(11-09-2021 08:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-09-2021 07:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-09-2021 07:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Is it teaching a particular ethos if you can get a bad grade for the "wrong" answer? What if the student writes that Affirmative Action is a racist policy? What if the student writes that it doesn't make sense to think the police department is systemically racist in every town across the USA?
If there is a "right" answer, there also must be "wrong" answers, or wrongthink. If these classes are not for credit, and do not enter into the GPA, OK. Otherwise, they are no different that the courses taught in Nazi schools in 1939.
What is the participle ethos being taught? It would be good to see the course listings.
Well, the graduation requirements do a very fine job of telling us the effect that they should (must) have, do they not?
--------------------------------------------------------
As to the bolded from OO, I will disagree. Making a class of, say, "William Luther Pierce Had It Right" mandatory, but no credit and no grade, does not detract from the end result of 'teaching an ethos'.
No more than making a class of "Leninism is good" any less of a mandate of exposure to ethos when *required* to graduate, but no credit and no grade.
There is no fundamental difference between a 'requirement' to take the Rice (however it is described, but essentially a philosophy) course to graduate, and the requirement of Bob Jones University to take Bible Doctrine I and Bible Doctrine II to graduate. (literally a requirement of Bob Jones, mind you).
I readily label the Bob Jones requirements as an indoctrination by Bob Jones to and for a philosophy that *it* as an institution supports. I doubt very many people woould not follow in labeling that as an indoctrination.
But, I guess when the philosophical subject matter is diversity, equity, and race, the same forced exposure to the philosophy of diversity, equity, based on race somehow transmorgrifies into a 'non-indoctrination'.
I am seeing more and more commonalities between the dueling religions of 'real religion' (i.e. the Bob Jones people who will fight to the death stating that the requirement of the classes on the philosophy of Bible Doctrine I and Bible Doctrine II to graduate is not an indoctrination), and the very real soft religion of progressivism (who are seemingly arguing to the death that the requirement of a class on the philosophy of race-based equity is not an indoctrination).
It really is becoming more and more bizarro land when one steps back and really observes.
For those making a big deal out of conservatives often agreeing and/or not publicly disagreeing with other conservatives, please note that Tanq just disagreed with me. It happens more often than you guys notice.
And I think he has a good point - it is just that I feel that if a student has a right to not embrace the groupthink, without negative consequences, then we have embraced the Chicago principles. If, however, not embracing the groupthink could lead to a bad grade, a lowered GPA. and perhaps dismissal from the U., then I think we have what the USSR euphemistically called re-education.
(11-09-2021 08:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-09-2021 07:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-09-2021 07:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Is it teaching a particular ethos if you can get a bad grade for the "wrong" answer? What if the student writes that Affirmative Action is a racist policy? What if the student writes that it doesn't make sense to think the police department is systemically racist in every town across the USA?
If there is a "right" answer, there also must be "wrong" answers, or wrongthink. If these classes are not for credit, and do not enter into the GPA, OK. Otherwise, they are no different that the courses taught in Nazi schools in 1939.
What is the participle ethos being taught? It would be good to see the course listings.
Well, the graduation requirements do a very fine job of telling us the effect that they should (must) have, do they not?
--------------------------------------------------------
As to the bolded from OO, I will disagree. Making a class of, say, "William Luther Pierce Had It Right" mandatory, but no credit and no grade, does not detract from the end result of 'teaching an ethos'.
No more than making a class of "Leninism is good" any less of a mandate of exposure to ethos when *required* to graduate, but no credit and no grade.
There is no fundamental difference between a 'requirement' to take the Rice (however it is described, but essentially a philosophy) course to graduate, and the requirement of Bob Jones University to take Bible Doctrine I and Bible Doctrine II to graduate. (literally a requirement of Bob Jones, mind you).
I readily label the Bob Jones requirements as an indoctrination by Bob Jones to and for a philosophy that *it* as an institution supports. I doubt very many people woould not follow in labeling that as an indoctrination.
But, I guess when the philosophical subject matter is diversity, equity, and race, the same forced exposure to the philosophy of diversity, equity, based on race somehow transmorgrifies into a 'non-indoctrination'.
I am seeing more and more commonalities between the dueling religions of 'real religion' (i.e. the Bob Jones people who will fight to the death stating that the requirement of the classes on the philosophy of Bible Doctrine I and Bible Doctrine II to graduate is not an indoctrination), and the very real soft religion of progressivism (who are seemingly arguing to the death that the requirement of a class on the philosophy of race-based equity is not an indoctrination).
