The same universities where speakers with certain types of controversial ideas are routinely shouted down if they try to speak, the same universities with campus speech codes against offensive ideas, are now supposed to make studying those ideas part of the curriculum? If that had a snow ball’s chance in hell, it wouldn’t be so desperately needed in the first place.
He should start small and give the Pope a call to suggest that he make an honest discussion of the Koran part of Mass.
I’ve just noticed that Daniel Dennett proposed mandatory courses in World Religions, but not World Ideologies. Funny how that works out.
I’m pretty sure the words “a modest proposal” indicate that he is aware this is not a realistic suggestion. But if an adventurous (and well-regarded) professor seriously proposed teaching such a course as an experiment, I am not sure it would be rejected out of hand at all universities. (IMO it would work better with more advanced students than freshmen—they need to be preacquainted with the academic style of reading and arguing.)
if an adventurous (and well-regarded) professor seriously proposed teaching such a course as an experiment, I am not sure it would be rejected out of hand at all universities
Probably no. Some universities would only fire him after the course. Assuming he would really bring some offensive material, instead of something harmless, such as… uh, something.
Actually, this is an interesting exercise:
Imagine that a university orders you to teach “discussing offensive topics”, inspired by this article. But you also know that if someone gets really offended for some content of your lessons, they will fire you (despite any previous promises and guarantees). But if you refuse to teach such course, or teach something else instead, they will fire you for disobedience. Your only goal is to minimize the chance of being fired. Which topics would you discuss?
In other words, which topics can be best described as “offensive” while actually being almost safe (in a university environment).
Aren’t you exaggerating a bit? The professor will clearly not be endorsing these texts, in fact s/he would have picked them explicitly for being offensive. And I doubt studying texts that are offensive/unPC is a no-no in universities, if it is done in a way that makes clear that they are not being endorsed. I would imagine that history students may be exposed to Mein Kampf, students of gender/race studies may be exposed to sexist/racist texts, etc.
How can you credibly make clear that the texts are not being endorsed, if you ask your students “to make a good faith, unironic effort to reconstruct the offensive argument in its most persuasive form, marshaling additional supporting evidence and amending weak arguments to better support the author’s conclusion”.
Remember that people will not judge your efforts rationally, but merely by connotations and opportunity to express outrage.
The mere fact that you teach this course means that you already skipped an opportunity to signal your disagreement with the texts by refusing to teach the course. Sometimes not screaming “NO!!!” loud enough is interpreted as an evidence of secretly thinking “yes”.
The same universities where speakers with certain types of controversial ideas are routinely shouted down if they try to speak, the same universities with campus speech codes against offensive ideas, are now supposed to make studying those ideas part of the curriculum? If that had a snow ball’s chance in hell, it wouldn’t be so desperately needed in the first place.
He should start small and give the Pope a call to suggest that he make an honest discussion of the Koran part of Mass.
I’ve just noticed that Daniel Dennett proposed mandatory courses in World Religions, but not World Ideologies. Funny how that works out.
I’m pretty sure the words “a modest proposal” indicate that he is aware this is not a realistic suggestion. But if an adventurous (and well-regarded) professor seriously proposed teaching such a course as an experiment, I am not sure it would be rejected out of hand at all universities. (IMO it would work better with more advanced students than freshmen—they need to be preacquainted with the academic style of reading and arguing.)
Probably no. Some universities would only fire him after the course. Assuming he would really bring some offensive material, instead of something harmless, such as… uh, something.
Actually, this is an interesting exercise:
Imagine that a university orders you to teach “discussing offensive topics”, inspired by this article. But you also know that if someone gets really offended for some content of your lessons, they will fire you (despite any previous promises and guarantees). But if you refuse to teach such course, or teach something else instead, they will fire you for disobedience. Your only goal is to minimize the chance of being fired. Which topics would you discuss?
In other words, which topics can be best described as “offensive” while actually being almost safe (in a university environment).
Aren’t you exaggerating a bit? The professor will clearly not be endorsing these texts, in fact s/he would have picked them explicitly for being offensive. And I doubt studying texts that are offensive/unPC is a no-no in universities, if it is done in a way that makes clear that they are not being endorsed. I would imagine that history students may be exposed to Mein Kampf, students of gender/race studies may be exposed to sexist/racist texts, etc.
How can you credibly make clear that the texts are not being endorsed, if you ask your students “to make a good faith, unironic effort to reconstruct the offensive argument in its most persuasive form, marshaling additional supporting evidence and amending weak arguments to better support the author’s conclusion”.
Remember that people will not judge your efforts rationally, but merely by connotations and opportunity to express outrage.
The mere fact that you teach this course means that you already skipped an opportunity to signal your disagreement with the texts by refusing to teach the course. Sometimes not screaming “NO!!!” loud enough is interpreted as an evidence of secretly thinking “yes”.
A law professor can’t require reading and understanding the doctrines at play in Plessy, Schenck, or (obviously wrongly decided case of your choice)?
Geez, this experiment should only be attempted by tenured professors.