Dear Anonymous,
Thanks for your concern. I still have grading to do and reading and writing to do this evening before I head to bed, so this has to be quick and dirty…
This is my personal website, not the course website, so you can stop worrying about me making students read my blog. I assure you that I have no desire to teach student my personal political beliefs. I'm concerned first and foremost to teach them about literature. I teach at a public university and most students went to public schools. The sad fact is that far too many of them are unwilling or unable to read and analyze texts. (Why that might be is a question that'll have to wait for another day.) I primarily teach fiction - modern & postmodern novels - and my job is to teach them how to read closely and make coherent arguments about these texts.
Political topics, of course, come up in class, but I don't see how it could be otherwise. Most top-notch literary writers, from Shakespeare to Pynchon, write texts that are engaged with the pressing political issues of the day. When politics (however defined) does come up in class, I do by best, for pedagogic efficiency not least, to keep my personal political beliefs hidden. My agenda in such instances is to try to get students to understand how and why, say, Nicholas Mosley or George Orwell (to name writers often identified directly with the political Right and Left) make particular ideological claims in their writing.
We're going to start Graham Greene's The Quiet American
soon, and I'm sure that the current war in Iraq will come up. Why? Because the Iraq War is mentioned in the book's "Introduction" by the American writer Robert Stone. However, I do not intend to make the Vietnam/Iraq parallel a focus, though I will probably spend time discussing why Greene was regarded by many as a conservative and why some critics complained that The Quiet American was, if not anti-American, than unfair to America's anti-Communist foreign policy in Southeast Asia.But you probably could care less about the politics of literature and the literature of politics. It's the 'politically incorrect' dog image on my blog and the possibility that I made students go to my website to view it that inspired your wrath.
I'll have you know that when we discussed this image in class I began by saying that the point was not to make a political point, but to talk about formal analyses of signs and what is gained by following Saussurean linguists and treating the sign as being comprised of two components: the signifier and the signified. This image was useful for a variety of reasons, not least because of the visual pun involved (see wally's post above). However, the main focus of our discussion was about the question of intention and whether or not is was accurate to describe - as the person who posted this image online did in jest - the dog's urinating on a sign (and I stressed that it could just as well be Kerry, Nader, Tony Blair, etc.) as an act of 'free speech.' I could say more about our discussion of meaning, belief and semiotics, but there's a Discussion Board for that on the Blackboard course website, which is only accessible to registered students in my English and American Fiction class.
Because UIC is strapped for cash, classrooms aren't equipped with monitors for computers. I passed around a blurry black and white xerox of the image at the beginning of class while taking roll, but our discussion was primarily based on a quick description of the image. I did inform students that they if they wished they could look at the image on the Blackboard course website, but I did not direct them to my blog.
Have I directed students to my blog? Yes, but it was for purely pragmatic reasons. At the beginning of the semester a fair number students were not yet 'officially' in the campus computer system, which meant they could not access the Blackboard course website on UIC's servers. Therefore, I posted my syllabus and the booklist on my blog. I made a point of letting students know that this was my personal site and that the views expressed there did not reflect those of the university. I remember they laughed at that. Did I secretly want them to read my posts and decide to speak out, say, against government-sponsored torture? No, I wanted them to know what was on the syllabus: where my office is, what the campus policy on plagiarism is, and what they had to read for the first week, etc. You get tired of hearing the same questions over and over in the first week.
Did any political indoctrination occur as a result of students visiting my blog? I suspect not. Did any of them decide, say, to join Amnesty International or protest against torture at Abu Ghraib? I highly doubt it. Did any of them read anything at all? Maybe. I have had a couple students approach me about 'indie rock' music. Perhaps they saw the links to Paul Westerberg, Sonic Youth, Bloodshot Records, etc. on my blog? I hadn't given it a thought until reading your post.
Would I like students to read my blog? Sure, but I don't actively seek them out. Like most bloggers (I suspect) I like the idea of someone else reading my posts. Why else would I do it? (I know Dr. Johnson would label me a fool for not writing for money.) I post online and although it's really a labor of love for me, it's nice to know that one has an audience, however small that audience might be. Since I don't get many comments on this site, it's kinda exciting to hear from you. Even though your tone was nasty (anonymous posts tend to be more vehement I've noticed) it was funny to hear you refer to the "liberal element in Chicago" and my "asinine abuses of power."
But a teacher's job is never done, and I've spent far too much time on this riposte so I've got to sign off.
