"The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself."
–Ralph Waldo Emmerson*
Yesterday, I noticed the Register piece on James Corbett, the hapless Capistrano Valley High School history teacher, who was sued by a student a couple of years ago for trashing Christianity in class. (Intellectuals must 'push back,' urges teacher sued by student.)
I was in no mood to write about Corbett, who strikes me as the wrong guy to be a poster child for K-12 academic freedom. I do wish he’d go away.
As near as I can tell, he continues to be the wrong guy.
He’s got a message. It’s about “intellectuals.”
Where does he promulgate his message?
At a Mensa convention.
You probably know that Mensa is that silly society that exists to satisfy the alleged needs of the high IQed. (Poor lonely devils.) My late brother Ray was a member (in the San Diego chapter, I believe). Ray was smart, and I loved him, but he was disturbed and profoundly unwise. His membership in Mensa and his activities there didn't leave a good impression of that organization. (Corrupt former OC Sheriff Mike Carona and Holocaust denier James von Brunn appear to be members.)
Really, Dr. Corbett? Your message is about intellectuals and you want to spread it at Mensa meetings?
That’s stupid. It plays right into the right-wingers’ hands, what with their endless yammering about “elites.” I’m not sure what to make of Mensa, but I don’t think anybody denies that “intellectuals” refers to a kind of well-educated, scholarly elite.
One of the Mensa “intellectuals” who heard Corbett speak had this to say:
"I enjoy hearing an educated person talking … He is very articulate and makes me wish I was a lawyer and can go pro bono and help him out."
Well, IQ isn’t everything, I guess.
Part of Corbett’s message is on target, I think. He refers to conservative “anti-intellectualism.” (The term “anti-intellectualism” owes whatever currency it has to the classic "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life,” by historian Richard Hofstadter, published in 1963.)
Clearly, the phenomenon of conservative anti-intellectualism exists and thrives. Does it ever. But Corbett evidently hasn’t noticed that it thrives, too, among liberal and progressive elites (and non-elites).
In my classes, I sometimes explain the reasons for skepticism of various popular philosophies, including the embrace of so-called “alternative medicines” and organic farming and the fear of genetically modified foods. The latter are more or less a part of the progressive (and pro-diversity) world view.
It never fails. No matter how carefully I talk about the best evidence regarding these ideas and the fallacies and sophisms that make them popular, students—often some of my best students—declare that I am mistaken, for so-and-so says so. “You should see this video,” they often say, referring to something they viewed in another class. Or: "You should listen to Professor So-and-So."
They simply ignore the evidence I have presented. Evidence schmevidence.
I get the feeling that my "truth" is, um, incorrect. (Admittedly, I get more flak about my other, allegedly "conservative," incorrectnesses.)
* * *
If you’ve got anything on the ball upstairs, teaching isn’t easy. (If you’re a dolt, it’s amazingly easy; but you’re likely a lousy teacher.) You want to encourage skepticism, but not too much skepticism. You want students to know the things that are known, but you also want them to maintain the appropriate doubts about the mechanisms of knowledge-production and pseudo-knowledge production. A kind of moderation is important, I think. If possible, I say, take things slowly and easily. (Once again, uselessly, I declare, "See? I am a conservative.")That’s why I lay so much emphasis on, not knowledge, but the methods of attaining it (deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, scientific method, avoidance of fallacies, etc.). I often tell my students, “I don’t care what you believe, I really don’t.” And that’s true, more or less. “I do care how you believe and how you arrive at your beliefs. If you reason well, I will be impressed, no matter what you believe. I will pay attention to what you say.”
One problem with this approach is that you undercut yourself when you refuse to reveal the products of your own careful efforts to arrive at the truth. So, to varying degrees, I allow myself to disclose them. When students ask me if I believe in God, I will answer them (I am some manner of agnostic), but, first, I typically explain that my opinion isn’t relevant. What’s relevant are the arguments, the evidence. And when we cover a topic such as the existence of God, I never bring the class to some big declaration of the truth. Whatever truth there is anyway tends to be “nuanced,” as they say.
Here are the sorts of things I tend to say during, and at the end of, the “existence of God” unit in my Introduction to Philosophy course:
“Yes, the traditional arguments for God’s existence turn out to be pretty shaky, but, remember: that in itself is not evidence for the non-existence of God. Possibly, there are good arguments that have not yet been discovered or formulated.”
“Theists are obliged to present a coherent picture of the world, and, thus far, their efforts seem satisfying only to believers. Their account needs to succeed with those who do not already believe that God exists."
“Often, atheists’ point about the problem of ‘evil’ is simplistic, but there are non-simplistic versions of the point, and we need to consider those.”
“David Hume noted that, since we have no experience with the creation of universes, it is difficult or impossible to speculate about the cause of our own. Perhaps that is correct. It’s hard to say.”
"Please remember that the history of humanity is a history of arrogance--of assuming that we are far less prone to error than the generations who came before us. But, thus far, that has never been the case. It is important to maintain some humility, especially with such important questions."Yeah, that's what I actually say. I refer to my own views no less than to students' views when I make that point about arrogance and humility. The point is important to me. Nevertheless, unsophisticated (and intermittently present) students hear only, “belief in God is stupid and illogical” repeated over and over. "Only stupid people believe in God," says that rat bastard Bauer.
Listening to some of these bizarre-of-hearing students, you’d swear I show up to class telling students to take off their goddam “Jesus glasses” and urging them to combat the right-wing, religious, capitalist cabal!
Gosh, I hardly ever do that.
*Stolen from a Susan Jacoby piece.
Photo from the OC Register.
37 comments:
With supporters such as you, I'm surprised I haven't been hanged. You have clearly not make the effort to find out the truth before making an unfair judgment.
I made an error when I accepted the advice of my district-supplied attorney who claimed that I would be better served if a judge decided the trial rather than a jury, considering the predominance of conservative Christians in Orange County. What I did not understand at that time, was that by opting for a Judge trial, all the facts as presented by the Advocates for Faith and Freedom could not be contested (juries decide matters of fact, judges matters of law). My lawyer was confident the law was on my side. The decision to go with a judge has not served me well nor has it served the truth.
Let me just note that in 35 years of teaching with two teacher of the year awards, and a 2010 pass rate for my AP classes of over 90 percent, I've never had a single complaint until the Advocates for Faith and Freedom filed their suit.
The best example of how the Advocates "legal ministry" twists my words to make it seem (even to many who would support me) that I'm an intolerant, imprudent, "bully" (their word) is the famous "Jesus Glasses" quote.
The Advocates have used my words, If you're wearing your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth, to raise funds on O'Reilly, Hannity, Fox News Sunday, the Trinity Broadcasting Network, their website, the Nixon Library at a fundraiser and many other venues.
The phrase was in reference to Joseph II an 18th century Austrian monarch who attempted to close the monasteries and distribute the land to the landless serfs. The Church opposed Joseph and preached to the ignorant peasants that Joseph was going against God's plan. In effect, the church put "Jesus Glasses" on the peasants and they couldn't see their best interests.
As for my speaking, I'll continue to speak out against anti-intellectual right wing authoritarianism (see Robert Altemeyer's work at the University of Manitoba) as well as against those who object to the teaching of critical thinking. I would appreciate it if you made the effort to look beyond one side of this issue, although I understand that, given the legal tactic my lawyer advised, finding my side takes a bit of effort.
BTW, I'm note particularly vain, but really, the photo you used was not at all blotchy when the Register printed it. You make it appear as if they mud you have tossed in my direction hit its mark.
Finally, I'll speak anywhere to any group. It is clear from your postings that quite a few people, even those who might be inclined to support me, are not aware that there are two sides to the story. Ready my post to Salon, google Socrates and Corbett, and, no, I don't think I'm worthy of comparison, but the charges are remarkable similar.
I am quite willing to hear you out, but what you offer here is unpromising. You fail to address any of the criticisms I offered. You'll note that those criticisms concerned your emphasis on "intellectuals" and your choice of venue (Mensa). My point was that you play into the right's portrayal of academia as "elites," and you leave the impression that you view yourself as defending the smart people against the stupid people.
If you've got a handler, you need to fire him immediately.
You respond to me as though my criticisms concerned the claims made against you in the lawsuit, but my criticisms plainly have nothing to do with those claims. Reread my post.
I shall assume that, critical-thinkingwise, you're just having a bad night.
But telling me that the charges against you are remarkably similar to those leveled against Socrates? Dude, you are clearly not ready for prime time.
Chad's lawyers argued in court that my actions would lead to a county that foundation of which "is slowly being eroded by legal challenges to traditional family structure, religious freedom, basic property rights, and parental rights, and by other court decisions that have created a SOCIETY INCREASINGLY DEVOID OF THE MESSAGE AND INFLUENCE OF GOD." The charge is rather similar to the charge against Socrates who was charged with turning the youth of Athens against the Gods.
I spoke to Mensa because they asked me. I am not a member. I will speak anywhere, anytime to set the record straight. Many believe, in error, that my failure to challenge the facts as presented by the Advocates for Faith and Freedom (Chad's lawyers) indicates that their false characterizations of my teaching were accurate. I am also concerned that the conservative nature of school boards along with their fiduciary responsibility to avoid the expense of even frivolous lawsuits, will result in a chilling effect on teachers discouraging them from questioning approved social and historical myth (Socrates again).
Your post fails in two major respects. First you engage in an ad locium attack by complaining that I spoke to Mensa without responding to the logic of my talk. Then you engage in an ad hominium attack, "Well, IQ isn't everything, I guess," to dismiss the observation of someone who was actually in attendance.
Your observation, "But Corbett evidently hasn’t noticed that it (anti-intellectualism) thrives, too, among liberal and progressive elites (and non-elites)," is true to a minor degree. As Dr. Altemeyer noted in his book, The Authoritarian Specter,such attitudes are also on the left, but are (his words) "as rare as hen's teeth."
I, too, use the phrase "best evidence" when discussing most issues and also find students who refuse to recognize such nuanced words, or who insist on referring me to some, usually dubious source, for their views. I try to be sensitive to students' belief by focusing on why some sources are more reliable than others.
Chad's lawyers argued in court that my actions would lead to a county that foundation of which "is slowly being eroded by legal challenges to traditional family structure, religious freedom, basic property rights, and parental rights, and by other court decisions that have created a SOCIETY INCREASINGLY DEVOID OF THE MESSAGE AND INFLUENCE OF GOD." The charge is rather similar to the charge against Socrates who was charged with turning the youth of Athens against the Gods.
I spoke to Mensa because they asked me. I am not a member. I will speak anywhere, anytime to set the record straight. Many believe, in error, that my failure to challenge the facts as presented by the Advocates for Faith and Freedom (Chad's lawyers) indicates that their false characterizations of my teaching were accurate. I am also concerned that the conservative nature of school boards along with their fiduciary responsibility to avoid the expense of even frivolous lawsuits, will result in a chilling effect on teachers discouraging them from questioning approved social and historical myth (Socrates again).
You write, “Clearly the phenomenon of conservative anti-intellecualism exists and thrives. Does it ever. But Corbett evidently hasn’t noticed that it thrives, too, among liberals and progressive elites.” As a matter of fact, Dr. Altemeyer’s research concluded that anti-intellectual authoritarianism is (his words) “as rare as hen’s teeth” among progressives. You continue, “In my classes I sometimes explain the reasons for skepticism….It never fails. No matter how carefully I talk about the “best evidence” regarding these ideas and the fallacies and sophisms that make them popular, students…declare that I am mistaken…referring to something they viewed in another class ... you should listen to … so and so … the simply ignore the evidence I have presented.” Those words could have come out of my mouth and have in various forms.
You write, “Clearly the phenomenon of conservative anti-intellecualism exists and thrives. Does it ever. But Corbett evidently hasn’t noticed that it thrives, too, among liberals and progressive elites.” As a matter of fact, Dr. Altemeyer’s research concluded that anti-intellectual authoritarianism is (his words) “as rare as hen’s teeth” among progressives. You continue, “In my classes I sometimes explain the reasons for skepticism….It never fails. No matter how carefully I talk about the “best evidence” regarding these ideas and the fallacies and sophisms that make them popular, students…declare that I am mistaken…referring to something they viewed in another class ... you should listen to … so and so … the simply ignore the evidence I have presented.” Those words could have come out of my mouth and have in various forms.
apologies for the duplicate posts. I'm a bit cyber challenged.
I wrote much more than was posted, but it must be lost in cyber space. Suffice it to write that, judging from our posts, Chad would have sued you had he been in your class.
Corbett, you are your own worst enemy. By insisting on comparing your situation to Socrates', you convey that you are a nut. You seem to utterly misunderstand my point about Mensa: you work against your cause if you come across as a haughty elitist, and your choices, including your appearance at Mensa (if you're going to reveal your message before the media, you must choose your venue carefully), do precisely that. It is not an "ad hominium" (or even an ad hominem) to quote someone and then imply that his remark is south of perspicacious. (One commits an ad hominem when one rejects a person's view owing to a fact about the person.) You rebut my point about the phenomenon of progressive/liberal anti-intellectualism by appealing to Dr. Altemeyer's opinion that the phenomenon is extremely rare. But I gave examples of familiar progressive/liberal anti-intellectual beliefs, which you simply ignore. Logically, you need to deal with my examples, not merely offer an alleged expert's opinion.
