Bigotry in the Classroom

PAGE 2 OF 3

 
Not to go on endlessly on this topic, but I might offer one clarification
of my earlier posting, in response to reasonable queries in some recent
postings.  I agree that cross-dressing is not by any means a perfect analogy
to dressing in Nazi regalia.  But I would also claim that it is not as wide
of the mark as some have claimed.
 
What I sought, specifically, was the
behavioral expression of beliefs which, I presume, would not be offensive,
abhorrent, or threatening to most of us on this list, but which would indeed
be so to others.  Thus, I myself do not believe and in fact have no sympathy
for the belief that homosexuality is a moral evil which is unravelling the
very fabric of civilization.  But I am also aware that others do hold that
belief and--to that extent--would be deeply troubled by visible behaviors
which they would take to express that moral evil.
 
Let's take another example.
What about a woman student who wears a large button into her philosophy
class which reads, "Keep your laws off my body:  Coalition for Abortion Rights"
or some such thing.  Now, again, I personally have no real sympathy for a
hard-core pro-life position.  Yet I can understand that there are persons
for whom such a proclamation would actually be perceived as a deeply
disturbing incitement to murder.  I would want to say that I can recognize
the moral repugnance such a person might feel toward that student's visibly
proclaimed position.  But I would NOT want to say that it was appropriate
for that professor to be incapable of evaluating that student's
work in, say, epistemology.
 
Oh, perhaps I should respond to Rosie's query of whether I teach anything,
which seemed a kind of question about credentialling.
Yes, I teach classical Greek and Latin literature (a field many would call
MORE subjective than history) and have done so for the past 15 years or so.
 
S. Georgia Nugent
Princeton University

 
        I think this debate stemming from Rosie's experience is interesting.  I
would like to contribute an anecdote I hope will be relevant.
        A few years ago a FRATERNITY SPONSORED t-shirt appeared on our campus
with the legend:
        WE MAY NOT HAVE GONE DOWN IN HISTORY, BUT WE HAVE GONE DOWN ON YOUR
                                        SISTER!
The professor who first spotted this in class froze, as Rosie did, uncertain of
what the obligations to respect free speech, etc. permitted in this context.
But the rest of us had time to ponder how we might respond.  Here's what I did:
I began my class with an appeal for help from the students.  What would be a
reasonable policy we might draft for the future with respect to such clothing
in the classroom?
        The issues were useful to review.  Here are some of the student's
observations and positions:
        --The logo was offensive AND disruptive.  It inhibited attention to the
                appropriate classroom topics.  Profs have a right to maximize
                learning potential.  Bar the shirt.
        --Free speech is too important in our society to suspend because of
                some people's discomfort.  We can't bar the shirt.
        --As a feminist I would be offended. I have a right to class space
                which is not annoying and distracting.  The opportunity for
                such speech exists (widely) elsewhere. Bar the shirt.
        --Are you kidding me?  It's just a harmless joke.  It has no meaning.
                Get a life.  Bar the shirt only on condition of revealing
                yourself to be a humorless oaf.
        --Get yourself off the hook, Ashley.  Let the students vote on any
                attire claimed to be disruptive. Live with their decision.
Now I won't claim there is anything novel here, and I didn't really expect to
have to adopt a policy, but the conversation took good turns:
        --we discussed the role of humor and jokes and whether they could be
                part of the context of prejudice.
        --we rediscovered the contextuality of language, and the fact that the
                same locution has different meaning in different contexts.
                Eg, the students agreed that an African American wearing that
                logo would probably start a fight if he wore it to one of the
                downtown bars, and everyone agreed that the meaning of the logo
                would be very different if worn by an out lesbian.  And this in
                turn led us to ask if doing nothing about the shirt wasn't
                supporting white male privilege, given the source and whose
                freedom was being insisted upon, if white males could wear the
                shirt with impunity but others took big risks by wearing the
                same attire.
I guess what I am saying is that it was a good issue and that you can never
tell when a potentially divisive and disastrous event may plop a teachable
moment into your lap.
        I don't know if much of this can be translated to Rosie's class
dynamic, but we should all be prepared for similar events in the Post-Newt era.
                                                Regards,
                                                Larry
 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
/  Lawrence R. Ashley           BITNET:Ashleyl  @  SNYCORVA
/  Department of Philosophy     INTERNET:Ashleyl  @  SNYCORVA.CORTLAND.EDU
/  125 DeGroat Hall             SUNY DECnet:SCORVA::Ashleyl
/  SUNY College at Cortland     Bus. Phone: (607) 753-2015
/  P.O. Box 2000                Home Phone: (607) 753-0058
/  Cortland, New York, 13045    Fax by prearrangement to home phone.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 
I am including the full text of Rosie Pegueros' request for help at the
end of this post [omitted here--included at start of file] because
I am very disturbed about the tenor of the many of the responses to
her situation.  Most have assumed that the student in question is IN
FACT a neo-Nazi.  While the student MAY indeed be so, there is nothing
in the original text of Rosie's query that allows us to make that assumption.
 
First of all, the student came to Rosie to discuss his questions PRIVATELY
rather than bringing them up in class.  This to me suggests that the
student does indeed have SOME sensitivity or at least is thoughtful
about directly challenging Rosie's authority in class -- definitely
NOT a characteristic of Nazis.  To me, this student sounds like he is
a bit confused and ignorant and is requesting clarification. Indeed, if he
were TRULY a neo-Nazi I expect that he  would spout his anti-semitism
for all to hear.  However, he listened, apparently politely, to Rosie's
hour-long explanation.  I hardly think a TRUE Neo-Nazi would have
listened that long.
 
The fact that the student later wore what we take to be a Nazi uniform
and emblem in and of itself does NOT make that student a Neo-Nazi. As
Rosie's later investigation revealed, the fraternity to which he
is pledging, which requires the uniform, does not appear to be
INTENTIONALLY using that uniform to antagonize.  Rather, as a
Latino organization, it appears to be insensitive to the implications
of the symbolism within the context of Anglo- European history --
in the same way  that sports organizations in the U.S. have been and
continue to be insensitive to their use of symbols that degrade and
humiliate Native  Americans, and ALSO historically connect to the
 straightforward the genocidal policy the United States government
toward the native peoples of the land  we now walk upon.
 
Because that genocide took place over a few hundred years does not
make it more palatable than the two decades or so of the Holocaust, though
perhaps it is easier to forget because the horrors of our country's
genocidal policy were not recorded on film.  It is ALSO easier to forget
because it was much more EFFECTIVE than the Nazi holocaust.  That is
why the outcry against the use of such symbols is given much less credibility
than that against symbols that represent anti-semitism and the slaughter of 
six million Jews.  We have government, top corporate officials, and numerous 
sports writers (not to mention a majority
of sports fans) who don't understand what's offensive about the
"Washington Redskins" or the "Kansas City Chiefs" and all the
accompanying regalia and insignia.    In this case, a group of young
men does not comprehend the uproar  over their uniforms.  Their youth
and ignorance makes their actions far more understandable (though no
more acceptable) than the "what's the big deal?" response of people
who should know better to similar issues.
 
My point is not that the situation Rosie must deal with is
not serious.  To the contrary, I argue that the situation will become
MORE explosive and cause greater harm to all if attitudes are formed and 
action is taken on the basis of unfounded assumptions.  Rosie appears to 
be sensitive to that whereas many who have responded do not.
 
The fraternity in question may indeed be part of
the rise of neo-nazi organizations in this country, but there is
NO incontrovertible evidence that that is in fact the case.  Making
that assumption and acting upon it is the very sort of hysterical
response to problems implicated in both the orginal AND the neo-Nazi
movements.
 
Georgia NeSmith
gnesmith  @  acspr1.acs.brockport.edu

 
In terms of standpoint philosophy, how do we cope with situations
such that, when one of my students wears a prolife Tshirt
with a foetus and slogan, or a heavy metal band Tshirt depicting
sadomasochism, I'm offended?  And when I wear my prochoice
earcuff and/or other jewelry/Tshirts, a number of my students
are offended or feel hesitant to express their viewpoints?
Rosemary Killam, rkillam  @  music.unt.edu

 
I think that the idea of getting colleagues to collaborate on a blind
evaluation system to determine the student's grade is a good idea.
 
On another front, the big thing that has been missing for me in this
conversation is info about the class's response to this guy's "statement."
Is everyone just being polite and pretending not to notice?  Had I been
faced with that situation in one of *my* undergrad history seminars, I
would have totally had to confront the guy and ask him to explain what
was up, why he was acting out in such a quietly confrontational way.  I
would have felt that that was *my* responsibility as a student in that
class to do that...it would have disturbed me if the professor had had to
make the first move.
 
At the very least, the current situation calls for a mini-unit on
political semiotics...like, flip the student and use him as exhibit a.
 
