在中国生活,是件很幸福的事,几乎每天都新知识的刺激,让你不停地换脑筋,这不,刚刚看到一位美国大学的华人教授告诉我们,中国告密的学生,属于具有独立批判精神的人,而且即使在美国,也不允许在课堂上灌输政治观点,否则会被告上法庭。显然,这位美国教授肯定没有在中国上过大学,不知道那里进行灌输的其实另有其人,而被告发的教师,往往属于反对这种灌输之辈。但不管怎么说,我们终于得知一种新的知识,关于告密者的新知识。
这种新知识的刺激还没来得及平复,更新的刺激又来了,湖北大学数计学院某个班级,推行“小天使计划”,保证每个同学都有一个人在暗中监视着,定期写被监视者的反馈,即监视报告,据说,这项活动开展以来,该班级没有迟到的了,提前上自习的人多了起来。(武汉晚报12月4日报道)
鄙人真是孤陋寡闻,原来以为天使就是那些心地淳良,总是帮助人的美女,后来听说天使不分性别,但个个是雷锋绝对没问题,没想到,天使居然还可以是密探,暗中监视人,定期打小报告。其功能怎么跟我们传统文化里的灶王爷差不多了,只是我们灶王爷每年只上天汇报一次,到时候把些粘牙的糖塞在他的嘴里,就什么也说不清了,这就是中国人为什么腊月二十三要吃粘牙糖的缘故——中国人对付告密者有办法。
不过,这种天使计划,内容好像也不新鲜,文革时进过多年牛棚的父亲告诉我,群众专政的牛棚里,就实行人盯人的监督制度,有哪个一不留神发了句牢骚,立刻就会被人举报。其实,在那个年月,牛棚外面也一样,我们中学,管这叫“一帮一,一对红”,落后的被先进的帮助,实际上是监管,这是明的,还有暗的,干点什么,反正总有人打小报告,当年我在跟人通信的时候发了文革几句牢骚,最后上边也知道了,到底是谁干的,到现在我也不知道。
当然,即使在今天,在某些特殊的地方,还在实行这种制度,我们的各级学校,那些管理学生的老师和部门,依旧喜欢培养积极分子,喜欢不断地听取小报告,以便随时掌控学生的情况。只是,这些默默奉献的管理者,没有湖北大学这种创意,居然把个密探行动命名为天使计划。
让人人互相监督,互相打小报告,是中国具有法家精神的帝制时代的一项发明,具体的制度,就是保甲连坐制度,这种制度,自打商鞅变法就开始实行了,但在王安石变法的时候,才有了名字,到了国民党统治时期,也在部分地区实行过。将这种互相监督的精神发挥到极致的,还是文革,那时候,漫说邻居、同事、同学会检举揭发,就是父子夫妻也难以信任,不知哪天你的一句在床上的牢骚,就被老婆汇报给组织了。按照美国某教授的说法,举报自己老师的人,属于具有独立批判精神的人,那么举报自家丈夫,自己老爸的人,那独立之批判精神更是了不得。
可惜,这种了不得的精神,以及按这种精神制定的制度,在最初虽然总能达到管理者的预期效果——所有人都老老实实,但其实让人很难受。历代的保甲制度,总是虎头蛇尾,就是这个道理。武则天时专门告密整人的酷吏周兴、来俊臣最后被人请君入瓮,也是这个道理。实际上,这是专制制度下,最恶劣、最没有人性的统治手段,让人人互相猜忌,互相敌视,互相告密,互相报复,结果是人人自危,全体生活在恐惧之中。把这种制度,强加给孩子,让他们在学生时代,就学会互相监督,互相揭发,人人因为担心被汇报而“自觉地”好好学习,遵守纪律,实际上是对孩子心灵的一种最大的荼毒和伤害。小而言之,会造成学生心理的扭曲,增加心理疾病发病的几率,大而言之,则毒化了学生的心灵,也毒化了学生生存的环境,培养人们从小就生活在恐惧里,生活在仇恨里,离现在我们政府大力主张的和谐社会,越来越远。
这样的独立批判精神,还是请那位美国教授自家享用吧,这样的天使,还是哪儿来的,回哪儿去吧,远离我们的校园,远离我们的孩子。
- posted on 12/05/2008
上个旧帖唱和一下楼主。
我有个黑名单——吉苏轻歌剧的讽刺作用
廖康
戏剧在西方出现得很早,仅晚于史诗。早在公元前五百年的古希腊,悲剧和喜剧就已经成为人们喜闻乐见的文艺形式。虽然在黑暗时期文化湮没,在清教徒掌权时期戏院封闭,但在阿拉伯人的帮助下,欧洲人还是复兴并保持了这个传承。其喜剧一脉,在十九世纪的英国就发展为吉尔伯特和苏立文(Gilbert and Sullivan)的轻歌剧,曾经普及日不落帝国的每个角落。由于那些轻快的歌曲极其上口,由于英语在国际上成为前所未有的流行语言,人类许多陋习和缺点在舞台上下遭到空前广泛,几乎人尽皆知的讽刺。无论是打小报告,记别人黑账,还是伪装平等,无功受禄,都没有逃脱吉尔伯特的揶揄,而苏立文的曲调则让那些讥笑不胫而走,传遍天下。艺术模仿生活,生活也模仿艺术。人们不仅直接引用那些歌词来讽刺类似的现象,而且在很多情况下,只需用口哨吹出那些旋律,就起到了同样的讽刺作用,带来会心的微笑,使伪善者不得不深深隐藏其伪善,卑劣的小人不得不收敛其卑劣的手法。
有学者曾做过统计,自从轻歌剧《天皇》(The Mikado)1885年在伦敦上演以来,至少在英国,打小报告,记别人黑账的行为锐减。这出剧表面上是讲日本的故事,实际上是讽刺英国的小人和官僚。上演前,英国的外交大臣还担心会得罪日益强大的日本,剧团据理力争,说如果怕一个文艺作品会影响外交关系,那莎士比亚的《哈姆雷特》也不能演了,那会得罪丹麦。这才使轻歌剧得以上演。剧中有首著名的歌,监斩大臣寇寇出场时自鸣得意的独唱《我有个黑名单》I’ve Got A Little List:
早晚有一天,需要个大傻冒,
来作替罪羊,为国把小命交。
我有个黑名单,谁也逃不掉,
我有个黑名单,谁也逃不掉!
那个傻瓜蛋,就会夸别国好,
偏不夸本国,他可逃不掉;
那个柴禾妞,穿着男人的袍,
本不会跳舞,还要乱扭腰;
那个女写手,最会唱怪调,
她可逃不掉,他们都逃不掉!
在另外两段歌词里,他还例举了各种各样他看不顺眼的人物,都一一记录在他的黑名单上,并得意地重复着:“谁也逃不掉!”
显然,当年英国与文革时的中国相似,有不少打小报告,记别人黑账的小人。现在的年轻人对此很不理解,问我:“那有什么用啊?他们费那份心干什么?”我苦笑后,又感到欣慰。往事不堪回首,那些年月,豺狼当道,小人得势,他们靠的就是这类卑鄙的手法:或偷录别人的言行,以备不时之需,甚至造谣生事;或歪曲作者的原意,甚至断章取义,以便赢得一场唇枪舌战。更有甚者,为陷害别人而营造记录;那时还没有录音机,他们不辞劳苦,随身携带着铅笔和小本子,随时随地记下偷听来的话,但在使用时却不计情景,让多少人遭到暗算。经历过文革的人都痛恨这类小人,他们阴损险恶的坏招在今天的中国已经不再有市场。只有极个别人恶习不改,即便来到美国,仍不辞劳苦地继续搜集别人的话语,尤其是粗话或表面看来不大像样的话语。然后,割断这些话语的背景,时不时就掏出他们的小本本,祭出这一法宝,攻击别人,自以为得计。每每让我想起寇寇的独唱《我有个黑名单》,哂笑后,也不无庆幸。如今他们的黑名单已经没有多大用场,最多不过让不明就里的人误解一阵而已。不然的话,用现代的科技手段,记录或伪造伤害他人的文献可太容易了。
文艺可以作为一面镜子,拿它反映这类卑劣行径时,尤其是在舞台上,高光下表演的时候,人们能够看得更清楚,因而更加鄙视这类小人,使他们无处容身。再加上轻快的旋律,人人哼唱,讽刺不绝于耳,这类现象自然会减少;因为,那些小人虽然卑劣,还是要脸的。
2008年11月5日
- Re: 天使原来是密探posted on 12/05/2008
这位美国大学的华人教授是谁,不妨点名嘛。奇闻共欣赏。 - Re: 天使原来是密探posted on 12/05/2008
If he is publicly outed as favoring snitching, you may well end his academic career, if he's indeed, not a con man of 克莱敦大学 variety. ;-)
zxd wrote:
这位美国大学的华人教授是谁,不妨点名嘛。奇闻共欣赏。 - Re: 天使原来是密探posted on 12/05/2008
“美国费城天普大学传播学院助理教授”徐开彬
Temple, School of Communications and Theater, Dept. Strategic and Organizational Communication, Kaibin Xu, assistant professor. - Re: 天使原来是密探posted on 12/06/2008
human wiretapping. sigh. - posted on 12/06/2008
如今学生告教授反革命太荒唐
作者:张鸣
最近,华东政法大学的杨师群老师有点烦,他被他的学生告了,说他是反革命,而公安局已经立案。这样严重的罪名,严重的事态,无非是他在讲课的时候,批评了中国文化,而且语涉政府。
