Rod & Others, I've tried to stay out of this one but I finally feel compelled to respond. I think you may be confusing an atmosphere of open academic enquiry (where students are challenged to explore ALL of their beliefs) with selective derision of a particular world view. I encourage my students to think long and hard about whether the data support (or refute) their models of behaviour. I would challenge a fundamentalist Christian student who rejected evolutionary explanations of behaviour and I would challenge a "new age" student who felt that crystals could channel "positive energy". Most importantly, I challenge my students (and myself) to question all of the things that I teach them as "facts". The risk of this approach is that students may feel that their particular belief is being picked on. (Not so, I am an equal opportunity challanger). However, I feel that the alternative is far worse for it creates an environment that is counter to the basic foundations of academia. I would not want to work in an environment where I could only challenge some beliefs and not others.
Re your "interesting" article by Laura Freburg. This article seems "interesting" as an illustration of paranoid ideation. However, since even paranoids can have real enemies I would like to put one of her statements to a test. She states: "The history book currently in use for middle school students in California concludes that Attila the Hun was "tolerant" of other people�s religions. If you think tolerant Huns are a novel concept, read your senior high schooler�s American history text. There you will learn that Jimmy Carter was the great "Environmental President," but the only thing worth noting about Ronald Reagan is that his father was an alcoholic." Since I don't have access to these texts could you, or any other Tipster, please provide us with the actual passages that relate to Reagan. I am willing to bet big money that the text says a bit more than "The only thing worth noting about Ronald Reagan is that his father was an alcoholic." Looking forward to your response, -Don. Rod Hetzel wrote: > >In the article, "Confessions of a lonely atheist" (NYT, Jan 14, 2001), > >she makes this point, among other things citing the biologist Richard > >Dawkins who said "If I say something offensive to religious people, > >I'll be universally censured, including by many atheists. But if I > >say something insulting about Democrats or Republicans or the Green > >Party, one is allowed to get away with that. Hiding behind the smoke > >screen of untouchability is something religions have been allowed to > >get away with for too long". > > My experience has been that it is *not* off-limits at all for academic > psychologists to make disparaging comments about religious people or > those with conservative political beliefs. > > My experience as a doctoral student was that those students who > professed conservative Jewish or Christian beliefs were more likely to > be talked about with condescension. Those students who professed > beliefs more in line with New-Age spirituality were often seen as > enlightened. I'll never forget one of my fellow students in my doctoral > program who believed in reincarnation and the idea that we progressed > from lower life forms to higher life forms. Specifically, she believed > that in our first lives, we were all cats. She believed we came back in > our second lives as dogs (granted, she was right in that dogs are a > higher life form than cats...smile). Finally, she believed that in our > third and final life we came back as humans. She believed that when we > died as humans we then just became part of the cosmic energy of the > universe. It was really very funny--to the point of being > ridiculous--how people responded to her religious beliefs versus how > they responded to more traditional Jewish and Christian beliefs. > > Several years later, I was teaching at a private, four-year university > (with no religious affiliation) during the Clinton impeachment hearings > and then later during the Bush-Gore election controversy. It was > popular for many of my Democrat colleagues during this time to express > considerable disdain against Republicans. My one Republican colleague, > whom I had known from a different setting, told me that he had made a > conscious decision to not discuss his political beliefs with anyone at > the university. He stated that he was afraid of the discrimination he > would face if others knew of his political beliefs. I thought he was > just being a bit melodramatic, if not paranoid, until I came across an > interesting published perspective on the bias in academia against those > who hold conservative political beliefs. This article made me think a > bit more seriously about bias in the academcy. Check out the article > entitled "Confessions of a Republican Academic" by Laura Freburg. Here > is the link: > > http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/academia/gopacad.htm > > It's a very interesting article. > > Controversially yours, > > Rod > ______________________________________________ > Roderick D. Hetzel, Ph.D. > Department of Psychology > LeTourneau University > Post Office Box 7001 > 2100 South Mobberly Avenue > Longview, Texas 75607-7001 > > Office: Heath-Hardwick Hall 115 > Phone: 903-233-3312 > Fax: 903-233-3246 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Homepage: http://www.letu.edu/people/rodhetzel > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
