Download Engl 101 Responses to the Fish Essay

Engl 101
Pabich
Responses to the Fish Essay
To the Editor:
Re “Conspiracy Theories 101,” by Stanley Fish (Op-Ed, July 23):
As a recent high school graduate, I often endured teachers who
spouted their personal political views on topics unrelated to course
material without allowing for other opinions to be voiced.
While a teacher’s opinions can be of interest, the educators who
inspired me the most were those who articulated each side’s argument in
a debate and the possible fallacies underpinning those arguments,
without inserting their own beliefs, allowing the students to make
informed decisions.
I want to be taught, not indoctrinated!
Jonah Seligman
Livingston, N.J., July 24, 2006
•
To the Editor:
Stanley Fish seems to think that the sterile presentation of opposing
attitudes and the detached study of the abstractions involved are the
legitimate boundaries for academic courses. This kind of stenography is
something that can be accomplished by simple reading assignments,
without even the need of a teacher in the classroom.
Education is the free interchange and expression of ideas and
concepts, and as long as no one crosses the line into the advocacy of
criminal behavior or destruction of the social order, just about anything
is fair game.
Kevin Barrett, a lecturer at the University of Wisconsin at Madison
whose case is discussed by Mr. Fish, shared with his students his belief
that the Bush administration may have countenanced the attacks on the
World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This view may seem outlandish
to some, but the fact is that a full examination of such suspicions has
never been conducted.
Journalism has succumbed all too often to the expediency of
stenography as reportage. Mr. Fish is advocating the same for academia.
Richard DiMatteo
San Diego, July 24, 2006
•
To the Editor:
Academic freedom is precisely about the content of speech that takes
place in our universities. Stanley Fish might call it “proselytizing”; others
might call it presenting an argument for a hard-to-accept position.
Academic freedom is meant to protect ideas, not people; and to
maintain diversity within the idea pool and thus to increase the chance
of discovering what is actually true.
Miriam Cherkes-Julkowski
Ocean Grove, N.J., July 23, 2006
•
To the Editor:
The litmus question in Stanley Fish’s argument would have a teacher
ask: “Do you separate yourself from your partisan identity when you are
in the employ of the citizens of [your state] and teach subject matter —
whatever it is — rather than urge political action?’
This is mere sophistry.
Perhaps the question should be does one “pretend” to do so, because
a skilled instructor can claim objectivity and still use many measures to
indoctrinate students.
When Mr. Fish discusses academic freedom in the coming semester,
will he miraculously be able to distance himself from his opinions,
which are now part of public discourse?
Why not simply be honest with our students — let them know that
we all have opinions — and get to work on the investigation and analysis
of evidence?
Joseph Kyle
Maplewood, N.J., July 23, 2006
The writer teaches Advanced Placement history in high school.
•
To the Editor:
A professor, like any other citizen, has the constitutional freedom to
spout whatever nonsense he or she wishes.
Stanley Fish, however, doesn’t mention a crucial point in the
professor-student inequality.
It is a fact that a professor is not on a soapbox delivering unsubstantiated
theories to a willing audience. A professor is in a position of authority
and grades his audience.
A student, seeking a high grade, examines the fraudulent theories of a
zealous professor at a considerable risk. This situation is not
unprecedented.
Professors have long used their classrooms as soapboxes. That is why
there is a need for checks and balances.
Only the most egregious cases can ever rise to the level of dismissal.
Usually, exposure of an unprofessional bias suffices. The professor’s
credibility disappears.
Students will select courses with meaningful content, when given a
choice. After all, a university education is very expensive, and
discriminating students want value for their dollar!
William Hayden Smith
St. Louis, July 23, 2006
The writer is a professor of earth and planetary sciences at Washington
University.
•
To the Editor:
Students’ ability to learn from or to form contrary opinions to the
teachings of an opinionated professor should not be doubted.
Some of the United States’ best teachers have been and will continue
to be those who hold and share strong convictions in their beliefs.
So long as our professors don’t punish students for opposing views,
nothing is lost in professors’ expressing their beliefs: nothing is lost
except classrooms dead from intellectual boredom and hallways silent of
enlivened debate.
Inquiry without judgment is not the role of the American scholar. If
our universities are truly to be places of learning and scholarship, and
not of mere training or rote instruction, professors should be encouraged
in their diverse and divergent views; college students should be trusted to
make their own opinions; and our nation, a nation of ideas, should be
left to benefit.
Patrick Ward
Lusaka, Zambia, July 24, 2006
The writer is a student at Yale.
Questions
1. Briefly summarize/paraphrase each of the above responses to Stanley Fish's essay "Conspiracy
Theories."
2. Which do you find more or less persuasive? Why?
3. Why do you think the letters editor included information about the letter writers' occupation
with their responses?