Is it time for the government to act?

[Grantler]

Well, I have heard some pretty terrible stories about the history departments across our land.

I thought that I would share what I have heard, and experienced in my own class rooms, to you all.

Well.

First of all, history in institutions is no longer about real history. It is about socially acceptable history.

I cannot count the times where important events have been skipped completely because of the way they are peceived. For example, in my second year American history class we did not even talk about what George Washington did for the country. Instead, we talked about all of the terrible things the white man did to the slaves.

It seems that the ability to teach history as it happened is wrong because it is dominated by white males the farther you go back.

But, why take what happened out altogether? Would it not be better to balance the teaching around actually events and then plug in instances of slavery, women's rights, etc?

On another note, military history is going out the window. I heard a horror story from my teacher's assistant who was denied her master's due to the fact that she wrote it on military history. The panel stated it was a great project but that she will not be passed because Canadian institutions do not want military historians anymore. What they want are social historians only who present a homogenous picture of a past that the white man pushed onto all others.

She won in court and did pass. But, what is going on?

A second instance is the case I heard of a school in this country that offered a women's history course and a Vietnam history course. Well, the Vietnam course for years offered a very limited amount of seats while far too many students tried to get into it. The other course availible was the women's history course that offered 800% more seats than were actually taken up by students who signed up. To fill the gap, the extra Vietnam students has to take it to fulfil their requirements.

How the hell is this fair? Well, the courts ruled it wasn't and that the department was in violation after students finally complained effectively.

Is it not time for the government to act and see exactly what these professors and often tenured professors are doing?

I mean, if I didn't have my own will the professors at my institution might have very well turned me into a American hating student disgusted by the way in which Canada came to be. Ie. damn white people writing history.

[Argus]

I think the problem with universities came about in part through a desire to allow near total freedom of expression in the sixties. The desire to 'respect' the opinions, behaviour and slanted beliefs of even the most ignorant quacks robbed the universities of standards in teaching. It was fashionable to campaign against whatever was mainstream, and invariably from the far left because the desire for academic freedom does not include conservatism (a four letter word on campuses as it represented, to them, the power structure).

Then too, a certain type of person always felt more comfortable in a university environment - notably those who couldn't succeed out in the real world, where people tended to be judged on their abilities and accomplishments.

So with all this and tenure the ranks of university teaching staffs began to fill with leftists who despised the morality and culture of the mainstream power structure, and liked to 'adapt' their teaching, particularly in the soft sciences, to their own particular preferences, biases and prejudices. And in the name of "academic freedom" they were permitted to do so.

This has created a culture of political correctness in which there tends to be a kind of groupthink among soft science departments. You will not find many conservatively minded professors of sociology, psychology, law, politicial science, languages, history, or even economics. Such people are rarely invited into the ranks of academia, which, after all, chooses those who are to join them, for their opinions are not popular and tolerance is minimal or non existent for conservative beliefs. Besides, students might be tempted to think there are some conservative beliefs which are correct. And we couldn't have that.

As for government intervention; get real. Even if we didn't have a liberal government without any sense of ethics, values or morality the professors will squawl about academic freedom and wrap themselves in the mantle of freedom of speech (though few actually believe in it).

[August1991]

Good thread topic. Some thoughts:

Argus, I suspect as the boomers die out, the soixantardistes (if I can coin a phrase) will disappear from faculties too. (These people are eternal adolescents. There is a hilarious parody in Quebec called L'Acceptation globale about this.)

I have always wondered why civil servants, teachers and military people are given tenure or permanence. These are just sinecures. In the 18th century, the positions would have been courtiers to the sovereign. In the modern world, it makes no sense. They are golden handcuffs. University professors no longer require protection for their beliefs.

A second instance is the case I heard of a school in this country that offered a women's history course and a Vietnam history course. Well, the Vietnam course for years offered a very limited amount of seats while far too many students tried to get into it. The other course availible was the women's history course that offered 800% more seats than were actually taken up by students who signed up.

Hugo would love this example. Those in favour (eureka?) of State-supplied medical care should think about it too.

When students don't pay for the true cost of a course, how should a university administration decide what courses to offer?

Well, when patients at a hospital don't pay for medical care, how should hospital administrators decide where to spend their limited budget?

You can go to web sites such as rabble.ca where some people have precise ideas about what ordinary people (the "masses") should think and what they should do. God help us if budgets are decided according to what we should do or think instead of what we choose voluntarily.

[Argus]

Argus, I suspect as the boomers die out, the soixantardistes (if I can coin a phrase) will disappear from faculties too.

A nice thought, but unlikely. Remember that not only do they help to create the next generation of "thinkers" by slanting what is being taught but they also decide who is to be invited into their ranks to teach the following generations. If you're a conservative don't expect to be welcomed into the ranks of academia, even if you aren't politically active. These people don't want opinions which contradict their own. It makes them uncomfortable and frustrated. They're far happier when everyone agrees with them.

Never mind rabble.ca, if elections were decided based only on the votes of university professors the NDP would be the government, the Greens, the official opposition, and the Communists and Marxist-Leninists would be vying for third and fourth place.

[caesar]

Now you seem to think that universities are completely psychic when offering new courses and should know when some course is going to become popular. These things must be planned ahead and a suitable trained teacher available. Women in history would be more logically more popular, IMO; 50% of the world are women and our contributions to history largely ignored.

As for more teaching being done concerning the slavery issue in the USA; that, too, makes sense. There is lots of stories about George Washington and his contributions already told and learned in grade school. It is time to tell the stories and history that the white man has neglected and ignored. Hopefully, this history discusses the genocide of the American natives, too.

[Fortunata]

If you're a conservative don't expect to be welcomed into the ranks of academia, even if you aren't politically active. These people don't want opinions which contradict their own. It makes them uncomfortable and frustrated. They're far happier when everyone agrees with them.

The pendulum swings. In the 30's, 40's even 50's if you were a liberal academia didn't want you. You daren't write serious papers that indicted in any way that you just might have a liberal thought, let alone leaning.

The pendulum will swing again, but unfortunately instead of resting somewhere mid range, history shows it will go from one extreme to another. It appears we never get it right.

[caesar]

You young-uns sure like to whine and blame your elders.

We older ones and our ancestors built this country; you ingrates have it easy. All you do is whine.

[Guest eureka]

So much nonsense in so short a time!

Universities now are conservative in outlook. They are that because, like the outside world, they are now judged by money. The business world exerts a pressure on universities that would be unthinkable in a world where education was valued. Most university professors are under intense pressure to not be "free thinkers" or to instill any idealism into students: indeed, they would be frowned on if they encouraged thinking of anything but potential incomes.

Tenure is an absolute necessity. It is the sole guardian of academic freedom and original thought. Without tenure these same outside - Right Wing - pressures would soon root any non-conformist element. There are probably other reasons, too.

Interestingly, Canada has not yet degenerated as far as the US. Those right wingers who can read may have seen the recent newspaper articles about this. Striking was the case of two ( a man and wife ) professors from the US who have been given positions at MacMaster. They are coming to Canada to gain an academic freedom that is now widely denied on American campuses. They are coming to free themselves to teach and to think without the pressures that are inherent in a system that is geared solely to searching for profit centres in universities and in the preparation of students.

There is a very good reason that history is not well taught in this age. Its absence is exclusively the consequence of the thinking that universities are no more than preparation for a job and that they themselves must be "accountable" to fiscal pressures. This can be said of many liberal disciplines. In Canada, fortunately, there are still some business corporations that value the greater critical and analytical thinking skills that come from a liberal education.

The sixties and seventies were exciting times in universities. It was the period when education was breaking out of its elitist mode and limited availability. It was a time of ideas and education. There was a clash of ideas within the universities themselves. The old, very conservative structure was breaking down and the healthy tension of contrary opinions was everywhere a reality.

[moderateamericain]

intresting topic.

i disagree with you on the fact that American universities are "conservative" in nature many famous universities in America have departments that are borderline socialsist, such as the english department at havard. Now with that being said, there is a degree of conservatism being displayed which had not been previously exsistent. i think what you will find is that the administration of the universities and colleges is convservative more so then the academic employees. to me this makes sense because in America, College is a Business.

[August1991]

Argus, I have pasted here your posts from another thread. The issue is education.

Most university students are anything but. Judgement comes with experience, and most students haven't got much. Today's education tends towards skills training more than anything substantive in the way of logic or reasoning. So you have even fourth or sixth year students who can tell you all about computers, or regurgitate various soft science theories of pop psychology and politics. But most have very little real world knowledge of socioeconomics and world politics and how they actually function. Most have never known hardship or violence or loss. Most don't even read newspapers, and have never bothered to vote. Their belief in what should or should not be done in world economic/military terms is the judgement of naive, ignorant, and pampered children.

Argus, you are simply ranting as older people always have. Can you imagine what your great-grandfather would have said about your use of the word "socioeconomics"? Argus, you claim that young people today have "very little real world knowledge". Your ancestor probably would have said the same about you.

Yet, the world is richer now than before. Our knowledge of the universe around us is better. We can send probes to Titan. Who does that? In general, kids of rich families. Kids that grow up well.

All things considered, it is better to grow up in a rich family than a poor family. Children in the future will be spoiled beyond anything you can imagine now. They will all have iPods and back-seat LCD screens. Your great grandfather had at best a black & white photo.

Never say "they have it too easy". You too have had it too easy. That is the past's gift to you. Be humble when receiving a gift.

No, I actually suffered more hardship than my parents, to be honest.

What about your grandparents?

Having lived through, not poverty, exactly, but certainly long years of being in the ranks of the working poor has taught me to appreciate the value of money and hard work.

You don't have to be poor to understand the logic of a choice. True poverty is what your ancestors endured several hundred years ago. They obviously managed better than others around them. Proof? You're here. (Count yourself lucky.)

A hundred years ago a 14 year old was a mature, responsible person. Today a twenty year old is still, more often than not, a slacker with little sense of responsibility.

A hundred years ago, the typical 14 year old was an absolute idiot. Have you ever been to a third world country? In rich countries, the twenty year old today is a "smarter" version of a twenty year old 100 years ago. They're lippy.

Most of the young people I talk to are appallingly ignorant of almost everything. Many can't write coherently, or summarize their thoughts orally.

Did you ever talk to a typical Canadian in 1935? (Watch some old American movies, or go abroad...) I won't even consider a conversation with a villager in France circa 1650. IOW, compare comparables.

i disagree with you on the fact that American universities are "conservative" in nature many famous universities in America have departments that are borderline socialsist, such as the english department at havard.

I suspect the same.

The major difference between Canadian and American universities is that we have no private colleges or universities.

In general, in Canada, we have humongous, impersonal colleges/universities because they are easier for government bureaucrats to administer.

The small local liberal arts college with a good 4 year BA degree doesn't exist in Canada.

Tenure is an absolute necessity. It is the sole guardian of academic freedom and original thought.

eureka, you live in some kind of airy, fairy imaginary world of Galileo and the Inquisition. That was then, this is now.

The fact of the matter is that modern, bureaucratic universities inflict idiot-tenured professors on students. A tremendous waste of time ensues.

The sixties and seventies were exciting times in universities. It was the period when education was breaking out of its elitist mode and limited availability.

So wonderful! eureka, I suspect you really want to be 21 again.

----

IMV, the true question is whether the State (meaning all of us) should help poor people get a university education. I admire the Mandarin examinations.

[caesar]

Great post Eureka. These young punks think they have all the answers. Thanks to their seniors and the boomers; they are now very easily able to work towards a good education. Everything on a silver platter and still they whine. Spoilt and lazy. One doesn't appreciate anything they don't have to make an effort for themselves. We fought for the rights they enjoy; they whine.

[August1991]

Caesar, read my post. Be humble.

[PocketRocket]

Caesar, read my post. Be humble.

Good advice for anyone.

[Slavik44]

Great post Eureka. These young punks think they have all the answers. Thanks to their seniors and the boomers; they are now very easily able to work towards a good education. Everything on a silver platter and still they whine. Spoilt and lazy. One doesn't appreciate anything they don't have to make an effort for themselves. We fought for the rights they enjoy; they whine.

Dear Ms. Cameron.

Thank you for your letter. Yes, we are pleased to report, your father's old high school is still standing and our library was able to find yearbooks dating "all the way back" to his graduation. In fact, a few teachers even remember your father, which I will get to in a moment.

In answer to your first question: In every picture extant of your father he is well shod, wearing what I believe were called "earth shoes" back then. Also, the weather here is moderate, with snow generally lasting from December until March--hardly the entire school year. Thus his descriptions of the conditions under which he "struggled" to school in the morning do, as you suggested, seem a bit exaggerated. In fact, our bus logs are (remarkably) still intact, revealing that not only was your father a registered passenger, but that his parents paid the extra ten dollars a month for door-to-door delivery.

I am sure there were days when your father was very "sharply dressed," as you state he puts it, but in every single photograph I was able to uncover he is wearing exactly the same thing: bell bottom blue jeans with white strings trailing from the edges onto the floor, horizontal rents in the knees, and no belt buckle. His T-shirt displays a message easily communicated with hand gestures. His hair hangs past his shoulders and looks as if it was exposed to a lot of wind - perhaps he rode the school bus with the window open.

As to academics and "concentrating on the basics," one must remember the times: the "basics" back then may very well have embraced some of your father's elective subjects, which included "Personal Citizenship," "Ecology," and one which apparently was called "Relevance." We have no record of what, if anything, was taught in these classes. What records we do have show that your father did indeed take Geometry, just as he claims. In fact, he took it his sophomore year, repeated it his junior year and repeated the course again his senior year - Geometry was required for graduation.

Now as to Mr. Muggins, who had your father in a class called "Problems of Modern Relationships." Mr. Muggins does not wish to dispute the claim that your father always had his homework done early, he merely wants to point out that no matter when it was done, it was always handed in late. In fact, your father sticks out in Mr. Muggins's mind as having the most outrageous excuses for being unprepared, including having to evacuate his home because it was infected with the China Syndrome.

Your father was not, sad to say, President of the Student Council. Perhaps he is confusing student government with a social group called "The Slackers," which Mr. Muggins recalls was a group of boys who sat in the hallway and made loud groaning noises whenever an attractive girl strode past. Your father was assistant vice president of the club, and, to our knowledge, is the only past member not currently serving time in a federal penitentiary.

One thing IS completely verifiable: your father's name is, indeed, carved above the door to the school. Please advise that, now that we have noticed it, we will need to have it sanded out and refinished, at a cost of approximately three hundred dollars. We would appreciate it if your father would agree to pay for the damage without having to engage lawyers.

The honor roll to which he apparently referred is not above the door, it hangs outside my office. I will leave unanswered the question as to whether his name is upon it.

Thank you very much for your letter, which we found most amusing. Be sure to tell your father hello from Mr. Muggins.

[Slavik44]

For example, in my second year American history class we did not even talk about what George Washington did for the country.  Instead, we talked about all of the terrible things the white man did to the slaves.

I am finding the complete nullification of George Washington from American history to be an absurd claim, so I would like you to back the claim up by giving me the titles to the books used in your course, as that will be the closest any of us can get to understanding what was taught in your course. As well maybe you coudl give us the name of the course, as if it was called "slave relations in early America" I could understand the claim.

[Argus]

You young-uns sure like to whine and blame your elders.

We older ones and our ancestors built this country; you ingrates have it easy.  All you do is whine.

It would have been nice if when you were building this country you didn't do it with borrowed money, then retire and leave us with all the bills to pay.

[Argus]

Universities now are conservative in outlook.

And yet, oddly, their ranks are filled with very left wing academics, and very left wing courses, not to mention very left wing policies.

Tenure is an absolute necessity. It is the sole guardian of academic freedom and original thought. Without tenure these same outside - Right Wing - pressures would soon root any non-conformist element. There are probably other reasons, too.

Academic freedom is hardly neccesary in the liberal arts. What, do you think we're going to get some grand new theory along the lines of the earth being round and circling the Sun which will require we arrest and execute professors?

Original thought? I've seen precious little of that from Canadian academia

The sixties and seventies were exciting times in universities. It was the period when education was breaking out of its elitist mode

Perhaps it hasn't crossed your mind but universities were meant to be the training ground for the elites. As such, those elitist ideas like teaching people how to think, how to read and express themselves served us well. Their absence serves no one that I can see. Most graduates today are appalling ignorant. Regardless of their political leanings.

[Argus]

A hundred years ago a 14 year old was a mature, responsible person. Today a twenty year old is still, more often than not, a slacker with little sense of responsibility.

A hundred years ago, the typical 14 year old was an absolute idiot.

In what terms? In the terms of his society and his knowledge of it I'm willing to bet that he was far better placed than the 14 year old today. He probably knew more math, could read and write better and with more eloquence, having been forced into much closer acquaintance with the writings of classic authorss and philosophers than a modern 14 year old, and was better acquainted with the science of his time. More to the point he would be considerably more mature, for he would have been required and expected to be so for some years, not coddled and excused as children are today. And yes, I'm aware that compared to him I was coddled and excused.

Most of the young people I talk to are appallingly ignorant of almost everything. Many can't write coherently, or summarize their thoughts orally.

Did you ever talk to a typical Canadian in 1935?

You're comparing levels of sophistication in societies of different centuries. Obviously people in general will be more sophisticated in todays world. What I meant was that the standards of scholarship and studies in schools were considerably higher than they are today.

[The Terrible Sweal]

A hundred years ago, the typical 14 year old was an absolute idiot.

In what terms? In the terms of his society and his knowledge of it I'm willing to bet that he was far better placed than the 14 year old today. He probably knew more math, could read and write better and with more eloquence, having been forced into much closer acquaintance with the writings of classic authorss and philosophers than a modern 14 year old, and was better acquainted with the science of his time. More to the point he would be considerably more mature, for he would have been required and expected to be so for some years, not coddled and excused as children are today. And yes, I'm aware that compared to him I was coddled and excused.

We need to fix clearly who we think of as typical. 100 years ago a substantial chunk of 14 yr olds were already done with any formal education. Those who had the advantage of more education were likely diligently trained, but the body of knowledge available was much smaller, and criticality much less developed and informed.

Most of the young people I talk to are appallingly ignorant of almost everything.

But the same is true of non-young people as well. Igorance seems to be the prevalent condition everywhere.

[WageSlave]

Well, I have heard some pretty terrible stories about the history departments across our land.

I thought that I would share what I have heard, and experienced in my own class rooms, to you all.

Well.

First of all, history in institutions is no longer about real history. It is about socially acceptable history.

I cannot count the times where important events have been skipped completely because of the way they are peceived. For example, in my second year American history class we did not even talk about what George Washington did for the country. Instead, we talked about all of the terrible things the white man did to the slaves.

It seems that the ability to teach history as it happened is wrong because it is dominated by white males the farther you go back.

It seems clear to me that you think history is taught incorrectly because it does teach closer to the facts now days.

You find it socially unacceptable to paint the real picture complete with blood and guts, because you more comfortable with white lolly pops, and jelly doughnuts.

Too bad! :angry:

The truth is that modern society is still very racially segregated, and a look at our historic influence on non-westerners is still very important!

And yeah I wish they would tell the truth about George Washington! About how he kicked out George the 3rd to become George the 1st.

[Argus]

Well, I have

First of all, history in institutions is no longer about real history.  It is about socially acceptable history.

I cannot count the times where important events have been skipped completely because of the way they are peceived.  For example, in my second year American history class we did not even talk about what George Washington did for the country.  Instead, we talked about all of the terrible things the white man did to the slaves.

It seems that the ability to teach history as it happened is wrong because it is dominated by white males the farther you go back.

It seems clear to me that you think history is taught incorrectly because it does teach closer to the facts now days.

You find it socially unacceptable to paint the real picture complete with blood and guts, because you more comfortable with white lolly pops, and jelly doughnuts.

Too bad! :angry:

I believe what he was complaining about was that rather than focussing on the more momentous turning points of history todays politically correct teachers try to focus on the accomplishments of what can, at best, be described as secondary players, such as women, minorities, homosexuals, whatever. Further, that history is taught through the prisim of modern day political correctness so that rather than judging our ancestors by the standards of their world they are judged by the standards of ours.

Thus the development of North America must not only include, but often focus on the displacement of natives, their mistreatment, the cruelty of our ancestors, their racism, mistreatment of minorities, etc. This is not to say our ancestors weren't cruel and racist. They were. So were the natives. So were Africans, only worse. So were Asians - only moreso. So were Arabs - history's biggest slavers, though we don't need to teach that, of course as they aren't quite white.

We see this in the area of literature, as well, where one can observe the tendency of some departments to ignore what they call "dead white europeans" in order to focus on the writings of Africans, Asians, and, preferably, female lesbians from Africa who were paraplegics.

The truth is that modern society is still very racially segregated, and a look at our historic influence on non-westerners is still very important!

Why?

[caesar]

It would have been nice if when you were building this country you didn't do it with borrowed money, then retire and leave us with all the bills to pay.

WE didn't do it with borrowed money; that is a recent development. We did it with sweat, blood, and tears. We sent well armed armies to represent Canada proudly in two world wars. We did it proudly; we showed pride in our country. What have you and your generation done. Whine and complain. I see very little pride in Canada coming from the conservatives on this forum. You want to throw away what we achieved; throw away your priciples and join with a powerful country that is out of control and ignoring international laws.

[caesar]

Well August this is the dumbest statement that I have ever read on this forum

A hundred years ago, the typical 14 year old was an absolute idiot. Have you ever been to a third world country? In rich countries, the twenty year old today is a "smarter" version of a twenty year old 100 years ago. They're lippy.

A hundred years ago, a typical fourteen year old was self sufficient; worked to support himself: clearing land, plowing fields, growing crops, raising and caring for animals; building railroads. They didn't need their Mommy to wipe their snotty little noses. A fourteen year old today; may have more knowledge about the world but they certainly are not able to look after themselves or contribute to society. They are still children at 25 today.

[August1991]

In what terms? In the terms of his society and his knowledge of it I'm willing to bet that he was far better placed than the 14 year old today. He probably knew more math, could read and write better and with more eloquence, having been forced into much closer acquaintance with the writings of classic authorss and philosophers than a modern 14 year old, and was better acquainted with the science of his time.

If you are referring to children of the well off, then perhaps. But compare comparables.

We live in a richer world today in part because people are smarter and know more stuff. They solve problems better. A 100 years ago, few people would have been capable of the math required to send a satellite to Titan (and probably no women among them). Today, there are probably several hundred thousand around the world who can do that.

A good way to view our past is to travel to a poor country today.

People in the future will have an even easier life than we have. They will be even more coddled.

The purpose of life is to avoid hardship; not induce it. That is a good thing too. Central heating, air conditioning, hot running water, electricity all make our lives easier and better.

A hundred years ago, a typical fourteen year old was self sufficient; worked to support himself: clearing land, plowing fields, growing crops, raising and caring for animals; building railroads.

I think Lenin described such a person as the smartest animal in the farmyard.

Please don't misunderstand me. I mean no harm.

I simply mean that a 100 years ago (let me change that to 150 years), many people were ignorant. They couldn't read or write. They could barely add two numbers together. They believed in all kinds of superstitions. They were lucky to have had a few years of schooling.

Caesar, if you think people were better then, you are gravely mistaken. There is nothing noble in ignorance.

[Lemming]

Actually, to say kids are better educated today is only partially correct. I remember during my undergrad studies there was a prof who claimed that most of the class didn't have basic spelling skills - these are kids in the 17 - 20 year-old range. Of course everyone in the class confidently chuckled. To prove his point he handed out a spelling test. Wow, what a change in the class's behavior. Anyway, more than 50% of the class failed, in spite of many of the words being quite simple and common. In other words, more than half of university students couldn't spell!

Most kids don't read anymore and their analytical skills are reserved to googling a topic and repeating some boiled down, sound bite version of an answer. It requires no thought and gives the impression of being informed.

And one last, quick story. I am just completing an MBA, and in one of my marketing classes the prof's first question to the students was, "What is the marketing concept?". In spite of most of the class having already taken three plus years of marketing, I was the only one able to answer the question. And this is the new generation of business leaders? I actually had a fellow student tell me he was tired of learning new things! Good thing his company was paying the bills, otherwise I would have thought he was wasting his money.

A hundred years ago people where individualistic, they broke the land with muscle and determination. Perhaps they didn't know how to send a probe to Titan - who cares anyway - but they had a lot to be proud of. Today kids are too busy gaming on line, and we have become a society of shoppers, whose biggest worry is what colour of car to buy this year. Spelling, who cares, Spell Check will do it for us.