So I’ve thus far gotten two counter submissions from individuals and another from a group of sociologists. Cool. Let’s get back into it then:
As the issues they brought up were very similar, most of my response for the two individuals also falls under my response to the sociologists, but those two still warrant some personal attention.
In response to Peter Zimmer: Thanks for calling me “Sir Nogay”. That was great, and made me really frikin’ happy. You’ve done your part to make someone’s life better today. Otherwise, I can see that you read my article with “general confusion and disinterest”, because you missed most of the point of it, and focused on some relatively trivial descriptors to contrive an experience where I am insulting the student body instead of writing in trying to protect them from having their time wasted and having the college’s resources squandered. I hold little hope for people who don’t even find my last name mildly amusing, and won’t take comic relief when it’s handed to them on a platter, so I think we’re done here. Any further discussion between us would undoubtedly turn into a pissing contest, and get us nowhere.
To Alana Slezak: Again, not even mild amusement from my last name/email? I put it in there for you, I’ve heard it all to death. Just trying to lighten the mood after a (mostly) serious submission. Meh, no reason to beat that horse anymore, I guess.
Now, for the meat and potatoes of my response:
Michelle Oyakawa & assorted sociologists,
What I find most prevalent throughout your submission is an overall aura of self-righteous indignation that is shockingly similar to the very attitude you implicitly accuse me of having. Additionally, your argument on more than a few instances diverts from the issue of the J requirement to an analysis of me as a person. When I went into a discussion of sociology, it was used as a means of highlighting the issues that would be inherently problematic in the J requirement; when you go into a discussion of me, it is used as a means of discrediting me while not actually analyzing my evidence or argument. I’d just like to ask that the readers forego forming an opinion on me or the sociologists personally, and instead evaluate the debate at hand as objectively as possible based on the arguments presented.
Michelle, you begin by saying that “we all arrive at
In your fourth paragraph, you go on to say that every class to some extent tells us how to think, which is very true. You seem, however, to miss the point by saying I am “unqualified, as a Chemistry major, to dictate unilaterally what does and does not contribute to legitimate debate in a sociology classroom”. First, when did I ever mention being a Chem major in my article, or mention that shaping my views on sociology? Secondly, and more to the point, who is qualified then? Are you, as a sociology major or potential future PhD, more qualified to determine what is legitimate to discuss about people than people themselves? What is “unproductive” to some is legitimate to others, and that is the problem I was highlighting, that in a field where so many PhD’s are driven by social activism, and a huge majority are progressive/socialist liberals, what is keeping them objective, honest, and legitimate? The J requirement would not likely boil down to “let’s hear all viewpoints”, as much as “let’s change the minds of the people who don’t agree with the premise of instituting this requirement”. It is almost impossible to claim that the J requirement would have gotten much serious thought if not for the events of last year, so how can you then go and claim that such a driving force is not going to present a very large bias towards one-sided acceptance, tolerance, and understanding. Tolerance is a two-way street, and we need to understand that some people just won’t buy into it, regardless of how much information we give them, in the same way that conspiracy theorists deny accepted knowledge of major events; us sinking to their level and being intolerant of them doesn’t make us more right, it just makes us more militant and hypocritical, and usually does nothing but make them dig in more and shut off lines of communication.
This carries on into the next paragraph, where you state that “because a few people on campus are unreceptive to learning about and trying to understand the experiences of others does not mean that it is a futile exercise”. First of all, does that not agree with my point? The ones who are unreceptive are the ones the J requirement claims to be catering to, and yet they would get the least out of it, if anything positive at all. The receptive ones already have the option of taking such a course, and probably already are. You read into my argument incorrectly by assuming that I am implying that the receptive people are worthless. My only implication is that they are not the people who need the requirement in the first place, while those who do “need” it will gain nothing from it. Thus, the requirement is worthless as a means of achieving its goal, and will waste the time, effort, and by extension the money of many future students.
Your next statement is that “you can’t make generalizations about a population based solely on the biased opinions and experiences of one or two people”. So, when can we then? What arbitrary sample size is large enough? My claim was based on the experiences of about 14 people from different ethnic, religious, social, environmental, and college backgrounds, two of whom are sociology majors themselves, and only 9 of whom I consider friends, another two of whom actively despise me. I think that is a good enough sample to be considered legitimate data, though obviously not all-encompassing. Doesn’t sociology require some leeway in making generalizations about populations based on the available evidence? Additionally, aren’t we making sweeping generalizations about populations of gays, blacks, women, etc. simply by asserting that they share a common experience that must be learned about and that warrants a class dedicated to their specific issues? Whether or not you believe that they do share experiences is irrelevant, it is the fact that we make that generalization and then perpetuate it, while simultaneously decrying perceived harmful generalizations, that is so astoundingly ignorant and hypocritical. If we must generalize, then we cannot selectively decide which ones to count and which to ignore. So, I agree, the experiences of one or two people are not enough to justify generalizations, but your implication that the generalizations I was working off of are inadmissible for evidence is patently insulting and “generally” false.
Next, I am so very, very sorry that I had to resort to using the word “normal” in my anecdote. How terrible of me to try and save space by not going into excruciating detail to qualify everyone I talked about. You say that my “definition of normal is entirely socially dictated by [my] position as a white mostly straight male in the United States, which [I] would have learned had [I] been receptive in my soc/anth classes”. Ah, the assumptions abound. You again assume that the way sociology subjectively interprets data must be treated as an absolute method. You assume that the way people perceive things is formed through social construction absolutely. You say with certain authority, the truth of the universe behind you, that social environments “entirely” dictate one’s social positions. Only the disciples of pure mathematics can also say with such certainty and conviction that they can determine the fundamental truth behind things. Why do you waste your time, my time, and readers’ time by using this to charge me personally while saying nothing about the J requirement itself? I am required to defend myself and show that this issue is irrelevant just so that we can focus back on the issue of the J requirement. Additionally, I’m not attacking queer/black/women’s studies directly because that is not the issue at hand. I am trying to focus on the single matter of the J requirement, and you are trying to dilute the discussion and shift the debate to other things instead. This discussion is about the J requirement and its merits and pitfalls, so try and keep the discussion relevant to that, please.
Finally, you say that I am at a liberal arts college, and therefore should be willing to expand my horizons and accept the J requirement. You miss the point. We go to classes to have our views challenged and horizons broadened, yes, but the J requirement is about embracing a certain view. Theoretically, it is being pushed as a way to expand knowledge and promote discourse, but practically it is being considered because of the issues of last year, and most people on this campus are intelligent enough to see that, had last year not happened, the J requirement would not be talked about. The link is not just correlation, it is admitted causation, and therefore the requirement would exist to push an agenda. It’s re-emergence was a result of a lack of tolerance, and it is being considered to try and force an embrace of tolerance. That is not expanding horizons, that is force-feeding ideology, and it is a waste of time and effort in a liberal arts institution, as well as being counterproductive to the stated mission of a liberal arts education. The information on black/women’s/queer studies can be, and is, presented and available for all, but that does not mean we should have to embrace it. The J requirement would be taking a class away from students and attempting to narrow their view to better fit the view that supports the requirement’s existence, while the students could be out taking another class they want to learn about, and actually being mentally stimulated rather than stifled and funneled. Resentment and radicalization among many students are inevitable results.
“Sir” Stas Nogay,
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment