Here's How You *Don't* Approach a Controversial Topic in the Classroom

mykevermin

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
[quote name='Yahoo/AP'] University Cancels Class on Creationism

By JOHN MILBURN, Associated Press WriterThu Dec 1, 4:12 PM ET

A University of Kansas course devoted to debunking creationism and intelligent design has been canceled after the professor who planned to teach it caused a furor by sending an e-mail mocking Christian fundamentalists.

Twenty-five students had enrolled in the course, originally called "Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and Other Religious Mythologies," which had been scheduled for the spring.

Professor Paul Mirecki, chairman of religious studies, canceled the class Wednesday, the university said.

Mirecki recently sent an e-mail to members of a student organization in which he referred to religious conservatives as "fundies" and said a course depicting intelligent design as mythology would be a "nice slap in their big fat face."

He later apologized, and did so again Thursday in a statement issued by the university.

"I made a mistake in not leading by example, in this student organization e-mail forum, the importance of discussing differing viewpoints in a civil and respectful manner," he said.

Chancellor Robert Hemenway said Mirecki's comments were "repugnant and vile."

"It misrepresents everything the university is to stand for," Hemenway said.

The class was added to the curriculum after the Kansas Board of Education decided recently to include more criticism of evolution in science standards for public school students.

State Sen. Kay O'Connor, a Mirecki critic, said the university did the right thing.

"I'm glad they decided to listen to the public. The public response was so negative because of what seemed to be so hateful coming from the KU professor," said O'Connor, a Republican. "I am critical of his hatefulness toward Christians."[/quote]
Link

Well, this professor gets exactly what he deserves. I'm curious how the class was even added; looking at the title of the course, it's obvious what perspective the teacher is taking. Moreover, good professors don't mind being told that a viewpoint they disagree with is wrong, so long as it is done so in a thoroughly researched and well-written manner. I somehow don't think this professor is one of those people.

What's curious, and perhaps useful for other discussion, is the question: How is religious mythology separated from religious history? For instance, many people consider the creation stories of the Greeks/Romans, the Japanese (Shinto?), and others to be purely mythological and thus, not to be taken seriously. On the other hand, there are debates among christian sects that take into account the christian creation story; some (most fundamentalists, such as evangelicals and pentecostal types) believe that genesis is historical documentation. Others (Catholics, particularly Jesuits) consider it to be a metaphor, and thus mythology. In short, when considering what is "mythological" about religions, eventually a person will make an arbitrary placement into "myth" or "reality" categories that will undoubtedly lead to the exposure of their ideological perspective.

Though, of course, using a phrase such as "fundies" certainly makes it clearer.

EDIT: Just to cover my ass, don't get the idea that I think ID has any scientific validity. It's nothing more than people deciding to take a spot at which scientific explanation ceases to explain anything more and saying "well, we don't know, so it must be God." That's just lazy and incorrect reductionism; as more and more of that morass of the "unknown" becomes explained as time goes on (and you know it will), it will lead to people becoming upset that science is destroying their belief in God. I'll believe OJ is innocent before I believe ID is valid; that having been said, it's entirely inappropriate to teach a class and openly mock one entire half of that debate.
 
While I agree that he went about things the wrong way, if I were an educator in Kansas dealing with their war on evolution, I think I may have snapped by now too.
 
That sounds like a great class. All you have to do is mock some fundies and you get an A. The fact that he's the "Chairman of Religious Studies" may just be the best part. :lol:
 
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']That sounds like a great class. All you have to do is mock some fundies and you get an A. The fact that he's the "Chairman of Religious Studies" may just be the best part. :lol:[/QUOTE]

One can certainly be part of religious studies and not believe in religion. Take, for instance, a sociologist concentrating on a religious group.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Take, for instance, a sociologist concentrating on a religious group.[/QUOTE]

Like the mormon apostate sitting next to me!
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']One can certainly be part of religious studies and not believe in religion.[/QUOTE]

Sadly, one can similarly hold a doctorate in the sciences and not uphold the basic principles of scientific discovery. When proponents of Intelligent Design within the ranks of biologists and biochemists write books comparing Intelligent Design favorably against neo-Darwinist evolutionary models, they often abandon moderate language and are quite blatant in their bias.

They might not go so far as to refer to proponents of the opposing theory by some childish slur like "fundies," but their choice in words and tone of voice are similarly condescending and disrespectful. Since this is usually done within the pages of a book or a forum populated largely/entirely by similarly-minded individuals, however, the bias goes un-challenged.

The First Rule of rabble-rousing states: Thou Shalt Know Thy Rabble. Preach your ideas to people you know to be receptive...not to a mixed crowd. Once you've gathered a sizable crowd all chanting in unison...THEN go forth and spread the Word, my Chosen Child!

[edit: it's not exactly a slur, msut, but clearly it's being used in a dismissive/deprecating fashion...so I referred to it as a slur.]
 
Religion is gay and myth the dood is right, who cares if he offended some future nuns they can wipe their assholes on that black gown they wear.
 
I would think someone teaching many religions would most likely not believe in ANY of them. I think it's odd though the tone of the class itself..."debunking"? The term debunking doesn't see very educational. Myth might be appropriate but if he thought he was going to get Christian Fundamentalist in the class and show them how "wrong" they are then that's just silly.
 
[quote name='RBM'][edit: it's not exactly a slur, msut, but clearly it's being used in a dismissive/deprecating fashion...so I referred to it as a slur.][/QUOTE]

I'd say, more of a childish epithet.
 
[quote name='defender']I would think someone teaching many religions would most likely not believe in ANY of them. I think it's odd though the tone of the class itself..."debunking"? The term debunking doesn't see very educational. Myth might be appropriate but if he thought he was going to get Christian Fundamentalist in the class and show them how "wrong" they are then that's just silly.[/QUOTE]

I'm betting this was an attempt to bring attention to the course in order to increase enrollment in the class, 25 people is a pretty small for a lecture class at a major university.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']I'm betting this was an attempt to bring attention to the course in order to increase enrollment in the class, 25 people is a pretty small for a lecture class at a major university.[/QUOTE]

Depends. It may have been a lecture/discussion sort of class. That's typically the format of the upper level classes. Most of my lecture discussions rarely exceed 35 students.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Depends. It may have been a lecture/discussion sort of class. That's typically the format of the upper level classes. Most of my lecture discussions rarely exceed 35 students.[/QUOTE]

True, but it sounds to me more like a 100-200 level class intended to fill general requirements or for special interested and that his comments were intended to stir interest to increase enrollment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top