In Memoriam: Zach Sobiech, 1995-2013

zach sobiechIIIn a mere 18 years on this earth Zach Sobiech displayed the courage and goodwill of that of a lifetime.  Diagnosed at the age of 14 with the rare cancer known as osteocarcoma, Zach stared death squarely in the face and went on to exhibit more excellence and fortitude and depth of resolve in the remaining 4 years of his life than most people –who live much, much, much longer– exhibit throughout their entire life. 

In the face of an incurable illness, it is so very, very easy to make excuses for not having a positive attitude.  And perhaps that is ever so understandable.  But that was not the route that Zach took.  His illness became none other than a launching pad for remarkable excellence and goodwill.  Indeed, Zach became an ever so bright star in the very firmament of humanity.  He became an absolutely majestic –nay, angelic– bridge over the troubled waters of life.zach sobiech

With regard to his song “Clouds” (which readers can download by clicking on the title): Zach is not just in the clouds of Heaven.  Rather, his life has mightily reconfigured the Clouds in a most glorious fashion. 

Although I never knew you, the fact is that you have so wondrously graced my life with your presence on this earth. With an extraordinary and endless measure of admiration and a never-ending depth of gratitude: I thank you, Zach, for being an ever-lasting fountain of inspiration.  

Laurence Thomas

 

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Why I Enjoy Being a Professor

One of the joys of my life has been the classroom.  Indeed, some of the most memorable experiences of my life have taken place in the classroom or, in any case, have involved wonderful moments of interaction with students.  

I do not think of the classroom as merely a place to show off my knowledge about this and that and the other.  Au contraire, the classroom is a place for wonderful and ever so unexpected changes to occur.  Let me recount two of them.  All references are to my class Philosophy 191: Ethics and Contemporary Issues.

About 2 years ago, we discussed the topic of death; and we read the article by James Rachel entitled “Active and Passive Euthanasia” and the article by Thomas Nagle entitled “Death”.  While lecturing on the topic of death, I invoked the idea of sanctifying the memory of a loved-one whom one has lost.  As I remarked about doing that, I had the music person play the song “Missing You” sung by Sting and Puff Daddy.  Well, as I looked out over the class of 400 students, I could see that a virtual transformation had taken place.  It was as if the idea of sanctifying the loss of a loved-one had spoken to how human beings could majestically transform death into something that is mightily affirming. 

As it happens, one of the students sitting in the lecture hall, whose name is Christopher, had recently lost his father.  At the end of the lecture, he jumped upon the stage and gave me a tremendous hug.  Theory had transformed the reality of his life.  Though I should become senile, I shall never forget that moment and that lecture.  Just thinking about it touches me more deeply than I can ever put into words.

Moving in an altogether different direction, the class was discussing Aristotle’s idea in the Nicomachean Ethics of the just person being the one who does the right thing in the right way at the right time and to the right person.  I noted that it might be sexist for a guy to offer his subway seat to a healthy 25 year old woman who has just gotten on the subway car with no more than her pocketbook in hand.  By contrast, I noted, it would not be sexist at all for a guy to offer his seat to a woman of the same age who is quite obviously pregnant.  Same action but quite different moral evaluations of that action.

I also made a few remarks about rap music and the common use of the word “nigger” in rap music.  Indeed, there was the well-known rap group NWA (Niggers Wit Attitude).  When listening to NWA or any other rap group, I noted that while in the name of political correctness whites may not say the word “nigger” around blacks, it would be plain foolish for blacks to think that whites do not say the word among themselves while listening to NWA or any rap song with the word “nigger” in it.

Then I asked the following explosive question to the 400 students in the classroom the vast majority of whom are white:  Suppose that a white woman is being raped by a black man and she yells “Get off me nigger”.  Is she racist?  Well, this was a profound moment when political correctness marvelously bit the dust.  Let me explain.  By the way, the victim could just have easily been a Japanese or Indian or Arabic woman.  

To begin with, two Hispanic women in the class insisted that a white woman who calls a black man who is raping her “nigger” is simply being racist by resorting to the racist label “nigger”.  As is so often the case, a good question can readily be the occasion for people to re-think the moment.  So, I asked the two Hispanic women the following question two questions: (1) “Do you think that a white woman who calls the black man who is raping “nigger” is on a par with a white student calling a black professor “nigger” because the student did not earn a grade of “A” in the course?  (2) Do you take rape to be one of the most horrific wrongs that a woman can endure at the hands of a man, no matter what his ethnicity turns out to be?  There was a resounding “No” to the first question and a resounding “Yes” to the second question.  I then pointed out that the difference between (1) and (2) gets at the very heart of Aristotle’s point about being just and being mindful of the circumstances that give rise to a person’s behavior.  Everyone saw immediately that there is a substantial difference between giving a person the license to use a racist term and holding that under certain circumstances a person cannot in any way be morally blameworthy for using a racist term.  I then asked the class if it would be inappropriate to call a white woman racist because and only because she yelled “Get off me nigger” at the black man who is raping her?  To that question, political correctness was set aside.  Easily, 98 percent of the class members raised their hands against the idea that a white woman is racist for uttering “Get off me nigger” to the black man who is raping her.  

But it will be remembered that this discussion about the use of the word “nigger” was occasioned by Aristotle’s conception in the Nicomachean Ethics that the just person does the right thing at the right time in the right way and to the right person.  Talk about making it real: Well, from the standpoint of making philosophical ideas from the past—Aristotle, in this case—relevant to the present, it does not get any better.  And to be able to achieve that outcome form time to time is what has made teaching among the most affirming experiences of my life.  

 © 2013 Laurence Thomas

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

In Praise of Jeff Bliss Exhibiting a Thirst for Knowledge

In the matter of classroom instruction, a most profound truth is that nothing whatsoever can take the place of the richness of direct interaction between student and teacher.  Jeff Bliss—the Duncanville student who lambasted his teaching for not being involved in the teaching of her students—seems to have mightily grasped this point.  Part of the explanation for why direct interaction is so important is that non-verbal behavior plays a most significant role in how human beings understand what is said to them. 

Everyone grasps this in the parent-child situation.  Although the words “I love you” are ever so commonplace, a most profound truth is that a parent can nonetheless say those three words with such majesty and affirmation that the child is moved to tears upon hearing them.  The facial expressions and tonality, with which the words are uttered, along with the context of the utterance can effectively give the utterance of those three words extraordinary depth at that very moment even though the child has heard those words uttered to her or him on countless other occasions.  

With respect to teaching, the parallel to parenting is far greater than might be initially supposed.  The reaction that an instructor gives to the question or response of a student can be absolutely rich with affirmation, on the one hand, or an indication of utter incredulity, on the other.  And in so very many cases, all that is necessary is the appropriate body posture and facial expression.  

One way of understanding the concern of Jeff Bliss is that teaching has become so formulaic that it has truly lost the wherewithal to engage students in a personal way.  Of course, another factor here is that the kind of respect and affirmation that teachers use to have has pretty much faded.  There was a time when parents could be counted upon to support teachers.  Nowadays, however, parental love is taken to mean siding with the child against the teacher, no matter how ignoble the child’s behavior might be.  The observation that I have just made is part of the reason why so very many parents who have the means to do so are sending their children to private school—indeed, Catholic Schools.  

Teaching at its best is not merely about conveying information.  For that is easily enough done by computers nowadays.  Rather, it is about occasioning deep insight into why an answer is right or insight into why it is better to proceed in a given way in order to obtain the right answer.  

There are those who have criticized Jeff Bliss for being disrespectful of the teacher.  And there are those who have pointed out that Bliss is unaware of how formulaic things have become.  As to the first point, we do not have disrespect as that term is usually meant.  Bliss is not distraught because he is being forced to learn and he would rather do so something else.  Quite the contrary, precisely what animates him is that the teacher seems not to be all committed to engaging the students intellectually.  Thus, he appears to be expressing a genuine thirst for knowledge; and that is light years away from being disrespectful of an instructor who is committed to engaging students intellectually.  As to the second point, while it is probably true that Bliss does not grasp how formulaic things have become, his frustration in that regard tells us something very disturbing about the way in which things have changed for the worse.  It is also tells us something quite wonderful about him.  For it is ever so clear that with regard to learning he has not at all become numb. And that speaks mountains about him that is positive.

In this ever so complicated world in which people make all sorts of excuses for failing to be excellent: The very clear, genuine, and unequivocal call for excellence on the part of the teacher by Jeff Bliss is none other than a marvelous moral melody.  

 © 2013 Laurence Thomas

 

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Google Glasses versus Goodwill

For all the wonders of technology, what cannot be said is that, as a result of technology, human beings have radically changed for the better in their interactions with one another.  Quite simply put, it cannot be said that owing to technology there has been a remarkable increase in goodwill.  To be sure, we can say that owing to technology there have been some extraordinary cases where goodwill has been exhibited.  Monies given for disasters (such as the Tsunami and the earth quake in Haiti) are a clear example of that.  The same holds for the money collected for Karen Stein, the bus aid who was bullied.  There are clearly admirable cases like that.

However, when I think of the routine behavior of individuals, what I do not see at all is the human beings have become more considerate.  Quite the contrary, precisely what I see is that human beings have become increasingly more indifferent to what is going on around them.  There is no parallel at all between being aware of a disaster that is given lots and lots of publicity and noticing that the person right in front of you is in need of help.  And my point is simply that owing to technology human beings have become substantially more desensitized to their immediate surroundings.

In effect, then, access to more knowledge does not at all mean better moral behavior on the part of human beings.  Indeed, it does not even mean that people will make better more judgments.  These considerations bring me to Google glasses.

In a most disconcerting way, Google glasses will radically undermine privacy.  And that is a radical problem.  Now, many people will maintain something like the following “So what is the problem if a person does not have anything to hide”.  But that line of thought is way too simplistic.  When I am in Paris, one of my great joys is that of taking a walk and being entirely anonymous in a veritable sea of people.  I do not do anything that is even remotely inappropriate such as visit porn shops or check out the area where prostitutes are.  No, my walks are always in quite respectable areas of Paris.  But those walks are truly precious to me.  And the last thing that I want is for the whereabouts of my random walking in Paris to become public knowledge.  As the case of defecating makes manifestly and absolutely clear, it is entirely possible to want complete privacy with respect to an activity, even though one does not do anything that is even remotely inappropriate.

Part of the very joy of my walks in Paris is precisely the reality that the only accountability that I have with respect to taking a walk is personal accountability.  And that contributes mightily to a measure of self-knowledge that I would not otherwise have.

In a world in which mere random walks are rendered part of the public record thanks to Google glasses, then things change dramatically.  When I see an empty carton on the street, I do not ask about its motives for being there.  This is because cartons do not have motives.  But whenever I see a human being here or there, I can ask about that person’s motives for being there.  In effect, Google glasses would take that very reality and turn it into a deep, deep problem of uninformed over exposure (UOI).  Let me illustrate.

Suppose that owing to Google glass, I am seen staring at a woman.  Needless to say, there are countless many reasons why one person may stare at another.  One is sexual attraction; another is an unusual combination with respect to some body parts; another is some quite unexpected behavior that one had witnessed; another is that one is absolutely stunned by the fact that the person is interacting with an individual of a certain group.  And so on.  With Google glasses, it might be possible to ascertain the reasons why I am staring at the women.  But surely it might not be.  To someone watching me via Google glasses, it may look like I am having a quite lascivious moment when in point of fact I am rather surprised by the fact that she masterfully hides a handicap that I realize that she has.  But suppose that it is the case that I find her breathtakingly attractive.  Now what?  It does not thereby follow at all that I am going to act inappropriately.  So there is surely a problem in this case with people having that much access to my behavior without having a clue as to my motives.  UOI (uninformed over exposure) is a disaster.  Besides, countless are the cases when we would simply be better off not knowing, although no wrong has been done or even contemplated.

We can make the matter light years worse by making it the case that I am staring at a 10-year old child on Madison Avenue in New York City.  With your Google glasses you see me staring intensely at the child and wonder whether I am a “closet pedophile”, whereas the only reason why I am starring at the child is that he has an uncanny resemblance to the son of the café owners where I hang out in Paris (France).

And imagine the case of seeing via Google glasses a professor momentarily starring at a student.  What will the parents think?  What will strangers think?  What will other students think?

It is manifestly clear that there has not been a positive correlation between the increase in the use of technology and the increase in what is known as commonsense.  And therein lies the problem.  Google glasses provide way too much information about people in a world in which increasingly people lack commonsense.  More importantly, Google glasses will provide way too much information regarding behavior and way too little information regarding motives.  And that combination will invariably do far more harm than good.

Borrowing from the film A Few Good Men, there is a very profound respect in which what is quite often true is the reality that “We cannot handle the truth”.

© 2013 Laurence Thomas

Posted in Articles | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Wrong of Political Correctness

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS stands as one of the greatest wrongs of modernity, where sheer physical violence is not involved. Political correctness masquerades as a deep and abiding measure of respect. In point of fact, however, it is often none other than a horrendous form of condescension or crass hypocrisy. For example, in the name of political correctness it is deemed in appropriate to indicate that a foreign student has an inadequate command of the English language; and it is deemed racist to subject the writing of a minority student to constructive criticism. In both of these cases, one is deemed to somewhat racist.

Now, to be sure, there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to criticize a foreign student or a minority student.  But it is just plain ridiculous to maintain that in criticizing a foreign or minority student that one is automatically racist.  But that is one of the cornerstones of political correctness.

It is also the case that in the name of political correctness, it is deemed inappropriate to talk about Muslim terrorists as if it is equally common that there are Jewish and Christian groups equally committed to performing acts of terrorism.  To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing among Jews and Christians that is equivalent to the Taliban, which is Muslim.  Again, whereas Muslim leaders issue from time to time what is known as a fatwa, whereby this or that harm may be done to this or that group of individuals (such as those who drink alcoholic beverages or certain non-Muslim women) is authorized, there is no analogous practice among either Jews or Christians.

Political correctness is as destructive to truth as heat is to ice.  And no society can flourish if truth is routinely discounted—nay, if telling the truth is automatically seen as some sort of vice.  As I often indicate, one of my favorite biblical passages reads the following: “Unto everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun” (Ecclesiastics 3:1).  To state the obvious, the constructive criticism of a person should typically be done in private rather than in public.

Finally, it would seem that political correctness is inimical to statistical probability based upon the reality of what has transpired over a significant period of time.  Statistical probabilities are a problem only when we are ideologically committed to the statistics being the way they are.

I vividly remember the fact that many Americans, black and white alike, thought that Lisa Stansfield was a black women given the tonality with which she sang her hit song “All Around the World”.  As it happens, she is a white English woman.  Was there any racism or bias here?  Absolutely not.  No one thought to protest that she was white woman who sounded like a black woman singing as she sang the song  All Around the World (MP3)

The deep, deep wrong of political correctness lies in the fact that it typically treats warranted statistical generalizations as if they are none other than biased negative stereotypes.  The mark of a negative stereotype is that in view of all the relevant facts available an unwarranted assessment is nonetheless made.  For example, if all that we know is that for the first time in over 75 years a killing took place at a mall which regularly attracts in rather equal proportions people from every ethnic group and someone immediately supposes that the murderer had to be a person of ethnic group E, then it would seem that a negative stereotype has been invoked.  By contrast, if we learn that late at night someone was killed in the very middle of a black neighborhood, it is more than reasonable to think that it is rather likely that the murderer is black and the victim is black, since it is highly unlikely that a non-black will be in the middle of a black neighborhood late at night.

Whereas stereotypes tend to ignore information that is immediately present, warranted statistical generalizations are very much based upon the available evidence.  My favorite neutral example in this regard is the following: Anyone holding an American passport flying out of a non-English speaking country in Europe will be spoken to in English.  The reason for this is very simple: Given the facts based upon years of experience, it is the extremely rare American, indeed, who can fluently converse in a non-English language about matters of security.

As I have said, political correctness makes the mistake of treating all negative statistical generalizations and certain cultural ones as racist.  Consequently, political correctness entails that the truth in these instances must either be denied or in some way set aside.  Political correctness supposes that doing so is tantamount to ending prejudice.  Alas, there is no evidence whatsoever that such is the case.  Here is a quite interesting observation in that regard.  Political correctness has it that we do not criticize blacks and that we do not criticize Asians.  But guess what?  Asians have very little respect for the intellectual abilities of blacks.  But since neither group can be constructively criticized, it turns out that many, many blacks will continue in the ways that inclines Asians to look down upon blacks.  This is one of the poignant and ever so bitter fruits of political correctness.

© 2013 Laurence Thomas

 

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Bullying and Teachers: Schools Cannot Be a Morality Free Zone

In the era of yesteryear, young people were taught to respect adults.  Thus, it was once possible for just about any adult to make the following remark to a child about her or his behavior: “Little girl/boy that is not nice thing to do”.  And the child would politely say “Yes ma’am/sir.  I am sorry”.  And during that era, teachers had special standing.  Indeed, the standing of teachers was so great that it would not occur to a child to run home and complain to her or his parents that she had been punished by her or his teacher.  This is because it was quite customary for the parents to side with the teacher.  Indeed, there is a respect in which teachers were considered to be the parents away from home.

In the era of yesteryear, bullying still occurred.  But in that era a teacher could step in and stop the inappropriate behavior that was taking place.  We all remember the story of Karen Huff Klein who was viciously bullied on a bus.  Well, in the area of yesteryear, that kind of bullying of an adult supervisor was simply out of the question.

Since the days of yesteryear, the moral standing of teachers has declined precipitously.  To begin with, teachers are no longer considered to be parents away from home; and from this it automatically follows that there is an important measure of respect that students simply do not owe their teachers.  Needless to say, a classroom climate in which teachers are no longer deemed to be owed a measure of respect akin to respect for parents is enormously fertile soil for bullying.  This is because schools have become akin to a morality free-zone.

To be sure, schools have lots and lots rules against bullying.  What is more, there are lots and lots of zero tolerance policies.  But the backdrop of both these policies and rules is none other than a penalty—and not a moral attitude of deep respect for teachers that both parents and society have.  Indeed, the very point of these policies is that teachers are not to make moral judgments regarding a child’s behavior.  For example, if a 7-year old child’s sandwich looks like a bit like a gun, then the child gets punished.  End of story.  The teacher cannot bring commonsense to the moment.  Not at all.  The same holds if a 7-year old child spontaneously kisses another child.  That child is to be punished for sexual harassment.

In the era of yesteryear, it was expected by parents that teachers would make decent judgments regarding the behavior of the students in their classes.  In effect, what has happened is that parents have declared that teachers should no longer make moral judgments about the behavior of students.  In the name of political correctness, parents have declared schools a morality free zone.  It is not the place of teachers to make moral judgments about their students.  It is against the backdrop of that simple moral reality that bullying in schools has come to be so prevalent among school students.

Now, to be sure, teacher are themselves part of the problem in that they have become far more interested in their pension benefits than the quality of their teaching.  But in contemporary society the attitude of parents and the attitude of teachers go hand-in-hand in creating an environment for students that diminishes the relevance of moral judgments in the classroom.  This is why there has been an increase interest in private schools.  Nowadays, there are lots of non-Catholic parents who have an interest in sending their children to Catholic schools for an education.  This is because in Catholic schools moral attitudes on the part of instructors are held to be an inextricable part of the educational experience of children.

Teaching at its best enables students to understand why they should follow and how they should interpret various moral rules even while education is taking place.  Mere anti-bulling policies simply punish a student for exhibiting a certain kind of behavior all the while making entirely irrelevant the vast moral differences that there might be for engaging in that behavior.

The irony, then, is this: We cannot take people seriously morally if in point of fact we render entirely irrelevant all differences in the motivations for their behavior.  What is more, if we render entirely all differences in the motivations for their behavior, then we cannot instill in children the virtue of taking one another seriously morally.  What makes the Karen Klein so disconcerting is not just that she was so horrendously disrespected, but the reality that if children could so behave towards an adult, then it follows all the more so that they could so behave towards one another.  And indeed they do.

© 2013 Laurence Thomas

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Teaching and Massive On-Line Courses

Technology can be extremely useful.  No one in her or his right mind can deny that.  Technology has facilitated communication, the exchange of ideas, and obtaining information way beyond anything most full-fledge adults would ever have imagined a mere 15 years ago.  That so is obvious that there is no need to belabor the point.  The question that I should like to consider is whether or not technology tremendously facilitates teaching.

I shall argue that technology is not the asset to teaching that so many seem to suppose that it is.  In particular, technology is not at all the major factor in the matter of enriching the classroom experience as so many individuals nowadays seem to suppose that it is.

Of course, technology can be an asset, as the use of power-point makes abundantly clear.  Unfortunately, there is a respect in which the use of power-point can undermine the richness of teaching, as instructors get too absorbed in their power-point presentation.  In this regard, I jokingly say to students that in so many instances students can take off their clothes have sex and put their clothes back on without the instructor noticing.  I always get a laugh out of that remark.  Of course, I have clearly overstated the case.  But the point I am making is way too clear, namely that in using power-point way too many instructors lose sight of the students in the class.

Teaching is not just about disseminating information.  No, teaching at its best is about engaging students to think.  A medical student told that most of his contemporaries do not attend class because the material is posted on blackboard. This observation brings me to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC).

With a MOOC course, thousands of individuals can take the same course from the same professor.  And in some instances that might be just fine.  If folks are interested in acquiring general knowledge about various things such as how to plant flowers or how the universe evolved or the fundamental differences between various species, it is clear that a MOOC course can be quite useful.

It is a grave mistake, however, to confuse a Massive Open Online Course with genuine teaching.  For one thing, with a MOOC there can be no direct student-instructor engagement.  For another, there cannot be the kind of engagement in the classroom that transforms the classroom because everyone in the class can sense that the topic under discussion means far more to everyone than anyone had initially supposed would be the case.  Thirdly, with a MOOC course, a professor cannot intellectually affirm a student in the way that the professor can do in the classroom where she or he can directly interact with the students.

Two semesters ago in my Philosophy 191 at Syracuse University the topic was death.  Well, student in the 400-person Grant Auditorium spoke with extraordinary majesty and grace about having lost both of her parents.  No one saw that remark coming.  The entire class was absolutely riveted and transformed by what she said.  There is simply no way in which a MOOC course could have yielded an analogous experience.  Either no student in a MOOC course would make the remark or, if a student did do so, the remark would not have the impact that it did in Philosophy 191 two semesters ago.

In teaching about parental love, I once read in class a set of remark by a student regarding how much he meant to his parents.  Just about everyone was moved to tears.  In that same class, a student asserted that only Latino people should adopt Latino infants.  Well, for the first time ever, my class backed off of political correctness.  At least 389 individuals held the view that parental love trumps ethnicity.  Our seeing that assessment play itself out in real time was none other than a tremendous moral and intellectual gift for all to witness.

Teaching at its very best is about the experience of intellectual affirmation whilst learning.  Sometimes that affirmation is planned or at least reasonably anticipated.  Alas, there so very many cases when such affirmation is entirely unanticipated.  The right question or comment at the right time can absolutely transform the class, giving students a depth of either inspiration or insight that will serve them well for many years in the future.  MOOC courses are not at all conducive to that kind of affirmation.

Finally, there is the issue of letters of reference.  With MOOC courses, letters of references will simply become obsolete.  It should already be clear as to why that is so, namely there is no interaction between the professor and the student for whom the professor has written the letter.  No institution wants a letter in which the professor says no more about the student that the student earned a grade of “A”.  After all, that information can be learned from merely reading the student’s transcript.  A meaningful letter of reference talks about the student’s ideas: their richness and their depth and their applicability.  A meaningful letter of reference also talks about the student’s character; and insight into a person’s character can be richly obtained from observing her or his non-verbal behavior throughout the semester—something which is impossible with someone who is a student by way of a MOOC course.  Again, an MOOC course will not allow that special insight into a student’s character that only comes about as a result of knowing the student.

The above considerations tell us two things that surely we already know, namely that nothing can replace a human’s genuine affirmation of a person and nothing can replace a human’s observation and appreciation of the excellence that a person exhibits, be that excellence intellectual or moral or both.

I am a big believer in technology; and I make use of it on a regular basis.  But in the spirit of Solomon: “Unto everything there is a season”.  If we reduce teaching to merely transmitting information, as will surely be the case with MOOC courses, then we radically change education for the worse.  There is a respect in which teaching is like the parent-child relationship.  In either case, there is nothing whatsoever that can substitute for direct interpersonal interaction, with all that this implies in terms of the parties involved witnessing and experiencing the non-verbal behavior of the parties interacting with one another.

© 2013 Laurence Thomas

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Technology and MOOC Courses

Technology can be extremely useful.  No one in her or his right mind can deny that.  Technology has facilitated communication, the exchange of ideas, and obtaining information way beyond anything most full-fledge adults would ever have imagined a mere 15 years ago.  That so is obvious that there is no need to belabor the point.  The question that I should like to consider is whether or not technology tremendously facilitates teaching.

I shall argue that technology is not the asset to teaching that so many seem to suppose that it is.  In particular, technology is not at all the major factor in the matter of enriching the classroom experience as so many individuals nowadays seem to suppose that it is.

Of course, technology can be an asset, as the use of power-point makes abundantly clear.  Unfortunately, there is a respect in which the use of power-point can undermine the richness of teaching, as instructors get too absorbed in their power-point presentation.  In this regard, I jokingly say to students that in so many instances students can take off their clothes have sex and put their clothes back on without the instructor noticing.  I always get a laugh out of that remark.  Of course, I have clearly overstated the case.  But the point I am making is way too clear, namely that in using power-point way too many instructors lose sight of the students in the class.

Teaching is not just about disseminating information.  No, teaching at its best is about engaging students to think.  A medical student told that most of his contemporaries do not attend class because the material is posted on blackboard. This observation brings me to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC).

With a MOOC course, thousands of individuals can take the same course from the same professor.  And in some instances that might be just fine.  If folks are interested in acquiring general knowledge about various things such as how to plant flowers or how the universe evolved or the fundamental differences between various species, it is clear that a MOOC course can be quite useful.

It is a grave mistake, however, to confuse a Massive Open Online Course with genuine teaching.  For one thing, with a MOOC there can be no direct student-instructor engagement.  For another, there cannot be the kind of engagement in the classroom that transforms the classroom because everyone in the class can sense that the topic under discussion means far more to everyone than anyone had initially supposed would be the case.  Thirdly, with a MOOC course, a professor cannot intellectually affirm a student in the way that the professor can do in the classroom where she or he can directly interact with the students.

Two semesters ago in my Philosophy 191 at Syracuse University the topic was death.  Well, student in the 400-person Grant Auditorium spoke with extraordinary majesty and grace about having lost both of her parents.  No one saw that remark coming.  The entire class was absolutely riveted and transformed by what she said.  There is simply no way in which a MOOC course could have yielded an analogous experience.  Either no student in a MOOC course would make the remark or, if a student did do so, the remark would not have the impact that it did in Philosophy 191 two semesters ago.

In teaching about parental love, I once read in class a set of remark by a student regarding how much he meant to his parents.  Just about everyone was moved to tears.  In that same class, a student asserted that only Latino people should adopt Latino infants.  Well, for the first time ever, my class backed off of political correctness.  At least 389 individuals held the view that parental love trumps ethnicity.  Our seeing that assessment play itself out in real time was none other than a tremendous moral and intellectual gift for all to witness.

Teaching at its very best is about the experience of intellectual affirmation whilst learning.  Sometimes that affirmation is planned or at least reasonably anticipated.  Alas, there so very many cases when such affirmation is entirely unanticipated.  The right question or comment at the right time can absolutely transform the class, giving students a depth of either inspiration or insight that will serve them well for many years in the future.  MOOC courses are not at all conducive to that kind of affirmation.

Finally, there is the issue of letters of reference.  With MOOC courses, letters of references will simply become obsolete.  It should already be clear as to why that is so, namely there is no interaction between the professor and the student for whom the professor has written the letter.  No institution wants a letter in which the professor says no more about the student that the student earned a grade of “A”.  After all, that information can be learned from merely reading the student’s transcript.  A meaningful letter of reference talks about the student’s ideas: their richness and their depth and their applicability.  A meaningful letter of reference also talks about the student’s character; and insight into a person’s character can be richly obtained from observing her or his non-verbal behavior throughout the semester—something which is impossible with someone who is a student by way of a MOOC course.  Again, an MOOC course will not allow that special insight into a student’s character that only comes about as a result of knowing the student.

The above considerations tell us two things that surely we already know, namely that nothing can replace a human’s genuine affirmation of a person and nothing can replace a human’s observation and appreciation of the excellence that a person exhibits, be that excellence intellectual or moral or both.

I am a big believer in technology; and I make use of it on a regular basis.  But in the spirit of Solomon: “Unto everything there is a season”.  If we reduce teaching to merely transmitting information, as will surely be the case with MOOC courses, then we radically change education for the worse.  There is a respect in which teaching is like the parent-child relationship.  In either case, there is nothing whatsoever that can substitute for direct interpersonal interaction, with all that this implies in terms of the parties involved witnessing and experiencing the non-verbal behavior of the parties interacting with one another.

© 2013 Laurence Thomas

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Teaching, Technology, and MOOC Courses

Technology can be extremely useful.  No one in her or his right mind can deny that.  Technology has facilitated communication, the exchange of ideas, and obtaining information way beyond anything most full-fledge adults would ever have imagined a mere 15 years ago.  That so is obvious that there is no need to belabor the point.  The question that I should like to consider is whether or not technology tremendously facilitates teaching.

I shall argue that technology is not the asset to teaching that so many seem to suppose that it is.  In particular, technology is not at all the major factor in the matter of enriching the classroom experience as so many individuals nowadays seem to suppose that it is.

Of course, technology can be an asset, as the use of power-point makes abundantly clear.  Unfortunately, there is a respect in which the use of power-point can undermine the richness of teaching, as instructors get too absorbed in their power-point presentation.  In this regard, I jokingly say to students that in so many instances students can take off their clothes have sex and put their clothes back on without the instructor noticing.  I always get a laugh out of that remark.  Of course, I have clearly overstated the case.  But the point I am making is way too clear, namely that in using power-point way too many instructors lose sight of the students in the class.

Teaching is not just about disseminating information.  No, teaching at its best is about engaging students to think.  A medical student told that most of his contemporaries do not attend class because the material is posted on blackboard. This observation brings me to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC).

With a MOOC course, thousands of individuals can take the same course from the same professor.  And in some instances that might be just fine.  If folks are interested in acquiring general knowledge about various things such as how to plant flowers or how the universe evolved or the fundamental differences between various species, it is clear that a MOOC course can be quite useful.

It is a grave mistake, however, to confuse a Massive Open Online Course with genuine teaching.  For one thing, with a MOOC there can be no direct student-instructor engagement.  For another, there cannot be the kind of engagement in the classroom that transforms the classroom because everyone in the class can sense that the topic under discussion means far more to everyone than anyone had initially supposed would be the case.  Thirdly, with a MOOC course, a professor cannot intellectually affirm a student in the way that the professor can do in the classroom where she or he can directly interact with the students.

Two semesters ago in my Philosophy 191 at Syracuse University the topic was death.  Well, student in the 400-person Grant Auditorium spoke with extraordinary majesty and grace about having lost both of her parents.  No one saw that remark coming.  The entire class was absolutely riveted and transformed by what she said.  There is simply no way in which a MOOC course could have yielded an analogous experience.  Either no student in a MOOC course would make the remark or, if a student did do so, the remark would not have the impact that it did in Philosophy 191 two semesters ago.

In teaching about parental love, I once read in class a set of remark by a student regarding how much he meant to his parents.  Just about everyone was moved to tears.  In that same class, a student asserted that only Latino people should adopt Latino infants.  Well, for the first time ever, my class backed off of political correctness.  At least 389 individuals held the view that parental love trumps ethnicity.  Our seeing that assessment play itself out in real time was none other than a tremendous moral and intellectual gift for all to witness.

Teaching at its very best is about the experience of intellectual affirmation whilst learning.  Sometimes that affirmation is planned or at least reasonably anticipated.  Alas, there so very many cases when such affirmation is entirely unanticipated.  The right question or comment at the right time can absolutely transform the class, giving students a depth of either inspiration or insight that will serve them well for many years in the future.  MOOC courses are not at all conducive to that kind of affirmation.

Finally, there is the issue of letters of reference.  With MOOC courses, letters of references will simply become obsolete.  It should already be clear as to why that is so, namely there is no interaction between the professor and the student for whom the professor has written the letter.  No institution wants a letter in which the professor says no more about the student that the student earned a grade of “A”.  After all, that information can be learned from merely reading the student’s transcript.  A meaningful letter of reference talks about the student’s ideas: their richness and their depth and their applicability.  A meaningful letter of reference also talks about the student’s character; and insight into a person’s character can be richly obtained from observing her or his non-verbal behavior throughout the semester—something which is impossible with someone who is a student by way of a MOOC course.  Again, an MOOC course will not allow that special insight into a student’s character that only comes about as a result of knowing the student.

The above considerations tell us two things that surely we already know, namely that nothing can replace a human’s genuine affirmation of a person and nothing can replace a human’s observation and appreciation of the excellence that a person exhibits, be that excellence intellectual or moral or both.

I am a big believer in technology; and I make use of it on a regular basis.  But in the spirit of Solomon: “Unto everything there is a season”.  If we reduce teaching to merely transmitting information, as will surely be the case with MOOC courses, then we radically change education for the worse.  There is a respect in which teaching is like the parent-child relationship.  In either case, there is nothing whatsoever that can substitute for direct interpersonal interaction, with all that this implies in terms of the parties involved witnessing and experiencing the non-verbal behavior of the parties interacting with one another.

© 2013 Laurence Thomas

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment

Teaching and Technology

Technology can be extremely useful.  No one in her or his right mind can deny that.  Technology has facilitated communication, the exchange of ideas, and obtaining information way beyond anything most full-fledge adults would ever have imagined a mere 15 years ago.  That so is obvious that there is no need to belabor the point.  The question that I should like to consider is whether or not technology tremendously facilitates teaching.

I shall argue that technology is not the asset to teaching that so many seem to suppose that it is.  In particular, technology is not at all the major factor in the matter of enriching the classroom experience as so many individuals nowadays seem to suppose that it is.

Of course, technology can be an asset, as the use of power-point makes abundantly clear.  Unfortunately, there is a respect in which the use of power-point can undermine the richness of teaching, as instructors get too absorbed in their power-point presentation.  In this regard, I jokingly say to students that in so many instances students can take off their clothes have sex and put their clothes back on without the instructor noticing.  I always get a laugh out of that remark.  Of course, I have clearly overstated the case.  But the point I am making is way too clear, namely that in using power-point way too many instructors lose sight of the students in the class.

Teaching is not just about disseminating information.  No, teaching at its best is about engaging students to think.  A medical student told that most of his contemporaries do not attend class because the material is posted on blackboard. This observation brings me to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC).

With a MOOC course, thousands of individuals can take the same course from the same professor.  And in some instances that might be just fine.  If folks are interested in acquiring general knowledge about various things such as how to plant flowers or how the universe evolved or the fundamental differences between various species, it is clear that a MOOC course can be quite useful.

It is a grave mistake, however, to confuse a Massive Open Online Course with genuine teaching.  For one thing, with a MOOC there can be no direct student-instructor engagement.  For another, there cannot be the kind of engagement in the classroom that transforms the classroom because everyone in the class can sense that the topic under discussion means far more to everyone than anyone had initially supposed would be the case.  Thirdly, with a MOOC course, a professor cannot intellectually affirm a student in the way that the professor can do in the classroom where she or he can directly interact with the students.

Two semesters ago in my Philosophy 191 at Syracuse University the topic was death.  Well, student in the 400-person Grant Auditorium spoke with extraordinary majesty and grace about having lost both of her parents.  No one saw that remark coming.  The entire class was absolutely riveted and transformed by what she said.  There is simply no way in which a MOOC course could have yielded an analogous experience.  Either no student in a MOOC course would make the remark or, if a student did do so, the remark would not have the impact that it did in Philosophy 191 two semesters ago.

In teaching about parental love, I once read in class a set of remark by a student regarding how much he meant to his parents.  Just about everyone was moved to tears.  In that same class, a student asserted that only Latino people should adopt Latino infants.  Well, for the first time ever, my class backed off of political correctness.  At least 389 individuals held the view that parental love trumps ethnicity.  Our seeing that assessment play itself out in real time was none other than a tremendous moral and intellectual gift for all to witness.

Teaching at its very best is about the experience of intellectual affirmation whilst learning.  Sometimes that affirmation is planned or at least reasonably anticipated.  Alas, there so very many cases when such affirmation is entirely unanticipated.  The right question or comment at the right time can absolutely transform the class, giving students a depth of either inspiration or insight that will serve them well for many years in the future.  MOOC courses are not at all conducive to that kind of affirmation.

Finally, there is the issue of letters of reference.  With MOOC courses, letters of references will simply become obsolete.  It should already be clear as to why that is so, namely there is no interaction between the professor and the student for whom the professor has written the letter.  No institution wants a letter in which the professor says no more about the student that the student earned a grade of “A”.  After all, that information can be learned from merely reading the student’s transcript.  A meaningful letter of reference talks about the student’s ideas: their richness and their depth and their applicability.  A meaningful letter of reference also talks about the student’s character; and insight into a person’s character can be richly obtained from observing her or his non-verbal behavior throughout the semester—something which is impossible with someone who is a student by way of a MOOC course.  Again, an MOOC course will not allow that special insight into a student’s character that only comes about as a result of knowing the student.

The above considerations tell us two things that surely we already know, namely that nothing can replace a human’s genuine affirmation of a person and nothing can replace a human’s observation and appreciation of the excellence that a person exhibits, be that excellence intellectual or moral or both.

I am a big believer in technology; and I make use of it on a regular basis.  But in the spirit of Solomon: “Unto everything there is a season”.  If we reduce teaching to merely transmitting information, as will surely be the case with MOOC courses, then we radically change education for the worse.  There is a respect in which teaching is like the parent-child relationship.  In either case, there is nothing whatsoever that can substitute for direct interpersonal interaction, with all that this implies in terms of the parties involved witnessing and experiencing the non-verbal behavior of the parties interacting with one another.

© 2013 Laurence Thomas

Posted in Articles | Leave a comment