Posted by Greetings on August 10, 2006 at 22:01:55
The Ivory Tower
Reading over the discussion below, it is obvious to me that the comments went by as two ships in the dark. With some exposure to that environment I will attempt to shed some light on the topic of higher education and basic community principles, ethics and morals. I will assume that the conversation took place in regards of higher education in the United States because there are several models of higher education around the world.
To begin with, one must understand that universities in general attempt to achieve two important objectives: freedom of thought and critical examination. A second point is that there are traditionally 2 levels of education, undergraduate and graduate. A third point is that there are some areas of study that are considered professional and others that are considered scientific. There are also the humanities, social sciences and the arts.
This is somewhat an arbitrary but accepted categorization in one form or another. Sometimes several areas are included under one umbrella such as the Arts and Sciences. Some broad areas, like in a school of business, education and engineering, there are several specialties.
The two broadest categories are scientific and professional areas. Medicine for example, is considered a professional school. There are areas, and medicine is one of them, in which there is something that is known as terminal degree, MD is a terminal degree. The meaning of a terminal degree is that the discipline ends there. Obviously, the terminology doesn’t imply that it is end of learning, no MD in his/her right mind will stop learning after they obtain their degree, but rather it means that one has reach the end of formal instruction. There are several such degrees that involve many areas.
In this environment, things that take place at the university are related to each of all of these distinctions so that the result is a very complex set of different instructional content. On top of this, there is the individuality of the professor, who has total academic freedom on said content. In relationship to the main thrust of these lines, community principles, ethics and morals, these may not be covered at all. Depending on the course, two professors may be teaching two completely different and opposing views, one professor may be emphasizing socialist economic theory, for example, while another covers post modern market controls. This situation is not unusual in graduate studies.
While undergraduate studies tend to be more prescriptive, graduate studies tend to give more latitude to students and pointing in general direction to explore their own interests. Not all professor follow this norm, some still adhere to memorization and regurgitation of facts instead of presenting opposing views to challenge the status quo.
What is important to see is that while there is a fine line to walk in this expansion of inquire, this situation is not true un most of the areas of study at any university – not even in the most liberal of all universities. There are some areas that simply don’t allow this type of instruction to happen, for instant chemistry, or mathematics. The challenging of the status quo only appears in courses and in departments where the status quo is a part of the content area of instruction. These are a minority of all the courses and departments but because of their nature, they are readily accessible to the general population.
On the other hand, to exacerbate the problem, there are the politicians, who should have little to say about education, and want to promote their particular views of a perfect society.
When Clinton became president, there was an influx in money to an area that needed support, granted, but that they saw as a way to increase their influence and support their constituency, the arts. The National Endowment of the Arts saw an increase budget and was asked to support projects that went along with the public policy of the day. When the Bush administration took over, they saw fit to also use their influence to support their own causes. Of course, some academic and research areas either get support or see their budget in peril depending on the whims of the government. The same type of thing happens in the sciences. Projects that are not part of the establishment don’t see the light of day – alternative fuel technology, for example. Sad to say, politics plays a role.
So, in the middle of this complex system somebody appears to come with notions that are in the fringes of some specific areas. That is how it should be. Why should somebody be surprised? That’s what universities are for, to provoke, to challenge and to create a place where ideas can be discussed.
Without challenge of the status quo there would not be United States, there would not be free India, there would still be overt colonies around the world, slavery would still be rampant, and the power of the establishment would be absolute.
But at the same time, this is the minority of educational events and the instruction that takes place in the university. Most of the educational experience of students is around facts and activities that have been safe tested during generations, of scientific knowledge that has been built over centuries of strongly scrutinized procedures.
It is only a minority of problematic or questionable issues what appears in already fragile environments and are part of the educational experience. Students who are exposed that type of fringe knowledge, even if it is widely taught in many universities, will be able to see their validity. Only a sick person would think that pedophilia is a good thing. I will say that one reason why we are not in The Family International is because we are against pedophilia. So is the vast majority of people in the world.
To suggest that the whole university community supports pedophilia is as shortsighted as saying that the whole radio and TV industry supports obnoxious behavior just because there are a few fringe TV programs and a few Rush Limbaugh wannabes. Thank God for music.