View the h-teach Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-teach's July 1997 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in h-teach's July 1997 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the h-teach home page.
How would "contemporary policies as "affirmative action"" lead to "the real teaching competence of the women professors there being less than that of indoctrinate students?" I don't quite understand your point. And, as far as "problematic" content of a paper is concerned, I've always maintained that students can write what ever they want. They must be prepared, however, to defend their positions and state the validity of their presuppositions like anyone else in the academy. In fact, your example concerning slavery was actually suggested by someone (escapes my mid just now). This brings up another matter which could prompt discussion. One could advance an historical interpretation like the example cited by Prof. Roche. Where is the space in response for interpretations that we may find "morally" odious? One may conclude, for exmaple that because slaves were better fed here than in Africa, well, black folk were better off (and indeed, many slaveowners advanced just an argument). But does that justify their activity? Perhaps the point I'm making is that some historical interpratations and positions are held becuase of the values of the one making them. If so, their values must be open for scrutiny like everything else. Off the top of my head, and searching for asbestos, Nick Nicholas Rowe say, Eastern Nazarene College firstname.lastname@example.org