Temple University-Academic Rights

[patrickt]

On August 1st of this year Temple University initiated a policy entitled, "Student and Faculty Academic Rights and Responsibilities."

The first three of their "Statement of Principles" are:

"1 Faculty are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects, but
they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial (or other) matter which has no relation to their subject. The faculty member is responsible,however, for maintaining academic standards in the presentation of course materials.

2. As members of the academic community, students should be encouraged to develop the capacity for critical judgment and to engage in a sustained and
independent search for the truth.

3. Faculty members in the classroom and in conference should encourage free discussion, inquiry and expression. Student performance should be evaluated solely on an academic basis, not on opinions or conduct in matters unrelated to academic standards."

The document can be downloaded at:
http://policies.temple.edu/getdoc.asp?policy_no=03.70.02

I rather like both the statements of principle and the philosphy behind the policy. Any thoughts from anyone?

[Democritus]

All it makes me wonder is what their policy was before. Was it their previous policy for teachers to rant only on opinions and students to nap and grades to be based solely on blatant favoritism?

[Atticus]

I'm resistant to anything that limits the topics a teacher can bring up in a college classroom, simply because it opens the door to anyone who might object to anything a teacher might talk about. Beyond that, using the term "controversial" here might have a chilling effect--the policy would be better without it. After all, is it BETTER to introduce non-controversial topics that are unrelated to your discussion? Again, I think that might have a chilling effect.

[Atticus]

All it makes me wonder is what their policy was before. Was it their previous policy for teachers to rant only on opinions and students to nap and grades to be based solely on blatant favoritism?They probably didn't have a policy. In general, professors and lecturers are trusted to be responsible in how the present material and evaluate students, and they have academic freedom to protect them against intrusions into that trust.

Let's remember that the academic traditions of the present day began with Socrates, and we all know what happened to him for injecting controversial material into public discussions.

[serenity]

"1 Faculty are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects, but
they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial (or other) matter which has no relation to their subject.


3. Faculty members in the classroom and in conference should encourage free discussion, inquiry and expression.


The contradiction here could scarcely be more glaring. And note the grammatical placement--that the first clause is clearly more significant, more important, and thus its prominence in the short list.

The first clause seems to be the POINT...the rest is watery justification for what could potentially be (intentionally) stifling standards, and unreasonable expectations; unreasonable, in light of the second point that I quote.

[patrickt]

Atticus: I assume you are aware the policy does not deal with public discussions. It deals with classroom discussions. As a student, I sat through lectures on politics in a Russian language class. I really had little interest in his views of politics in the U.S. and it wasn't what I was paying for. I also sat through lectures on religion in a math class.

I had a sociology class which was simply indoctrination for Marxism but although it was frequently silly it was close enough to the subject matter to be legitimate.

I also attended sessions outside of the classroom with professors where we discussed all sorts of things. I'm fine with that.

But, should a student have to sit through political, religious, or social lectures in a class that it not remotely related to that topic? The policy deals with "matter which has no relation to their subject."

[Democritus]

The contradiction here could scarcely be more glaring. And note the grammatical placement--that the first clause is clearly more significant, more important, and thus its prominence in the short list.

The first clause seems to be the POINT...the rest is watery justification for what could potentially be (intentionally) stifling standards, and unreasonable expectations; unreasonable, in light of the second point that I quote.

They're not contradictory at all. Professors should stick to the material they're supposed to be teaching. I don't need to sit through 2 hours of bickering about Iraq in an economics class. I don't need my physics professors talking about political policy.

[Turenne]

The contradiction here could scarcely be more glaring. And note the grammatical placement--that the first clause is clearly more significant, more important, and thus its prominence in the short list.

The first clause seems to be the POINT...the rest is watery justification for what could potentially be (intentionally) stifling standards, and unreasonable expectations; unreasonable, in light of the second point that I quote.

Umm how?A History teacher should teach History in his class, but should allow for free dicussion(just as long as it relates to History)in the class.Makes perfect sense.

[Atticus]

Atticus: I assume you are aware the policy does not deal with public discussions. It deals with classroom discussions. Sorry, I think of classroom discussions as public. I figure anything I say might be repeated and reinterpreted in any number of ways. I think of those discussions as public, but I recognize your point. As a student, I sat through lectures on politics in a Russian language class. I really had little interest in his views of politics in the U.S. and it wasn't what I was paying for. I also sat through lectures on religion in a math class.

I had a sociology class which was simply indoctrination for Marxism but although it was frequently silly it was close enough to the subject matter to be legitimate.I recognize that this sort of thing happens--and it sucks. No one who signs up for my class deserves to be handed diatribes on my particular opinions (its one of the reasons I post here; keeps me from boring my students).