这年头,学生告老师,从来不是个新鲜事,老师上课稍有不慎,被哪个非常具有正义感的学生看不顺眼了,一个小报告打上去,过两天,学校就要找你谈话了。但直接将老师告到局子里,而且居然能让公安局立案侦办,好像还很少听说。
学生能不能告老师?当然可以。现在的老师,早就没了师道尊严,如果老师触犯了法律,做了类似收受贿赂,占女学生便宜的事,学生当然可以告,而且应该告。可惜,纵观海内,学生告老师,还真的就不是这些事,我所在的人民大学一位著名的金融学教授,涉嫌股市内幕交易,还是外面的股民嚷出来的,学生,即便炒股的学生也一声不响。看来,我们的学生,对于教授们真刀实枪的不法之举,都有较强的免疫能力,见怪不怪,打死也不说。对于那些内容陈旧,言语乏味,听了不惟没有任何收获,纯属浪费时间的老师,这些学生也相当有忍耐力,从来不想想这些老师才真的侵害了他们的权益,既浪费他们的时间,也浪费他们的金钱(学费)。反过来,一些学生的政治觉悟倒真是高,对老师的言论,严格把关,告了又告,这不,学生告老师的一幕,眼看就升级了。
大概这些学生和立案的有关部门,忘记了大学本应有学术自由这回事。学生认为老师课上讲得不对,当然可以讨论,但因观点的不同,把老师告到公安局,道理何在?而公安局竟然为此立案,难道从此以后,大学的学术观点问题,要由警察来断吗?
我们曾经有过一个全民互告的时代,儿子告老子,妻子告丈夫,有密告,有明告,或者批判大会上当众揭发的。我本来以为,文革结束以后,中国人因言而获罪的时代,已经过去了,只要不公然煽动推翻政府,学术上有些不同意见,不会再惹上官司。现在,我发现我实在太乐观了,完全低估了传统管理模式对学生和老师的影响力,即使在讲究和谐的今天,在人们互相敌视、互相告发的文化环境还没有完全消除的情况下,无论发生什么事情,都有可能。
*********************************
学生告教授不荒唐
作者:徐开彬
张鸣先生在28日发了篇文章“如今学生告教授反革命太荒唐”。王晓渔先生也曾于27日发了篇“政法大学里的‘以言获罪’”。两文的大意是,华东政法大学杨师群老师在讲课时,批评中国文化,而且语涉政治,被他的学生告了。两人据此认为,这些学生忘记了大学的学术自由这回事,告老师,很没有道理,是要让老师以言获罪。
于是我设法找到杨老师的原话:“今天被领导叫去谈话,说有上《古代汉语》课的学生到公安局和市教委告了我。记得在上《古代汉语》课时,我当然会批判一些与课文有关的中国传统文化,在某些传统文化问题上如果与当今有一些关系的话,我也会联系当今和批评政府。下课时有二位女同学找我,愤慨地指责我怎么能批评中国文化!批评政府!甚至眼睛里已经含有泪水。这样热爱中国文化与中国政府的同学,我很敬佩,你们有这样的权利!但为什么我就没有批评中国文化和政府的权利呢?所以我告诉她们:我也有发表自己看法的权利,如果你们不愿意听我的课,以后不要选我的课就是了。不料,她们居然到上面去告我”。由于找不到当事学生,我们且以杨老师的话来分析,看其是否适当。
比较张鸣、王晓渔与杨老师三者的话,我有一点要质疑的。现在“反革命”罪早已取消,学生咋会告“反革命”罪的呢?所以我对张鸣先生所说的“反革命”罪深表怀疑,是不是拿这个来博取眼球?而且,连杨老师的原话都没有提“反革命罪”,张鸣用这个词只能涉嫌炒作了。果然,我输入文章名一搜索,发现了众多转载,还包括一些政府网站。看来张先生把媒体和网民玩转的很好,不愧是政治系的教授。至于王晓渔先生所说的“以言获罪”,我不赞同,如果要让杨老师以言获罪,那就是公安直接来找杨老师,而轮不到杨老师的院系领导同事来和他谈这个问题了,而且还泄漏具体的缘由。可能就是给杨老师提醒一下吧。 感觉三位自己先吓着了自己。
笔者想说的是,杨老师绝对有批评中国文化和政府的权力,但是,地方选错了。我们都做过学生。我们都有个共同的经历,就是有些老师讲着讲着就喜欢借题发挥,讲到自己的收入少(现在好多了,这种抱怨少了),这个社会怎么了,这个政府怎么了。不同的老师反复讲,从学期开始到结束,做学生的也听腻了。但学生哪敢去阻止老师们反复发牢骚的呢?要知道,学生付出高昂的学费,是来听专业课的,不是来听牢骚的。如果要听牢骚,该去乡村听农民讲,去建筑工地听农民工讲。如果要去看批政府的文字,在网上可以免费看到,又何必花高昂的学费来听这些呢?