On a related note, at bedtime I've been flipping though the big bio of
the Kennedy women.  There's this photo of a young Jackie Bouvier with her
pony at a horse show in the mid-thirties.  She's dressed as an "Indian
princess," and emblazoned on the front of her jumper/dress is a great big
swastika.  It's jarring (esp. since the photo was taken in 1936 or 1937,
well into the Nazi era), and the
photo might be a good example for the class discussion proposed above.
 
Crystal, finding all of this very interesting
           ___________________________________________________
  Crystal Kile   Grad Fellow in American Culture Studies & Women's Studies
    Bowling Green State University   Ohio   USA   ckile  @  bgnet.bgsu.edu
                    http://www.bgsu.edu/~ckile/ckile.html
                           __________________________

 
Having read more of the responses since my previous post, I
wonder if the subtext of Rosie's question involves also, "How do
I deal with my fear of this student?"  As someone who received a
death threat (with followup harassment--writer never
identified) a couple of years ago, I found myself reacting in a
more guarded way to students/faculty who fit the profile of the
writer.  Also, I think it has altered my writing style.  There's
an article from a woman faculty member in a jnl. of a few years
back on her equivalent experiences--sorry I can't remember
citation?  Rosemary Killam, rkillam  @  music.unt.edu

 
In case no one else has mentioned it, the ASA Teaching Resources Center
recently published a new syllabi set on "Teaching About and Responding
to Hate Crimes on Campus," billed as "ten sample syllabi covering topics
including hate crimes in the U.S., gender and every day experience, Satanic
cults and hate groups, dialogues on diversity, and 'coming out.' Concludes
with concrete examples of institutional responses to hate crimes."
 
It's $9.50 to ASA members, $13.50 to non-members and can be ordered by
contacting the ASA at
 
ASA_Executive_Office  @  MCIMAIL.COM
 
I haven't gotten a copy of this set myself, but it may be useful for
people dealing with the kind of problems Prof. Pegeuros raised.
 
Best wishes,
Joya Misra   CMSJOYA  @  UGA.CC.UGA.EDU

 
This is an update since so many people have written both on the net
and privately.
 
First of all, my reaction of fear and anger was triggered by my perception that
this young man was not only wearing a Nazi symbol, but also that he ordinarily
wears a t-shirt and jeans and for the last two class sessions, he is wearing
a brown suit with a brown tie and a professionally printed armband.
 
Perhaps it would be helpful to explain that I lived in Los Angeles for 19 years
and during that time, my daughter's Jewish day school was attacked three times,
the chapel was desecrated, pages were ripped out of the prayerbooks, and the
children's lockers were vandalized and Nazi symbols were painted on the walls
of the school. The entrance to the synagogue we attended was firebombed at
least twice, so even though through my my extended family, I had relatives
killed by the Nazis, it also struck very close to home for me personally.
Secondly, I think that the genocidal aspects of the Nazi massacre of Jews,
Gypsys, gays and lesbians, cannot    serve as a universal symbol. Hitler
was obssessed with the Jews and the Nazis continued the slaughter even as
the Third Reich was in collapse.  It is more than just offensive, IMO.
 
What has happened since last I wrote:
 
I called the young man who is a grad student and serves on the national board
of the fraternity.  It is important to note that this has happened before
on this campus and there have been other legal fights over it.  What makes
this particular incident different is that I am deeply involved with the
Latino groups on campus and happen to be both Latina and Jewish. Since I am
one of their main advocates with the faculty and administration, the fact
that I am upset will make them take notice.
 
Anyway, the grad student is taking up the issue with the national board of
the frat this weekend.  He apparently also succeeded in influencing the
student in my class because today he came dressed in his brown suit and
tie but did not wear the armband.
 
I have also alerted the union (of whose executive committee I am a member), the
Provost and the Dean. At the moment, we are all waiting to see what happens
at the national meeting of the fraternity.
 
Finally, I told the Latino community on campus that I would not appear on
the same podium as the fraternity, at an fraternity co-sponsored event or
at any event where frat members appeared  wearing the armband until I get an
apology and the design of the armband is changed.
 
I did not make a fuss about it in class because I did not want to draw atten-
tion to it if the students didn't know what it was.
 
Regardless of whether he is a neo-Nazi or not, he and his frat must understand
that some symbols cannot be separated from a bloody history.
I have worked very hard for minority student retention and I believe that
the fraternity is doing a disservice to its constituency if it continues
with this practice because it does nothing to foster the acceptance and
tolerance that they say they are seeking.
 
