DiscussMormonism.com

Assuming our leaders have an agenda shouldn't be so disheartening.

I'm reminded of a class I once took, called Sociology of Education. I was the only non-teacher in the class of 14. We were to read a book about a certain study done in an inner city neighborhood in Chicago, and critique the study. Every single one of the teachers read the book with the idea that no one ever misused a study and then published about it. They didn't catch that the researcher had gotten too close to her subjects and had lost her objectivity, which skewed her conclusions. I pinpointed the page where that happened. Our professor was appalled at the uncritical approach that the teachers had exhibited. She asked them if they had similiar uncritical approaches to things like text books and subject matter, world view or politics. They were astounded that she expected them to think critically. Surely anything that was published was okay and didn't require them to actually question the motives or agenda of the publisher!

I think many LDS view what's available in a church bookstore as unquestioningly as my former classmates did. They assume it's correct. And they assume that anything about the church written by someone outside the church is automatically incorrect. The innocence just waits to be abused. And we end up with those with an agenda sheltering those with a different agenda (because all sides have agendas; they just oppose each other). And that can't be good.

Critical thinking on the part of church members should not only be approved, it should be encouraged. I fear for the children of those uncritical teachers and I fear for the members who are simply time bombs waiting for the fuse to burn close enough to explode. As one of the fuse-less ones now, I can tell you it's impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.

When I was teaching at BYU, I used to have my students read two papers on euthanasia: one for, and one against. I would ask them what they thought, and they were uniformly opposed to the idea, but I would gradually steer the discussion, and in 15 minutes or so, they would now be agreeing with active euthanasia.

Then I would stop and talk about how dangerous it is to uncritically accept what you are told by authority figures.

I always had fun with that lecture.

Runtu wrote:When I was teaching at BYU, I used to have my students read two papers on euthanasia: one for, and one against. I would ask them what they thought, and they were uniformly opposed to the idea, but I would gradually steer the discussion, and in 15 minutes or so, they would now be agreeing with active euthanasia.

Then I would stop and talk about how dangerous it is to uncritically accept what you are told by authority figures.

I always had fun with that lecture.

Did that not put you on dangerous ground at BYU?

moksha wrote:

Runtu wrote:When I was teaching at BYU, I used to have my students read two papers on euthanasia: one for, and one against. I would ask them what they thought, and they were uniformly opposed to the idea, but I would gradually steer the discussion, and in 15 minutes or so, they would now be agreeing with active euthanasia.

Then I would stop and talk about how dangerous it is to uncritically accept what you are told by authority figures.

I always had fun with that lecture.

Did that not put you on dangerous ground at BYU?

Well, nobody said anything, so I guess not. It wasn't that oppressive there, you know.

Runtu wrote:

moksha wrote:

Runtu wrote:When I was teaching at BYU, I used to have my students read two papers on euthanasia: one for, and one against. I would ask them what they thought, and they were uniformly opposed to the idea, but I would gradually steer the discussion, and in 15 minutes or so, they would now be agreeing with active euthanasia.

Then I would stop and talk about how dangerous it is to uncritically accept what you are told by authority figures.

I always had fun with that lecture.

Did that not put you on dangerous ground at BYU?

Well, nobody said anything, so I guess not. It wasn't that oppressive there, you know.

And yet Guy did something very similiar to get the students to think for themselves, and he was essentially run out on a rail for his efforts. Or am I thinking of someone else?

harmony wrote:And yet Guy did something very similiar to get the students to think for themselves, and he was essentially run out on a rail for his efforts. Or am I thinking of someone else?

I was just a lowly grad student, so I don't think I registered on anyone's radar.

Runtu wrote:

moksha wrote:

Runtu wrote:When I was teaching at BYU, I used to have my students read two papers on euthanasia: one for, and one against. I would ask them what they thought, and they were uniformly opposed to the idea, but I would gradually steer the discussion, and in 15 minutes or so, they would now be agreeing with active euthanasia.

Then I would stop and talk about how dangerous it is to uncritically accept what you are told by authority figures.

I always had fun with that lecture.

Did that not put you on dangerous ground at BYU?

Well, nobody said anything, so I guess not. It wasn't that oppressive there, you know.

