Because They Haven’t Quite Infantilised The Students Enough
Amber Athey notes another data point in the decline of academia:
A University of Arizona classroom dialogue guide encourages professors to use the “Oops/ouch method,” where students who are offended in class say “ouch” and the offender responds with “oops.”
Apparently, the way to “maximise free speech in the classroom” is to “create a safe space” in which pantomime ensues, and by advising faculty that “microaggressions,” even those on unrelated matters in personal conversations, should be “interrupted” – and interrupted “immediately” – as being “harmful to the classroom environment.” When not eavesdropping on private conversations and offering unsolicited correction, faculty are advised by the guide to be on the look-out for a range of classroom “challenges” and “cultural misunderstandings,” including:
A heterosexual student claiming that LGBTQIA+ individuals do not have the right to exist.
Because, obviously, that must happen all but daily on a politically correct campus. And,
A white student threatening an African American student over views on affirmative action.
Other forbidden behaviours include acknowledging in class that illegal immigrants have in fact broken the law, or using gendered metaphors in descriptions of atoms, or “questioning the credibility and validity” of (certain) students’ accounts of an event, even if one has contradictory information. “Feelings,” at least those of some students, must not be “nullified.”
Curiously, all of the examples given, and they are numerous, assume that only members of Designated Victim Groups will ever be on the receiving end of “problematic behaviour.” There is no guideline for how to deal with, say, opportunist and vindictive accusations of racism or “privilege,” or attempts to denigrate straight, white male students as inherently ignorant and oppressive, which are hardly inconceivable in an environment where “microaggressions” are regarded as a pressing issue, and where students with brown skin are deemed, automatically and by default, victims of “institutional discrimination” and therefore in need of collective “validation.”
World’s most expensive kindergarten.
The guide is both patronising and incoherent. Faculty are reminded to “interrupt” when “someone is being asked to speak for their entire race, cultural group, etc.,” and yet the whole premise of the guide is that group identities are of defining importance, indeed paramount, and that certain, implicitly favoured groups must be spared challenges to their assumptions, even when factually dubious, based purely on the Designated Victim Status of the group to which they notionally belong.
And so faculty are warned not to “nullify” the “feelings” of students “who represent different groups.” Which implies that faculty simultaneously must and mustn’t treat students as identitarian mascots, representatives of their race or sexual inclination or whatever. And again, there’s an implication that some notional groups count more than others, solely by virtue of some assumed collective fragility.
You didn’t say ‘oops’, David.
#FrownyFace
You didn’t say ‘oops’, David.
I denounce myself.
To be fair, I tend to use the term “oops” at work when I’ve found somebody, often myself, has majorly fucked up some piece of engineering. I find it’s less triggering.
I usually go with bugger, or, if out of earshot, something saltier.
I usually go with bugger
#Triggered
Other forbidden behaviours include acknowledging in class that illegal immigrants have in fact broken the law,
So students who want the law enforced can have *their* feelings ‘nullified’?
So students who want the law enforced can have their feelings ‘nullified’?
I see you’re getting the hang of it.
I think this needs to be expanded into the oops/ouch/fuck off protocol whereby when a snowflake is offended in class he says “ouch” and the professor or whoever did the offending says “oops” and then everyone in the class who is there to learn real things about the real world, (or is just pissed off with the whole SJW PC nonsense), shouts at the top of their voice: “Fuck Off!!”
And mummy and daddy are paying through the nose for this so that their liddle babykins is ready for the big, bad world, Man, where does a fellw find suckers like that?
“[U]sing gendered metaphors in descriptions of atoms…”
I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean. And I’m not interested in learning either.
oops/ouch/fuck off
Roshambo rules?
Ouch
I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean.
From the Diversity and Inclusiveness Guide:
Presumably, gendered or heteronormative metaphors are verboten on grounds that gay people are (a) exquisitely delicate, and (b) somehow unaware that most people walking the Earth are heterosexual, hence the figure of speech. And because any acknowledgement of this fact will result in fainting spells, hysteria and inconsolable weeping.
So clearly, not patronising at all.
“using gendered metaphors in descriptions of atoms”
What is the French language going to do about this when everything is either male or female?
The Académie française better get busy!
Form the Guide:
This guide includes suggestions for addressing issues of
diversity and inclusiveness in the classroom.
Shortly followed by:
Four Corners Exercise: Divide students into four groups based on their dialogue engagement
style. Corner #1: Students who share a lot in class; Corner #2: Students who only talk when they
are particularly motivated by the topic; Corner #3: Students who talk only when called on by the
professor; and Corner #4: Students who don’t talk at all in class. Have the students discuss
different types of communication in their small groups as well as large group processing
So promote diversity and inclusiveness by categorizing students and them separating them into like groups. Makes sense.
gendered metaphors
So how should one describe the paired terminals heretofore called male/female? “Bit-with-pins-or-pointy-things” and “bit-with-sockets-or-holes” does seem awfully long-winded and imprecise.
Anyway, those of us who need to make such connections will stick with the classic nomenclature!
Might I remark on how dishonest it is to make up imaginary examples for application because any realistic examples would expose the idiocy?
I guess that’s “questioning the credibility and validity” of these morons, though. “Oops”?
What does the guide tell a snowflake to say if ze stubs zis toe? Do you see the problem?
Might I remark on how dishonest it is to make up imaginary examples for application because any realistic examples would expose the idiocy?
Yes, there’s quite a bit of that, and the whole document has an air of things being strongly implied but not actually said. Another sin to avoid is “expressing racially charged political opinions in class” – specifically, objecting to the tolerance and encouragement of illegal immigration – while “assuming that people with those racial/ethnic identities do not exist in class.” So presumably, you mustn’t mention your objection to this particular kind of law-breaking in case someone in the class is breaking it. But the guide doesn’t say in what set of circumstances a student would be permitted to voice this objection. Instead, you’re left with the distinct impression that it’s a viewpoint best discouraged.
Atoms sometimes attract each other like this male and female here.
Eh? Do these terms even get used? When I was taught ionic bonds it was always positive and negatively charged atoms, not male and female.
Eh? Do these terms even get used?
Again, it sounds a little improbable – possibly, as suggested upthread, because discouraging a more typical example – say, referring to male and female connectors in an electrical engineering class – might reveal the whole thing as overbearing, patronising and rather silly.
But then, the whole thrust of the thing assumes that students should very much be “engaged in dialogue about oppression, bias, power.” Rather than, say, engaged in chemistry, engineering or aeronautics.
“questioning the credibility and validity” of (certain) students’ accounts of an event, even if one has contradictory information.
It’s annoying as hell when you relate your own experience on a matter and someone with no experience feels obligated to add his/her random opinion, especially as a rebuttal. (Yes, by all means, rebut my direct knowledge with your ignorance.)
If you’re relating a painful experience and people compulsively chuck in their precious opinion-based rebuttals, it actually feels like being kicked in the gut.
THAT SAID.
Dealing with such unpleasant interactions needs to be a matter for the individuals to settle (or not) as best they can. Bringing in Da Man to pre-emptively curb-stomp one of the interlocutors is the worst possible way to deal with interpersonal conflict.
But that’s a feature, isn’t it? If one side can count on outside muscle to stomp on their enemies, and the other knows that they have lost even before they’ve begun, then the problem is never resolved. There’s no chance for the interlocutors to come to an understanding; instead, any previous enmity is deepened, the wound starts to fester, and gangrene enters into the society.
THIS is the end game of conflating the personal with the political: a divided polity that hates each others’ guts on a personal level. No opposing team members sharing a pint after the match — we must have have scarring on our own bodies that we can directly attribute to them.
In the American Civil War the opposing sides were divided geographically. Having the enemy camps intermingled means rioting in the streets and blood in the storm drains. It means the people will cry out for someone, anyone, to restore order.
And that’s how the Taliban took Afghanistan.
I sometimes pronounce “oops” as “wimp!” It’s part of my heritage.
So students who want the law enforced can have *their* feelings ‘nullified’?
Nazis don’t have feelings, ya ninny. Nazis can be punched freely at any time.
I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean. And I’m not interested in learning either.
I use gendered pronouns in my user documentation all the time. Processes written in C++ are male (obvy), Python/PHP scripts are female, and the Linux kernel is transUnix (xe, xer, xeirs).
Actually, when I’m discussing processes with the developers, I might say, “so this guy sees the data and throws the error message,” with “guy” meaning “component” or somesuch.
If one side can count on outside muscle to stomp on their enemies, and the other knows that they have lost even before they’ve begun, then the problem is never resolved.
And once you realise that you’re now the embodiment of a favoured group, a protected group with unilateral privileges – a word I use pointedly – then escalation and abuse are all but inevitable. It’s a license for histrionic role-play and whatever leverage goes with it.
Speaking of terrorists (and we were), don’t miss this fascinating interview by Mark Steyn of the author of Enhanced Interrogation. James Mitchell is the CIA psychologist who interrogated (and waterboarded) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of 9/11 and various other unrealized atrocities.
One thing you’ll notice immediately: Mitchell is no blood-and-guts, seething fanatic, hell-bent on inflicting pain just for its own sake. He appears to be a tender-hearted man whose friend was executed by jihadis and who still weeps at the recollection.
Also clear from the interview: KSM and his ilk are extremely dangerous, wily psychopaths who understand Western Society frighteningly well — well enough to do us in — because they know how to use our own putative virtues against us.
Mitchell is also the victim of numerous bureaucratic and political outrages, including a lawsuit by some random terrorist in Africa with whom he had no dealings, and yet the suit has not been tossed out. (Steyn can relate to that one.)
Just over an hour long and well worth it.
If you’re relating a painful experience and people compulsively chuck in their precious opinion-based rebuttals, it actually feels like being kicked in the gut.
I’m almost certain it’s an aggression of some kind, most likely a *tad* greater than “micro”. Of course, it’s an endorsed aggression, so it doesn’t exist.
so this guy sees the data and throws the error message
You can bet he’s only doing it for some doll.
Actually, I’m confused – does needing to be regrooved for citing a very heteronormative musical get offset by it being a musical? Inquiring minds and all that.
Nazis don’t have feelings, ya ninny. Nazis can be punched freely at any time.
They picture themselves as Captain America. They are, instead, Deputy Barney Fife engaged in alleged judo against alleged miscreants.
Caught a James Mitchell interview in the other room the other day – think it was on CSPAN. Quite a guy.
Have the students discuss different types of communication in their small groups as well as large group processing…
It’s going to be a pretty desultory discussion in Corners #3 and 4.
Corners #3 and 4.
The very shy and the excruciatingly shy are getting together to rock the house, pump this jam, and generally get down with their bad selves.
Or no conversation at all in Corner #4, just embarrassed, uncomfortable glances.
I could understand in concept using the groupings to ensure “group diversity” – place one gregarious, one excitable, one reactive, and one mute each in a group of four – and using those dynamics to try to wring participation out of #3 and #4. A bit stupid, but not imminently doomed to failure. A way to form a heterodox group as might naturally form in society, but by force and thus a little daft.
Shoving off all the non-engagey types into their own groups seems moronic, apart from the bit where at least one of those groups will have similar “nerd” interests to engage in together which have nothing to do with the class topic.
just embarrassed, uncomfortable glances.
I gather shy people communicate via blushing and the angles of their shoes. That’s why they spend so much time looking at them.
Shoes are useless for standard semaphore – no way to turn one’s ankle to 135 degrees. There may be a specialized variety.
Jen,
World’s most expensive kindergarten.
With nap times, too!
You knew this was coming, didn’t you?
“Nazis don’t have feelings, ya ninny. Nazis can be punched freely at any time.”
I long for a day when calling someone Stalin is a mortal insult.
So how should one describe the paired terminals heretofore called male/female?
Innies and outies.
Yes, yes, I’ll go over to the Shaming Carousel now. No need to use that cattle prod.
So how should one describe the paired terminals heretofore called male/female?
Life affirming and patriarchal.
I long for a day when calling someone Stalin is a mortal insult.
The people most deserving to be on the receiving end of such an insult would consider it the highest praise.
So if I’m differently-abled and unable to pronounce the ‘oo’ sound, can I say ‘ouch’ each time someone says ‘oops’?
place one gregarious, one excitable, one reactive, and one mute each in a group of four – and using those dynamics to try to wring participation out of #3 and #4
That never happens. #1 and #2 do all the talking while the other two nod. Making students work in groups means that the already able students carry the whole load while the less able just string along.
Children don’t know how to mentor other children except when closely directed by an adult. They have no idea that the other kids need mentoring nor do they realize they’ve got the capacity to do so, nor that having the capacity, they ought to.
Putting students into groups = time that teacher isn’t standing there yakking, which, it’s not wrong for teachers to want a change of pace, but the expectation that the students will teach each other is largely wishcasting.
That never happens. #1 and #2 do all the talking while the other two nod. Making students work in groups means that the already able students carry the whole load while the less able just string along.
Very true. I did hint it had a more sound *idea* behind it (from a “children-as-miniature-adults” framework), not that it would work in practice, just less stupid than grouping *by* personality type and leaving groups segregated by communication skill to then “compete” in communicating…
I’m also basing things somewhat on my own “group project” experience, in which I (tending to be group #3) usually had to hold the sanity leash on the capers of the moron extroverts from groups #1 and 2. There’s no telling what they’d get up to on their own.
“usually had to hold the sanity leash on the capers of the moron extroverts”
David, is this similar to your experience overseeing the group of participants at your site?
This is the product of an instructional staff who have no idea how to relate to other human beings in an organic way.
And that statement is acadmicish speak for: we have a bunch of people teaching who cannot talk to other people in a manner that even comes close to approximating normal human communication.
Yes, I had to sit in on a staff meeting today — teacher development. …not one thing learned that I didn’t know from living/working outside of academia…I’m not getting paid enough to attend these things. I can’t believe we wasted nearly 2 hours on it. Two hours of my life I will not get back.
At least no talk of “oops” or “ouch” but creating a safe and caring learning space has come up many times. Like I said, not paid enough.
They’re really big on group learning and “student directed learning” — giving the traditional instructional lecture is very very bad and counter productive.
Personally I think it’s because they can’t really teach (see above: can’t actually relate to other human beings in a normal fashion — which means nobody else can behave that way either — can’t be truly effective leaders, can only be no-no you don’t’s and talk about things endlessly with citations of studies, numerous, nearly identical studies that go nowhere…).