Students push religion, get slammed by professor

[CaptJodan]

Saw this story about my old school posted on Huffpost yesterday. I had this professor back in the early 2000s for general psychology and the psychology of sex class.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/1 ... ef=college

Dr. Charles Negy, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Central Florida, had to email an extra, elementary lesson to his students -- one so basic and of such societal value that it was posted on Reddit.

Striking a tone somewhere between ivory tower and a mother's lecture, Negy challenged his students to step outside the context of their own cultures for a frank discussion on religious bigotry, a talk apparently interrupted by several students expressing bigoted views, in Negy's opinion.

"We're adults. We're at a university," he concludes. Read the letter below to how he arrived at this point.

Hello, Cross-Cultural students, I am writing to express my views on how some of you have conducted yourself in this university course you are taking with me. It is not uncommon for some-to-many American students, who typically, are first-generation college students, to not fully understand, and maybe not even appreciate the purpose of a university. Some students erroneously believe a university is just an extension of high school, where students are spoon-fed “soft” topics and dilemmas to confront, regurgitate the “right” answers on exams (right answers as deemed by the instructor or a textbook), and then move on to the next course.

Not only is this not the purpose of a university (although it may feel like it is in some of your other courses), it clearly is not the purpose of my upper-division course on Cross-Cultural Psychology. The purpose of a university, and my course in particular, is to struggle intellectually with some of life's most difficult topics that may not have one right answer, and try to come to some conclusion about what may be “the better answer” (It typically is not the case that all views are equally valid; some views are more defensible than others). Another purpose of a university, and my course in particular, is to engage in open discussion in order to critically examine beliefs, behaviors, and customs. Finally, another purpose of a university education is to help students who typically are not accustomed to thinking independently or applying a critical analysis to views or beliefs, to start learning how to do so. We are not in class to learn “facts” and simply regurgitate the facts in a mindless way to items on a test. Critical thinking is a skill that develops over time. Independent thinking does not occur overnight. Critical thinkers are open to having their cherished beliefs challenged, and must learn how to “defend” their views based on evidence or logic, rather than simply “pounding their chest” and merely proclaiming that their views are “valid.” One characteristic of the critical, independent thinker is being able to recognize fantasy versus reality; to recognize the difference between personal beliefs which are nothing more than personal beliefs, versus views that are grounded in evidence, or which have no evidence.

Last class meeting and for 15 minutes today, we addressed “religious bigotry.” Several points are worth contemplating:
Religion and culture go “hand in hand.” For some cultures, they are so intertwined that it is difficult to know with certainty if a specific belief or custom is “cultural” or “religious” in origin. The student in class tonight who proclaimed that my class was supposed to be about different cultures (and not religion) lacks an understanding about what constitutes “culture.” (of course, I think her real agenda was to stop my comments about religion).

Students in my class who openly proclaimed that Christianity is the most valid religion, as some of you did last class, portrayed precisely what religious bigotry is. Bigots—racial bigot or religious bigots—never question their prejudices and bigotry. They are convinced their beliefs are correct. For the Christians in my class who argued the validity of Christianity last week, I suppose I should thank you for demonstrating to the rest of the class what religious arrogance and bigotry looks like. It seems to have not even occurred to you (I'm directing this comment to those students who manifested such bigotry), as I tried to point out in class tonight, how such bigotry is perceived and experienced by the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the non-believers, and so on, in class, to have to sit and endure the tyranny of the masses (the dominant group, that is, which in this case, are Christians).

The male student who stood up in class and directed the rest of the class to “not participate” by not responding to my challenge, represented the worst of education. For starters, the idea that a person—student or instructor—would instruct other students on how to behave, is pretty arrogant and grossly disrespects the rights of other students who can and want to think for themselves and decide for themselves whether they want to engage in the exchange of ideas or not. Moreover, this “let's just put our fingers in our ears so we will not hear what we disagree with” is appallingly childish and exemplifies “anti-intellectualism.” The purpose of a university is to engage in dialogue, debate, and exchange ideas in order to try and come to some meaningful conclusion about an issue at hand. Not to shut ourselves off from ideas we find threatening.

Universities hold a special place in society where scholarly-minded folks can come together and discuss controversial, polemic, and often uncomfortable topics. Universities, including UCF, have special policies in place to protect our (both professors’ and students’) freedom to express ourselves. Neither students nor professors have a right to censor speech that makes us uncomfortable. We're adults. We're at a university. There is no topic that is “off-limits” for us to address in class, if even only remotely related to the course topic. I hope you will digest this message, and just as important, will take it to heart as it may apply to you.