It really is becoming more and more bizarro land when one steps back and really observes.
The bolded is my entire point - the language around the AD requirement Rice has added does not seem to match this description.
For starters, the courses are supposedly broad enough to be granted this description "A wide range of courses are identified as eligible to meet the Analyzing Diversity (AD) graduation requirement and are accessible to students from throughout the university. All AD courses additionally carry Distribution Credit or fulfill the university’s Writing and Communication (FWIS) requirement and are allowed to fulfill simultaneously more than one university graduation requirement category."
Also, this language counters the idea that these courses HAVE to be race-based:
"Systemic Inequities and their Redress, pay considerable attention to inequities related to race,
region, religion, ethnicity, (dis)ability, gender expression, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity. Students in these courses also learn to analyze efforts to address and redress inequity, disenfranchisement, and injustice." So theoretically, a course on the historical persecution of Christians could meet the AD requirement.
I believe you're off the mark in how supposedly narrow the common ethos is for these courses.
This appears the be THE ethos that connects these courses:
"Such courses primarily focus on how difference is understood across human societies, on how those understandings have changed over time, and on the consequences of those understandings for human development."
This is why I keep saying it would be good to see the course catalog. If you're going to rail against Rice for forcing students to learn about white guilt, at least show some proof that each course offered is going to cover that topic.
(11-10-2021 07:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-09-2021 08:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-09-2021 07:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-09-2021 07:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Is it teaching a particular ethos if you can get a bad grade for the "wrong" answer? What if the student writes that Affirmative Action is a racist policy? What if the student writes that it doesn't make sense to think the police department is systemically racist in every town across the USA?
If there is a "right" answer, there also must be "wrong" answers, or wrongthink. If these classes are not for credit, and do not enter into the GPA, OK. Otherwise, they are no different that the courses taught in Nazi schools in 1939.
What is the participle ethos being taught? It would be good to see the course listings.
Well, the graduation requirements do a very fine job of telling us the effect that they should (must) have, do they not?
--------------------------------------------------------
As to the bolded from OO, I will disagree. Making a class of, say, "William Luther Pierce Had It Right" mandatory, but no credit and no grade, does not detract from the end result of 'teaching an ethos'.
No more than making a class of "Leninism is good" any less of a mandate of exposure to ethos when *required* to graduate, but no credit and no grade.
There is no fundamental difference between a 'requirement' to take the Rice (however it is described, but essentially a philosophy) course to graduate, and the requirement of Bob Jones University to take Bible Doctrine I and Bible Doctrine II to graduate. (literally a requirement of Bob Jones, mind you).
I readily label the Bob Jones requirements as an indoctrination by Bob Jones to and for a philosophy that *it* as an institution supports. I doubt very many people woould not follow in labeling that as an indoctrination.
But, I guess when the philosophical subject matter is diversity, equity, and race, the same forced exposure to the philosophy of diversity, equity, based on race somehow transmorgrifies into a 'non-indoctrination'.
I am seeing more and more commonalities between the dueling religions of 'real religion' (i.e. the Bob Jones people who will fight to the death stating that the requirement of the classes on the philosophy of Bible Doctrine I and Bible Doctrine II to graduate is not an indoctrination), and the very real soft religion of progressivism (who are seemingly arguing to the death that the requirement of a class on the philosophy of race-based equity is not an indoctrination).
It really is becoming more and more bizarro land when one steps back and really observes.
The bolded is my entire point - the language around the AD requirement Rice has added does not seem to match this description.
For starters, the courses are supposedly broad enough to be granted this description "A wide range of courses are identified as eligible to meet the Analyzing Diversity (AD) graduation requirement and are accessible to students from throughout the university. All AD courses additionally carry Distribution Credit or fulfill the university’s Writing and Communication (FWIS) requirement and are allowed to fulfill simultaneously more than one university graduation requirement category."
Also, this language counters the idea that these courses HAVE to be race-based:
"Systemic Inequities and their Redress, pay considerable attention to inequities related to race, region, religion, ethnicity, (dis)ability, gender expression, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity. Students in these courses also learn to analyze efforts to address and redress inequity, disenfranchisement, and injustice." So theoretically, a course on the historical persecution of Christians could meet the AD requirement.
I believe you're off the mark in how supposedly narrow the common ethos is for these courses.
This appears the be THE ethos that connects these courses:
"Such courses primarily focus on how difference is understood across human societies, on how those understandings have changed over time, and on the consequences of those understandings for human development."
This is why I keep saying it would be good to see the course catalog. If you're going to rail against Rice for forcing students to learn about white guilt, at least show some proof that each course offered is going to cover that topic.
Do you really think that my exemplar on race is wholly different than "race, region, religion, ethnicity, (dis)ability, gender expression, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity"?
The only difference between 'race' and 'race, region, religion, ethnicity, (dis)ability, gender expression, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity' in the aspect of 'equity' is that 'race' is the major battle flag in the progressive 'guilt' movement, and the latter simply includes *all* aspects of the professional guilt machine that has been manufactured under the auspices of modern progressivism.
(11-10-2021 07:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 07:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]This is why I keep saying it would be good to see the course catalog. If you're going to rail against Rice for forcing students to learn about white guilt, at least show some proof that each course offered is going to cover that topic.
The only difference between 'race' and 'race, region, religion, ethnicity, (dis)ability, gender expression, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity' in the aspect of 'equity' is that 'race' is the major battle flag in the progressive 'guilt' movement, and the latter simply includes *all* aspects of the professional guilt machine that has been manufactured under the auspices of modern progressivism.
Lad, do you really, seriously believe that I could sit through one of these courses, write a final exam that said basically, "CRT and the whole white guilt construct are a bunch of crap foisted upon us by the professional guilt machine," and come out of it okay?
I remember in my undergrad days the standard word about sociology courses was, "memorize a bunch of buzz words, regurgitate them on the final, and then remember to forget them as soon as you walk out the door." This seems to be that on steroids.
(11-10-2021 08:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 07:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 07:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]This is why I keep saying it would be good to see the course catalog. If you're going to rail against Rice for forcing students to learn about white guilt, at least show some proof that each course offered is going to cover that topic.
The only difference between 'race' and 'race, region, religion, ethnicity, (dis)ability, gender expression, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity' in the aspect of 'equity' is that 'race' is the major battle flag in the progressive 'guilt' movement, and the latter simply includes *all* aspects of the professional guilt machine that has been manufactured under the auspices of modern progressivism.
Lad, do you really, seriously believe that I could sit through one of these courses, write a final exam that said basically, "CRT and the whole white guilt construct are a bunch of crap foisted upon us by the professional guilt machine," and come out of it okay?
I remember in my undergrad days the standard word about sociology courses was, "memorize a bunch of buzz words, regurgitate them on the final, and then remember to forget them as soon as you walk out the door." This seems to be that on steroids.
I guess you're of the opinion that CRT and white guilt extend to differences in religion, disability, etc.
Looks like it really is a catch all term.
(11-10-2021 07:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 07:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-09-2021 08:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-09-2021 07:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-09-2021 07:40 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Is it teaching a particular ethos if you can get a bad grade for the "wrong" answer? What if the student writes that Affirmative Action is a racist policy? What if the student writes that it doesn't make sense to think the police department is systemically racist in every town across the USA?
If there is a "right" answer, there also must be "wrong" answers, or wrongthink. If these classes are not for credit, and do not enter into the GPA, OK. Otherwise, they are no different that the courses taught in Nazi schools in 1939.
What is the participle ethos being taught? It would be good to see the course listings.
Well, the graduation requirements do a very fine job of telling us the effect that they should (must) have, do they not?
--------------------------------------------------------
As to the bolded from OO, I will disagree. Making a class of, say, "William Luther Pierce Had It Right" mandatory, but no credit and no grade, does not detract from the end result of 'teaching an ethos'.
No more than making a class of "Leninism is good" any less of a mandate of exposure to ethos when *required* to graduate, but no credit and no grade.
There is no fundamental difference between a 'requirement' to take the Rice (however it is described, but essentially a philosophy) course to graduate, and the requirement of Bob Jones University to take Bible Doctrine I and Bible Doctrine II to graduate. (literally a requirement of Bob Jones, mind you).
I readily label the Bob Jones requirements as an indoctrination by Bob Jones to and for a philosophy that *it* as an institution supports. I doubt very many people woould not follow in labeling that as an indoctrination.
But, I guess when the philosophical subject matter is diversity, equity, and race, the same forced exposure to the philosophy of diversity, equity, based on race somehow transmorgrifies into a 'non-indoctrination'.
I am seeing more and more commonalities between the dueling religions of 'real religion' (i.e. the Bob Jones people who will fight to the death stating that the requirement of the classes on the philosophy of Bible Doctrine I and Bible Doctrine II to graduate is not an indoctrination), and the very real soft religion of progressivism (who are seemingly arguing to the death that the requirement of a class on the philosophy of race-based equity is not an indoctrination).
It really is becoming more and more bizarro land when one steps back and really observes.
The bolded is my entire point - the language around the AD requirement Rice has added does not seem to match this description.
For starters, the courses are supposedly broad enough to be granted this description "A wide range of courses are identified as eligible to meet the Analyzing Diversity (AD) graduation requirement and are accessible to students from throughout the university. All AD courses additionally carry Distribution Credit or fulfill the university’s Writing and Communication (FWIS) requirement and are allowed to fulfill simultaneously more than one university graduation requirement category."
Also, this language counters the idea that these courses HAVE to be race-based:
"Systemic Inequities and their Redress, pay considerable attention to inequities related to race, region, religion, ethnicity, (dis)ability, gender expression, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity. Students in these courses also learn to analyze efforts to address and redress inequity, disenfranchisement, and injustice." So theoretically, a course on the historical persecution of Christians could meet the AD requirement.
I believe you're off the mark in how supposedly narrow the common ethos is for these courses.
This appears the be THE ethos that connects these courses:
"Such courses primarily focus on how difference is understood across human societies, on how those understandings have changed over time, and on the consequences of those understandings for human development."
This is why I keep saying it would be good to see the course catalog. If you're going to rail against Rice for forcing students to learn about white guilt, at least show some proof that each course offered is going to cover that topic.
Do you really think that my exemplar on race is wholly different than "race, region, religion, ethnicity, (dis)ability, gender expression, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity"?
The only difference between 'race' and 'race, region, religion, ethnicity, (dis)ability, gender expression, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity' in the aspect of 'equity' is that 'race' is the major battle flag in the progressive 'guilt' movement, and the latter simply includes *all* aspects of the professional guilt machine that has been manufactured under the auspices of modern progressivism.
Well, for starters, you've not once said that your statements have been examples of what you have issues with, but rather what your issue is.
So can you explain your issue with the degree requirement without using these exemplars?
Because I thought you were against, and I quote, "the ethos that Rice finds of the necessity of recognizing white privilege, the requirement of having to inculcate one's student in the ongoing necessity of the great white guilt."
(11-10-2021 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 08:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 07:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 07:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]This is why I keep saying it would be good to see the course catalog. If you're going to rail against Rice for forcing students to learn about white guilt, at least show some proof that each course offered is going to cover that topic.
The only difference between 'race' and 'race, region, religion, ethnicity, (dis)ability, gender expression, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity' in the aspect of 'equity' is that 'race' is the major battle flag in the progressive 'guilt' movement, and the latter simply includes *all* aspects of the professional guilt machine that has been manufactured under the auspices of modern progressivism.
Lad, do you really, seriously believe that I could sit through one of these courses, write a final exam that said basically, "CRT and the whole white guilt construct are a bunch of crap foisted upon us by the professional guilt machine," and come out of it okay?
I remember in my undergrad days the standard word about sociology courses was, "memorize a bunch of buzz words, regurgitate them on the final, and then remember to forget them as soon as you walk out the door." This seems to be that on steroids.
I guess you're of the opinion that CRT and white guilt extend to differences in religion, disability, etc.
Looks like it really is a catch all term.
No, but I think they hop on the guilt wagon.
And please, if it's not too difficult, would you mind answering the question I asked?
(11-10-2021 09:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 08:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 08:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 07:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 07:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]This is why I keep saying it would be good to see the course catalog. If you're going to rail against Rice for forcing students to learn about white guilt, at least show some proof that each course offered is going to cover that topic.
The only difference between 'race' and 'race, region, religion, ethnicity, (dis)ability, gender expression, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity' in the aspect of 'equity' is that 'race' is the major battle flag in the progressive 'guilt' movement, and the latter simply includes *all* aspects of the professional guilt machine that has been manufactured under the auspices of modern progressivism.
