Once upon a time, a syllabus was the brief description of a course's content, published in the college catalog, and the course outline specified the topics and readings in the order in which they would appear, perhaps with some estimate of when.  Now, what students get, often stuffed into a course management system online, looks more like Conditions of Carriage, and liability-conscious deanlets and deanlings keep tacking additional stipulations into the conditions.

The latest idiocy appears to be instructors of record attempting to frame the course direction by pronouncing anathema on bad words.

It's the ultimate post-modern sideshow, in which all of the words on the bannerline are triggering, or micro-aggressive, or will get your grade lowered.

Sometimes, all you have to do is make the follies public, and the impresario backs down.
Over the weekend, we became aware that some faculty members, in the interest of fostering a constructive climate for discussion, included language in class syllabi that has been interpreted as abridging students’ free speech rights. We are working with these faculty members to clarify, and in some cases modify, course policies to ensure that students’ free speech rights are recognized and protected. No student will have points docked merely as a result of using terms that may be deemed offensive to some. Blanket restriction of the use of certain terms is not consistent with the values upon which this university is founded.

Free speech and a constructive climate for learning are not incompatible. We aim to cultivate diversity of expression while protecting individual rights and safety.

To this end, we are asking all faculty members to take a moment to review their course policies to ensure that students’ right to freedom of expression is protected along with a safe and productive learning environment.
That would be easier if all students were previously socialized into bourgeois norms of argumentation and debate, which isn't feasible because hegemony.  Sometimes, though, it suffices to remind students of those norms.
We all have differing opinions, beliefs and practices. The course materials may challenge your personal beliefs or opinions, and this is an open space to discuss these disagreements in a civilized, academic manner.
I could go purist on you and suggest that a course that doesn't challenge each student's world view at least once a day isn't worthy of college credit.  Just go read and understand University Diaries.
UD doesn’t know how long this syllabus will remain online. But for now you can feast your eyes on one of the strangest documents UD has seen in awhile. If you told me it was written by a bitter washed-up person who’d been the relentless object of her students’ contempt for decades, I’d say well okay… I can see how a lifetime of abuse would inspire this sort of long angry welcome to my classroom, assholes out to destroy me
The author is a young person. Probably marinated in grievance politics and subjected to the legal-speak from the deanlets and deanlings who want their teaching faculty to provide for every possible contingency in the conditions of carriage.  What Higher Education could use is a Grumpy Old Rules Examiner.  There are a number of situations where Rule 108 applies.

In case of doubt or uncertainty, the safe course must be taken.

(Yeah, that also describes the behavior of to self-selected conscience cowboys and Greek Row, in a different way, but I digress.)

Here's University Diaries, again.
This is the Kindergarten Teacher/Mao Zedong multiple personality type we do sometimes see in certain courses of study in American universities. The problem is that the professor wants to be nice but wants at the same time to subject her reactionary charges to the harsh re-education process the little fuckers deserve.

The results of this muddle are reliably funny ...
A lot more expensive, though, than an afternoon at the circus.

No comments: