[Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1098 - 3 msgs

[Thelin,William]

My thanks for yours, Doug's and Elizabeth's comments.  I'm afraid I
don't agree with the sentiments expressed in them, however, as an
important distinction has not been made.  Why is this case proof of
ideological party lines, as Doug worded it?  How is it "thought control"
when a program whose stated purpose is to certify teachers to teach in
New York decides that a person is unsuitable for such a position?  How
has the program been dogmatic in reaching a decision about McConnell's
beliefs?

I think there's a difference between challenging the dominant beliefs in
any field through logic, fact, and research, and reacting against those
beliefs merely because they contradict personal values.  We don't know
enough about what McConnell actually wrote or did to come to any
certainties about his scholarship.  From the little I was able to read,
however--bits and pieces quoted on conservative websites--he seemed
wedded to a conservative ideology.  What we do know is that the college
was so concerned about this student that it took a pretty extraordinary
step in removing him from the program.  I just cannot believe that a
graduate director would choose this course of action if a student had
actually presented well-supported arguments in favor of corporal
punishment and against multiculturalism.  Remember that several
professors reviewed his portfolio before the program reached its
decision.

Remember also that McConnell stated that his views comprised his
teaching philosophy.  I don't know about others, but don't we usually
try to enact our teaching philosophies?  There are constraints placed on
K-12 instructors (on college professors as well), but it would be
strange for a person to teach in a way that violated his or her teaching
philosophy.  Further, note again that in the document about his teaching
philosophy, McConnell stated not that a classroom "should" teach
American culture rather than multiculturalism, but that he "would" do
this.

The question of rights is an interesting one.  What responsibilities did
Le Moyne have to this student?  What responsibilities does it have to
society?  In this case, McConnell specifically distinguished between
American/state culture and multiculturalism.  I don't think it would be
fair to K-12 students of color to have this man teaching them.  Don't
they have a right to be included in American culture? Further, to draw a
parallel, if a medical student denounces advances in surgery and says
that his philosophy of medicine is based on pre-1960's practices, would
we want this person to be given a license to practice medicine?  Would
we not question the medical school that certified this person?  Some
people simply are not suited for the goals they make for themselves.
There is no innate right to any given career.  For someone to be granted
a position of responsibility, he or she needs to account for the best
information available in his or her field.  He or she does not
necessarily have to abide by that information, but when going against
that information, he or she should have reasons that are logical and
factual.  

Free speech, as guaranteed in the Constitution, gives people the right
to say just about whatever they please, and I certainly am not
suggesting that De Moyne or any institution should take this right away.
But individuals do not have the right to have their beliefs granted
credence by institutions, especially when those beliefs, if acted upon,
could do physical and psychological harm to children.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com
[mailto:teaching_composition-admin@mailman.eppg.com] On Behalf Of
Charles Nelson
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:17 AM
To: teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
Subject: [Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1
#1098 - 3 msgs

I wasn't aware of all the details of the McConnell, so, Bill, your  
additions are quite helpful in looking at it more closely. Sometimes,  
one or two details can make a difference. If anyone has links or  
sources to give us a more complete picture, that would be useful.

I'm not really sure how to begin. I want to stick to substance, but  
I'm distracted by what I see as misdirections and unwarranted  
assumptions. For instance,

> McConnell's GPA was 3.78, which is hardly outstanding for a  
> graduate student, so several professors obviously had reservations  
> about his work.

As long as McConnell's GPA meets the college's standards for being in  
the program, whether or not he was outstanding is not at issue here.  
What is at issue is whether his rights as a student were violated. In  
addition, was the GPA due to grading bias on account of his beliefs  
or due to his ability? Without extra information, assuming that  
professors had reservations is a circular argument.

 From the information provided, this case did not deal with his  
ability in class. Rather, it was because of his beliefs:

> He was dismissed from the program by the program's director, not  
> the professor, because she had "grave concerns regarding the  
> mismatch between [his] personal beliefs regarding teaching and  
> learning and the Le Moyne College program goals."

You questioned whether McConnell's beliefs would let him comply with  
NY state law. We cannot predict what McConnell will do. When I was  
younger, much younger and considerably "reactive," I used to not only  
argue but also to believe in all sorts of outlandish positions. But I  
never acted on them. Even now, my economic beliefs are at odds with  
federal income tax laws, and I also disagree strongly with the  
Supreme Court on some decisions regarding religion. However, I pay my  
taxes and abide by the law.

The substance of this case again seems to be that because of his  
beliefs Le Moyne College removed him from its program. Obviously,  
this program has limits to the diversity of beliefs it allows.  
Actually, we all have limits. However, to take a position that in  
general a person should not be graduated or hired because their  
"beliefs would not be compatible with New York state law" is to  
support thought control. Rather ironic for an institution of "higher  
learning," isn't it?

Charles Nelson
_______________________________________________
Teaching_Composition maillist  -  Teaching_Composition@mailman.eppg.com
http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition

To unsubscribe, please visit
http://mailman.eppg.com/mailman/listinfo/teaching_composition and update
your information.