Finally, I must say that I am not the sort of teacher who cares if students
wear odd hairdos or change their haircolor to green or purple on a weekly basis.  
I am not bothered by a student who tells me what Rush Limbaugh has to say
about every subject we cover.  But I do draw a line when I feel personally
threatened.  I am not a hero.  To me, the Nazi symbols do not belong in a class
room except in a history book.
 
Rosie
 
.......................................................................
Rosa Maria Pegueros             e-mail: pegueros  @  uriacc.uri.edu
Department of History           telephone: (401) 792-4092
217C Washburn Hall
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881-0817         "Women hold up half the sky."

 
I agree with Georgia NeSmith that perhaps more is being read in to this
than actually occurred.  Rosie?
 
As I read the post, it occurred to me that this young man was also between
a rock and a hard place (now maybe I'm guilty of reading too much into
this).  On the one hand, he wants to join the frat and understands what
is expected of him during the initiation process.  On the other hand,
given his behavior, one might conclude that he also understood that
people (in this case Rosie) might be upset.  As young people often do in
this situation, it seems that when he approached Rosie he was attempting
to rationalize, or to gain some fleeting ounce of approval, for what he
was about to do.  He probably chose who he perceived would be his
staunchest critic, Rosie.  From Rosie's description of the events, he
apparently did not get any "down-play" of the holocaust events.
Nevertheless, his desire to be part of the group seems to have outweighed
perhaps his own ethics and certainly concern for how his behavior might
affect others.  Maybe he figured that it was only for one week - who
knows?
 
I am not sticking up for his actions.  Instead I am pointing out that
*HIS* issue may not be a Nazi issue at all, but rather it is more than
likely a desire to belong to a group.  In this respect, I agree with
several others who have written saying the the frat itself should be
taken to task.  That certainly doesn't ignore that this young man has
participated in this, but it is a more proactive effort in that it attempts
to stop a practice by the group.
 
Am I wrong, or aren't the frats and sororities officiallys "guests" on
the campus?  In other words, although the 1st amendment may protect the
right of people to assemble and express views, it does not obligate the
university to provide land for a frat to build a house, etc.  I say this
because while I was in grad school at Indiana, there was a big crack-down
on the practices of frats & sororities and if I recall correctly 2 or 3
were expelled from the campus.  It would seem to me that if the national
leadership of a given frat were aware that the university was considering
reprimanding the frat in some way, this practice would halt very quickly.
 
Finally, although blind grading seems like a great policy on paper, in
practice an antagonistic student can make sure that you know who they
are anyway and then come back and still accuse you of bias.  Under the
circumstances then it would seem prudent to get the department chair
involved.  Some departments actually have policy that covers just such
an occurrence.  Whatever the case, it would seem to be a good idea to
go on record as at least considering the probability that it will be
difficult to judge this person's performance impartially.  It would
seem that you and the department chair should be able to come up with
something that will also be agreeable to the student, and you can move
on without involving the entire class.
 
Iana Pattatucci
"Luciana%bchem.dnet  @  dxi.nih.gov"

 
Warning!  This is a long reply on the fascist student issue!
 
The problem with Georgia Nugent's analogy between cross-dressing and
fascist uniforms is that each represents a different type of belief; the
cross-dresser makes a statement about gender roles with few immediate
consequences for those around him/her; the fascist makes a statement about
racial superiority which, especially when linked with Nazi ideology, implies
immediate, negative consequences for those marked as racially inferior.
The Nazi outfit implies a threat to members of the community, as the cross-
dresser does not.
 
The analogy to the pro-choice button-wearer is perhaps closer, since those
believing in pro-life construe abortion as murder; the pro-choice person
would thus be seen as advocating murder.  However, this threat to the
community, as perceived by pro-lifers, would not be immediate to anyone
in that community (including pregnant women, who of course could decide
for themselves on the outcome of their pregnancy, or even the fetus, given
that the life of the fetus is dependent upon the mother's decision, and
not that of the advocate of choice).  In addition, it is well worth adding
that abortion is an issue on which we often agree to disagree, whereas
there is no similar consensus in our (U.S.) society on the issue of racial
superiority-- in part for the reasons detailed above.
 
The more specific point is that the wearing of a fascist uniform to class
may always be construed as an implied threat; in this case, given that the
student had had a conversation with the faculty member in which she stated
that her family had suffered the consequences of fascism, I think we can
understand the student's action as a direct threat.  In neither case, i
believe, should it be ignored as simply another example of free speech.
We must be careful not to fall into the easy relativism our students so
blithely expound.
 
I am not, however, suggesting the faculty member treat such cases automatically
as hate speech, censuring the student in any way.  I think that these cases
must be dealt with on a very individual basis, depending on the student and
what his or her agenda seems to be, so far as the instructor can determine it.
I think in this case, as in most such cases, it is extremely advisable for
the faculty member to consult with others on the faculty and in the
administration, as Rosie Pegueros I believe has done.  It is a very difficult
situation, and I wish her the best. 
Jo Ellen Green Kaiser, jgkais00  @  ukcc.uky.edu

 
I agree with Georgia that the key issue in grading this student--regardless of
how offensive his dress or behavior (and if I understand the original query
correctly the only behavior in question is that he showed up dressed in gear
intended to symbolize nazis) if the behavior is not relevant to the class.  I
think that doing that may be difficult so that the obivious necessity for
grading written work blindly or with dual grading is clear.  Of course the
problem will be suspending your judegment in evaluating class participation
which is at least an important part of the grading process at a college like
ours.  Clearly you will need to decide what are the criteria for grading each
assigment in a much more careful way to avoid bias.
 
But I too responded with dismay at the idea that you would refuse this person
admitance to your class,  I think there is a difference between his wearing
offensive clothing or T-shirts or whatever (I am at the liberal arts
institution where an undergraduate student produced a t-shirt degrading our
rival college by depicting their cheerleaders in positions of sexual
submission or as some of us interpreted being raped by our atheletes).
Certainly you can indicate to the student that you find it offensive and why
you find it offensive and engage in a discussion if it is relevant to your
class on the way in which it is offensive and why individuals might interpret
this differently and certainly put the nazis in historical perspective.  But
dismiss him from class?  Or grade him on the basis of an action not directly
connected to class materials?  I do not find these suggestions attractive at
all.
 
Jackie WIlkie
Luther College
Decorah, IA

 
I am amazed at the range of responses to my posts, particularly by the idea
that this young man just wants to be accepted by his frat.  I would like to
refer you to a book by Hannah Arendt:_Eichmann In Jerusalem_. It is in this
book that Arendt lays out her theory of "the banality of evil." Arendt argues
that what made the Nazi's destruction of the Jews in Europe so monstrous was
the utter ordinariness of the participants. They didn't have the courage to
stand up and say that it was wrong to kill Jews; they couldn't or wouldn't
resist the peer pressure.  They refused to believe it was happening even when
the stench of burning human flesh hung in the air.  They continued to deny it
had happened even when the Allies forced them to walk through the concentration
camps so that they could not forget what had happened.
 
If you have never read this book, please do so and then ask yourself how will-
ing you would be to sit by and pretend that a young man in a brown suit wearing
a professionally printed armband is harmless.
 
Rosie
 
.......................................................................
Rosa Maria Pegueros             e-mail: pegueros  @  uriacc.uri.edu
Department of History           telephone: (401) 792-4092
217C Washburn Hall
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881-0817         "Women hold up half the sky."

 
On Fri, 24 Feb 1995, PopTart wrote:
 > [...] On a related note, at bedtime I've been flipping though the big bio of
 > the Kennedy women.  There's this photo of a young Jackie Bouvier with her
 > pony at a horse show in the mid-thirties.  She's dressed as an "Indian
 > princess," and emblazoned on the front of her jumper/dress is a great big
 > swastika.  It's jarring (esp. since the photo was taken in 1936 or 1937,
 > well into the Nazi era), and the
 > photo might be a good example for the class discussion proposed above.
 
I don't have the photo in front of me, but Jackie O's "Indian Princess"
dress was probably decorated with the original Native American symbol (for
"well being," I think) that was *copied* by the Nazis, reversed, and then
used as their symbol.  Therefore, she was probably wearing what for her
was a "benign" Native American symbol, with no idea of its Nazi
connotations.  This is quite different from the situation of the young man
in a current classroom who wears a highly-charged symbol, the meaning of
which he and those around him are fully aware.
 
--Jeanne
jsauvage  @  u.washington.edu

 
Federica Vezzani wrote what she called "A student point of view"...I
would like to give another one:
 
I think that there is a problem with not being able to call anti-semitism
what it is.  I find the language of her posting,

"the "bomb us" mentality with the history of the holocaust,"
the readings being "imposed" on children,
"American youths (and not just the youths) need an Education"
 
to be most offensive to this list.
It shows general insensitivity and a lack of understanding about the
oppressions of others.
 
 
She suggests that we "not talk about the KKK and other similar organizations"
 and I say - on the contrary!
 
Let's talk about them, let's find out what they're up to, and let's share
it with others so that we can build resistance to it.
 
And I think we should be able to, whether we are American or not, (and I am
not) to call anti-semitic behaviour and attitudes, anti-semitic and racist
and sexist behaviours and attitudes, as racist and sexist.
 
Based on her posting, I would say that reading Anne Frank and Primo Levi
has had no effect on Federica's Vezzani's comprehension of the plight of
Jews during World War II.
 
She suggests that there is a problem of "general and diffuse ignorance".
Yes, perhaps there is, it is easy to see in her posting.
 
Katherine Side
klside  @  vm1.yorku.ca

 
The symbol has a long history and appeared in many cultures in one form or
another, such as the three legs joined at the center found I think in Greek
history. The ancient and honorable form was reversed from the nazi symbol.
 
 
Ollie McKagen
 
obycraky  @  bev.net

 
I have been eagerly reading the various responses to this debate,
partially out of interest from a great dialog(ue?) I had going with my
students last summer session about PC and freedom of speech, and partly
in hopes of solving a dilemma which has arisen in my first-year students
this quarter.
 
I teach a night class at a community college (English 102), the students
in which are of diverse ages, races, ethnicities, religious and
economical backgrounds.  I am on the "young" end of the age spectrum, and
as a white "mutt-American" woman my identity can create a number of
problems with students when they first meet me.  This is usually
diffused early on, but it has taken a sick turn this quarter.  Apparently
one young woman, a WASP I suppose, perceives me as "hip" and feels free
to make various comments which she would not make in front of a more
authoritarian (in her mind) figure.  Early on, she remarked on my youth
and how "All English teachers are old men who wear browm polyester
suits--but you're cool."
 
Enough background.  THe problem is this:  because I advocate open speech
and entertain free dialogue in the classroom, she apparently felt free to
shout out: "homos.  MAn, I'm sorry, but I just HATE fags" when the topic
was gays in the military.  While I have always supported the student's
right to expression (after all, I do teach argumentation), I was
astounded and left stammering.  I did not know how to respond, and ended
up saying something about my not approving of pointless and unproductive
hate speech.  Since then, the class often breaks out of order, with
students muttering from various corners of the room every time she opens
her mouth.
 
I DO NOT EVER wish to silence my students, but I cannot allow her to
silence everyone else by my acceptance/complicity.  I have been hoping
that this thread would help me but I am still stuck.  As a woman I feel a
responsibility to support her freedom of speech.  As a human I feel a
responsibility to ensure that everyone in the class feels free to speak.
And as the teacher I feel a responsibility to see that the course goals
are met and a hope that I can inspire someone previously hesitant,
apathetic, or insecure to find the power and beauty in the subject I
teach--language and communication.  I feel sometimes as though I have to
work twice as hard to gain their trust as I appear so young, so white-bread,
so "intellectual"--very different from many of them.  If I allow her to
speak this way, will I alienate them?  If I silence her, will I damage
her in the same way women have been damaged for centuries by the silence
imposed upon them?
 
Any thoughts?
 
Anne Meade Stockdell
engamsx  @  gsusgi2.gsu.edu
"Silence is complicity(?!)"

 
Just a thought: perhaps there is a difference between name calling and
encouraging open discussion. It seems quite appropriate to discourage the
former. Playground behaviour isn't appropriate in the classroom ... and
sometimes it's not even appropriate on the playground!
 
Bobbi Smith
smithba  @  sol.uvic.ca
 
[major snip]
 
>Enough background.  THe problem is this:  because I advocate open speech
>and entertain free dialogue in the classroom, she apparently felt free to
>shout out: "homos.  MAn, I'm sorry, but I just HATE fags" when the topic
>was gays in the military.  While I have always supported the student's
>right to expression (after all, I do teach argumentation), I was
>astounded and left stammering.  I did not know how to respond, and ended
>up saying something about my not approving of pointless and unproductive
>hate speech.  Since then, the class often breaks out of order, with
>students muttering from various corners of the room every time she opens
>her mouth.
 
[another snip]
 
>Anne Meade Stockdell
>engamsx  @  gsusgi2.gsu.edu
>"Silence is complicity(?!)"