Evidently the fact that the charges against Socrates and those against me are rather similar escapes you despite the fact that you have experienced students conclude similar falsehoods about you. as it relates to the "Gods." The Advocates used Chad and the lawsuit to elicit donations from the faithful. In my view, that was their intent. Had you been the teacher in Chad's class, I'm confident, from your posts about your teaching methods, that you would have been the object of Chad's suit. What you wrote sounds so close to my own methods, I'm surprised at your attitude.
Mr. Corbett: you are no Socrates---not even close. Roy is on track and on target. Your Hubris is great: your accomplishments far less so.
Why the hostility against Corbett? It seems way over the top.
I think many of us share Corbett's love of critical thinking and view his foes much as he does, but we do not appreciate the many indications that he is full of himself. He cannot take criticism. He defends himself badly. He claims to represent rationality but, in doing so, he conveys an arrogance and intolerance that is not essential to it.
He was sued by a nasty little student and his fundamentalist family, which should give all educators pause. Instead of subjectively fixating on some perceived flaws, how about dealing with the chilling effect this has in the classroom, inluding yours.
Who wins when two skunks get into a pissing contest?
Yes, hence my silence. BvT
Corbett, don't you think that the conditions you are satisfying are a little "light" and, perhaps, too easily satisfied to be calling yourself Socrates?
I feel as though it is analogous to me calling myself Isaac Newton because we have similar hair styles.
I am just saying: maybe get a haircut and grow a beard.
But seriously, why bring Socrates in to this at all? In terms of "good ideas that will help you out more," this doesn't seem like it is on the list.
This thread began when some offense was taken with Corbett going to a Mensa meeting, because they are apparently some ridiculous people, and no one should be in their company. Corbett defends his attendance, and the name calling intensifies. He's called arrogant, etc., as if that is some sort of argument. He dares to imply some similarity between his harassment and that of Socrates, which creates even more name calling. Someone mentions skunks, which are nice animals, so what's that point? Finally, more attacks from a blog disciple. And the overall theme is the importance of critical thinking? Does anyone contributing here have a sense of irony? Now I expect the word 'incorrigible" to be thrown around, and little else in response.
Well, I would just like to thank you for noticing what nice animals skunks are. (I'm serious.)
No, 11:00, the thread began with Corbett taking offense at my original post.. Read the first three comments. All are by Corbett.
Perhaps you mean to say that, in my post, I expressed offense at Corbett or his views regarding academic freedom. But I did not. DtB has defended Corbett. DtB has always shared Corbett’s objections to those who have targetted him, though we may have criticized minor points. In fact, DtB has consistently defended those whose rights are violated by powerful autocratic antidemocrats.
My original post didn’t concern any of that. It concerned the enterprise of fighting for the cause of academic freedom. Those who step into the spotlight, claiming the banner of academic freedom have an obligation (to others who advocate such freedom) not to work against the cause—that is, to advocate competently.
My point is that, as things stand, Corbett advocates incompetently. He is harming the cause.
In its battle with the so-called “liberal media” and the “leftist” professorate, the right relies on the rhetoric of “elites” and suggests that reporters and academics view the “folks” as stupid and ignorant. This appeal works. As a matter of practical politics, therefore, we work against ourselves when we advocate for academic freedom framing key points as a conversation among “intellectuals”—and then noisily present that point at a meeting of a “genius” organization.
Socrates is known essentially as the martyr to philosophy. (He was executed because he refused to cease philosophizing and asking probing questions.) Corbett often lapses into the rhetoric of the martyr, and that is silly and it is deluded, and thus it is off-putting. Not only does he still have his life, he still has his job, and, as far as I can tell, he remains essentially whole, despite his years of litigation. (I’ve been through much the same.)
If one’s point concerns how best to navigate the political seas on behalf of Academic Freedom, that a self-proclaimed advocate is self-important or haughty or deluded is relevant. By definition, therefore, it does not commit the ad hominem fallacy, which occurs when one notes a feature of one’s opponent when that feature is irrelevant.
Here's how the post began: "You probably know that Mensa is that silly society that exists to satisfy the alleged needs of the high IQed. (Poor lonely devils.)" That seems rude and unnecessary.
Calling Mr. C "self-important or haughty or deluded" is relevant how, exactly, to the debate over academic freedom? Is this factual or just fatuous? If he was unfairly attacked, (like with a Federal lawsuit) it doesn't seem inappropriate for him to react strongly.
No, 1:13, I started with this thesis: "I was in no mood to write about Corbett, who strikes me as the wrong guy to be a poster child for K-12 academic freedom." I then said that he continues to be the wrong guy.
I explained above why reference to Corbett's language and choices (etc.) are relevant, not to academic freedom, but to competent advocacy of that cause, which is the issue I was addressing. You seem incapable of understanding that distinction. Please move on.
Yes, but you did then write about him and continued with your commentary. The Mensa diatribe began a few words later, in the start of the post, so that's a quibble.
What can be understood is that you present a highly subjective evaluation of Corbett's "competent advocacy" which is tempered, yes, with ad hominem tinged commentary, which is easily observed. However, as you have declared victory and left the area, we'll leave it at that.
diatribe: a forceful and bitter verbal attack
Bauer's "diatribe": You probably know that Mensa is that silly society that exists to satisfy the alleged needs of the high IQed. (Poor lonely devils.)
Yeah, that's some diatribe.
And a ping pong ball is a weapon of mass destruction.
Your discourse with Corbett only strenthens your original assessment of him.
Mensa - geez.
Here's a description of what Mensa folks get up to. They sound like really awful people.
"Whatever your passion, there's almost certain to be a Special Interest Group (SIG) filled with other Mensans who share it! Mensa offers approximately 200 SIGs, in mind-boggling profusion from African Violets to zoology. Along the way you'll find microbiology, and systems analysis, but you'll also find Sherlock Holmes, chocolate and Star Trek. There are the expected: biochemistry, space science, economics -- and the unexpected: poker, roller-skating, scuba diving, UFOs and witchcraft. There are SIGs for breadmaking, winemaking, cartooning, silversmithing, and clowning. Heraldry, semantics and Egyptology co-exist with beekeeping, motorcycling and tap dancing. Sports SIGs cover the classics (baseball, basketball, and football) and the not-so-classic (skeet shooting, hang gliding, skydiving). And any Mensan who can't find a SIG to join can easily start one."
"Mensa meetings are anything but dull! Local groups meet at least monthly. Often it's for dinner and drinks on a Friday night, or for get-togethers featuring a speaker or a lively, freewheeling discussion. All are with fellow members who share your intellectual interests. Some groups have special get-togethers or activities throughout the month. Others, especially the larger groups, have events nearly every day. Of course, participation in local group activities is always entirely at your option. There are also widely attended annual conventions offering workshops, seminars, and parties, plus numerous regional gatherings are held each year, offering social and intellectual excitement."
Yes, that's really awful.
UFOs and witchcraft? I guess they have a savant division.
Just poking for fun, but: "What? No Critical Thinking interest groups?"
No, none whatsoever, just some people being exposed to snarky commentary by cleverer folk. Not like what happens with the better people at the Academic Senate.
BS was referring to the "special interest groups" of Mensa. He was asking if there were "critical thinking" SIGs.(He asked, since, evidently, Mensa seems to have SIGs for people who do not think very critically, namely, those who pursue witchcraft, etc.)
12:47, if you wish to say something, make your meaning clear. --BvT
You're begging a question, in that you assume members "pursue" witchcraft. Maybe they discuss the subject critically, but then as you've never attended, how would you know? It's clear that BS was just making more snarky comments about an organization that he and you know little of, except to feel superior.
Right. Go online. Identify informal clubs and groups that gather to discuss witchcraft. Yeah. They're skeptics who sit around criticizing belief in witchcraft and bemoaning the scientific illiteracy of our nation.
Not likely.
Assumptions vary in whether they are warranted. One who makes an assumption that is reasonable (albeit uncertain) is not "begging the question." One begs the question when one assumes the truth of the notion that one is obliged to defend, as I would do if I were to argue that you are incorrigible because you are not capable of being corrected. (That is, you are incorrigible because you are incorrigible.)
Aw, listen I meant no harm. I think situations where lots of heat are involved are best handled sans that heat, so I put on my jester hat.
@2:16:
What? Me? Insecure about Mensa? Psh. As if. Who's begging the question now? (Joke!)
Though, your comment reminded me of this comic: http://m.xkcd.com/774/
If you click on the picture, the text that shows up is more in line with what I would like to retort with.
BS
Never begs the question, because he never begs the question.
"One begs the question when one assumes the truth of the notion that one is obliged to defend," such as assuming that the Mensans are indulging in witchcraft, rather than discussing it in analytic terms. After doing that, one states it's unlikely they're bemoaning the state of scientific illiteracy, defending one's superiority.
Corbett stated he was at a meeting, concerned about the anti-intellectual state of things in America.
Hoist on your own petard, Mr. Incorrigible. But to let you off, tell us about the meetings on anything you've attended.
3:26, don't get your panties in a twist.
Can a person fail the people that he (or she) claims to speak for?
I say, "yes." That is possible. Corbett is an instance.
You don't think so? OK. So let's agree to disagree.
Have a nice weekend.
Post a Comment