posted
As a student, in a public Highschool, I am introduced and exposed to alot of biased material in my History and Social Studies classes. My teacher is of course (implying that most are) very liberal in ever sense of the word. Now her opinions naturally find themselves into her everyday teachings. I know that this can't be helped, and that it would not be different if the teacher was a right-wing republican (not that I wouldn't enjoy that), but I do think that she should at least try to give both sides of the story. Is that asking to much from a person that is paid by my parents and is able to retire earlier than most people? I think not.
[ August 19, 2003, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: Dag ]
Posts: 26 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Dag, I'm not sure that the job of teaching in the US is typically associated with being able to retire early, but we have some teachers here who should be able to shed some light on that part.
As to the main part of your post, I think it's good practice to explicitly identify (as much as possible) our own biases to ourselves and to those we are engaged with in discussion. This is especially important for teaching good critical analysis skills. If you are a good critical thinker, any information that comes your way is automatically assessed in terms of context.
Maybe you could do a project or a paper on the subject of unintended bias? You could approach it from the perspective of learning more about your own biases primarily, and this would keep it from coming across as an inflammatory attack.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have exactly the same problem. I always have long arguments in front of the class with my social studies teachers.
Posts: 1744 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes it's particularly frustrating when something seems obvious to you, but to others it isn't clear (or isn't important) at all. It's tempting just to speak louder. But there's a great quote along the lines of "Better not to raise your voice, but rather to strengthen your argument."
:Locke, Dag, have either of you considered approaching this as a topic for a paper or project? It might be a more effective use of your passion and your time.
Don't just tell them, show them. And do it very, very well.
posted
Would that I could, but up to this point I've never had an assignment for a paper that doesn't have an assigned topic. Maybe moving up to ninth grade this year will change that, though.
Posts: 1744 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"dont argue with a fool, some people may not be able to tell the difference" , I love that quote.
I had the best social studies teacher I've ever seen last year. He was incredibly liberal, but was able to maintain an un-biased teacher environment. I was able to get a 4 on my United States AP test, which is incredibly impressive considering my compleate lack of skill for things like writing essays.
posted
Thank you for the welcome by the way. I have been a member for a while but never posted anything. (Oh yes, the retiring early was just a joke. please take no offense to it. Teachers are some of the most important people in our society)
Teaching and un-biased class I know is extremely difficult. My current teacher told the class in the begining of the corse that she did have strong beleifs about the things we are studying and gthat she would do her best in keeping it impartial. I think that she could do a better job. But of corse arguing with her is not the right thing to do (i loved the qoute as well), and quite frankly i like the woman except for her beleifs.
The idea about presenting my thoughts in a paper or essay is brilliant and i really do think i will do that. (I'll let you know how it goes).
To futhor the discussion however, I present a question: Should teachers in the class be ABLE to teach their subject with their own opinions or is the descriminating against the other views? If you say that doing it would be ok then you must also be a supporter of having creationism in the school system.
Posts: 26 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have time to write a full response right now, but you might want to check out a book like "Lies my Teacher Told Me"... which looks at bias in today's history textbooks. And, while it's even more liberal than your teacher, more than likely, "A People's History of the United States" also gives a bit of a different perspective on our history.
Some of it has to do with teacher bias, some of it with textbook bias, some of it with cultural bias. I gotta run now, but I'll make a more coherent post later on.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
I agree with Claudia Therese: write a paper. If your teacher does not give you an open-ended assignment, write a letter to either the curriculum director or the superintendent, not about how biased and crappy your teacher is, but about the biases you find in the text books and in the curriculum. Also, write to the text book companies. Don't ever limit your learning to what the teacher presents.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a history teacher who fought against biasedness. He was a self-proclaimed Richard III advocate, saying that Richard III was actually a good person, and didn't deserve to be treated in such a way. (Unlike the biased Shakespeare Play).
I love my history teacher.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our US history textbook last year was horribly liberally biased. It would have driven me crazy if I'd had a liberal teacher too, because most of the liberals in the class didn't seem to notice the bias that was so obvious to me. Luckily, we had a very conservative teacher, who made a point of trying to balance out the bias we were getting from the book. Not that he did this by teaching in a biased manner, he just pointed out where the book was biased. Of course, most of my extremely liberal class despised him for it. *shrugs*
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If you say that doing it would be ok then you must also be a supporter of having creationism in the school system."
As far as Creationism goes, I'm fine with teachers who're willing to say, "Look, I don't personally believe in evolution, but that's only because I have my head up my butt about basic scientific realities. So before we get into the actual truth about the way the world works, we'll spend some time discussing the myths and fairy tales I happen to believe and would encourage you to believe, too. And then we'll talk about the actual universe."
Sadly, this rarely happens. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Since bias is unavoidable, one should be aware of that, and take into account the source of any information.
that's really the long and the short of it. (and remember, you've got bias too! so your assessments of bias are going to be biased )
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recently read a book entitled The Lies My Teacher Told Me written by James Loewen. It was mostly about how the "white man" oppressed everyone. He made such audacious statements as "Why are Europeans racist?". I have to say that statement floored me. How could he possible conclude that only Europeans are racist. How could he conclude that all Europeans are racist?
He must have concluded this by a good study of history. (Since this guy is a historian this wasn't a hard conclusion to come by.) Europeans are blamed for their racism because they dominated the world. I have seen racism exhibited by ALL races, often anti-white.
Mr. Loewen also decries the Europeans for deculturizing the Native Americans. May I remind everyone about the moors. In Spain the Arabic conquerors changed the European culture of the people there, however I see no one decrying the change in Spanish culture.
White Europeans may have once dominated the world, and they did commit many crimes of power. However I believe that it is not a flaw in the race, but a natural tendency of humankind shown.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He made such audacious statements as "Why are Europeans racist?". I have to say that statement floored me. How could he possible conclude that only Europeans are racist. How could he conclude that all Europeans are racist?
He must have concluded this by a good study of history. (Since this guy is a historian this wasn't a hard conclusion to come by.) Europeans are blamed for their racism because they dominated the world. I have seen racism exhibited by ALL races, often anti-white.
Why is it a bad question, again? Just because it's common doesn't mean it ought not be explained, using Europeans as an example would be clearest and easiest because the influence is all over this country.
quote:Mr. Loewen also decries the Europeans for deculturizing the Native Americans. May I remind everyone about the moors. In Spain the Arabic conquerors changed the European culture of the people there, however I see no one decrying the change in Spanish culture.
The problem is that my particular history teacher didn't tell me any lies about the Moors influence in Spain, or much about Spain at all. Is it safe to assume that the author wanted to keep the book relevant to classes and areas I may have studied? Had I studied Spain and my teacher mislead me to believe that the spanish culture is immutable, then I think you'd have an issue.
Here is something I like:
quote:White Europeans may have once dominated the world, and they did commit many crimes of power. However I believe that it is not a flaw in the race, but a natural tendency of humankind shown.
I'd don't know about the veracity of this statement. I believe it. I have many natual tendencies. I want to pee right now, but my better angels are telling me to wait until I go to the restroom. Saying it's a natural tendency doesn't excuse my pissing my pants, as it were. We override natural tendencies all of the time, I think it's part of faculties that raises us above the infant, the dog, and the chair.
Are you Jettboy?
blacwolve:
quote: Our US history textbook last year was horribly liberally biased. It would have driven me crazy if I'd had a liberal teacher too, because most of the liberals in the class didn't seem to notice the bias that was so obvious to me. Luckily, we had a very conservative teacher, who made a point of trying to balance out the bias we were getting from the book. Not that he did this by teaching in a biased manner, he just pointed out where the book was biased. Of course, most of my extremely liberal class despised him for it. *shrugs*
I've had a hard time with the outlooks in some of Bay Area high school history classes. I was listening to these kids study, and I started feeling bad for Nixon. We have gone too far in demonizing past officials, except for Andrew Jackson. If I ever have any influence, I'm taking him off of the twenty.
I went to high school in Orange County with conservative teachers and students. If the books were antagonist towards the events that have gone before, the teacher and the students served as a balance.
All of these biases go away if we teach critical thinking; they will abate under the pressure of keen wits and gentle hearts.
posted
I just made a discovery that I'd apparently never figured out before. ::smacks forehead:: When people refer to "Creationism" they are talking about the fundamentalist concept that the world was made in seven 24-hour periods.
I'd venture to say that there are people who believe that the universe, world and people were created but do not believe it happened within a week defined by human terms. So, how did the aforementioned become the definition of "Creationism"?
Is it because Fundamentalists are the loudest, and want it put into school books?
posted
i'd also like to point out, that's the same reason evolution has become some sort of scientific devilry, rather than the more mundane "observation of change over a span of time" sorts of definitions.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had liberally biased teachers and conservatively biased teachers. Here is what I experienced.
1) My liberal teachers were more likely to admit their bias than conservative teachers. That is not to say that all of my liberal teachers did, or that none of my conservatives teachers did. Just it was something the liberals seemed to recognize more than the conservatives.
2) Professors in College are much more biased, and much more demanding that you agree with their bias, than are teachers in high school. I had a friend who was getting d's in her class because she was argueing with her professor on her papers. Her fiance showed her how to write her papers where they just parroted what the professor said. She got an A from then on.
3) Bias runs deep. Go to a book store and look at any book on World History or World Timelines. From Grade school I was taught this history timeline: Sumer-Egypt-Greece-Rome-European Dark Ages-Christopher Columbus and the "Age of Discovery"-American History.
What of the rest of the world? Japan is barely mentioned until WWII. China is barely mentioned until WWII. Spain/Portugal is brought in only during the Age of DIscovery. Spain makes a quick reappearance just before WWII. England is only mentioned in regards to US history and the Renaisance. Russia is not mentioned until WWI. Eastern Europe is not mentione until WWI etc
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like Dan I've had my fair share of liberal/conservative teachers. Mine break down a bit more though.
1)Marxist Authoritarian teachers. Pretty much my entire high school English department. I hate them with a passion. They espouse radically liberal views (wealth redistribution, the wonders of feminism, the rise of socialism in Europe) but manage to act like jackbooted thugs the rest of the time. Typical of this is giving an essay exam on a poem that asks for your opinion and fail you for giving the "wrong" opinion. (By this I don't mean an unsupported opinion, I mean the "wrong opinion".) They also claim to believe in free speech in their class, so long as said speech doesn't convey anything postiive about Europeans or men and especially not European men. After all, Rudyard Kipling wrote well but he was an EVIL IMPERIALIST DOG who ate (usually African) children. -- Rudyard Kipling
2)Liberal Teachers. They are fairly unbiased in class but it can often show through when discussing controversial issues. They tend to give the opposing side time to talk but usually poo poo it away if they can't come up with a rebuttle, chalking it up to the fact that they're talking to kids.
3) Conservative Teachers. The conservatives are more biased day to day in class, but they listen to the arguments against them more and generally are more willing to have a productive discussion, even if they seem to lose at the end of it. Most of the history department is like this.
4) Fascists. Ultra-conservative wackos. They are like the Marxist authoritarians except in reverse and they are far smaller in number. Their impact is also degraded by the fact that most of them are science teachers and rarely discuss politics (Besides the bio teachers, who are typically not in the fascist category. Bio teachers tend to be ambivalent so far as their students beliefs are concerned.)However, they're deadly if you get one on your schedule. Of all the groups, this one is most likely to mete out punishments for silly things and shout down liberal students in class.
As for the rest of the world, I don't know how long ago Dan went to school but I can certify I've learned more about the topics he listed during my classes. Though, the curriculum got more Euro-centric the further in history you went (probably as a result of imperialism I'd think)
posted
Ralphie- Your right in saying that there are many types of Creationalism. Yet the most comon IS the seven day period because of the way it is stated in all versions of the bible. To me it is silly to limit God to time and limit him to not being able to create something in any amount of time. But again I guess this is a mtter of opinion.
About teaching it in schools; The main reason schools are not aloud to teach or talk about it (I was lucky in having a Biology teacher who allowed antying to be brought up and argued by the class) is because it is a "religious" belief. But tell me, what is the definition of "religion" or "belief". In my opinion, it is something that requires blind faith or worship. If you ask me and alot of people, it seems as though it takes more faith to beleive that something came from nothing and then finally became a human being than it does to beleive there is a higher power involved. Therefore in my opinion, Macro evolution is just as much of a religion as Christianity, Islam, or Hindu.
Posts: 26 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Calavier, you just showed the real value of a good public education--getting used to the people you'll meet in real life.
Dag: let me recommend you check out Talk Origin. I don't want to derail the thread into an evolution debate, but I will state that evolution has a tremendous amount of observational evidence supporting it, much of it from different sources. Most brands of creationism are severely lacking in such evidence. Hence, evolution is science and creationism is not.
Whether you believe in Science or not is entirely another matter.
Posts: 2473 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Calavier[sic], you just showed the real value of a good public education--getting used to the people you'll meet in real life.
Yeah, that's the truth my friend. Though, I doubt there are so many wannabe leftist rebels in the general population.
*braces under desk as English teacher comes in with camo fatigue pants and a red bandana, while toting an AK-47 and yelling "Not necesarily (or likely) male omnicsient higher being bless Che Guerva! Viva la revolution amigos!"*
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your right. Lets not change it into that but do not only list one side of the facts. I of corse don't agree with your statement. Check out this page and the whole website. If you can contradict any of the statements he makes on defuting evolution, let me know. http://drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=articles&specific=3Posts: 26 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions.
Dag, the first premise of his argument isn't a tenable one. The test of a theory isn't in the answers it provides to basic questions, at least not a scientific theory.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of my profs told the class that they'd love to have a student argue with them - they just better be able to back their arguments up really well. My American history prof is especially good for this.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I once argued with my ethics professor in college for 45 minutes straight in front of the class. I wouldn't let my position go and I backed it up and defended his attacks on it. We were both civil and rational and used good theories to back it up. We both had a good time and he still remembers it now. He and I have very different views as he is way more conservative than I am. However, he is very balanced in that he will teach and defend other views in his academics.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just so you Know, It is possible to be a Christian and an Evolutionist.
For instance me. I believe in a Darwinian evolution, while at the same time worshipping God. Talk Origins is an excellent site one that I used to write a large paper on Evolution.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, almost all the facts he lists right off have nothing to do with evolution. Nada. Evolution is totally unrelated to the big bang or other theories of the origin of the universe and life. Evolutionary theory only talks about what happens after life exists.
Then he makes nonsense claims about "why would any species want to produce more of it's kind because there'd then be more mouths to feed". This is an example of pretty much complete ignorance and lack of thought. Firstly, most organisms do not "think" about whether or not they'll reproduce. Second, that doesn't make any sense otherwise. If there are plenty of resources available, there being more of a species is not a disadvantage at all. I can go on about ways this claim is utterly ridiculous, but it's pretty pointless.
If you want me to tackle a particular claim, go ahead an point me at it, but after looking around for a little bit I could not find a single claim he made that was not easily refuted/explained away.
There are significantly better educated attempts to discredit evolution. That guy isn't one of them; he's a crackpot who knows nothing about science in general, much less biology or evolution. I mean, the people at Answers in Genesis would laugh this guy off the stage, and they're creationists!
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Well, if Ryan has presened the facts correctly, what's wrong with the question is that it tacitly, yet clearly, implies that all Europeans are very racist and that nobody else is.
And Ryan's point about the Moors in Spain is not intended to demonstrate that you were taught lies about Spanish history, Irami, but rather that Europeans are not the only ones capable of repressing a culture and altering its development.
Ryan's point in pointing out that people of any background can be racist or oppressive was not to excuse racism or oppression, but rather to point out how "PC" types present just as one-sided a view of history as has traditionally been taught by Eurocentric textbooks, albeit from a different perspective.
Asking if he was Jettboy, by the way, was a cheap shot. Not only is he clearly not, but this was the most balanced and thought-out post I have seen from him. I respectfully submit that you were trying to label and pigeonhole him because you find many of his other posted views objectionable.
I'm with you on the critical thinking thing, though.
posted
I had a wonderful argument with a prof once, that I won. Though after I won he dismissed the entire argument as a "grad student argument"
For those of you who are sciency: he asserted in an engineering materials class that Diamond was the most stable form of carbon. I raised my hand and disagreed because diamond has a positive Gibbs Free Energy and that graphite is the most stable form of carbon because it has a free energy of zero. I ended up running down the hall to the library in the middle of class to pull out a CRC handbook so I could prove to him that I was right, which I was.
When weeks later he still didn't believe me I went to my Physical chemistry professor that the first prof collaborated with and said, "I know I'm right, this is what you taught me and I've done the proofs." The PChem prof was tickled pink that I remembered him two years later (he remembered me because I got a 100 on his final) and felt like he had done some good in the world because I remembered anything at all from his class, since most people are so traumatized after PChem that they promptly forget everything.
Anyway he basically said that the other prof just had his head in a different carbon based universe and that even though I was right he just wouldn't get it. But he also said he would bring it up in conversation sometime and try to set the ignorant prof straight!
posted
I'm having trouble finding the quotation "Why are Europeans racist?" in the book, I'm afraid. Do you have a page number?
I do find a section detailing how racism evolved in the Euoropean consciousness regarding slavery, and some more on anti-slavery in the US... but where is this quotation?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This reminds me of an English teacher I had. He was extremely liberal and he refused to acknowledge that there might be a different viewpoint. For instance in a class discussion about a topic if a view was expressed that didn't fit his philosophy he would rephrase it so that somehow the meaning changed and it supported him, and when the students invariably said; "No that's not what I meant." He'd simply insist "Oh yes it was." There was no arguing with him.
He did the same thing with essays that went against him. He'd circle crucial arguments and write a note in the margin saying "excellent irony" or something similar. Near the end of the school year I had learned not to leave any ambiguity in my essays and so he had to call me in for a conference on the meaning of one of my essays. Because surely I didn't really mean this. He couldn't find a way to make the words twist through irony or poor phrasing to fit, so I was told I needed to express my views more clearly. Despite this irritable habit of his, he was a good teacher who managed to connect literature to the world we lived in, even if I didn't agree with how it connected.
Posts: 349 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
"Hello, valhalla? I'd like two million of your best warriors and a side order of ale. It's time to stop Ragnarok."
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bias is, I think, a difficult thing to avoid in teaching. My philosophy prof, despite being an all-round sound bloke and a fantastic teacher especially of logic, was one of the most dogmatic people I knew. I gave up trying to argue against him because he'd just claim that I was confused and he was right. Once when we were in the bar and he'd had a few he admitted that he was a worse tutor now than when he was younger, because he'd now been "studying this stuff for 30 years" and so he had some very clear ideas about what was right and wrong in the area and what was clear and what wasn't, but it meant that he listened less to opposing views. At least he was honest about it. Amusingly, the topics I studied with him ended up being two of my better marks in finals - and they were almost certainly marked by people who disagreed with his views.
I was also rather heartened by a politics tutorial quite recently, where my tutor (metaphorically) took my essay apart and (literally) gave me an enormously hard time about it. At the end, though, he said "I'm just giving you a hard time because I disagree with you, this is actually first-class stuff." I wish more tutors and teachers were able to separate their own views from their assessment of the quality of their students' work.
I also wonder whether Dan's experience of college profs is something that's very much encouraged by the American tenure system, and discouraged in Britain. Another of my politics profs (who's now teaching at Georgia Tech) said to me that he can't publish in the US because his approach to international relations isn't accepted by the major thinkers there, and that you have to agree with them to advance your career. I don't know enough to know whether he was right, but it made me wonder...
Posts: 1550 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
-- Rudyard Kipling![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