Charles Negy

I remember back when I was taking classes and working there, reading people's papers to help them excel in their English Comp and Debate classes (among others) that over time, I ran into students who had professors who were banning certain topics from discussion. Specifically, abortion, gay rights, religion, and sometimes politics were sometimes off limits to students. Other professors have been fine with students using any topic.

The question is, is anyone seeing this kind of phenomenon in colleges these days? I remember back when I was still hooked on religion that I posed several pointed questions to my professors that were religiously motivated, but always in a search to understand why science and my faith weren't jiving. Are younger generations of students more likely to challenge or try to force professors at the university level to avoid topics they don't like, (as we've seen with ballot measures in lower grade levels of education recently) or is this an isolated case?

[Darth Wong]

I certainly hear more news about students making a ruckus over religion today than I did when I was attending university, but I have no idea if it's actually more common. Judging the prevalence of behaviour by the prevalence of news reports is fallacious because you would have to assume that the news media's behaviour is consistent over a period of decades.

[CaptJodan]

I suppose *if* there is an upswing in this sort of thing, it could be a result of media and political coverage on "culture wars" and religion as well. People feel more emboldened to have their religious views heard since, in public discourse, it has become less a private matter. And students, with access to Facebook and other sites, feel its their right to say whatever they feel like without proof.

This all assumes, of course, that this isn't just the media reporting it more frequently.

[ray245]

Doesn't the rapid expansion of student population in universities play a role as well? Even gaining an entry into any university used to be restricted to the top few percentiles. Hence, only the people who really understand what a university is all about and really wants to go there will end up with a bachelor's degree.

Nowadays, University are becoming more like a vocational institute, where anyone who isn't among the bottom few percentile can end up with a degree. My generation's sense of entitlement could explain why there are growing reports of students refusing to partake in an intellectual debate on religion.

[General Zod]

The question is, is anyone seeing this kind of phenomenon in colleges these days? I remember back when I was still hooked on religion that I posed several pointed questions to my professors that were religiously motivated, but always in a search to understand why science and my faith weren't jiving. Are younger generations of students more likely to challenge or try to force professors at the university level to avoid topics they don't like, (as we've seen with ballot measures in lower grade levels of education recently) or is this an isolated case?

I had one instructor a couple years ago list off a few topics he didn't really like to see in his English class, but his reasoning was that they get brought up and overdone so much that he wanted to see something that hasn't been tread over so many times.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I never experienced anything like this at my university. That said, the school was primarily an engineering/business institution, and the biology/neuroscience classes I spent most of my time attending were so small and select that you really weren't going to run into people that didn't want to be there already.

I think the closest I ever came to even having a major controversy in a class was when I was taking a history seminar called "Pan-African Paris" (about the history of French colonialism in Africa and how it shaped black culture in the 20th century). That class had a few wrestling team dolts looking for an easy A (also, hot professor), and I vaguely remember certain topics being a bit heated.

On a side note, I know nothing about this class, professor, or university, but it is worth keeping in mind that at many liberal arts colleges "psychology" classes are often viewed, rightly or wrongly, by the student body as a joke. I know lots of people who simply became psych majors because they didn't have the intellectual wherewithal to do anything more challenging.

[Tanasinn]

I'm sure the theists responsible for the Christ-pushing in this class responded to this email by complaining to the dean about being persecuted.

[Solauren]

When I was in College, alot of topics were banned.

Primarily because most of my courses were about Computer Programming, and therefore most other things were massively off-topic.

However, in my few psychology and social studies classes, no topic was taboo or censored.

[SoulRiver]

This sort of thing happened five or six times during my time at university. A vocal student would say something so absurd that the professor was distracted and the topic of the class would have to be abandoned to put out a fire of stupidity. If you actually showed up to class to learn no information would be transmitted and it would wind up being a wasted session.

Part of the problem is the reliance on associate professors and graduate students with little to no experience attempting to control a classroom. A veteran physical anthropology professor of mine addressed the issue of religion in the first class session by saying that any ID theory was inappropriate for class and that the use of such a theory on a test would mean immediate failure, but that he was willing to discuss science and religion during office hours.

[Baffalo]

I can really only think of one guy... I forget his name, but he was a Grade A dolt. You had to tell him to shut up because he would just ask the most pointless, rhetorical questions possible again and again and again without understanding what you were saying and trying to derail the entire class. It was a geology class talking about how the shift in plate tectonics caused the increase and decrease in global animal diversity, and thankfully the professor had enough of this after about a week and stopped answering questions for him. He was not so lucky during office hours. I did love the professor though... he showed us some slides from when he was doing a marine biology survey and showed us an Abalone named Fred.

This is Fred. Fred is your typical abalone, and he's just a giant foot with a sort of shell. Fred is currently sitting on the wall in my office... because Fred was delicious.

I am quite surprised this never happened in my university, simply because we're in northern Louisiana. There are plenty, and I mean plenty, of people around here that still lack even a high school education, and yet we've got one of the only engineering schools in the area. How is that possible?

[Sinanju]

The question is, is anyone seeing this kind of phenomenon in colleges these days? I remember back when I was still hooked on religion that I posed several pointed questions to my professors that were religiously motivated, but always in a search to understand why science and my faith weren't jiving. Are younger generations of students more likely to challenge or try to force professors at the university level to avoid topics they don't like, (as we've seen with ballot measures in lower grade levels of education recently) or is this an isolated case?

Yes. I'm a recent(ish) college grad, and one of the last courses I took was an Ethics course. The teacher was pretty liberal, and liked to challenge a lot of the class' assumptions. I mean, it wasn't like she was burning a flag or anything but people were bitching about her because (as an example) she was critical of American exceptionalism.

About half the class dropped after the midterm because they didn't like having their beliefs prodded.

[Ahriman238]

Am I the only one whose sort of amused by the Professor's indignation that anyone, instructor or student, would tell students how to behave? I've never yet taught a class where I didn't have to tell a student to do something, not do something, or stop doing something.

That said, I had a professor at Uni (philosophy, naturally) who told everyone the first day that we'd probably never figure out his politics, culture, religion or personal beliefs because everything he ever said he would say to challenge our beliefs and make us defend them. To make us think. He said this in every class I ever took with him.

At one point, he challenged every woman in the class to provide one way they were the equal of a man. Exactly one spoke up, and he eventually browbeat her into silence by just asking again and again "and how does that make you equal?" Meanwhile every guy in the class is bouncing up and down like a kid who needs to pee, knowing the answer but (momentarily) forbidden from participating because the prof wanted to make a point about how easy it is to get flustered and tongue-tied when you and your beliefs are under attack.

I could never get away with anything like that with my classes. Hell, I get accused of racism every time we read Alice Walker.

That said, it is my carefully considered and professional opinion that Florida Public Schools, at least in the Keys, are shit. So perhaps the students simply never did any critical thinking, or encountered views beyond their own until college.

[Simon_Jester]

Am I the only one whose sort of amused by the Professor's indignation that anyone, instructor or student, would tell students how to behave? I've never yet taught a class where I didn't have to tell a student to do something, not do something, or stop doing something.

At a guess, he doesn't think of "tell Smith to stop swinging from the light fixtures" as part of "telling Smith how to behave." That may sound ridiculous, but if the professor comes from a typical academic culture, he probably just assumes certain behaviors. He thinks of himself as free to behave however he wants... and he would never swing from the light fixtures. That's not part of freedom, that's good sense.

It's all about expectations. When he's lecturing, he probably expects everyone to shut up and listen, but that's because as a matter of course he would shut up and listen. When he grades essays he expects critical thought, because as a matter of course he'd apply critical thought, and many of his teachers encouraged similar critical thought. When he speaks, he probably speaks standard English, and it might not occur to him that a very intelligent person might not speak that dialect (except, obviously, for foreigners with accents or no English at all). Because in most of his experience, not speaking standard English is a sign of ignorance, and obviously ignorant people are stupid, right? In his experience at least, they probably are; after a few years in college, only the stupid people remain ignorant.

This professor is in the top percentile or two of achievement in academia, or he wouldn't have that Ph.D. in the first place. People who get to that level are usually very natural at behaving and functioning in academic settings. Sometimes they don't examine their own assumptions about how you behave in an academic setting, so it doesn't occur to them that they're actively enforcing a set of cultural norms in their classroom.

[Baffalo]

Perhaps, but then again it seems a bit odd to me to just stand up and start telling other people not to listen to the professor. Sure, I might put forward a unique idea or two, or even offer a counter opinion, but I won't stand up and just blatantly tell everyone to just ignore the professor because of what he says.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes- and that's one of the assumptions of academic culture. Academics expect to be contradicted, but they also expect the people they're talking to to... how do I say this? To measure the quality of their own knowledge and reasoning, and stay silent if it isn't high-powered enough to match what the speaker is saying.

So a peer who shares your level of knowledge and skill may be questioning you left and right. And a bright student may be asking interesting and/or good questions. That's normal. But if you're teaching Joe the generic undergrad and he's trying to play the "martyred by ungodly higher religion card," because he was raised by a pack of wild fundies who taught him that 'bearing witness' to his sect's doctrines is more important than functioning in society... yeah. That sets some academics off.

You don't have a problem meeting this expectation. Joe does.

[Borgholio]

At one point, he challenged every woman in the class to provide one way they were the equal of a man. Exactly one spoke up, and he eventually browbeat her into silence by just asking again and again "and how does that make you equal?" Meanwhile every guy in the class is bouncing up and down like a kid who needs to pee, knowing the answer but (momentarily) forbidden from participating because the prof wanted to make a point about how easy it is to get flustered and tongue-tied when you and your beliefs are under attack.

I have to ask...what was the answer to the question?

[Akkleptos]

It never ceases to amaze me how this is even an issue in the US. And at a university, of all places.

It's even more apalling considering that my country has an overwhelming Roman Catholic majority (over 80%) and such things would be pretty much unthinkable here, even at "confessional" private universities.

And we're supposed to be the US's backwards, illiterate next-door neighbour... Meh.

[Baffalo]

It never ceases to amaze me how this is even an issue in the US. And at a university, of all places.

It's even more apalling considering that my country has an overwhelming Roman Catholic majority (over 80%) and such things would be pretty much unthinkable here, even at "confessional" private universities.

And we're supposed to be the US's backwards, illiterate next-door neighbour... Meh.

Here's the way I look at things. I'm from an area that is, relatively speaking, poor. Small towns dotted across the landscape where their only access to education is one school in the county, meaning just getting children to school is an issue for most parents. Because the area is poor, that means there's just not that much money available for the school districts, especially when the cities budget in things that are, at best, aesthetic and not at all functional. Example would be paying for a park that only sees use during parades and is otherwise having to be maintained and kept functional despite people not using it. And this is one of two parks, plus a small zoo, an 'economic development center' that doesn't do anything, a library that is mostly used so poor people can have free internet, and the list goes on.

Cities in rural America have a real problem with small town mindsets leading to confrontations between factions that result in fights becoming large enough to involve the entire town, and that's wherein the problem lies. The park I mentioned above only came about because it was 'donated' by one of the banks to keep another bank from moving in next door. The result was a sting to their competition and it only cost the tax payers. The group leading the Chamber of Commerce insists on having spectacular Christmas lights on the light poles lining Main Street, despite a city budget growing tighter and tighter. They don't care if they hurt the town as a whole, only that they win. And of course, what money they do budget to the schools gets eaten up by things like football and band. What's left over is a barely adequate budget and so it hurts academia on the whole.

Now, yes, America as a whole is a very rich nation. However, of the $15 trillion dollar GDP, broken down it's actually only a few states that are very very rich. California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina, the top ten states according to GDP, control 55% of the nation's total GDP. That leaves the other 40 states trying to come up with less than half of the remaining sum, and this leads to the problem I outlined above. Poor states trying hard to scrape together money with large territories to try and provide infrastructure, education, law enforcement, emergency services, etc. There's just not enough money.

The expression that you have to spend money to make money? That's very true. So if there's no money to spend, there's no money to make. Simple as that. Larger places that have the kind of money to throw around for zoos and parks and things like that? Sure. Have a blast with that. But spectacular galas for a city of over a million people can be larger and better without being a huge chunk of the budget, and often they serve as a feature of the city to actually draw more people in. The event helps pay for itself by attracting tourists and commerce. In a small town, where tourism isn't likely to play a big part of their overall budget, events like this simply cost money and don't do anything to help the city financially, only hurt it.

So to recap, small towns have little to no money, they can't afford decent educations, the kids grow up with little to no need for advanced education, they stay in isolated communities that don't see much cultural change, and so they stagnate. Yes, other nations have this problem, and I'm in no way saying the United States is unique in this. I'm just saying that, on the whole, poor communities have little reason to progress culturally, and so become stagnant and fight outside influence to change.

[Akkleptos]

I mean no disrespect for the plight of poor communities in the US. Poverty is indeed a scourge, regardless of the country into which it chooses to sink its foul fangs.

Nevertheless, please do pardon me if I temper my sympathy with concerns of our own... Even the poorest of the US States (Vermont's GDP at 44,000 million in 2010, per capita) greatly surpasses the income of entire countries such as mine (Mexico, GDP per capita at $18,000 PPP).

Still, this bigotry issue tends to actually go against religion here, especially in Marxist-dominated public universities, in which religious speech is not only discouraged but outrightly persecuted (yeah, substitution of one bigoted view for another one, if just of a different "sign").

EDIT: Obviously, Vermont's numbers should read as US $44,000 per capita, rather than 44,000 million....!)