张鸣和王晓渔拿出“学术自由”的招牌去吓唬这两个学生,没有多少道理。学术自由,那是在与专业授课相关的内容上观点自由,或者在发表的学术著作上观点自由,或者在专门的学术研讨会上自由讨论学术,但不是利用课堂去向学生灌输自己的政治观点。即使在美国这样的学术自由的地方,在涉及政治与宗教这两点上,课堂上教授们也小心谨慎。尽管如此,每年都会有学生将一些教授告到法庭去。为什么呢?因为,学生在政治和宗教上有不同的立场,由于教授在课堂上拥有的不对称权力,如果教授们在课堂上大谈自己的政治或宗教观点,就涉嫌利用课堂把自己的政治和宗教观点强加给学生,侵犯了与他们持不同政治或宗教观点学生的学术自由。目前美国有一个由125所主要大学学生组成的“学生学术自由”组织,他们的中心就是倡导“教室免受教授向学生灌输政治偏见”。他们还认为,教授在给成绩时往往会偏向与自己政治观点一致的学生,构成对学术公正的威胁。他们在网上专门列出在教室灌输自己政治与宗教主张的教授名单,有时这些教授和他们的学校都会被学生告上法庭。
就笔者而言,以前在国内大学授课时,也曾像某些老师无所顾虑地谈政治批政府,不顾忌学生的立场与想法,但在美国做了教授,知道了这个规矩,就很谨慎,涉及到政治与宗教时,尽可能回避,或采取折中立场,就是怕学生告我。至于这位杨老师,在课堂上只顾大谈自己的政治立场,不尊重学生可能有不同的想法,涉嫌利用自己在课堂上不对称的权力灌输自己的立场,是不对的。
所以,“学术自由”和“言论自由”被张鸣和王晓渔两位误解和滥用了。就这两位告杨老师的学生,如果按照美国大学的处理模式,她们向市教委告杨老师利用课堂灌输自己的政治观点是正确的(美国的学生是向法庭告),也可以向教务处投诉老师浪费课堂时间谈论与教学内容无关的。至于杨老师自己所说的公安立案调查一事,我们都不知道这是否属实,不便做出评断。杨老师觉得无辜,但学生们也很无奈。在学生与老师之间,学生总是弱者,杨老师的“如果你们不愿意听我的课,不要选我的课就是了”,亦可以看出杨老师的强势姿态。这哪里是一个有包容心、能容纳自由学术讨论的老师所说出来的话呢?杨老师在课堂上又哪里允许师生双方的言论自由了呢?还是在采取传统的“满堂灌”,把课堂沦为自己的一言堂,否则,反对他的学生在授课中间就早已提出反对意见,而不是要等到课后才去争辩。杨老师的这种话绝对是不适当的,如果发生在美国的高校,马上会被学生举报到学校最高层,甚至可能被学校停课。
学校既然在选课系统列出您的古代汉语,学生来修这门课,就是看在您古代汉语的知识上,而不是指望在课堂上来聆听您的政治立场的。课堂是自由讨论专业知识的场所,而不是老师们发牢骚和发表政治高见的场地 (课外,那确实是各自的言论自由)。如果说这些学生对政治感兴趣,她们会注册政治课程而不是古代汉语。这几个学生的心态,可能觉得交了学费是来听专业课的,想不到杨老师浪费了课堂时间大谈不相关的内容,还强行被杨老师灌输与自己不同的政见。由于在课堂上老师有不对称的权威与权力,学生课后找老师,老师态度也不好,所以,只好通过外部途径为自己讨回公道。这件事,如果在学生来和杨老师谈话时,自己能态度谦虚点,比方该说“这只是我的一家之言,不一定正确,欢迎你们批评和讨论”,也不会弄成这样。
最后,杨老师虽然猛批中国的传统文化,其实自身还是摆脱不了这个文化。不然,为什么学生来向教授挑战时,就一下子动怒了,说出“如果你们不愿意听我的课,不要选我的课就是了”呢?这不正是典型的传统文化思维“老师要爱护学生,学生要听从老师”吗?而这两个学生,虽身为中国文化的忠实学生,却也能在课后勇于向老师提出自己不同的见解,说明她们也没有愚昧地照搬传统文化里的“听从老师”之言,不像某些人动不动拿出那种陈词滥调批判她们为“失去独立批判精神”,恰恰相反,敢于挑战自己的老师,正是具有独立思考的表现。
(作者为美国费城天普大学传播学院助理教授)
- posted on 12/06/2008
Academic Bill of Rights
http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/documents/1925/abor.html
"This protection includes students. From the first statement on academic freedom, it has been recognized that intellectual independence means the protection of students - as well as faculty - from the imposition of any orthodoxy of a political, religious or ideological nature. The 1915 General Report admonished faculty to avoid "taking unfair advantage of the student's immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher's own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own."
“Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.”
以上这些都是在美国当教授的常识。如果有所违反,学生提出异议甚至告到学校当局也无可非议。事实上,这类学生抗议确有发生。
奥巴马当选后很兴奋,第二天去上课,想有所表示,但所做的也不过是换件正式点的衬衫,在胸前贴上 "I voted!" 的 sticker. - posted on 12/06/2008
我觉得这位助理教授说得非常有道理,思维也很简单明确啊。
看了看前面几个帖子,说实话,听上去也挺有道理的。大家说得似乎都对,那为什么看上去还有挺激烈的争论呢?我想了想,觉得原因还是老一套,很简单,因为国内国外对描述一些事情和事件的说法不同。
在国内,学生去反映问题,就向最上面那个贴子所称,叫“告密”,于是学生就自动成为“密探”。这是历史遗留的比较缺德的夸张词语。老师大庭广众之下既然敢豪言壮语公开说,课堂之外就自动地成为秘密,关系到私人生死前途的秘密?扯淡的说法。什么时候高校课堂上师生之间的交流成为了似密之事?更何况学生还是首先去当面质问了那位老师。这种不负责任信口开河的事情我们在国内上课时也常干,却还真没担心过有什么人去告密。这个老师还挺能给自己煽情。
同样的事情,在国外,说法又全变了,叫学生的“权力”。老师不能强行灌输自己的政治或种族观点。中国和美国社会习俗政治习惯条例规定都略有不同,同样一种行为,定义和称法有时候完全不同,不能划等号。权力说法没有必要去驳斥告密说法。这里面看上去很激烈的争论和观点冲突,因此也就成了我们常说的关公战秦琼。这所谓的激烈冲突,其实也就象英国政治这几天的一个说法,叫做“a storm in a tea cup”。自己热闹自己而已。
当然,这件事情,也反映了中国高校的一个小问题,学生有各种意见,应该找什么人什么部门去反映,学校又如何能保证老师不来骚扰报复。过去是院系总支书记基本都包了,现在不知如何了。
gz wrote:
学校既然在选课系统列出您的古代汉语,学生来修这门课,就是看在您古代汉语的知识上,而不是指望在课堂上来聆听您的政治立场的。课堂是自由讨论专业知识的场所,而不是老师们发牢骚和发表政治高见的场地 (课外,那确实是各自的言论自由)。如果说这些学生对政治感兴趣,她们会注册政治课程而不是古代汉语。这几个学生的心态,可能觉得交了学费是来听专业课的,想不到杨老师浪费了课堂时间大谈不相关的内容,还强行被杨老师灌输与自己不同的政见。由于在课堂上老师有不对称的权威与权力,学生课后找老师,老师态度也不好,所以,只好通过外部途径为自己讨回公道。这件事,如果在学生来和杨老师谈话时,自己能态度谦虚点,比方该说“这只是我的一家之言,不一定正确,欢迎你们批评和讨论”,也不会弄成这样。
最后,杨老师虽然猛批中国的传统文化,其实自身还是摆脱不了这个文化。不然,为什么学生来向教授挑战时,就一下子动怒了,说出“如果你们不愿意听我的课,不要选我的课就是了”呢?这不正是典型的传统文化思维“老师要爱护学生,学生要听从老师”吗?而这两个学生,虽身为中国文化的忠实学生,却也能在课后勇于向老师提出自己不同的见解,说明她们也没有愚昧地照搬传统文化里的“听从老师”之言,不像某些人动不动拿出那种陈词滥调批判她们为“失去独立批判精神”,恰恰相反,敢于挑战自己的老师,正是具有独立思考的表现。
(作者为美国费城天普大学传播学院助理教授)
- Re: 天使原来是密探posted on 12/06/2008
我看问题出在一个告字,用得不明不白,也许故意如此,实有炒作之嫌。学生有意见,私下发牢骚,告诉身边其他人,这不过是在告诉而已。若是向教育行政部门反映,那就有投诉的意味了,问题是向哪一级部门投诉。直接越级投诉到教委似乎就有炒作的嫌疑。教师如何会知道被告了,这点也不清楚,写博客似乎也是在炒作。教委即使干预,又何必要公安局立案?写文章的人没有交代清楚,似乎也有炒作嫌疑。简单一个告字谁也没说清楚,却使多方一夜成名,这就是现代新闻炒作的妙处。包括美国大学华人教授也搭车出名,真是妙啊! - posted on 12/07/2008
这反映了对道德和规则的不同态度。
张鸣教授很强调道德,人与人之间互相“告”,很不厚道,是道德沦丧的表现。这种道德沦丧是中国文化丑陋之一,在文革达到顶峰。
而学生则认为到局子里(或其它地方)告老师,是某种规则下的一种权力。学生想得更多的是权力和规则而不是人品或道德。
看人品,看道德,仍是当下中国文化的主流。但我个人的感受,这样的流弊还是很大。一方面,常常把他人想象得很不可靠,不信任他人,无所作为。另一方面,重人品轻制度,造成许多贪官污吏。