In contrast, my department voted against me for Full Professor because of concern I was not devoted enough to "the Gospel," and I was leading some students to question their testimonies. Those were the only reasons given me. Meanwhile, I was one of the more prolific publishers in the college, had 12 years of "excellent' student evaluations, founded and edited a peer-reviewed journal, was, and am, an internationally recognized expert in my field, etc. (Note, I had tenure, or continuing status, and I still had the college and university review to go (I was unanimous at both levels for tunure), but I decided not to take it further, as I had already decided to resign.)

We rarely discussed religion in class, although we did discuss aspects of critical thinking and intellectual honesty (e.g., holding your own view to the same level of critical analysis you hold others'), dangers of reductionist thinking, etc. (Oh, and I was very critical of the LDS Church's handling of the Main Street Plaza bruhaha, and tried to get the students to understand that their ethical duty as public servants was to consider the interests of diverse groups and not subordinate them to the interests of organizations in which they had a particular self interest.)

In what dept did you teach?

This is intriguing. I have an interest in what Juliann may refer to as "BYU atrocity tales". So if either Runtu or Guy or others would like to elaborate for us readers , please do so....

guy sajer wrote:In contrast, my department voted against me for Full Professor because of concern I was not devoted enough to "the Gospel," and I was leading some students to question their testimonies. Those were the only reasons given me. Meanwhile, I was one of the more prolific publishers in the college, had 12 years of "excellent' student evaluations, founded and edited a peer-reviewed journal, was, and am, an internationally recognized expert in my field, etc. (Note, I had tenure, or continuing status, and I still had the college and university review to go (I was unanimous at both levels for tunure), but I decided not to take it further, as I had already decided to resign.)

We rarely discussed religion in class, although we did discuss aspects of critical thinking and intellectual honesty (e.g., holding your own view to the same level of critical analysis you hold others'), dangers of reductionist thinking, etc. (Oh, and I was very critical of the LDS Church's handling of the Main Street Plaza bruhaha, and tried to get the students to understand that their ethical duty as public servants was to consider the interests of diverse groups and not subordinate them to the interests of organizations in which they had a particular self interest.)

In what dept did you teach?

Yeah, I kind of knew things were like that over there (I think it's gotten worse since I left). I had just finished school when the Cecilia Farr and David Knowlton incidents happened, and not long after that, Hal Miller, who is the FIL of a friend of mine from grad school, resigned in protest over the more restrictive environment there. I'm sorry to hear that happened to you.

by the way, my MA is in English, and I taught Freshman Composition and second-year American Lit.

Runtu wrote:

guy sajer wrote:In contrast, my department voted against me for Full Professor because of concern I was not devoted enough to "the Gospel," and I was leading some students to question their testimonies. Those were the only reasons given me. Meanwhile, I was one of the more prolific publishers in the college, had 12 years of "excellent' student evaluations, founded and edited a peer-reviewed journal, was, and am, an internationally recognized expert in my field, etc. (Note, I had tenure, or continuing status, and I still had the college and university review to go (I was unanimous at both levels for tunure), but I decided not to take it further, as I had already decided to resign.)

We rarely discussed religion in class, although we did discuss aspects of critical thinking and intellectual honesty (e.g., holding your own view to the same level of critical analysis you hold others'), dangers of reductionist thinking, etc. (Oh, and I was very critical of the LDS Church's handling of the Main Street Plaza bruhaha, and tried to get the students to understand that their ethical duty as public servants was to consider the interests of diverse groups and not subordinate them to the interests of organizations in which they had a particular self interest.)

In what dept did you teach?

Yeah, I kind of knew things were like that over there (I think it's gotten worse since I left). I had just finished school when the Cecilia Farr and David Knowlton incidents happened, and not long after that, Hal Miller, who is the FIL of a friend of mine from grad school, resigned in protest over the more restrictive environment there. I'm sorry to hear that happened to you.

by the way, my MA is in English, and I taught Freshman Composition and second-year American Lit.

I arrived at BYU in 1991 shortly before the Cecilia Farr and David Knowlton controversy erupted. Shortly after I arrived, John Beck resigned (ex-husband of, I forget her name duaghter of Hugh Nibley--we were in the same college, I met him a couple of times but never knew hiim). At the time, I thought Farr was a "feminazi" and that Knowlton was a radical liberal apostate. Needless to say that my views have changed a bit since.

Oh and by the way, things have gotten materially worse since you left. I think that Farr and Knowlton may have been catalysts for the imposition of what is now a fairly repressive intellectual environment IMHO.