While you’re here in the blogsphere, I do have some advice for you. Since you’re someone who is concerned about ethics, and someone who believes in speaking his or her mind, you might reflect upon the nomination of Timothy Flanigan to the post of Deputy Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice. As Senator Barack Obama has noted: “Mr. Flanigan’s alleged involvement in the crafting of the White House ‘torture memos’ and his relationship with indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff raise significant questions regarding his fitness to serve in the No. 2 post in the nation's top law enforcement department.” Perhaps, after further inquiries on your part, you’ll want to speak up and let your political representatives know that you object to Mr. Flanigan being approved for the position of Deputy Attorney General? It’s your choice, of course. Should you choose to voice your opinion, whatever it might be, on this or any other ethical issue, I encourage you to have the courage to express your thoughts in your own name (Call it an intuition, but I’m assuming that you live in a society where free speech is protected and are indeed a U.S. Citizen; if you prefer to be ‘Anonymous’ in, say, China or Iraq, it’s understandable). Your ideas and opinions will carry more weight with a signature attached.
Best,
3 comments:
bravo onkel eric!
i wonder if your anonymous commenter, who i suspect is a goddamn cat, realizes just how insulting he is to college students. since i live with a professor i am often regaled with stories of college student follies and it sounds like this particular individual has not spent much time with them to realize 1) students do have some critical thinking skills (that's what they're learning) and are grown-ups who are capable of recognizing their professors likely have political views. and they can identify when said professor is expressing those views and that they are well within their rights to think about those views and either accept or reject them. one of the things we teach students is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. you do not accept the position of another simply because they are in authority. sadly, many americans commit this fallacy but we in academia do not encourage it. perhaps he thinks students are all drones in which case 2) professors are doing a damned poor job indoctrinating their students because college-age students are the most conservative they have ever been 3) college students are at an age where they are particularly cynical and/or skeptical--especially of their professors who make them read shit they don't want to read (Graham greene!)when they would much rather be binge drinking. this doesn't mean they are unable of thinking (as the poster seems to imply) but rather that they are unlikely to read an anti-bush screed on their professor's website and automatically take on that political position. most of them won't think about it much--except to maybe get a laugh or find him to be slightly cool that they listen to the same music. 4) it strikes me that academics dedicate a hell of a lot of time to thinking about things like the nature of language, literature, torture, and so on (and this is particularly so in venues outside of the classroom--such as blogs!). and we very rarely take seriously the advice and counsel of people we consider to be "learned." cable news shows are populated by pundits but not academics, though the latter are more likely to have devoted more serious time and research into probing the question, rather than developing talking points. of course, academics should not use their class time to campaign for, say, john kerry or george bush. but does that mean they are not allowed to express opinions publically? especially if they might not be overheard by sensitive undergrads? you can hardly say that elitist academic authority has excessive sway in society today. i think it's a bit of a shame that more academics aren't part of public discourse. what makes, say, rush limbaugh or james carville or bob novak any of the other jackasses that define political discourse somehow more ethical or responsible in their discussions?
but my most important point:
5) your anonymous poster has done an excellent job of illustrating your pedagogical point. a. nonymous has looked at a picture of a dog peeing on a sign and has construed it as your attempt to indoctrinate your students into a conservative bush-hatin' agenda. brilliant! the signfied interpreted by this reader has absolutely no connection to the signifier or the intent of the "author" (whether you OR the dog). perhaps this would be better explained as habermasian "distorted communication" but i much prefer the saussurian slippage of sign and signifier, lubricated by the fine mist of dog pee.
one more thing, onkel eric. i really wish you'd stop trying to influence your young, impressionable students in their baseball team choices by linking to the chicago cubs. i'm mad at them since they couldn't even beat the goddamn astros to help out some phillies (half a game from the playoffs. half!). i think they're on the take from some goddamn cats. love, wully.
There's nothing for it - I will have to leave the University of Illinois at Chicago. It's a shame, I just transferred too.
It was always my understanding that by the time one reached university level one was presumed to be capable of independant and DISCRETIONARY thought.
Apparently the concern is for the students of UIC.
I TRULY object to being likened to a sheep. Oops, soryy, that was an independent thought and nobody gave me permission to say it!
Perhaps I won't have to worry about leaving. 'Big Brother' might throw me out for being so presumptuous????
Deirdre Merriman
Insulted student
Post a Comment