zxd wrote:
我看问题出在一个告字,用得不明不白,也许故意如此,实有炒作之嫌。学生有意见,私下发牢骚,告诉身边其他人,这不过是在告诉而已。若是向教育行政部门反映,那就有投诉的意味了,问题是向哪一级部门投诉。直接越级投诉到教委似乎就有炒作的嫌疑。教师如何会知道被告了,这点也不清楚,写博客似乎也是在炒作。教委即使干预,又何必要公安局立案?写文章的人没有交代清楚,似乎也有炒作嫌疑。简单一个告字谁也没说清楚,却使多方一夜成名,这就是现代新闻炒作的妙处。包括美国大学华人教授也搭车出名,真是妙啊! - Re: 天使原来是密探posted on 12/07/2008
课堂是公器,拥有话语权的教师本来就应慎言,好比媒体要考虑读者。到底什么是“慎”,什么是合理的可以说的,不可说的,这当然是另一个问题,具体情况具体分析,但课堂本来就不是隐私场所,何密之有。 - posted on 12/08/2008
You are not serious in suggesting that teachers should abide by this declaration of the Neocon bigot David Horowitz's front organization "Students for Academic Freedom"? What they are talking about here is "evolution is a just a theory" crap, and teachers shouldn't indoctrinate and impose their "opinions" on students who don't believe evolution.
Look, it will be odd for a physical science teacher to talk about political affiliations or some other unrelated topics in class. But in discussing the ancient Chinese language, what's wrong in making an observation about the culture and political structure that gave brith to this language? It' like asking a physics teacher to refrain from talking about Einstein's relativity "jsut a theory" in an astrophysics class - the tenuous relevancy will hopelessly confuse a young mind forever! ;-)
It's true that in America there is a tendency for academics to engage in self censorship. But that is not borne out of deep respect for freedom of speech, rather it's the fear for political incorrectness. The cluelessness this assistant professor of communications in a school of "media and education" showed in serving up this cowardly abdication of responsibility as the shining example of academic behavior is a tragedy to himself, but doubly so because unfortunately he is also in a position to influence young inner city kids.
And what's up with this offering of one bad behavior to mollify the critics of another bad behavior? We've seen this time and again in discussing human rights violations of the CCP regime. Isn't it sufficient to just provide straight up reasoning and logic unless of course, there is none?