Lad, do you really, seriously believe that I could sit through one of these courses, write a final exam that said basically, "CRT and the whole white guilt construct are a bunch of crap foisted upon us by the professional guilt machine," and come out of it okay?
I remember in my undergrad days the standard word about sociology courses was, "memorize a bunch of buzz words, regurgitate them on the final, and then remember to forget them as soon as you walk out the door." This seems to be that on steroids.
I guess you're of the opinion that CRT and white guilt extend to differences in religion, disability, etc.
Looks like it really is a catch all term.
No, but I think they hop on the guilt wagon.
And please, if it's not too difficult, would you mind answering the question I asked?
It's a false premise - from what I've read I do not think anyone is going to be forced to sit through a course on CRT or white guilt.
(11-10-2021 09:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]It's a false premise - from what I've read I do not think anyone is going to be forced to sit through a course on CRT or white guilt.
So I should be able to sit through one of those classes, write a final that said essentially, "CRT and the whole white guilt construct are a bunch of crap foisted upon us by the professional guilt machine," and make an A in the course?
It depends upon the perspective from which those courses are taught. That depends upon the biases of the instructor, not on what is written in the catalogue. And from what I've seen, the instructors in such courses tend overwhelmingly to hold a perspective that wouldn't give me an A, or indeed anything higher than an F, in my hypothetical.
As Thomas Sowell wrote, "The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department."
(11-10-2021 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 09:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]It's a false premise - from what I've read I do not think anyone is going to be forced to sit through a course on CRT or white guilt.
So I should be able to sit through one of those classes, write a final that said essentially, "CRT and the whole white guilt construct are a bunch of crap foisted upon us by the professional guilt machine," and make an A in the course?
It depends upon the perspective from which those courses are taught. That depends upon the biases of the instructor, not on what is written in the catalogue. And from what I've seen, the instructors in such courses tend overwhelmingly to hold a perspective that wouldn't give me an A, or indeed anything higher than an F, in my hypothetical.
As Thomas Sowell wrote, "The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department."
If you're in a class that focuses on CRT and white guilt and your write a well-thought out and well-written essay that says that, then yes. From my personal exposure to people in academia who currently teach discussion based classes, they don't grade papers based on the "correctness of thought" but rather on the competency of the writing/argument since they often ask students to take multiple sides of an issue.
But I'll repeat that, from the description of the requirement, it does not appear as if CRT or white guilt or even racism will be an integral part of each course that gets the AD designation. So it seems like no one will be forced to learn about CRT.
(11-10-2021 09:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 09:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]It's a false premise - from what I've read I do not think anyone is going to be forced to sit through a course on CRT or white guilt.
So I should be able to sit through one of those classes, write a final that said essentially, "CRT and the whole white guilt construct are a bunch of crap foisted upon us by the professional guilt machine," and make an A in the course?
It depends upon the perspective from which those courses are taught. That depends upon the biases of the instructor, not on what is written in the catalogue. And from what I've seen, the instructors in such courses tend overwhelmingly to hold a perspective that wouldn't give me an A, or indeed anything higher than an F, in my hypothetical.
As Thomas Sowell wrote, "The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department."
If you're in a class that focuses on CRT and white guilt and your write a well-thought out and well-written essay that says that, then yes. From my personal exposure to people in academia who currently teach discussion based classes, they don't grade papers based on the "correctness of thought" but rather on the competency of the writing/argument since they often ask students to take multiple sides of an issue.
But I'll repeat that, from the description of the requirement, it does not appear as if CRT or white guilt or even racism will be an integral part of each course that gets the AD designation. So it seems like no one will be forced to learn about CRT.
There is a reason it is called CANCEL culture and not REWARD DIVERSITY OF THOUGHT culture. There are consequences for wrongthink. The class is there to direct your thinking into acceptable channels.
(11-10-2021 08:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 07:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 07:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-09-2021 08:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-09-2021 07:54 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]What is the participle ethos being taught? It would be good to see the course listings.
Well, the graduation requirements do a very fine job of telling us the effect that they should (must) have, do they not?
--------------------------------------------------------
As to the bolded from OO, I will disagree. Making a class of, say, "William Luther Pierce Had It Right" mandatory, but no credit and no grade, does not detract from the end result of 'teaching an ethos'.
No more than making a class of "Leninism is good" any less of a mandate of exposure to ethos when *required* to graduate, but no credit and no grade.
