Should there be limits on what teachers can teach?

[kenpo tiger]

In the first place, if you go through various forums and threads on martial talk, you will see all sorts of glorifications of violence: advertisements for various cruel little toys for boys, joyful announcements of having found this really kewl way to break a neck, swaggering about fighting prowess and about having hurt some guy last night, hoots about how neato it would be if we just blew up more human beings, and on and on and on. Often, this crap--which is understandable in teenagers, and less and less acceptable in grown-ups--is presented anonymously, or coupled with fundamentalist Protestant ideology (sorry, but I haven't seen a lot of Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Catholic or Epsicopalian ranting about sending unbelievers to hell), with extreme nationalism, with homophobias.

I find this stuff far more offensive than anything a college professor might have said in a public forum, where he was invited to speak because of his controversial views and where the audience had the right to protest, to complain, to ask questions.

As for the changes in American society, the first point I'd make is that the commonest justification for violence on these forums is that Things Have Gotten Worse and This Country Is Going To the (Godless) Dogs. So, guys and gals, that means that folks like me and KT grew up and were educated in a better, more moral, more decent America. It means we know more than you, and are more moral than you--and since that's a ridiculous argument, perhaps you oughta think through the next claim about how much this country has slid downhill.

I took the "Almighty Dollar," from H.L. Mencken, of course, who was pissed about the trend in the 1920s and 1930. So, it's been with us a while. However, things really took off around Reagan's second term, in all sorts of ways. The work-week's longer, real wages have dropped, education is harder for working class people to access, etc. etc., etc.--and to really put the cherry on, anybody who even slightly questions the Way Things Are draws attacks (personal, as well as ideological and intellectual) that I've only read about....because I was a kid when Senator Joe McCarthy was running around loose.

And that's what a lot of this stuff is--McCarthyism. It's red-baiting, or whatever the, "new," terms are. How do I know this? First, because the language is exactly the same. For that matter, it's the same as a century ago, when groups like the AFL were getting called unpatriotic Commies up and down the land.

Second, it's McCarthyism because the hallmark of McCarthyism is ignorance. Just a minor question: how many of you guys actually tracked down exactly what Churchill said before you started yelling about it? Did you look up his writings, his books, his record? Or did you just take a coupla sound bites off the TV, a bit o'this and a bit o'that from O'Reilly or Savage, and launch?

Yeah, that's what I thought. And the fact of the matter is, it doesn't surprise me at all: it's one of the classical intellectual effects and products of advanced capitalism, where knowledge is always presented fast, in little bits, divorced from material reality and identified as purified technology of one kind or another.

I'm not surprised either, because this stuff is endemic in the martial arts--always with the latest and the kewlest, always with the short-cuts, always with the divorce of one's technical proficiency from the simplest moral developments, always with the chortling about hurting other people.

It's at that point that you might consider the extent to which Funakoshi's remarks about the point of the arts being the improvement of character, together with Marx's, "The point, however, is not to understand the world, but to change it." But then, these guys are dead, and the books take a long time to read and think about, and anyway Marx killed millions....

You wanna criticize Churchill? Great. Find out what he actually said, and go git 'im. Then, think about this--did it ever occur to you that the REAL criticism is that when college profs say this stuff, it has no effect on reality whatsoever, that it's just more hot air from the privileged, that you're pissed because your society is trying to erase the whole world of literature, the arts, and ideas from your lives, replacing everything with football, the swimsuit issue, and the, "ideas," of shows like "Crossfire?"

Gee whiz Robert. I had written all kinds of things about McCarthyism and deleted it. Scary when you and I are on the same wavelength, if on different coasts and in different time zones. I started getting a bit worried when you stated so baldly that you and I know more than the rest do, etc., but I realized you were, of course, making a point, which became clearer in the next few paragraphs. And yes, it scares me to be around a group of martial artists to whom it's so very cool to be able to inflict all sorts of pain on someone *because you can*. Lately I've been accused -- no, it's been pointed out to me that I'm not overly aggressive with kenpo which can be a highly aggressive martial art once that particular line is crossed by the opponent/attacker. I've considered why that is the case and have come up with a partial answer: omitting all that about my being a woman, not wanting to hurt my training partners (been there, had it done to me) and so on, what it comes down to, in the final analysis, is my education and upbringing.

