christinedechagny

Did Grace ever acknowledge that she was lecturing from her biased point of view? No. She made it clear, and even had another student back her up, that there's a presupposed objectivity, when clearly she was not being objective. She tried to put the blame onto the student, saying she was the one who was closed-minded and needed to open her mind to other ideas, when it was obvious that she was the one who was closed off to other ideas. She never once presented the "other side of the coin", she even went as far as to say if you believe the other side of things you're just closed minded. She was using her position as a professor to justify her position on things as the truth.

I'm in college right now and sure, I have professors who have been adamant about their position on things, but when students try to argue against them, they acknowledge the other side, and they have certainly never said we were just being closed-minded. I'd imagine there would be a pretty strong reaction (like the one Grace received) if they ever tried to.

Hobbesian

Christine, I couldn't disagree more. There are tons of profs -- some that I've had and my parents and their friends -- who adamantly stick to their ideals and never pay any attention to what sutdents say in class. Still, they will acknowledge the opinions of others in exams and essays, but not in class.

For example, my Soviet Studies prof refused to acknowledge anything positive about the communist system in his class, he consistantly argued in favor of communism at a very liberal college during lengthy debates with his students every week. He constantly belittled us, and yet we would make the same arguments on assignments and receive solid grades. By arguing with us and refusing to accept what we said as correct he was spurring debate and forcing us to think critically about what he said and our own arguments.

What Grace did was nothing else. Were the student she was having the problem with not so incredibly boneheaded, naive, immature and half-witted she would have seen Grace's comments as an invitation to debate and to initiate a brief discussion in class. The fact that Grace stands by her convictions doesn't mean she wouldn't have let the student start a discussion -- she invited her to do it. The student was just too dumb. That's not Grace's fault.

Rather, that entire segment of the show was another pathetic assault on Democrats and liberals in general.

christinedechagny

I'm confused. How can the segment be an attack on Grace and Democrats in general if you think the student was the one who was in the wrong? I agreed with you on the politics thread that the show is trying to portray liberals in a negative light, but in order to hold that belief, you have to acknowledge that Grace, the liberal, is actually written to make mistakes and/or do unethical things. You can't say she's doing the right thing and say the writers are trying to villanize her in the same sentence.

I don't think belittling students who have differing opinions is productive to furthering class discussion nor does it stimulate debate. It just makes students feel like they can't express their opinion if it's different, because they would just be setting themselves up to be insulted.

For example, this is from the syllabus of the International Politics class I'm taking right now: "We intend to make this a safe space for all students taking this class to express their point of view regardless of their position. You are entitled to your own opinion, and so are your peers. Wehn expressing an opinion or asking a question, please do so in a respectful manner. This will ensure a healthy educational environment for everyone."

If students are expected to show each other that level of respect and acceptance, professors should also be held to the same standard, if not more. They're there to nurture new thoughts and ideas, not nip them in the bud if those ideas should happen to differ from their own.

Hobbesian

Grace being right the the show being pro-neocon and her being the show's villain is not at all contradictory. It makes perfect sense, in my mind she did nothing wrong yet the entire episode is centered around her 'unfair' actions. Nonsense.

As for whether or not what Grace did actually could have stimulated discussion...it would have with me, or any other student who is actually going to move on to post-graduate work. However, with a student who is weak in their convictions or timid would be unable to argue. Such students are inherently inferior and are an anomaly of the late 20th and 21st century. It is only in the last thirty years that more and more students have begun to attend university and as such the general level of education and our academic institutions has dropped off dramatically. In decades past (as well as centuries) students were persistantly challenged to defend their beliefs. The great scholars learned from each other -- in the great tradition of Socrates -> Plato -> Aristotle -> Alexander the Great. In centuries past, all great scholars had famous mentors -- from John Locke and Robert Boyle (a famous Oxford prof) to Marx and Engels.

As for your syllabus, sounds like 21st century teaching. That same proud tradition where my parents aren't allowed to mark in red ink because it might hurt student's egos and children who are fail grade school sue the school board. Pointing to the stupidity of the modern era to justify your beliefs proves nothing.

That girl was a coward and half-wit.

christinedechagny

Isn't it possible the writers of the show think the same way you do, since the people who tried to get Grace to apologize were villains themselves, trying to get a Muslim girl to convert to Christianity and all?

I had a huge problem with Grace generalizing entire populations of people, and I'm having a problem with you doing the same thing now. Saying all students who are not offended when they're ridiculed for their beliefs are inferior and stupid/half-witted is not only disrespectful (be in in the context of the stupid modern era or not) but also grossly false. I've known plenty of people who have had huge success in college and gone on to post-graduate work without once having to resort to personal attacks against people they disagree with. If you have facts to back up your opinions, you won't need to put down your opponents to get your point across. Having to resort to petty name-calling or making excuses about the nature of your opponent (they're just stupid, they're weak, etc) to "win" an argument is not a sign of intelligence or strength, just a sign that you have no real facts to back up your views. Contrary to what you think, challenging students to defend their views doesn't mean disrespecting a student's religion or putting them down for disagreeing with your personal opinion.