There is no fundamental difference between a 'requirement' to take the Rice (however it is described, but essentially a philosophy) course to graduate, and the requirement of Bob Jones University to take Bible Doctrine I and Bible Doctrine II to graduate. (literally a requirement of Bob Jones, mind you).
I readily label the Bob Jones requirements as an indoctrination by Bob Jones to and for a philosophy that *it* as an institution supports. I doubt very many people woould not follow in labeling that as an indoctrination.
But, I guess when the philosophical subject matter is diversity, equity, and race, the same forced exposure to the philosophy of diversity, equity, based on race somehow transmorgrifies into a 'non-indoctrination'.
I am seeing more and more commonalities between the dueling religions of 'real religion' (i.e. the Bob Jones people who will fight to the death stating that the requirement of the classes on the philosophy of Bible Doctrine I and Bible Doctrine II to graduate is not an indoctrination), and the very real soft religion of progressivism (who are seemingly arguing to the death that the requirement of a class on the philosophy of race-based equity is not an indoctrination).
It really is becoming more and more bizarro land when one steps back and really observes.
The bolded is my entire point - the language around the AD requirement Rice has added does not seem to match this description.
For starters, the courses are supposedly broad enough to be granted this description "A wide range of courses are identified as eligible to meet the Analyzing Diversity (AD) graduation requirement and are accessible to students from throughout the university. All AD courses additionally carry Distribution Credit or fulfill the university’s Writing and Communication (FWIS) requirement and are allowed to fulfill simultaneously more than one university graduation requirement category."
Also, this language counters the idea that these courses HAVE to be race-based:
"Systemic Inequities and their Redress, pay considerable attention to inequities related to race, region, religion, ethnicity, (dis)ability, gender expression, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity. Students in these courses also learn to analyze efforts to address and redress inequity, disenfranchisement, and injustice." So theoretically, a course on the historical persecution of Christians could meet the AD requirement.
I believe you're off the mark in how supposedly narrow the common ethos is for these courses.
This appears the be THE ethos that connects these courses:
"Such courses primarily focus on how difference is understood across human societies, on how those understandings have changed over time, and on the consequences of those understandings for human development."
This is why I keep saying it would be good to see the course catalog. If you're going to rail against Rice for forcing students to learn about white guilt, at least show some proof that each course offered is going to cover that topic.
Do you really think that my exemplar on race is wholly different than "race, region, religion, ethnicity, (dis)ability, gender expression, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity"?
The only difference between 'race' and 'race, region, religion, ethnicity, (dis)ability, gender expression, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity' in the aspect of 'equity' is that 'race' is the major battle flag in the progressive 'guilt' movement, and the latter simply includes *all* aspects of the professional guilt machine that has been manufactured under the auspices of modern progressivism.
Well, for starters, you've not once said that your statements have been examples of what you have issues with, but rather what your issue is.
So can you explain your issue with the degree requirement without using these exemplars?
Because I thought you were against, and I quote, "the ethos that Rice finds of the necessity of recognizing white privilege, the requirement of having to inculcate one's student in the ongoing necessity of the great white guilt."
I think the concept of guilt-based equity extends beyond race. Yes, I used race since that is the solid sterling example of current guilt based thought and viewpoint. But it is not the sole branch on that tree. Just think Dorian Abbott. And the act that spurred the letter to MIT and respurred this thread.
In the vein, perhaps now I must confess guilt about being so non-inclusive to the rest of the progressive equity guilt bandwagon members. Maybe I should take a special class to reinforce my horrible act of non-inclusive behaviors for leaving the non-flagship members unmentioned. I ponder whether such a class would meet the Rice AD designation......
(11-10-2021 10:35 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 08:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 07:42 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 07:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-09-2021 08:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Well, the graduation requirements do a very fine job of telling us the effect that they should (must) have, do they not?
--------------------------------------------------------
As to the bolded from OO, I will disagree. Making a class of, say, "William Luther Pierce Had It Right" mandatory, but no credit and no grade, does not detract from the end result of 'teaching an ethos'.
No more than making a class of "Leninism is good" any less of a mandate of exposure to ethos when *required* to graduate, but no credit and no grade.
There is no fundamental difference between a 'requirement' to take the Rice (however it is described, but essentially a philosophy) course to graduate, and the requirement of Bob Jones University to take Bible Doctrine I and Bible Doctrine II to graduate. (literally a requirement of Bob Jones, mind you).