Premise: a society full of tattletalers will destroy every inch of the moral fibers of such society. Now let's argue.
gz wrote:
Academic Bill of Rights
http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/documents/1925/abor.html "This protection includes students. From the first statement on academic freedom, it has been recognized that intellectual independence means the protection of students - as well as faculty - from the imposition of any orthodoxy of a political, religious or ideological nature. The 1915 General Report admonished faculty to avoid "taking unfair advantage of the student's immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher's own opinions before the student has had an opportunity fairly to examine other opinions upon the matters in question, and before he has sufficient knowledge and ripeness of judgment to be entitled to form any definitive opinion of his own."
“Exposing students to the spectrum of significant scholarly viewpoints on the subjects examined in their courses is a major responsibility of faculty. Faculty will not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, religious or anti-religious indoctrination.”
以上这些都是在美国当教授的常识。如果有所违反,学生提出异议甚至告到学校当局也无可非议。事实上,这类学生抗议确有发生。
奥巴马当选后很兴奋,第二天去上课,想有所表示,但所做的也不过是换件正式点的衬衫,在胸前贴上 "I voted!" 的 sticker. - Re: 天使原来是密探posted on 12/08/2008
不知道老师在讲堂上到底讲了一通什么,很难确定谁是谁非。老师讲争议问题,应该介绍各方的观点,也应袒露自己的价值取向,要有一个学术分寸。
不知道是否老师无轨电车开得太利害,还是屁孩脑子太封闭。那个天普的假洋鬼子,是断不能用美国也是怎么怎么地把自己夹进去,作什么什么地帮凶。 - posted on 12/08/2008
I would be a little surprised if the teacher wasn't a bit pissed that his students raised the objection after the class instead of in the class. The fact remains though that introducing the idea that many different factors can influence the development of a language, including cultural and political structural, is a legitimate academic point of view and is perfectly relevent in an ancient Chinese langage class.
Aside from all that, was there any sign that the teacher tried to impose his view on the class? In orther words, if any of the students didn't agree with him, were they punished with an inferior score? None so far that I can gather.
And even if there were any allegations of misconduct, instead of trying to raise concerns with the department or the school administration, they went to Public Security Bureau. Have many of us here been so removed from the reality of China that we forgot what PSB is all about, that we resort to use academic self-censorship to justify the obvious intention of these two students to incriminate and possibly imprison the teacher?
It's admirable to reserve judgement before truth comes out. But it doesn't mean to give credence to all sides, and in this case the motive of the two students to do harm to the teacher is so obvious.
touche wrote:
不知道老师在讲堂上到底讲了一通什么,很难确定谁是谁非。老师讲争议问题,应该介绍各方的观点,也应袒露自己的价值取向,要有一个学术分寸。
不知道是否老师无轨电车开得太利害,还是屁孩脑子太封闭。那个天普的假洋鬼子,是断不能用美国也是怎么怎么地把自己夹进去,作什么什么地帮凶。 - posted on 12/08/2008
tar wrote:
You are not serious in suggesting that teachers should abide by this declaration of the Neocon bigot David Horowitz's front organization "Students for Academic Freedom"? What they are talking about here is "evolution is a just a theory" crap, and teachers shouldn't indoctrinate and impose their "opinions" on students who don't believe evolution.
Interesting that you mentioned evolution. I have had a few conversations with different biology professors regarding how they teach evolution. All of them say they present the theory and the facts, but they do not specifically address the issue of god vs atheism, as that is not the duty of the professor and should be left for the student to figure out. In other words, a science teacher should present theories and facts, such as evolution, but not opinions, such as religion vs. atheism. In humanity courses, inevitably various opinions will be discussed, but the teacher should present all relevant opinions instead of just his/her own.
Look, it will be odd for a physical science teacher to talk about political affiliations or some other unrelated topics in class. But in discussing the ancient Chinese language, what's wrong in making an observation about the culture and political structure that gave brith to this language? It' like asking a physics teacher to refrain from talking about Einstein's relativity "jsut a theory" in an astrophysics class - the tenuous relevancy will hopelessly confuse a young mind forever! ;-)
no comment on this, simply because little is known in terms of what specifically he said in class which caused controversies.
It's true that in America there is a tendency for academics to engage in self censorship. But that is not borne out of deep respect for freedom of speech, rather it's the fear for political incorrectness.
I don't agree this "self censorship" is the consequence of political correctness, which has been popular only in the recent years. Freedom of speech is not the issue in classroom teaching either, which is not an open forum where everybody is free to express his/her opinions. It is a process of education in which the students learn the knowledge accumulated by the society collectively, instead of personal opinions of the teachers.
