Teaching versus Preaching

By Tibor Machan

After having taught college for nearly forty years, I can report that a great many teachers use their class rooms to preach, not to teach. (The same is reportedly the case in secondary schooling but I am not qualified to speak to that.)

In the tradition of liberal education, which is what is supposed to guide the profession of teaching, when professors enter the classroom, they are supposed to present to their students facts about the subject matter and, where appropriate, the variety of viewpoints that have gained prominence concerning it. The former approach is mainly associated with the natural sciences, the latter with the humanities and social sciences. Of course, facts are involved in both and even where there are different viewpoints afoot, it doesn’t mean they are all equally sound. But because they have all gained respectability, the professor is not supposed to take sides. He or she is supposed to familiarize students with these prominent perspectives and leave it to the students to decide which position is the most reasonable.

Of course, total nonpartisanship is unlikely, even if possible. And students usually do not expect it—nor do they need it since they are, after all, capable of careful thinking. But they do deserve a respectful representation of all those positions the professor may not find convincing. After all, another professor with just those views could be teaching the very same course and they all took an oath, as it were, to teach, not preach.

The frequent partisanship of professors is, of course, offset by the fact that students take quite a few courses and most are taught by different teachers, so they do often receive representation of different viewpoints even if their teachers are out and out partisan. Yet even with partisan teaching, contrary viewpoints aren’t supposed to be ridiculed—if they are worth teaching, they are worth rendering at their strongest, instead of being belittled, spoofed.

Sadly this tradition of liberal education is not being faithfully followed by many professors. I do not only have my own experience—with my own nine years of college and graduate education, with my colleagues, and with reports from students—on which to base my assessment. I also have my three children with their experiences in college. They, too, have had all too many professors who engage in blatant malpractice. They often make no attempt to represent ideas at their strongest with which they disagree and quite often outright rant and rave against these, as well as at thinkers who hold them. Back when I was a graduate student, one famous Oxford educated professor of mine dismissed all philosophers prior to Bertrand Russell as nothing but ideologues—which is to say, as apologists for some ruling class. And he gave no argument for this at all.

The abuse of class room power is nothing new but it is my impression that it used to be held in very low esteem and prevailed only because some who received tenure took advantage of the policy of academic freedom. It seems, however, that these days the abuse is the norm, although it is difficult to track the matter since the classroom tends to be the fiefdom of the professor so that no one can come in without his or her permission. And deans do not breach this practice, even though they are perhaps the only ones who have the authority to do so.

All this is disconcerting although the effort to take advantage of one’s captive audience in a classroom is not likely to get far in a relatively free society. There are many other sources of information, educated opinion, and competent renditions of different viewpoints, so even if some professors try to indoctrinate their students with just their take on a subject and denounce everyone else’s as silly, they are likely to be found out.

The one clear liability of professorial malpractice can be serious, however. This is the student’s grade who dares oppose a very partisan teacher. To such students, who do not want to become wallflowers as they face such destructive professors, ones who would penalize them for failing to toe the line, I have a suggestion. Raise your objections, your questions, in the third person—for example, "I wonder what you would say to a critic who says this or that to the idea you just championed?" Or "Are there not some who have proposed this objection to your position and how would you respond to them?" This approach could help one dodge the mean-minded grading of professors who want full compliance from their students and will punish them for refusing to provide it. But sadly even this tactic cannot stop those teachers who will refuse to hear anything contrary to their views from doing damage to their students.

Source






Rigid Victorian "sex offender" policy partially circumvented at last

An Orbost teacher who lost his job under controversial "zero-tolerance" laws for sexual offences has reached a financial settlement with the State government. The Age believes the confidential settlement is worth about $100,000 and will involve the teacher dropping legal action against the Department of Education and Training and Victoria's teacher registration body. Former Orbost Secondary College teacher Andrew Phillips was forced to resign in February last year after a compulsory police check revealed a prior sexual offence with a minor. As a 20-year-old, Mr Phillips pleaded guilty to the sexual assault of a 15-year-old girl, in 1992. No conviction was recorded and he received a good behaviour bond. The incident was consensual and the complaint was made by a third party. Under the laws, teachers convicted or found guilty of a sex offence involving a minor face mandatory dismissal.

Mr Phillips' case sparked fierce debate, with many in the community - including state and federal Labor and conservative politicians and teacher unions - calling for the laws to include ministerial discretion or an appeals process. But Premier Steve Bracks and Education Minister Lynne Kosky have maintained their zero-tolerance approach to offenders. The stance is supported by Parents Victoria and the State Opposition. Yesterday, Ms Kosky said the matters involved complex legal action and the decision took into account "the most appropriate use of taxpayers' funds" - meaning it is cheaper to settle than defend cases.

The Government stands by its legislation and policy for teachers and staff found guilty or convicted of child sex offences, she said. "The Government has acted and will continue to act in the best interests of children and places the protection of students in schools as its highest priority," Ms Kosky said. As part of the settlement, Mr Phillips, 35, will drop court action against the Government, Education Department and the Victorian Institute of Teaching as well an unfair-dismissal claim in the Industrial Relations Commission.

In his first public comment on the controversy, Mr Phillips thanked the community for their support. "I will not be returning to teaching, but the resolution of my case enables me and my family to move forward with greater confidence and security," he said in a statement to The Age.

Orbost Secondary College principal John Brazier said the settlement brought closure to what he called the worst miscarriage of justice in his 35 years of teaching. "Retrospective legislation supporting 'double jeopardy' and leading to the dismissal of outstanding teachers is not what I would expect of governments in the 21st century," he said.

The Australian Education Union, which represents Mr Phillips, said the education system had lost a good and passionate teacher because of the laws. "The union will continue to press for discretion to be included in the legislation so that more good teachers are not needlessly lost to Victorian schools," AEU president Mary Bluett said.

But Opposition education spokesman Martin Dixon said the decision to pay Mr Phillips out sent a mixed message to the community. He reiterated his opposition to discretion. "On the one hand, this sort of case involving a teacher was black-and-white and teachers with these convictions shouldn't be allowed in our schools," he said. "Yet when the community reads of the Government giving him a payout it's almost a watering down of that strong line."

Victorian Principals Association Fred Ackerman repeated calls for an appeals process in such cases. "Any process of natural justice must have an appeals process," he said.

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

The NEA and similar unions worldwide believe that children should be thoroughly indoctrinated with Green/Left, feminist/homosexual ideology but the "3 R's" are something that kids should just be allowed to "discover"

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here. My home page is here

***************************