I dislike bullies, whether they're oratorical or physical bullies. Our generation was the peace, love, and understanding (c'mon people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another right now) group. Where have the majority of us disappeared to? Those of us in the martial arts are still pacifists (interesting that fist appears in that word, isn't it...) who are training in the martial arts for the more spiritual as well as the physical. I'm not the next Million Dollar Baby, kids. I'm not getting into the ring with anyone for the sake of glory and a trophy. Why? It's not who I am nor is it who I want to be as a martial artist.

Dan, you asked if it was the context within which I grew up. The answer is, resoundingly, yes -- and I believe it goes for Robert as well, if his post is any indication.

We all have our points of view regarding what's good and right and moral. Those points of view become skewed toward what society becomes. Robert and I grew up in a time of great turmoil and change in this country, when many people were just beginning to speak out (and getting assassinated for their trouble) with radically different ideas -- ideas which ultimately changed our society. I'd like to think most was for the better. I also think that Robert and I have led (and still lead) lives which are vastly different from many of those led by people here, as we do have a geographic commonality to our formative years. That we both work in environments which are highly tolerant of and encourage radically different ideas and concepts is a common denominator as well. Perhaps that's a window into what goes on in our minds when freedom of speech, academic freedom, and freedom in the arts comes under fire. Doesn't make it - or us - better, or more moral, Robert. Just different.

Of course, *one* cannot generalize about martial artists as a group. We're like any other -- with radicals and conservatives in our midst. That's part of why kenpo is so fragmented with so many different variations and such virulent politically-based arguments about which is the *correct* one occur. I recently met quite a few masters and other high-ranking kenpoists when I went to visit Mr. Parker at a camp held at Master Sean Kelley's school in Florida, all of whom practice varying styles of kenpo. I refused to engage in a political discussion about the Tracys with someone, mainly because I wanted to discuss kenpo. It is fascinating to see how much in common we all have when we let politics fall by the wayside.

All this goes to the basic premise of this thread, which is that the free exchange of ideas is paramount in a free society.

 

[ginshun]

Second, it's McCarthyism because the hallmark of McCarthyism is ignorance. Just a minor question: how many of you guys actually tracked down exactly what Churchill said before you started yelling about it? Did you look up his writings, his books, his record? Or did you just take a coupla sound bites off the TV, a bit o'this and a bit o'that from O'Reilly or Savage, and launch?

Yeah, that's what I thought. And the fact of the matter is, it doesn't surprise me at all: it's one of the classical intellectual effects and products of advanced capitalism, where knowledge is always presented fast, in little bits, divorced from material reality and identified as purified technology of one kind or another.

Honestly, its obvious that you are a well informed and well educated person, but talking to the rest of us in this condesending pompus tone isn't going to do anything to further your points. sheesh.

For information, I did track down and read a bunch of the guys essays. I will admit that I haven't heard him speak (and don't ever plan on it), so what I have actually heard is limited to soundbites.
Is it so hard to believe that someone else can be well informed on a subject and still have an opinion different from your own?

I'm sorry, but every time you post you covince me more and more that you are of the "If you don't agree with me, you its because you're not smart enough to understand the subject" wing of acedemia. Whateve, you have a great time with that.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Oh, stuff and nonsense. I couldn't care less if you think I'm knowledgeable or whatever--that's your fantasy and ideology, not mine. And the fact that you are bound and determined to find any intellectual tone to be condescending and pompous is an excellent sign that my comments about how you've been bamboozled are pretty much on the money.

You say you read some of what Churchill wrote. OK, fine. Excellent. So here's how to show that I haven't got a clue--cite the work, quote a quote or two, point out what your disagreement is, back up what you say with better facts and better ideas that Churchill has to offer. Instead, you offered exactly soundbites and repeats of stuff I heard Savage and the rest of that pack of multi-millionaire dogs say.

It's your problem on several levels, this bit about not being "smart enough." It would do a bit of good for me to point this out, but there's no place that I said or even implied that, it's not what I think by a long shot--what I actually said, what I actually wrote was that many were too darn much in a hurry, that their society and its teachers encouraged this hurry, that some were simply repeating the big fat lies they'd been carefully taught.

And again--one of the big fat lies you've been carefully taught, a big fat lie you can hear any time on Savage and the rest, is that guys like me look down on guys like you. It's complete bushwa--a word that, obviously, it's time to bring back into common parlance.

 

[Flatlander]

I had to look it up, and thought I'd share for everyone's reference:

bushwa

 

[rmcrobertson]

Nice one, FL. I just took it from common sppech of, say, 1945--kinda like "Wouldn't know how to pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel," was popular back in the Civil War...

 

[Adept]

Rant rant rant rant rant...

Well, that was long, and your grammar was acceptable, but you forgot to include a point, apart from being well informed on a subject before you speak.

Which horse, exactly, do you still have in this race?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Please explain precisely which aspects of this discussion you are interested in, knowledgeable about, or have troubled yourself to research.

Incidentally, your first sentence has a parallellism error in it.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Well, that was long, and your grammar was acceptable, but you forgot to include a point, apart from being well informed on a subject before you speak?

Are you actually going to contribute to the discussion, or just jump on the "Robert's smart so I'll insult him" bandwagon?

 

[Adept]

Please explain precisely which aspects of this discussion you are interested in, knowledgeable about, or have troubled yourself to research.

Hey, no fair. I asked first.

 

[Adept]

Are you actually going to contribute to the discussion, or just jump on the "Robert's smart so I'll insult him" bandwagon?

It seems to me that Robert tends to spin off into tangential and often unrelated rants given the slightest opportunity. We went from a general disucssion of what is acceptable in the classroom to a post about how great the sixties were, Joe McCarthy (whoever he is) and a commentary on contemporary attitudes to violence.

IMHO limits should be placed on teachers. Especially teachers in grade and high school. I dont know what Churchill said, or even who he is. There is a whole other thread for that, and I'm keeping out of it. If you want to make comments about him, take them to that thread. That goes for everyone.

 

[Flatlander]

I know you weren't talking to me, but I'd like to mention a couple of things.

It seems to me that Robert tends to spin off into tangential and often unrelated rants given the slightest opportunity. We went from a general disucssion of what is acceptable in the classroom to a post about how great the sixties were, Joe McCarthy (whoever he is) and a commentary on contemporary attitudes to violence.

It isn't really Robert's fault that you don't undertand all of the references that he cites.* Beyond that, it seems to me that you mainly take issue with his argumentative style. That's too bad, but I believe that it is his perogative to contruct his writings according whatever style he chooses. You're not the style police. Beyond that, he's not breaking any rules, so, put him on ignore if you don't care to read what he says. If you have a genuine interest is his opinions, read on.

I dont know what Churchill said, or even who he is. There is a whole other thread for that, and I'm keeping out of it. If you want to make comments about him, take them to that thread. That goes for everyone.

No, I think that if references to Churchill are being used to support a proposition related to the topic, that is acceptable, thanks. Recall that this thread was begun specifically in the context of the Churchill one, and the issues for some are quite connected.

*Bear in mind here that I neither can claim to understand all, most, or even many of the references Robert cites. :asian:

 

[Adept]

it seems to me that you mainly take issue with his argumentative style.

All I'll say here is, yes. His argumentative style leaves much to be desired.

Any further comments can be addressed to me via PM. We are dragging this thread wel off-topic.

 

[ginshun]

I had to look it up, and thought I'd share for everyone's reference:

bushwa
__________________

good word.

 

[Makalakumu]

One of the missing peices of this discussion is the importance and relevance of government mandated standards. I teach in MN and I am required by law to teach certain material. I cannot just do whatever I want. Do people view standards as an abridgement of academic freedom? Some do. Some don't. What do you think?

More and more of what we can and cannot teach is being mandated by the government everyday. I have checklists of things that I have to cover in my classroom. It is a very short step indeed for states to begin to require that only the stuff on the checklists be taught. By 2008 in my state, all of the core subjects will have a standardized test that students must take/pass before they graduate. So, here is my question, where is the academic freedom in that? Where is this coming from?

It all flows downward from NCLB.

In MN, higher education is asking for money from the State Legislature. The Governer (a Republican) has promised to deliver only if they can demonstrate some accountability and local control. Accountability and local control is codeword for standards. The things that are happening K-12 are going to happen to higher ed. Checklists and state mandated graduation exams. Again, we have the same issue. Where is the academic freedom in this?

Ward Churchill. I read the speech in question and probably should post it on the other thread. I agree with a lot of his points, but I don't like the way he said some things. Regarding academic freedom and how this is being spun, one only needs to turn on the radio listen to the screams of Savage, Hannity, and Limbaugh. All of them are saying that what he said is wrong and that he shouldn't be allowed to say that. All of them are crying for...guess what????...accountability and local control in all of our schools.

Ah, the codeword again...accountability = standards and standardized tests.

upnorthkyosa

PS - no body ever really seems to see the conflict between the concept of local control and state mandated standards and tests...I wonder why?

 

[kenpo tiger]

Upnorthkyosa,

I think that local control is dangerous within the particular context of the conservative agenda. That opens the door to all those wonderful things conservaties would love to see in the classroom - prayer, for one, only Creationism as opposed to presenting all sides, and so on.

As to standardized testing, I suppose it could be perceived as a necessary evil, since those tests are used for determining particular types of funding by the state and federal governments.

Our state university system (SUNY) is a good one, with three of the four universities competitive and sought-after schools both in and out of state. The state colleges have also gotten much much better over the past few decades. Students here all take Regents exams, which I view as basically achievement tests but also serve as a tool for admission and financial awards and scholarship awards to those state residents attending our state universities and colleges. I'm not so sure that that would qualify as local control in your book, but I'm tossing it out there.

 

[ginshun]

Is there something wrong with standardized tests?

I think that especially in grammar school and high school, there are things that all the students should know before they should be moving to the next grade or graduating. IMHO if you can't multiply two numbers without a calculator, and you can't find the USA on a map, you have no buisness graduating from high school.

Surely in higher education, these tests whould have to be major specific, and perhaps even more specific than that. Obviously you can't expect an anthropology major to know the same things as and engineering major or visa versa.

I suppose maybe the problem comes in as to who gets to decide what who should know. Its not like it doesn't happen in the real world though, once these students leave the world of shooling behind.

There are plenty of stadardized tests that people have to take to be a part of the professional world. CPA's, docters, lawyers, engineer's, ect. We expect people in the proffessional world to hold a certain amount of compatency in what they are supposed to know before they are allowed to acually practice their profession.

Why should it be any different while these individuals are in school?

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer that I think the situation with Ward Churchill, in which a smallish group of conservatives who are funded by somebody who has a political and economic stake in attacking "liberals," traces back at least as far as the smallish group of conservatives who supported Joseph McCarthy, somebody who had a political and economic stake in attacking, "liberals."

I'm also not sure how I can more-clearly make the point that these attacks on, "intellectuals," generally speaking, come out of a historical situation in which the scummy likes of Michael Savage are paid very, very well to lie about reality and to tell poor people, working class people, and most of the middle class that taking the time to understand, taking the time to find out what you're talking about, and taking the time to read a few books, these are all Bad Things that real men do not do.

Sheesh, whyn't you just yell, "Four-eyes!! Four-eyes!!" and throw my schoolbooks in the mud puddle?

The nice thing about books, though, is that anybody who's willing to put in the time earns the right to talk about them. You don't have to be an intellectual, a collitch boy, or anything--or actually, that's the older America, the one before the culture started pushing the idea that ordinary people have no right to discuss ideas seriously, and anybody who says otherwise is an enemy.

This is a big chunk of the reason Churchill's in trouble.

From here on out, I think I'll just respond by posting far more-appalling public statements like Falwell's, "9/11 is God's just punishment for gays, liberals, lesbians and the ACLU...."

 

[bobster_ice]

I say that there should be a limit.

 

[BlueDragon1981]

When I teach in martial arts I encourage people to challenge what I'm teaching. Gives them critical thinking skills. Should they be aloud to say anything..that depends on what you think anything is..but I'm not going to debate that. They should be able to teach what they think is appropriate...they should also be able to dictate that the class is to listen to their teachings and respect them...but they should also encourage debate upon some issues. This can be a really complicated matter in which can get many people outraged. Religious Groups, Parents, GrandParents, and many more people could have a problem with what is being taught...but does that mean that opinion should not be explored. Myself I try to keep an open mind...but I also have my beliefs and stick by them...the key is to not be totally closed minded to other peoples views..even when it hurts yours. Nobody will ever agree on everything...matter of fact I actually got in arguments with my teachers in high school and most the time got in trouble for it...arguments in college are much more structured and they don't get you in trouble....well at least not me....lol.

 

[BlueDragon1981]

Oh this reminds me of a couple books that point out inaccracies in history text books...

Lies My Teacher told me
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History

Both have some very good points...

Another thing is the fact that they teach that people thought the world was flat when Columbus sailed...which is far from the truth. Aristotle in 384 (?) B.C knew that the world was round....and the ancient greeks, myans, and others had a good hunch that it was round also. What was one of the reason Columbus couldn't get funding....they didn't think he could make it around the globe with the ships that they had....meaning they would all die and the money would be spent on nothing...they did not know that the Americas where there....

If I recall correctly there is a book called 1442 that puts the notion that a Chinese vessel actually reached America....hmmm

The winners always write the history books...and they don't always give all the details.....