Have you forgotten that Jews were murdered in WWII for their beliefs and in the 1960's all Afrian-Americans were looked upon as inferior in every aspect of life simply for the color of their skin- something they couldn't change even if they wanted to? Given history's intolerance for people who are different, I'd say it's a damn good thing we're now so accepting of everyone's differences and students can feel safe to put forth their beliefs even if it's contrary to the popular opinion.

Hobbesian

Either I'm remembering this episode wrong, or you're interpreting what happened vastly different than I did.

The way I see it is that Grace says something in class. Instead of the student addressing it she goes to the Prof and accuses her of being biased. That, in and of itself, is incredibly timid. The student makes no effort to justify her opinion whatsoever, she simply states her opinion and accuses Grace of being biased.

In the next class, Grace attempts to start a discussion. She includes a third party in the discussion and gets his input. That student agrees that Grace is assumed to be objective. The student who issued the complaint has ample opportunity in their first discussion and during the second one in class to address the issues Grace brought up.

Let's face the facts, Grace said, essentially, that religion had caused far more harm than good and was, therefore, an evil force. The student never even once tries to address the evils perpetuated by religion, nor does she even briefly try to suggest that the good done outways the evil. Her efforts were childish and naive at best, an outright insult at worst.

Let's examine the timeline:

1.) Grace states that religion has caused incredible damage to the world, and is still damaging the world.
2.) Grace promises to continue the discussion next week.
3.) Henna (sp?) accuses Grace of being biased
4.) Grace initiates a discussion in class about her objectivity, she discusses the role of academia and the difference between academia and faith
5.) Henna claims that religion is personal and thus not applicable to the academic discussion
6.) Grace tells her that college is about academia and to study it in that way
7.) Henna leaves the class.


The simple fact is that Grace is right. Religion has caused far more strife than good during the course of history. And Grace is teaching a class on history -- not religious studies. The fact that some people even are considering the posibility that Grace was wrong is terrifying. It really speaks to the growing fundamentalist religious movement in this country.

christinedechagny

My problem was that Grace was clearly letting her personal views on religion dictate how she taught the class, and then using her position as a professor to justify her views as the right ones. Wars may have been mostly fought for religious reasons on the surface, but there were many different underlying reasons (money, land, colonization, etc), and a lot the time religion is just used as an excuse to go to war, or used to justify wars to the public. Anybody who's studied history knows this. However, Grace made no effort to go beyond the surface reasons because she clearly saw it as an oppurtunity for her to lecture about why religion is bad. Her private thoughts about religioius people backed this up, as she obviously thought she was doing them a favor by "enlightening" them about how bad religion is, since they're all just opressed victims.

Henna obvioiusly saw through what Grace was trying to do, which explains why she felt the need to explain to Grace why she was Muslim. She knew Grace was ignorant on the subject and was trying to push her beliefs onto her students, albeit in her mind it was done with good intentions. You saw the same thing when she tried to stop Bobby from going to church. The problem is there's a huge difference between not allowing your child to be religious and trying to force your biased views onto your students, and using your position of power to justify it.

Subject

If was just her personal views against religion and not also the facts of what religion has caused on a global scale then I must ask you again. What are the postive effects of religion on society as a whole?

It seems to me that this was a discussion about Religion. Just like she had a discussion on politics in the earlier episodes. So, the "underlying" reasons would not really matter when only talking about a discussion on what religion in general has caused.

She was teaching them, showing them how religion has a affected the world as a whole. It's not really her fault that those reasons are all in the negitive. It's also because of those facts that Grace was anti-religion. She was doing her job. She was educating them.

She didn't explain to Grace why she was Muslim until after she accussed Grace of being bias and all "hell" broke loose. If Grace was trying to push her beliefs on her students and not futher a discussion or state the facts. She wouldn't have asked for a students opinions or answer any questions. Also the same thing could be said about Henna. Wasn't she trying to push her beliefs about religion on to Grace?

Grace wasn't trying to force anything. If she was again she wouldn't have asked her students if they all felt that she was being bias in her views. She just would have ignored Henna's talk with her and let it lay there. Grace brought it up because her student did. Then her students also voiced their opinion on it. She never once tried to silence them and just state her own reason for these views. They always had the chance to state their own views on the matter as Grace did. However it was also her job to state facts which she also did.

I found it very cowardly that students who felt against Grace walked out on her class. Yet in that same class(I believe it was the same class) a day earlier they said nothing on the subject. Did they all have some strange sickness that kept them from saying their opinion then? I don't think so. They choose not to. Then when a religious group comes into play do they have the "courage" to walk out.