On the other hand, I HAVE spent a few moments (not more than five minutes) making comparisons between historical events and present day circumstances, simply because I teach stuff about 200+ year-old literature and my students relate better to it when I make comparisons to the modern day. For example, when I teach A Modest Proposal, I note Swift's practical advice to the Irish about buying goods made at home, not going into debt, and taxing absentee landlords. I compare this advice to the problems the US now has with trade deficits, credit card debt, and wealthy tax cheats. A student who was a) ignorant of these present-day problem or b) of a defensive political bent might consider my discussion unrelated. If they didn't like their grades, they might even complain about it. If I didn't relate the ideas of the year 17-whatever to the present day, the class would be....well....pretty boring. But it would be safer for me, were those rules in place. I could give you other examples.

The fact is, good teaching often involves making people uncomfortable--and the benefits of academic freedom mean putting up with its abuse from time to time.But, should a student have to sit through political, religious, or social lectures in a class that it not remotely related to that topic? The policy deals with "matter which has no relation to their subject."I'm concerned that the policy will be enforced by gutless deans who want only to avoid controversy or placate students. This might be worst at a private university like Temple that is dependent on the gifts of wealthy alumni.

[patrickt]

Atticus, I was a police officer for thirty years and frequently pointed out to other officers that the reason Surpreme Court decisions with which they disagreed existed was because police officers had been guilty of improperly exercising their duties. I feel much the same way on this topic. In a perfect world, it wouldn't be an issue.

I find classes on literature and art to be pretty wide-ranging. You cannot consider Dostoyevsky without considering the world in which he lived. The same goes for Mark Twain and Herman Melville. Comparing Zola and Tolstoy in their views on redemption is fascinating. (I'm not all that well educated on classical literature but just happened to read an interesting discussion of Zola and Tolstoy.) Classes on history can also get into a world of topics. But, math? Foreign languages, at a basic level? Chemistry? Engineering? I don't think so.

Do you think a policy such as this might at least cause a professor to consider what justification he has for showing Michael Moore's mockumentary in a math class?

I never had a real problem stating my objections to a professor but some people do. I think my failure to be intimidated by authority explains my expulsion from kindergarten.

[Atticus]

Atticus, I was a police officer for thirty years and frequently pointed out to other officers that the reason Surpreme Court decisions with which they disagreed existed was because police officers had been guilty of improperly exercising their duties. I feel much the same way on this topic. In a perfect world, it wouldn't be an issue. But the roles of police officers (and their functions in society) are quite different from professors. Also, police officers have the potential to do a WHOLE lot more damage to those they act upon. Are the rules about what police can and cannot do mostly about what they say (because that's what you're talking about here with professors)?
I find classes on literature and art to be pretty wide-ranging.Indeed, but many people don't think they should be. Don't get me wrong, I'm very ginger about how I handle ideas outside the scope of my training--and I know plenty of academics who think they are experts on everything--but I'm wary of a rule that would stifle academic freedom. But, math? Foreign languages, at a basic level? Chemistry? Engineering? I don't think so.I agree about these things, but there are lots of other ways to get teachers to be reasonable. First of all, there are student evaluations. Second, students can vote with their feet--and they have all kinds of ways these days to communicate about their classroom experiences: there are plenty of "ratemyprofessor.com" sorts of sites. To look at these sites, students are more interested in how attractive profs. are to look at than anything they say.

Also, my experience tells me that English and history profs are much more likely to engage in political discussions (for example) than are engineers or chemists. Class time is far to precious to be wasted on discussions outside the scope of the class. In fact, that (ineffective use of class time) is a much more even-handed way to discuss this issue. A rule like "instructors will maximize their use of student-contact time to enhance learning related to their subject" would be a completely uncontroversial way to express what you're talking about. I never had a real problem stating my objections to a professor but some people do. I think my failure to be intimidated by authority explains my expulsion from kindergarten.It's too bad students are so intimidated. College instructors spend their office hours grading papers rather than talking to students just because the poor buggers are too scared to show up.

[patrickt]

"Are the rules about what police can and cannot do mostly about what they say (because that's what you're talking about here with professors)?"

A lot of the decision and rules do deal with what police officers say and how they say it. Most of my work dealt with talking to people and since I worked in a small city with a university I used to laugh and say that we were adjunct faculty. Frequently, police officers would say, "Well, of course I wouldn't have arrested them if they had not let me search their car and I have no idea where they got that idea. I certainly never said I would." That isn't that dissimilar from a professor saying, "Well, of course I wouldn't have graded him down for disagreeing with me on a political issue and I have no idea where he got that idea. I certainly never said I would." People in positions of authority do need to recognize that their position causes reactions that they might find unreasonable.

"It's too bad students are so intimidated. College instructors spend their office hours grading papers rather than talking to students just because the poor buggers are too scared to show up."