I readily label the Bob Jones requirements as an indoctrination by Bob Jones to and for a philosophy that *it* as an institution supports. I doubt very many people woould not follow in labeling that as an indoctrination.
But, I guess when the philosophical subject matter is diversity, equity, and race, the same forced exposure to the philosophy of diversity, equity, based on race somehow transmorgrifies into a 'non-indoctrination'.
I am seeing more and more commonalities between the dueling religions of 'real religion' (i.e. the Bob Jones people who will fight to the death stating that the requirement of the classes on the philosophy of Bible Doctrine I and Bible Doctrine II to graduate is not an indoctrination), and the very real soft religion of progressivism (who are seemingly arguing to the death that the requirement of a class on the philosophy of race-based equity is not an indoctrination).
It really is becoming more and more bizarro land when one steps back and really observes.
The bolded is my entire point - the language around the AD requirement Rice has added does not seem to match this description.
For starters, the courses are supposedly broad enough to be granted this description "A wide range of courses are identified as eligible to meet the Analyzing Diversity (AD) graduation requirement and are accessible to students from throughout the university. All AD courses additionally carry Distribution Credit or fulfill the university’s Writing and Communication (FWIS) requirement and are allowed to fulfill simultaneously more than one university graduation requirement category."
Also, this language counters the idea that these courses HAVE to be race-based:
"Systemic Inequities and their Redress, pay considerable attention to inequities related to race, region, religion, ethnicity, (dis)ability, gender expression, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity. Students in these courses also learn to analyze efforts to address and redress inequity, disenfranchisement, and injustice." So theoretically, a course on the historical persecution of Christians could meet the AD requirement.
I believe you're off the mark in how supposedly narrow the common ethos is for these courses.
This appears the be THE ethos that connects these courses:
"Such courses primarily focus on how difference is understood across human societies, on how those understandings have changed over time, and on the consequences of those understandings for human development."
This is why I keep saying it would be good to see the course catalog. If you're going to rail against Rice for forcing students to learn about white guilt, at least show some proof that each course offered is going to cover that topic.
Do you really think that my exemplar on race is wholly different than "race, region, religion, ethnicity, (dis)ability, gender expression, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity"?
The only difference between 'race' and 'race, region, religion, ethnicity, (dis)ability, gender expression, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity' in the aspect of 'equity' is that 'race' is the major battle flag in the progressive 'guilt' movement, and the latter simply includes *all* aspects of the professional guilt machine that has been manufactured under the auspices of modern progressivism.
Well, for starters, you've not once said that your statements have been examples of what you have issues with, but rather what your issue is.
So can you explain your issue with the degree requirement without using these exemplars?
Because I thought you were against, and I quote, "the ethos that Rice finds of the necessity of recognizing white privilege, the requirement of having to inculcate one's student in the ongoing necessity of the great white guilt."
I think the concept of guilt-based equity extends beyond race. Yes, I used race since that is the solid sterling example of current guilt based thought and viewpoint. But it is not the sole branch on that tree. Just think Dorian Abbott. And the act that spurred the letter to MIT and respurred this thread.
In the vein, perhaps now I must confess guilt about being so non-inclusive to the rest of the progressive equity guilt bandwagon members. Maybe I should take a special class to reinforce my horrible act of non-inclusive behaviors for leaving the non-flagship members unmentioned. I ponder whether such a class would meet the Rice AD designation......
I find myself so guilt-ridden over things people who looked like my ancestors may have done, I can barely leave the house.
Except on Wednesdays.
blue lives matter flag
"This is an inappropriate and unnecessary symbol to have on an office door where USC is, within the last year or two, trying to have a much broader diversity initiative and to be inclusive, especially in the STEM area," Shai Porat, a graduate student studying neuroscience, told campus newspaper the Daily Trojan on Tuesday.
"I want them to take it down, and I want them to do something about Professor Moore because this is not the first controversial thing he’s done," Maricarmen Pachicano, a graduate student studying neuroscience, told the school newspaper.
DO something about him? Like what - give him a medal? THIS is what happens when you give the "wrong" answer on the diversity test.
"This [USC] is supposed to be a safe space for diversity of thought," the professor said. "We are charging people very good money to teach them to think. I am just trying to deliver."
WRONG! It is a safe space only for thinking that conforms to the left standard.
(11-10-2021 09:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 09:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]It's a false premise - from what I've read I do not think anyone is going to be forced to sit through a course on CRT or white guilt.
So I should be able to sit through one of those classes, write a final that said essentially, "CRT and the whole white guilt construct are a bunch of crap foisted upon us by the professional guilt machine," and make an A in the course?
It depends upon the perspective from which those courses are taught. That depends upon the biases of the instructor, not on what is written in the catalogue. And from what I've seen, the instructors in such courses tend overwhelmingly to hold a perspective that wouldn't give me an A, or indeed anything higher than an F, in my hypothetical.
As Thomas Sowell wrote, "The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department."
If you're in a class that focuses on CRT and white guilt and your write a well-thought out and well-written essay that says that, then yes. From my personal exposure to people in academia who currently teach discussion based classes, they don't grade papers based on the "correctness of thought" but rather on the competency of the writing/argument since they often ask students to take multiple sides of an issue.
But I'll repeat that, from the description of the requirement, it does not appear as if CRT or white guilt or even racism will be an integral part of each course that gets the AD designation. So it seems like no one will be forced to learn about CRT.
Maybe not from the syllabus, but I’d expect that every one of those courses would be taught by someone who would work it in as a major point of emphasis. None of those sociology courses from my undergrad years were described in the syllabus as indoctrination into socialism, but that’s what they all turned out to be.
And my expectation about that final is that is if I wrote that well-researched paper you describe I’d get an F, but if I just regurgitated all the leftist buzz words I’d get an A. So I’d do the latter and remember to forget every bit of it as I walked out of the exam room.
(11-10-2021 12:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 09:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 09:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]It's a false premise - from what I've read I do not think anyone is going to be forced to sit through a course on CRT or white guilt.
So I should be able to sit through one of those classes, write a final that said essentially, "CRT and the whole white guilt construct are a bunch of crap foisted upon us by the professional guilt machine," and make an A in the course?
It depends upon the perspective from which those courses are taught. That depends upon the biases of the instructor, not on what is written in the catalogue. And from what I've seen, the instructors in such courses tend overwhelmingly to hold a perspective that wouldn't give me an A, or indeed anything higher than an F, in my hypothetical.
As Thomas Sowell wrote, "The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department."
If you're in a class that focuses on CRT and white guilt and your write a well-thought out and well-written essay that says that, then yes. From my personal exposure to people in academia who currently teach discussion based classes, they don't grade papers based on the "correctness of thought" but rather on the competency of the writing/argument since they often ask students to take multiple sides of an issue.
But I'll repeat that, from the description of the requirement, it does not appear as if CRT or white guilt or even racism will be an integral part of each course that gets the AD designation. So it seems like no one will be forced to learn about CRT.
Maybe not from the syllabus, but I’d expect that every one of those courses would be taught by someone who would work it in as a major point of emphasis. None of those sociology courses from my undergrad years were described in the syllabus as indoctrination into socialism, but that’s what they all turned out to be.
And my expectation about that final is that is if I wrote that well-researched paper you describe I’d get an F, but if I just regurgitated all the leftist buzz words I’d get an A. So I’d do the latter and remember to forget every bit of it as I walked out of the exam room.
The speculative situation and your anticipated outcome are noted. It will be interesting to see how reality compares.
(11-10-2021 01:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The speculative situation and your anticipated outcome are noted. It will be interesting to see how reality compares.
Speculative or not, why take the chance?
What is so important as to justify bringing the possibility into play?
And there’s nothing speculative about my undergrad days. The only speculation would be what has changed and why.
(11-10-2021 01:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-10-2021 01:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]The speculative situation and your anticipated outcome are noted. It will be interesting to see how reality compares.
Speculative or not, why take the chance?
What is so important as to justify bringing the possibility into play?
And there’s nothing speculative about my undergrad days. The only speculation would be what has changed and why.
I'm not arguing that it is important or advocating that this be a requirement, so asking why take the chance is not a question for me to answer.
I am specifically disagreeing with the content of the arguments being put against the requirement because they do not appear to factually match the requirement as it has been laid out by Rice.
I do wish there was a better explanation provided by the university about this requirement - it's not exactly clear and obvious.
Funny, the arguments incorporate the actual language of the requirement in the catalog. Those do not "factually match the requirement as it has been laid out by Rice"? Seriously?