Nancy wrote:
> In retrospect now I am sorry that I posted my feelings on this topic.
> Perhaps I should have left out the part about "students" as I
> guess I was just looking for some peers to discuss with - but this
> is not an appropriate use either.
Nancy, there's nothing wrong with discussing the issue with us--OR with
looking for a psychological link to the subject. What I, and others,
responded to was the ackwardness of responding to a clearly emotion laden
request that we raise this issue with our classes, and the seeming
assumption that all of us would view the subject in the same way you view
it.
For the record, I--like you and Linda--strongly oppose the kinds of human
rights violations that are occuring and feel that some form of world wide
response is essential to this kind of action. I'm an active member of
Amnesty International, and strongly oppose _any_ such activities in the
world. While my _personal_ focus is on the violations which have
occurred--and are occuring--in Tibet, that doesn't keep me from focusing
on other such acts as well.
While I oppose such acts, however, I also oppose US involvement in the
politics and actions of other nations _as an individual nation._ I happen
to believe that NO nation has the right to intervene in the internal
politics of another nation (unless that nation poses a direct military
threat to them, of course) and that _any_ such intervention needs to be a
unilateral action carried out not by the US (or another powerful nation),
but by the United Nations itself. I opposed our involvement in the Gulf
War and our involvement in Yugoslavia for the same reason. No nation,
including the US, has a right (in my opinion) to impose its values or
beliefs on another sovereign state, attempts to do so only lead to the
selective use of power for the sake of power itself. For example, while we
were busy bombing Yugoslavia, we ignored the fact that we were killing
more civilians than the Serbs had killed in Kosovo--and that one of our
"allies" in NATO, Turkey, was affecting more serious human rights
violations (on the Kurds) than the Serbs had ever considered imposing on
the KLA or its supporters, thus lending tacit support to _their_ campaign
of human rights violations. Thus, the _last_ thing I would do would be to
encourage my students to support US intervention anywhere.
My problem with your original post was that it didn't leave room for
discussion of such issues, but instead served as a plea to encourage our
students to support intervention. In a case such as this one, it is more
than a little difficult for people to speak out and voice the opinion that
perhaps intervention by the US is NOT the proper response (i.e., that
bringing the matter to the UN more forcefully may be a better way to serve
the needs of the victims) without sounding as though they support the
actions occuring in East Timor. Thus, by the nature of such a post, open
discussion is discouraged and it becomes inappropriate for the list.
That's not meant as either a criticism of you personally, or as a
disparagement of your commitment to the cause you espouse itself, only as
an explanation of why at least one person (me), and quite possibly others
as well felt the message inappropriate.
There are definitely legitimate topics in the issue that bear directly on
the principles of this list. For example, how should we teach students
about ethnic hatred, genocide, torture, etc. from a psychological
perspective? What psychological principles are involved in such
actions--and what psychological principles are involved in the political
process that decides which nation should face sanctions for its rights
violations and which should be tacitly ignored instead. Unfortunately a
message that assumes we all feel the same way about the core issue and
calls on us to express that feeling to our students tends to discourage,
instead of encourage, such speculation and discussion.
> In my own defense, I think the analogy to "asking students to
> send a dollar" is a bit strained. If you ask students to think
> about or notice something, they may very well draw their own
> conclusions about it - their perfect right. It's not like anyone
> is guaranteed to benefit or be able to exploit them on this issue.
True. But there's a very great difference between asking them to think
about the situation, and asking them to support a single perspective on
it. If, for example, I were to introduce the topic to my class (which,
since I'm currently teaching a Minority Studies section which addresses
genocide and ethnic cleansing, I will unquestionably be doing), I would
not be doing so from the perspective of encouraging them to support US
intervention but rather from the perspective of teaching them the nature
of these behaviors (from, in the case of the class I'm teaching, a
sociological perspective) as well as leading them to discuss the potential
methods that can be used to reduce such behavior in our global society.
Obviously, we will touch on the topic of US intervention, but we will look
at other perspectives as well. In a political science class I would take a
somewhat different approach, as will be true in the Sociology class I'm
also teaching this term. In no case, however, would I ask my students to
support any single perspective--including my own. Instead I will try to
lead them to examine the entire spectrum of responses--from that of
treating the matter as a strictly internal issue to that of military
intervention by the UN--and to draw their own conclusions based on their
perceptions of what is most appropriate.
In terms of being able to exploit a student on the issue, of course they
could be exploited. By being convinced by an authority figure (a
professor) to take a specific political stance that supports that of the
professor they ARE being exploited as surely as if they were being asked
to contribute money to a pet charity of the instructor (which, in the case
of a "Make Money Quick" game might be the instructor him/her-self). ANY
time an instructor convinces his/her students to support a political
position s/he is exploiting their relationship. It is the responsibility
of the instructor to teach the student the importance of looking at all
aspects of an issue (critical thinking) and forming his or her _own_
decisions as to how it should be responded to, not simply to suggest a
single "one size fits all" response that may not be appropriate for
all--or even most--of his or her students.
> So, that's it. Please don't run me out of the cyber community on an
> electronic rail. I'll try to restrain similar impulses in the future.
Why? You have as much right to express your opinions and feelings here as
anyone else does. Simply because some of us (myself included) are
opinionated and disagree with you at points doesn't mean we feel you don't
have as much right to speak out as we do.
Instead of restraining yourself, Nancy, why not go to the other extreme
and throw any such issue open to discussion? Provide your perspective but
instead of assuming we all agree with it, encourage discussion of
alternatives, ways of using the issue in the classroom, or the way in
which the topic is related to psychology. That way, the same message,
instead of discouraging discussion will _encourage_ it, and may well
result in both support for the issue and a valuable discussion here in
TIPS as well.
Just some comments meant to explain at least one person's perspective,
not to criticize your commitment.
Peace,
Rick
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College, Jackson, MI
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds
will be the love you leave behind when you're gone."
Fred Small, J.D., "Everything Possible"
