Content Versus Method
In “Conspiracy Theories 101” by Stanley Fish, he writes about the meaning of academic freedom and applies it to the topic of professor Kevin Barrett's lecture of a conspiracy theory, taken place at University of Wisconsin at Madison. Fish explains that Barrett should have the academic freedom to teach his lecture on conspiracy theories about 9/11 as long as the topic is brought up for “academic interrogation and analysis.” Fish also demonstrates a distinction of being academically responsible and irresponsible. Discussed is also the study of a subject such as astrology and how as long as a subjects “structure, history, influence, and so forth” is brought up in the class discussion. From analyzing the text I personally deciphered Fish's definition of academic freedom to be the ability to teach or lecture about an subject as long as there is no political agenda nor indoctrination, of which differs from other definitions such as of Patrick Farrell or Kevin Barrett. Fish ultimately makes an argument that academic freedom is not about the subject of a lecture, but about the method in which you teach and that this is a very important distinction.
Kevin Barrett, when teaching about his own “strong conviction” about a theory that the government is behind 9/11, was said to be crossing a certain line set about academic freedom while Patrick Farrell, decided that both opinions/sides of a subject should be brought in regardless of popularity. Fish's definition would differ from these in saying neither were right. The people outspoken about Kevin Barrett's tactics in the classroom lecture and the Universities provost, Farrell held a definition of academic freedom that Fish viewed to be surrounding the specific content...
... middle of paper ...
...n only one opinion is taught in the lecture, through Fish's definition students will still have the opportunity to analyze that opinion and decide if they agree or disagree with no pressure. This creates a great opportunity for students to practice thinking for their selves.
Fish overall makes a strong argument for his definition of academic freedom, which differs from that of Patrick Farrell and other's definition. His definition allows for analysis of all and any topic and expands the lines of education. Astrology, Kevin Barrett's conspiracy theory about 9/11, and even cocaine can all taught in an academic setting according to Fish's definition. As long as the political agenda is left out of the lecture, then history, structure, info, and opinions can be studied and analyzed, after all Fish believes its about the method in which you teach, not the content.
Throughout America, people place a high value in their freedom of speech. This right is protected by the first Amendment and practiced in communities throughout the country. However, a movement has recently gained momentum on college campuses calling for protection from words and ideas that may cause emotional discomfort. This movement is driven mainly by students who demand that speech be strictly monitored and punishments inflicted on individuals who cause even accidental offense. Greg Lukianoff and Johnathan Haidt discuss how this new trend affects the students mentally and socially in their article The Coddling of the American Mind published in The Atlantic Monthly. Lukianoff and Haidt mostly use logical reasoning and references to
The case also states “A prohibition against expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments” (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District). Because the students didn 't necessarily disrupt the education process, their First Amendment freedom of speech should not have been violated by the school officials.
In the landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), John Tinker and his siblings decided to openly protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school (Goldman 1). The school felt that their efforts to protest the war disrupted the school environment. “The Supreme Court said that ‘in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.’ School officials cannot silence student speech simply because they dislike it or it is controversial or unpopular” (FAQs 2). What about theatrical performance? Should certain plays not be performed at school because of inflammatory content? Theatrical performance plays a significant role during various years of a child’s youth, but, alone, has one central aim that allows for tolerance and multifariousness within the “salad bowl” United States. High school theatre arts curriculum’s purpose is to develop appreciation of the doctrines, perspectives, principles, and consciousness of diversified individuals in distinctive epochs throughout history as conveyed through literary works and theatre. If theatre has this sort of impact, why does the school administration, teachers, parents, even the state government, infringe upon the student body’s First Amendment rights? Schools should make no policy that would chastise a student for speaking their mind or expressing oneself, unless the process by which they are expressing themselves meddles with the educational methods and the claims of others. If a student threatens another student under “the right” of being able to speak freely, one would hope a school would take immediate action before potential harm occurs. The First Amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” In reference to students and a school environment, the definition of freedom of speech and expression becomes very unclear as to what they can and cannot say.
From the opening sentence of the essay, “We are free to be you, me, stupid, and dead”, Roger Rosenblatt hones in on a very potent and controversial topic. He notes the fundamental truth that although humans will regularly shield themselves with the omnipresent First Amendment, seldom do we enjoy having the privilege we so readily abuse be used against us. Freedom of speech has been a controversial issue throughout the world. Our ability to say whatever we want is very important to us as individuals and communities. Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press”.
The ability to question a definition is a crucial part of communication. For example: in the practice of law a case might call for someone to define the freedom of press, and that very definition may mean two completely different things to two different people. Postman’s first principle was one that I feel needed to be addressed. Too often our teachers impose the same definition they learned, valid, or not. If one is not allowed to defend a definition, especially an unjust one, then communication becomes more difficult.
This is just down right wrong because it’s unwarranted to give the right to do such a thing to schools and not to government. Thesis Schools have more rights than the government to affect and restrict the 1st Amendment and freedom of speech. Annotated Bibliography Hudson, David L., JR. " First Amendment Center. "
Issues of censorship in public schools are contests between the exercise of discretion and the exercise of a Constitutional right. The law must reconcile conflicting claims of liberty and authority, as expressed by Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 1940 in “Banned in the U.S.A.: A Reference Guide to Book Censorship in Schools and Public Libraries” by Herbert N. Foerstel (23).
His first principle is definition. Students must consider that definitions are not concrete. They are created by people, which make definitions subjective rather than objective. One person’s definition of something may be different from another person’s, and they both could be correct. The definition is largely dependant on the viewer’s
...o school. The dissenting opinion simply argued that freedom of speech is not to be used as a disturbance. Therefore, those students’ right to expression or speech was not violated because it interfered with the classroom’s learning. There is a time and place for everything, and freedom of speech should not be used everywhere.
They must form lessons that should aid students in understanding composition, definitions, transition words, and symbolism. There is no denying the significance these lectures bring; however, for some students, it is not enough to repetitively apply the mentioned rules to discussions they find disinterest in, deciding for themselves unwilling to participate in the conversation teachers beg for students to join. As mentioned, Fish proclaims that to diverge from teaching subject matter any other way that is not specifically academic, deviates too much and distracts from the correct process of intellectual thought. In his The New York Times piece, "What Should Colleges Teach?", Fish states his stance expressing one must "teach the subject matter" alone and not to "adulterate it with substitutes". He continues praising "the virtue of imitation," asking students to "reproduce [great author's] forms with a different content". Already, Fish demands from students derivative mimicry in which they must glean an understanding of another's process. I echo Fish's own question: "How can [one] maintain... that there is only one way to teach writing?" As students, we desire to express ourselves, and to follow the principles Fish speaks of, to "[repeat] over and over again in the same stylized motions", confines us from discovering the beauty and potential writing can bring. Rather, students are taught we must so closely follow fastidious rules and decorative wording, teaching English may as well, as Fish writes, "make students fear that they are walking through a minefield of error," and to use such a method makes students believe to write any other way will cause them to "step on something that will wound them", the odds of students learning anything are diminished (Stanley Fish, "What Should
In chapter 4, Freire begins to discuss freedom. Although he believes that it should have some limits, he wants us, as teachers, to give our students all the freedom they need. Watching the movie Dangerous Minds made me question where one draws the line and if we even have that choice over our students. In this movie we see how these students in her Academy class are "bright, challenging" students who actually turn out to be rowdy and disrespectful inner-city kids. These students have all the freedom in the world to do and say whatever they want causing a BIG interruption in the lesson and teaching process.
In conclusion Debbie Almontaser’s first amendment rights to freedom of speech were violated after being misquoted in New York Post’s article then forced to resign by the Department of Education after the article was published. Since the Depart of Education is part of the government then their actions where that of the government violating a person’s right to free speech. Many legal battles have been fought since Almontaser was forced to step down in 2007 and today the Department of Education and Almontaser still struggle over whether or not her rights were violated.
(4) Richard Rorty, "Does Academic Freedom Have Philosophical Presuppositions: Academic Freedom and the Future of the University," Academe (Nov.-Dec. 1994), p. 52.
...o memorize with little emphasis on analysis and critical thinking. The answers are right or wrong, either black or white; there is no room for innovation. Students have a difficulty voicing their opinions because they have been spoon-fed facts and rules throughout their entire educational journey.
Does it help students to adopt lateral thinking and form their opinions about a particular topic or concept?