Absolutely. And, those students will go on to be employees who can't tell their boss they're miserable and why.

I don't have a problem, though, telling professors that they're free to teach what they want, within their field of expertise.

[Dangerrmouse]

Who decides what is or is not "controversial"

[JD3]

Who decides what is or is not "controversial"

I really can't add anything to what ATTICUS has already said. But this is one of the questions I would have. That and why someone would thing controvesy shouldn't be in a classroom?

[patrickt]

JD3: Controversial and related to the course is fine. The principles clearly state controversial and not related to the course.

[JD3]

JD3: Controversial and related to the course is fine. The principles clearly state controversial and not related to the course.

I don't think that answers the question. Like I said, I'm with Atticus here, but these ar esubjective things and something people could see differently.

[patrickt]

JD3: The article cited did not discourage controversial issues. It only said care should be used in introducing controversial subjects unrelated to the course. Gay marriage is controversial and, in my opinion, would be quite appropriate in a sociology course on problems in contemporary society. It would be, in my opinion, inappropriate in a course on advanced English grammar.

Sorry, JD3, I was editing, with a new small keyboard, while you were responding.

[JD3]

JD3: The article cited did not discourage controversial issues. It only said care should be used in introducing controversial subjects unrelated to the course. Gay marriage is controversial and, in my opinion, would be quite appropriate in a sociology course on problems in contemporary society. It would be, in my opinion, inappropriate in a course on advanced English grammar.

Sorry, JD3, I was editing, with a new small keyboard, while you were responding.

No problem. Being in a classroom, and often trying to find something to bring the material to life and relevent, I can see where lines might be cross legitimately. Now, certianly some ideas go array, and some folks are not what we'd like. Still, I think where there is room to error, there will be an error.

BTW, are they writing in that Grammar class? If so, what? What topics? Who decides? ;)

[patrickt]

In my advanced grammar class you occasionally had to write a sentence to illustrate the grammar but that was it.

I would suggest that if an instructor had to think about a good way to slip an unrelated topic, although one very important to him, into the class he'd be better off to skip it.

[JD3]

In my advanced grammar class you occasionally had to write a sentence to illustrate the grammar but that was it.

I would suggest that if an instructor had to think about a good way to slip an unrelated topic, although one very important to him, into the class he'd be better off to skip it.

I never think in terms of important to me, but in terms of engaging the student. And while I teach grammar, I have never taught a class that just taught grammar.

But your response goes to the heart of my question, how do you know if he slipped something in because it was important to him, or if he was merely trying to get something out of them, like connecting to the present?

[prst31]

Who decides what is or is not "controversial"I had a openly christian (evangelical type) professor, for a music appreciation class, make the argument that Marilyn Manson was responsible for Columbine. I argued it was a case of personal choice and responsibility in class discussions. One of our requirements for the class, was to attend a couple of live performances and write reviews of those concerts. I attended one of the jazz concerts he directed, and wrote about how I had an overwhelming desire to "shoot the place up" (sarcastically), during a real "heavy" portion of the concert. He told me directly (and was visibly angry), how he initially wished to lower my grade on that paper because of it, but he understood my point so he couldn't. I only hope he didn't make such a crappy argument, solely from his personal convictions in the future.

[Atticus]

I would suggest that if an instructor had to think about a good way to slip an unrelated topic, although one very important to him, into the class he'd be better off to skip it.I'd suggest that topics like the ones you're talking about are probably brought into discussions because the instructor HASN'T planned very well. It's when teachers "wing it," and are easily distracted from the main idea, that we get into the kinds of situations you found uncomfortable.

BTW, intentionally grading based on one's own biases is despicable. If a student could prove it (say, if they'd written an excellent paper that received a D or F because of their thesis), they'd have good grounds for an appeal. I doubt any instructor would want to be second-guessed under those circumstances--so they'd never let it get that far. How embarrassing!

[JD3]

I had a openly christian (evangelical type) professor, for a music appreciation class, make the argument that Marilyn Manson was responsible for Columbine. I argued it was a case of personal choice and responsibility in class discussions. One of our requirements for the class, was to attend a couple of live performances and write reviews of those concerts. I attended one of the jazz concerts he directed, and wrote about how I had an overwhelming desire to "shoot the place up" (sarcastically), during a real "heavy" portion of the concert. He told me directly (and was visibly angry), how he initially wished to lower my grade on that paper because of it, but he understood my point so he couldn't. I only hope he didn't make such a crappy argument, solely from his personal convictions in the future.


Sounds like he was honest enough to give you an honest grade. ;)

[Dangerrmouse]

... I ... wrote about how I had an overwhelming desire to "shoot the place up" ....


In this day and age, it sounds like you could have qualified yourself for a visit from Homeland Security... It's probably in your file.....ticking. ;)