Last month in the United Sates (no, please bear with me here, as I fully accept not everything in the world happens in the US of A) a professor was accused of racism by some of his students. Why was he racist, you ask? Well, given that racism is everything nowadays it must be obvious that he had made some terrible accusation about the origin of ethnic people, or suggested that some were by the dint of having different colour skin, less able to do the tasks set.
But no, he hadn't. He had just done his job in helping teach the young.
He corrected their work. He committed the cardinal sin of correcting grammar, spelling and punctuation. This action was, it was claimed by some students, a form of "micro-aggression."
No, I shit you not. He had the temerity to correct their work and the reaction from a group of his students was to accuse him of racism.
At this point you will think that Mr Val Rust of the University of California at Los Angeles' Graduate School of Education and Information Studies had made derisory comments on their work that clearly made hackles rise. Apparently not. He was concerned, as any teacher should be, about the quality of their ability to communicate accurately. As Rust said to his colleagues in a letter: "I have attempted to be rather thorough on the papers and am particularly concerned that they do a good job with their bibliographies and citations, and these students apparently don't feel that it is appropriate."
His attitude to wanting his students' work to be clear and correctly identified however made the youngsters tremble with indignation. According to them in a letter they read in a public meeting (in front of Mr Rust, who was required to listen to what was said as part of the everlasting quest for fairness): "There are documented and undocumented stories of a hostile and toxic environment for students of colour here in Moore Hall and throughout the campus."
I am inclined, being the old git that I am, to wonder aloud if the documented stories they lay claim to had been properly researched and the accompanying bibliographies and citations were accurate. Or could it be it is the "undocumented" that are far more interesting to them?
Also, it has to be said that unless they know that Rust was a guilty party in this it isn't his fault there are undocumented stories. Usually in the real world these are called rumours or hearsay or even lies, but no matter. If he wasn't part of the great undocumented it wasn't his fault.
But the important thing is to protest. At a sit-in demonstration students recounted their experiences (and probably their feelings too) of racial discrimination while others listened. According to the University newspaper: "Some said they wanted the university to investigate these incidents and provide additional funding for improving campus climate."
Ah, here we are getting to the nub of the matter: "Additional funding" is needed. Money, which in a lefty-orientated world solves everything. I presume that this extra funding has to come from people's pockets and I presume too that the students would howl with anger if their fees rose as a consequence. So, someone else can fund this from our favourite magic money tree. You might also think (stupidly, like me) that "campus climate" is what the students contribute towards all the time. If there is nastiness in the air I suspect it is not solely driven by marks on a paper submitted to a professor.
I do suspect that a sloppy student or two thought they could get away with a sub-standard use of English, and thought that its is the same as it's or that there and their are interchangeable on a whim. I also wonder, privately, if these were students doing the "Information Studies" part which is a nice way of saying it's okay to theorise about watching youtube and surfing the 'net where language is what you can away with. U kno wot I mean man, LMAO!!!
Rust also said there had been a conversation between two students in class over "critical race theory" which he allowed by not stopping the discussion. The interpretation of this is: two 'students' were busy talking instead of working and getting hot under the collar but he didn't intervene, fearing if he did he might be seen to side with one or the other. I would imagine that would be very toxic.
By the way as I have taught, I do know just what might trouble him here: I once had a lad from the horn of Africa shouting across a large room at two lads who came from nowhere near Africa over some comment stirred by a blast of loud music and how he was going to sort them out because one of this pair had whispered "I bet your mother would like that sort of music." I wouldn't call it a conversation as such but I did intervene, telling one to calm down and the other two to stop winding up their classmate. And no, I didn't mark their work because none of them ever did any work to mark in the few lessons I had them. So no toxic going on there then.
'Toxic' is one of those fashionable words that bounces round, batted by those who like to talk, or shout, about race issues. I have to say I didn't particularly admire any of my three 'students' and anyway I am not sure they could spell toxic if asked. But we see increasingly there is a toxic atmosphere in the world and this must be countered. Probably by more money.
I do know that everything has a price and even the most vile and toxic attitudes can be changed my more funding. In fact, I suspect that all toxicity on this campus can be removed by having speech-and-look monitors on each corner, checking nothing is said, nothing inferred. This way no feelings will be hurt and no toxic gases released, other than from too much curry the night before.
And if these damned professors would stop marking students' work as if it was important, da yoof wouldn't need to maintain a toxic attitude towards them, either.
No comments:
Post a Comment