The cluelessness this assistant professor of communications in a school of "media and education" showed in serving up this cowardly abdication of responsibility as the shining example of academic behavior is a tragedy to himself, but doubly so because unfortunately he is also in a position to influence young inner city kids.
don't see the point, what does anything have to do with inner city kids?
And what's up with this offering of one bad behavior to mollify the critics of another bad behavior? We've seen this time and again in discussing human rights violations of the CCP regime. Isn't it sufficient to just provide straight up reasoning and logic unless of course, there is none?
Here it comes again! I have seen more than enough of this kind of argument in internet discussion :-)
Does commenting on one aspect of an issue necessarily "mollify" another? Is this a binary world in which a yes/no to one thing implies a no/yes to another? Does one have to make a disclamation every time while making a comment? Don't I know the ugly behavior during the CR when people reported on each other? Come on!
- posted on 12/08/2008
gz wrote:
tar wrote:Interesting that you mentioned evolution. I have had a few conversations with different biology professors regarding how they teach evolution. All of them say they present the theory and the facts, but they do not specifically address the issue of god vs atheism, as that is not the duty of the professor and should be left for the student to figure out. In other words, a science teacher should present theories and facts, such as evolution, but not opinions, such as religion vs. atheism. In humanity courses, inevitably various opinions will be discussed, but the teacher should present all relevant opinions instead of just his/her own.
You are not serious in suggesting that teachers should abide by this declaration of the Neocon bigot David Horowitz's front organization "Students for Academic Freedom"? What they are talking about here is "evolution is a just a theory" crap, and teachers shouldn't indoctrinate and impose their "opinions" on students who don't believe evolution.
Of course it's a dumb idea to even mention God/athesim in a biology class - one has nothing to do with the other. What I object is that to toe the PC line in not offending religious nutcases, biology teachers are reduced to the dutiful scribes of competing theories, of which they are made equally credible in the eye of science.
More importantly you quoted the slogans of "Students for Academic Freedom" as the golden standard of academic behavior, but the original purpose of this group was to promote this asinine anti-intellectual stance, among many other things.
Look, it will be odd for a physical science teacher to talk about political affiliations or some other unrelated topics in class. But in discussing the ancient Chinese language, what's wrong in making an observation about the culture and political structure that gave brith to this language? It' like asking a physics teacher to refrain from talking about Einstein's relativity "jsut a theory" in an astrophysics class - the tenuous relevancy will hopelessly confuse a young mind forever! ;-)no comment on this, simply because little is known in terms of what specifically he said in class which caused controversies.
I was just trying to point out that to discuss political and cutural issues is perfectly relevant in an ancient langage calss.
It's true that in America there is a tendency for academics to engage in self censorship. But that is not borne out of deep respect for freedom of speech, rather it's the fear for political incorrectness.I don't agree this "self censorship" is the consequence of political correctness, which has been popular only in the recent years. Freedom of speech is not the issue in classroom teaching either, which is not an open forum where everybody is free to express his/her opinions. It is a process of education in which the students learn the knowledge accumulated by the society collectively, instead of personal opinions of the teachers.
If he tries to teach his personal opinion as part of curriculum for which it has not been vetted by the scientific community, yes that will be an academic misconduct. But for expressing an opinion merely as a side comment? That's a totally different circumstance. In any rate, don't we all agree even academic misconducts are not criminal offenses?
The cluelessness this assistant professor of communications in a school of "media and education" showed in serving up this cowardly abdication of responsibility as the shining example of academic behavior is a tragedy to himself, but doubly so because unfortunately he is also in a position to influence young inner city kids.don't see the point, what does anything have to do with inner city kids?
The school he teaches is located in the heart of Philadelphia, and his abdication of the responsibility as a teacher does a disservice to the students he teaches.
And what's up with this offering of one bad behavior to mollify the critics of another bad behavior? We've seen this time and again in discussing human rights violations of the CCP regime. Isn't it sufficient to just provide straight up reasoning and logic unless of course, there is none?Here it comes again! I have seen more than enough of this kind of argument in internet discussion :-)
Does commenting on one aspect of an issue necessarily "mollify" another? Is this a binary world in which a yes/no to one thing implies a no/yes to another? Does one have to make a disclamation every time while making a comment? Don't I know the ugly behavior during the CR when people reported on each other? Come on!
I am not sure what you are trying to argue here. I made a general comment that many people here draw the attention to one bad behavior on somebody else in the hope to excuse another person's bad behavior. It's just far more effective to use your own logic and reasoning in a rebuttal.
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation