If I did, I'd have beaten the shit out of a lot of people in the past. I haven't.
quote:Really?
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:I don't disagree, if by "violent reaction" you mean actually attacking someone. My point, though, is that I think we're all aware that many people would offense and throw a punch in response to, for example, crude insinuations about their mother. It is reasonable to expect that in a class of students, some would respond in that way. It is therefore unreasonable to expect that the class would all sit and discuss it calmly and rationally.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't think that anything short of a threat to one's own personal safety is offensive enough to justify a violent reaction in another person, to be honest. If I did, I'd have beaten the shit out of a lot of people in the past. I haven't.
quote:I agree completely that it's not magical or holy. I just don't think that's at all relevant. At all. Not .0000001%. And Crook is either a certified idiot for thinking so, or an asshole for saying so.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:What I read was that the students weren't told what the point of the assignment was until AFTER they stomped on the paper.
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.
quote:This is an astute observation. The experiment should have been cleared through the Human Subjects board.
Originally posted by Hawk:
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.
quote:But apparently how we see it, unless we see it from a purely materialistic viewpoint, is risible to Crook (who is not the teacher who did the experiment -- people need to make sure they distinguish them). That Crook is all but blowing a gasket about this actually proves Crook is wrong. Which is an interesting paradox.
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's how we see it that matters, not the symbol itself.
quote:I think this is ridiculously naive about the power relationship between professors and students.
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
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,
quote:Hmm - I think they might mean different things to different people. I tend to agree with the professor, according to my understanding of the terms.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
[QUOTE]And as for the other professor who opines that writing the name on the paper doesn't make it magical or holy, he clearly needs to go and read up on what "magical" and "holy" mean.
quote:You clearly don't know as many Christians as I do. Or read the news.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Given that the teacher self-identifies as a Christian, my inclination would be to assume that he does have a modicum of sensitivity.
quote:Yes, it appeared to me that the desired response was NOT to stomp/ step/ tread on the name-- in order to provoke a meaningful discussion of why they would not. Had the students all robotically obeyed the lesson would have fallen flat and failed to reach it's pedagogical goals.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can we remind ourselves that students were not required to "stomp" on the paper? They were invited to tread on it (and I'd suggest that whilst we're talking about symbols, the symbolic distinction between "stomping" and "treading" is quite significant), and when they hesitated, they were not then required to carry on, but discussed their hesitation?
That's how I read the lesson plan. It is in no way comparable to requiring a Hindu child to spear a picture of Ganesh with a dart.
quote:I certainly think Jesus-stomping is offensive enough-- as does the prof. apparently. But, as a univ. prof., I cannot agree that it is unreasonable to expect university students to be able to discuss their reactions to offensive material w/o threatening violence. If they are unable to do so, they don't belong in a university classroom.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Firstly, I disagree that the reported actions of the student constitute a threat. "I want to hit you" is a statement of anger. "I am going to hit you" is a threat.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I disagree. I think the prof is perfectly entitled to expect that his students can discuss their own reactions without threatening violence!
Second, I think that expecting that his students can discuss their own reactions without threatening violence, whatever the provocation, is naive at best.
I'm sure we can all imagine some pretty offensive provocation that would drive many people to violence, or at least violent thoughts. Is the only difference is that you don't think Jesus-stomping is offensive enough?
quote:"University students" are about half of the country's young adults. Which group of people is most renowned for getting in to fights? Young adult males.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Really?
University students?
Of course I would expect it.
quote:I have been teaching exactly this level of student-- first year university-- for more than 10 years. As I said, we use provocative material all the time. I would absolutely expect my students to understand that threatening violence is not an acceptable response. I would expect them to discuss verbally-- passionately, loudly perhaps, angrily-- but no more. This is what we do all the time in university. It is our job as instructors. And it is the students' job not to respond robotically to everything the instructor's say (again, the point here was clearly NOT to obey) but to engage it critically, verbally, thoughtfully. A student who cannot understand this does not belong in university.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:"University students" are about half of the country's young adults. Which group of people is most renowned for getting in to fights? Young adult males.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Really?
University students?
Of course I would expect it.
This is almost certainly some kind of entry-level general education class, meaning that the students are a more or less random selection, with a variety of backgrounds.
There are bound to be some hot tempers in the class. If you're going to set out to deliberately provoke them, perhaps you ought to be a bit careful about doing so.
quote:I think this depends on the presentation. Showing offensive material, discussing why it's offensive, and discussing your reactions to it, sure.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But, as a univ. prof., I cannot agree that it is unreasonable to expect university students to be able to discuss their reactions to offensive material w/o threatening violence.
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would absolutely expect my students to understand that threatening violence is not an acceptable response. I would expect them to discuss verbally-- passionately, loudly perhaps, angrily-- but no more. This is what we do all the time in university. It is our job as instructors. And it is the students' job not to respond robotically to everything the instructor's say (again, the point here was clearly NOT to obey) but to engage it critically, verbally, thoughtfully. A student who cannot understand this does not belong in university.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Sorry Ann, won't work here as it is too rational.
Originally posted by Ann:
An article from the (British) Psychology Today blog.
quote:For context, that quote is referring to Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc.
Belief in voodoo, albeit implicit, is still alive and well in this modern world
quote:Again, the point wasn't made clear until AFTER the instruction was given.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
(again, the point here was clearly NOT to obey)
quote:To be specific tt is referring to all manner of emotional response to symbols, and the majority of the article is about our response to photographs of childhood objects, wives and football teams. The full paragraph is
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
For context, that quote is referring to Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc.
quote:I think the context is that the implicit belief in voodoo (i.e. crediting symbols with power) is not limited to religious items but rather anything that we feel emotionally attached to.
In short, even though we know that symbols are only referents, we respond as if they are the real thing when threatened. No wonder people apparently also refuse to sign a contract to sell their soul to the devil even if they claim not to believe that any such transaction would actually happen. We may be able to engage top down rationality when contemplating symbolic acts but if they involve teddy bears, spouses, yourself or your God, then emotions run high. Belief in voodoo, albeit implicit, is still alive and well in this modern world.
quote:In context, I don't think you should feel threatened, so perhaps I should expand.
Originally posted by Anyuta:
well... and you don't think that the person whose head you nearly but not quite hit should feel threatened by this? becuase, unless I knew you very very well, and you did this, I'd be calling 911 as soon as I could get far far away from you!
quote:I will certainly agree that these threats are completely unacceptable (and rather similar to the kind of threats that Adria Richards received in another recent thread.) I will point out that the reason the professor is not at work is these threats, and has nothing at all to do with him feeling threatened by the original student.
Originally posted by mousethief:
In general, I hope we can all agree that subsequent threats (via Twitter, etc.) against the professor are a rather poor showing for Christians.
quote:No, it's not. It's specifically mentions teddy bears and photos of spouses, not Jesus or Mohamed. The voodoo reference is clearly about the voodoo practice of doing harm to a likeness of someone and the harm transferring to the real thing. Not at all a slam on religion, but reference to humanity's equating of a symbol with the thing symbolized.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Sorry Ann, won't work here as it is too rational.
Originally posted by Ann:
An article from the (British) Psychology Today blog.
from the article.
quote:For context, that quote is referring to Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc.
Belief in voodoo, albeit implicit, is still alive and well in this modern world
quote:That is how I understood it as well.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I will point out that the reason the professor is not at work is these threats, and has nothing at all to do with him feeling threatened by the original student.
quote:If I found myself in a session where I was asked to throw a dart at a picture of Charles Darwin, I think I'd strongly hesitate to do so. Not because Charles Darwin is going to send me to Hell: just because it might be seen as endorsing hostility. Can you empathise with that?
Originally posted by George Spigot:
EE. In all honesty I can't really put myself in the same headspace as the Hindu child in your example. I just don't think or perceive the world in the same way. So I could sympathise but not empathise if that makes sense.
quote:Form the article:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
No, it's not. It's specifically mentions teddy bears and photos of spouses, not Jesus or Mohamed. The voodoo reference is clearly about the voodoo practice of doing harm to a likeness of someone and the harm transferring to the real thing. Not at all a slam on religion, but reference to humanity's equating of a symbol with the thing symbolized.
quote:bold mine
We may be able to engage top down rationality when contemplating symbolic acts but if they involve teddy bears, spouses, yourself or your God,
quote:Your pounding the wall is a threat, whether or not you intended to strike the person. If it were uncontrolled, the intent to violence is still there even though there was no battery. If it was controlled, there is an explicit threat.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
In context, I don't think you should feel threatened, so perhaps I should expand.
The context is the hottest of hot blood. You have been repeatedly offensive over the last several days, have been repeatedly told not to do that, and have just done it again in a particularly extreme manner.
I immediately yell and hit the wall by your head. There is a shocked silence, I take a deep breath as the adrenaline subsides, and explain, again, why what you are doing is offensive and why I'd like you to stop.
I am sufficiently close to you that my failure to hit you either must be deliberate or I have an astonishingly bad aim.
Now, I'm not particularly proud of this response, and I don't recommend it. It's also not a case of my coming up to you and then hitting the wall - I am there. Had I been a few paces away, I'd have hit something else - a desk, maybe.
You might have felt threatened during the second of shocked silence. I accept that during that second you couldn't calculate the trajectory of my arm with sufficient accuracy to know that you weren't in danger. This is one of the reasons that I'm not proud of that response.
But I understand the anger, and I understand that anger coupled with a determination not to cause harm can lead to a violent display.
So that leads me to want to give the student the benefit of the doubt, on the reports that we have. We don't know exactly how the professor presented the tread-on-Jesus exercise, and the description of how the student approached the professor could cover a range of levels of threat. We do know that the student didn't actually hit anyone.
If you deliberately set out to court an emotive response (as this class did), then I think you have to be more accepting of a wider range of behaviour than otherwise. The student may have crossed the line, and the professor may have handled the class poorly. In those circumstances I am willing to give the student some more latitude.
quote:There is nothing that indicates the professor was sneering at anything. All indications seem opposite.
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is mistaken to poo-poo this ability as mere "voodoo". Yes, like everything people use, symbols can be abused. But this ability as such is not to be sneered at. It is a deep and integral part, a good part, of what it means to be human. In us, with us and through us, stick and stone become alive, communicate, gain a history.
quote:which is different. That is looking at things which are offensive, and is a reasonably analytical exercise, even if those things are grossly offensive to you personally.
I will often assign a reading or post a provocative quote that I know violates my students' beliefs-- and mine-- for the purpose of engaging discussion.
quote:And yet the choice of word is unfortunate since it is often used as a pejorative term for superstition and religion. I suspect Anyuta misread your post in the same way as I first read it - skipping over the "atheist" to think that you were implying that the article was equating some sort of voodoo/magical thinking with religious superstition.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I would not so denigrate the belief in voodoo.
quote:Problem is, the safe sandbox does not sufficiently challenge.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
One can get more personal, and ask the students how they would feel if they were required to do something symbolically offensive. "How would you respond if I were to tell you to stomp on Jesus / urinate on this Bible / burn this Koran / whatever." That, in my mind, is a safe question. It allows the student to summon up a sandbox to consider their emotional response, whist still keeping art of their mind as a disinterested observer.
quote:bold mine
A few years back we demonstrated that cutting up photographs of sentimental childhood objects produced implicit anxiety as measured by the galvanic skin response in adults even though they predicted that they would not respond negatively.
quote:Actually the article is quite irrational, because it is driven by confirmation bias. There is an a priori assumption that we should not respond to mere symbols in an emotional way, and then when we do (because symbols are replete with meaning), this confirms the rather mean-spirited and illogical conclusion that people ought only to respond in this way to 'real' people, rather than to information about them.
Originally posted by lilBuddha
quote:Sorry Ann, won't work here as it is too rational.
Originally posted by Ann:
An article from the (British) Psychology Today blog.
from the article.
quote:For context, that quote is referring to Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc.
Belief in voodoo, albeit implicit, is still alive and well in this modern world
quote:Your example has people being asked to predict their reactions, and then being asked to test those predictions. That's a much gentler way in than beginning with the destruction of the photographs.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Problem is, the safe sandbox does not sufficiently challenge.
quote:So you think it is rational for a psychologist to conclude that someone is into voodoo, who gets upset when being asked to cut up photographs which are full of meaning and significance for him or her?
Originally posted by lilBuddha
One of us needs different spectacles, that is not how I read the article at all.
quote:This is not a thought experiment (if reported correctly). It's a live psychological one, as has been pointed out.
The Florida Atlantic University professor incited uproar when he had his students write the name "Jesus" on a piece of paper and then step on it.
quote:No I can't.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:If I found myself in a session where I was asked to throw a dart at a picture of Charles Darwin, I think I'd strongly hesitate to do so. Not because Charles Darwin is going to send me to Hell: just because it might be seen as endorsing hostility. Can you empathise with that?
Originally posted by George Spigot:
EE. In all honesty I can't really put myself in the same headspace as the Hindu child in your example. I just don't think or perceive the world in the same way. So I could sympathise but not empathise if that makes sense.
quote:I should have specified that the way the person leading the session set up the throw darts at a photo made you suspect that he or she might be a creationist?
Originally posted by George Spigot:
But remove that context and just leave your above example? No it would just be a photo to me.
quote:Poole is not. Crook is.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is nothing that indicates the professor was sneering at anything. All indications seem opposite.
quote:If they were a creationist? Well I doubt it would make any difference. Its not going to harm Richard and it's not going to offend my love of Dawkins because I don't have any. I'd throw the dart then hopefully engage the creationist in some interesting debate. Actually if his stupid comments made after the whole asking to visit a woman back for coffee at 3am in a lift incident were on my mind I'd probably enjoy throwing the dart.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I should have specified that the way the person leading the session set up the throw darts at a photo made you suspect that he or she might be a creationist?
Originally posted by George Spigot:
But remove that context and just leave your above example? No it would just be a photo to me.
I was tempted to ask about a picture of Anne Frank, but I see you've already answered that.
(NB this is not intended to take sides in the account of the original incident. I wasn't there. My instincts, for what it's worth, are to side with the lecturer.)
quote:but this isn't an experiment to discover something new, it's meant to show THESE students something that can be explained in words, but is much better experienced. Many people, myself included, often under- or over- estimate what their reaction to a particular situation will be.. untill they are actually IN that situation.
Originally posted by mdijon:
But do we really need to repeat the full force of that experiment every time with every group of students?
The essence of science is that the data are transferable. We can read the experiment, look at the means of the galvanic skin responses, look at the primary references that validate that as a measure of anxiety, and draw conclusions without needing to experience the same emotional reaction as the subjects.
I expect that just discussing in class the likely reactions if one were asked to do the trampling would make the point. Perhaps some would claim that they wouldn't react, and then it would be instructive to look at the experimental results.
quote:I imagine he has learnt that some of his fellow Christians are fast to judgement, full of anger and hate and potentially violent.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
But am I the only one who thinks the professor might actually be one to learn something from this incident too?
quote:No one, in any link yet presented, stated anyone is "into voodoo." What was said is the underlying mechanisms of associating an object with a person/deity are the same.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:So you think it is rational for a psychologist to conclude that someone is into voodoo, who gets upset when being asked to cut up photographs which are full of meaning and significance for him or her?
Originally posted by lilBuddha
One of us needs different spectacles, that is not how I read the article at all.
You think that conclusion is rational. I think it's complete bullshit.
quote:From my read, with what little context we have, it seems dismissive at worse. I do not read sneering. However, without actually hearing the entire interview...?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Poole is not. Crook is.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There is nothing that indicates the professor was sneering at anything. All indications seem opposite.
quote:Sure. The "if conducted correctly" thing is the key, though, and does not include running roughshod over people in order to prove the point. I can't see how doing things in the order that the study you referenced did (ask the students how they think they would react in a hypothetical situation, then challenge them to put it to the test) would have been much worse. Possibly the initial discussion causes a framing effect in people with only a weak attachment to Jesus (or whatever is put on the paper), but I don't think that alters the class much.
Originally posted by Anyuta:
This particular exercise, if conducted correctly, can definitely point out to a doubter that yes, words DO have meaning, well beyond the ink on paper. symbols do matter, and they matter not just to primitive people who "don't know any better" but each and every one of us. we react strongly. probably more strongly than even we suspect.
quote:Now, I read that as "Professor instructs class to commit offensive act in order to make a point, but then fails to engage with the student he angered. In other words, almost a teachable moment, but the professor abandoned his post."
Poole explained that the student [..] asked the professor after the class "How dare you disrespect someone's religion?" and hit his balled fists into his other hand, saying that he wanted to hit the professor. Although the student did not carry out his threats, Poole notified campus security and filed a report.
quote:It certainly seems that the student's reaction was stronger than the professor suspected, which perhaps rather proves the point that the class was trying to make.
probably more strongly than even we suspect.
quote:I'll admit, I'm arguing with Poole over on Facebook and that may be coloring my perception of the article.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
From my read, with what little context we have, [Poole] seems dismissive at worse. I do not read sneering. However, without actually hearing the entire interview...?
quote:I submit that the number of Christians on this thread calling for the prof. to be sacked and beaten is very small.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What, indeed, Would Jesus Do in this situation? Ah, yes, he would call for the prof. to be sacked and beaten.
quote:This makes no sense at all. Stepping on pejorative, insulting labels? What sort of person would be offended by that? How would this not be a positive thing?
Originally posted by gorpo:
I hope this idiot´s career is finished for good. No violence intended, but that is what would have happened if he required the students to step in a paper with the words "Gay" or "Nigger". I´m surprised nobody mentions the fact that american universities (and even seminars!) currently are imersed in an anti-christian atmosphere. This experiment obviously belong into this context.
quote:Given it's taken from a textbook and has been used for 30 years with no fuss... and given that the initial article is pretty obviously a poorly researched scare piece... and given that our knowledge of what actually happened in the classroom is sketchy at best... like lilbuddha, I think the onus should be pretty firmly on innocent until proven guilty with regards to the professor.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Sure. The "if conducted correctly" thing is the key, though, and does not include running roughshod over people in order to prove the point.
quote:Having started to read the article that Mere Nick linked to, it seems I was wrong about this - the student confronted the professor after the class had been dismissed. Which makes it harder to ascertain whether the student was being threatening or not.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
With regards to the student, well, there was a whole class of witnesses to his behaviour, not just the professor, so there's a good hope here that justice has been / will be done - whether he was threatening, or whether it was a misunderstanding.
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
But am I the only one who thinks the professor might actually be one to learn something from this incident too?
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Don't take risks (even if the exercise in the syllabus which has been used for 30 years). Pussy foot around your students and worry every minute about their reactions. Keep your head down, do as you are told and don't even think of treating your students as adults who are responsible for their own actions and reactions.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:Actually the professor was not taking much of a risk, because Christians are an easy target. If he really was a courageous person he should have devised exercises that provoke all major viewpoints. How about throwing darts at a picture of a happily smiling gay couple standing together after having been married or joined in a civil partnership? How about burning pictures of Jewish people in an oven - after all, they are just "pieces of paper", aren't they? How about going the whole hog and getting the students to write Muhammad on the paper? Or better still, how about burning the Koran?
Originally posted by Boogie
Don't take risks (even if the exercise in the syllabus which has been used for 30 years). Pussy foot around your students and worry every minute about their reactions. Keep your head down, do as you are told and don't even think of treating your students as adults who are responsible for their own actions and reactions.
quote:I don't see why receiving death threats affords one a "victim above criticism" status. The receiving of death threats, hideous and unjustified as it is, seems to me orthogonal to whether there was anything that might have been done better in the lesson.
Originally posted by Demas:
The professor, who is a Christian himself, has received death threats.
And the reaction here is "We don't know whether this particular lesson was as well taught and conceived as it might have been."
quote:Christianity remains the dominant worldview in that part of the world. Therefore using a Christian reference in the experiment has the greatest chance of producing the desired reaction in the students. After all, the whole point of the exercise is to use a symbol that the students would be reluctant to step on.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If he really was a courageous person he should have devised exercises that provoke all major viewpoints. How about throwing darts at a picture of a happily smiling gay couple standing together after having been married or joined in a civil partnership? How about burning pictures of Jewish people in an oven - after all, they are just "pieces of paper", aren't they? How about going the whole hog and getting the students to write Muhammad on the paper? Or better still, how about burning the Koran?
quote:Darwin, not Dawkins. There is a difference. (Insert joke about despite what Dawkins thinks.)
Originally posted by George Spigot:
If they were a creationist? Well I doubt it would make any difference. Its not going to harm Richard and it's not going to offend my love of Dawkins because I don't have any.
quote:The truth of the story would be, "Man throws dart at photo".
Originally posted by mdijon:
What about if you knew the fact that you'd thrown the dart was going to be publicised?
quote:"George Spigot throws dart at picture of Charles Darwin" Fair enough I'd be happy with that. Sounds like a very boring headline to me.
Originally posted by mdijon:
Wouldn't the truth of the story be "George Spigot throws dart at picture of Charles Darwin"?
Developing a misconception that you had something against the guy would be forgiveable, wouldn't it?
OK, the full story would be "George Spigot throws dart at picture of Charles Darwin in order to refute the power of symbolism".
The real headline result would be from the galvanic skin sensor readings taken during the build up and throwing.
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The truth of the story would be, "Man throws dart at photo".
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Wouldn't the truth of the story be "George Spigot throws dart at picture of Charles Darwin"?
quote:Since we're into psychology here, should we ask Dr Freud why you abbreviated "photo of Charles Darwin" into "photo" the first time around? Could it be that there's something just a little bit more uncomfortable about the idea of throwing a dart at a photo of a human being?
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Fair enough I'd be happy with that. Sounds like a very boring headline to me.
quote:I don't think so. At least not consciously. I think it was more to highlight the mundanity of the headline.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The truth of the story would be, "Man throws dart at photo".quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Wouldn't the truth of the story be "George Spigot throws dart at picture of Charles Darwin"?quote:Since we're into psychology here, should we ask Dr Freud why you abbreviated "photo of Charles Darwin" into "photo" the first time around? Could it be that there's something just a little bit more uncomfortable about the idea of throwing a dart at a photo of a human being?
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Fair enough I'd be happy with that. Sounds like a very boring headline to me.
quote:Well obviously.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
At least not consciously.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:Do most people here honestly not get the difference between a teacher doing an exercise or activity in class to make a point about the subject s/he's teaching, and a researcher conducting research? Heaven help us if the day comes when we need institutional review board approval to carry out any kind of illustration or object lesson that requires student participation.
Originally posted by mdijon:
If the point of the exercise is to convince every individual present that symbols matter to them, then the first thing to do might be simply to ask what their reaction would be.
Those that say they would be furious have already demonstrated that point to themselves and others. No need to go further.
Those that say they wouldn't mind could be invited to actually participate in something. The something they do ought to be something calculated to provoke a reaction in them rather than others. Burning pictures of holocaust memorials might be one, being invited to wear a Nazi uniform another, trampling on a cross might work for another.
It would then be clear that the exercise isn't about any one individual belief system, but rather the power of symbols, and that it isn't particularly a religious issue either.
Even then, it still troubles me that if a university wanted to do this on members of the public in an experiment an institutional review board approval would be required, and so would informed consent.
quote:This shows a profound lack of imagination. The prof could say, "Write a word that is of supreme importance to you. For instance if you are a Christian you might write 'Jesus', or if you are a Muslim, you might write 'Allah.'" Then everybody would be stepping on a word that's important to that person.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Christianity remains the dominant worldview in that part of the world. Therefore using a Christian reference in the experiment has the greatest chance of producing the desired reaction in the students. After all, the whole point of the exercise is to use a symbol that the students would be reluctant to step on.
quote:Do you know WHY we have Human Subjects review boards? It's not because the fact something is an experiment makes its potential ill effects on the subjects so much worse. This experiment (for that is in fact what it is, whether you like it or not) is designed to provoke emotions, for the purpose of discussing them. The prof is purposely yanking chains. I can't see how one can argue this can't have a negative emotional impact on the subjects every bit as profound as filling out a survey for some psych grad student's research about religious feelings and tax brackets (or whatever), which WOULD require a Human Subjects review.
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Do most people here honestly not get the difference between a teacher doing an exercise or activity in class to make a point about the subject s/he's teaching, and a researcher conducting research?
quote:It appears all you are doing is introducing to the concept of communism, socialism or some other sort of statism by having you at the top deciding who gets what. To show them capitalism, base the distribution on test scores.
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Every year I introduce my students (college age, but doing high-school level work to make up for earlier deficits in their education) to the concepts of communism and capitalism by bringing in a couple of bags of potato chips and dividing them unequally amongst class members, with most getting a few chips, some getting none, and one person getting a large bowlful. Then we talk about methods of chip distribution. Should I be concerned that some student will become outraged that they did not get their fair share of chips and threaten to attack me? Should I submit this exercise to the director of my institution for approval because I am, in effect, experimenting on the students to see what their reaction to unequal chip distribution is? Or should I water down the lesson by saying "Imagine I have here a bag of potato chips...." but not introducing any actual chips into the class?
quote:It appears the professor thought they would. That seems to tell me that the professor is, deep down inside, a pro-Jesus guy.
The only difference I would have made if using the activity that prof did is that I would have let the students choose what to write on the paper, suggesting that "Jesus" for Christians, "Muhammed" or "Allah" for Muslims, or the name of a loved one or a deeply cherished value for others, might be the sort of thing to put there. THEN I'd ask them to step on it and discuss their reactions to being asked to do that (whether or not they actually did it). Not everyone would have the same reaction to the word "Jesus."
quote:As if. To show them capitalism, base the distribution on their parents' income. On a logarithmic scale.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
To show them capitalism, base the distribution on test scores.
quote:There is a difference between an exercise and a psychological experiment designed to manipulate emotions and observe the outcome, like MT says.
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Every year I introduce my students (college age, but doing high-school level work to make up for earlier deficits in their education) to the concepts of communism and capitalism by bringing in a couple of bags of potato chips and dividing them unequally amongst class members, with most getting a few chips, some getting none, and one person getting a large bowlful.
quote:She would need to try and keep it something that the kids can do something about. If my kids were in her class and the distribution was based upon how much debt their folks ran up to put them in the class then I suspect my kids would have chips out the wazoo.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:As if. To show them capitalism, base the distribution on their parents' income. On a logarithmic scale.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
To show them capitalism, base the distribution on test scores.
quote:On this thread, you are correct. Though, if I am honest, it was gorpo's post which triggered the response.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I submit that the number of Christians on this thread calling for the prof. to be sacked and beaten is very small.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What, indeed, Would Jesus Do in this situation? Ah, yes, he would call for the prof. to be sacked and beaten.
quote:At every class or seminar I have ever been in, whether as student or teacher, it has been routine for people to approach the speaker with questions at the end, if those questions aren't directly relevant to the whole class. I can certainly see how a student could consider "I am angry with the content of this class" to be the kind of thing that should be held for the end rather than interrupting the class.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
the student confronted the professor after the class had been dismissed. Which makes it harder to ascertain whether the student was being threatening or not.
quote:We had the same discussion on the Adria Richards thread. Everybody agrees that death threats, rape threats and all the rest of it are wrong. We don't need to spend five pages of text agreeing about that.
Originally posted by Demas:
The professor, who is a Christian himself, has received death threats.
And the reaction here is "We don't know whether this particular lesson was as well taught and conceived as it might have been."
quote:If he wanted to take risks, he should have used Mohammed instead.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Yep.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
But am I the only one who thinks the professor might actually be one to learn something from this incident too?
Don't take risks (even if the exercise in the syllabus which has been used for 30 years). Pussy foot around your students and worry every minute about their reactions. Keep your head down, do as you are told and don't even think of treating your students as adults who are responsible for their own actions and reactions.
quote:If he has received death threats, that might explain the fact that he now is an outspoken christian! Nobody here is submitting to violence and threats against the professor. But I do hope he gets another job.
Originally posted by Demas:
The professor, who is a Christian himself, has received death threats.
And the reaction here is "We don't know whether this particular lesson was as well taught and conceived as it might have been." "Actually the professor was not taking much of a risk, because Christians are an easy target." "But am I the only one who thinks the professor might actually be one to learn something from this incident too?" "I hope this idiot's career is finished for good. "
quote:Surely the effect on the students is the same, whether the same activity happens in the context of a class or in the context of a research experiment.
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I guess I just honestly do not see how introducing a classroom activity designed to make students think about their own reactions to something is in any way similar to using them as research subjects.
quote:You have of course no evidence to support this slander.
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:If he has received death threats, that might explain the fact that he now is an outspoken christian!
Originally posted by Demas:
The professor, who is a Christian himself, has received death threats.
quote:Demas, first of all, thanks for the really good job in digging out that link. It helped the thread a lot.
Originally posted by Demas:
We must not make a perfunctory condemnation of the violence then spend pages debating what the victim may or have not done to trigger it.
quote:Liked that. Particularly the mostly!
Originally posted by Demas:
It is a standard trope of criticism of religion that moderates enable the extremists. As a moderate, I mostly dismiss it...
quote:Love, love LOVE Tom Lehrer!
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A PS. Just been listening to an affectionate radio portrait of Tom Lehrer, who is celebrating his 85th birthday (and Lord, that makes me feel old). Tom was a mathematics academic who became famous in the 60's for a whole load of satirical songs which made me and many others laugh as well as think. ("When the world becomes uranius we will all go simultaneous ..." etc).
Including in the programme was the astonishing (to me) fact that his scout-winding-up-song "Be prepared" actually got banned in Australia for a while, following protests about misrepresentation. That's ludicrous. But it shows you can take group sensitivities too far .. There's a point at which cultural relevance also becomes just plain silly.
quote:It would seem that they would learn that with personal achievement things can happen regardless of family circumstances. Doesn't have something to do with why they are in school in the first place? Is there not such a thing as class mobility where you live? I know folks who were born in to poor families who are now rich because of their achievements and I know folks who were born into rich families who eventually went bankrupt.
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
To briefly continue the tangent about my communism, capitalism and chips experiment, distributing it based on their grades would be counter to the point I'm making, since no personal achievement can affect whether you are born into a poor, middle-class, or wealthy family.
quote:I know they're Inuit these days, but is Eskimo anything more than an old name like Stalingrad, Bombay, Yugoslav or Zaire?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
<Lehrer Tangent>
It does have something to do with the thread.
Here is "We will all go together"
Written 50-some years ago, and it shows Lehrer's astonishing gift with words. But of course it contains at least one obvious non-PC line
"Every hottentot and every Eskimo"
You can kind of hear a certain type of fulmination. "Disgraceful choice of words for a so-called intelligent academic! Obviously the 60's were the dark ages when it came to cultural enlightenment! Ban all his songs, don't ever use them even in cultural studies! Minds must not be damaged by such careless exposure to Europeanised labellings of indigenous tribes. Bah!!"
And of course that really would be humbug. It is reasonable to consider group sensitivities, changing standards, when looking at course material for subjects such as inter-cultural communications. But some people get affronted so easily. Which is sad. Fancy not being able to enjoy Lehrer ..
Anyway, to balance out the possible offence, here's "The Vatican Rag".
</Lehrer Tangent>
quote:There must be something more peculiar going on, though. Otherwise we would be expected not to say Wales, Germany, Holland or Hungary any more.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Not to me. Descriptive rather than pejorative. Certainly at the time.
The arguments against it are similar for example to the argument against calling the inhabitants of Lapland Lapps. (Or calling the region Lapland as well) The indigenous people who we called Lapps call themselves the Sami; why should we not call them that? Indeed, in Scandinavia, as a mark of respect, "Sami" has more or less replaced "Lapp" as the proper term. That's a good change, I think.
But in the 60's nobody deliberately meant anything pejorative by the term Eskimo (or Lapp). The issue of what constituted respect for Inuit or Sami as indigenous groups hadn't got so far as considering whether it was more respectful to use their own descriptor, rather than the one "we" were used to.
I'll bet my bottom dollar Tom Lehrer knows that, BTW.
There's a point to these sorts of language considerations; they help cultural awareness. I'd describe Eskimo and Lapp as out-of-date descriptors, being replaced by more culturally respectful alternatives.
And that is also, I guess, an interesting discussion point for a cultural studies course.
quote:With this you give the extremists the power to shut down discussion on any topic. Issue a few death threats, and nobody can talk about the real topic any more, just the death threats. Voilà! Freedom of speech effectively curtailed.
Originally posted by Demas:
But not a debate for now. Now we should focus on the main crime and the main blasphemy - the main threat to individuals and to our faith.
While the death threats are happening is not the time to discuss the nuances of college classes.
quote:Well, no. It's more like the argument for not calling the French "Germans."
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The arguments against it are similar for example to the argument against calling the inhabitants of Lapland Lapps.
quote:I think it's more complicated than the use of Lapp but bears some similarities. The Wiki article gives a fuller picture, but as usual I'm not claiming it's fully accurate.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Well, no. It's more like the argument for not calling the French "Germans."
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The arguments against it are similar for example to the argument against calling the inhabitants of Lapland Lapps.
quote:But we continue to speak of Finland, while the natives call the country Suomi. AFAIK they don't object to our terminology.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But in the 60's nobody deliberately meant anything pejorative by the term Eskimo (or Lapp). The issue of what constituted respect for Inuit or Sami as indigenous groups hadn't got so far as considering whether it was more respectful to use their own descriptor, rather than the one "we" were used to.