Sticks and Stones . . . and Trigger Warnings

images-3

Why do we educate? To meet a demand? What kind of demand are we addressing? I’ve been thinking about what it means to educate as opposed to teach. And then as I read, yes, The Atlantic, there was an article  related to my ruminations. In “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt address the limitations that are being heaped on professors as they work to provide students with reliable and unabridged content in their classrooms. This is really a tangled and complex subject to discuss and cannot fully be addressed in a single blog post, but the core of the issue, to me, is this: Anyone able to access higher education (i.e., they have graduated from high school) is presumed to be old enough and academically experienced enough to engage in open discussion and debate in relation to specific subject matter that is voluntarily received (i.e., attending college is optional, not compulsory).

Even the required core courses can be dropped and taken another time or online if a student does not like the professor, classmates, or topics. So, is it really necessary, even logical, to put the onus on the professors to offer Trigger Warnings to students in case an individual has experienced some form of trauma that may or may not be triggered by a reading, discussion, or even word that no one not related closely to said student could possibly predict? Can the individual even know ahead of time that something may trigger him/her? If the student does know that they cannot tolerate certain subject matter, shouldn’t they be obligated to ask the professor the overall trajectory of the course’s subject matter? Isn’t that what the first day and the syllabus are for?

Now, for those who think in terms of difficult schedules and the student’s inability to simply drop or change classes without their entire academic or work schedule being dismantled or seriously affected, I ask: Isn’t life littered with such inconveniences and dilemmas? What happens if someone breaks their leg and their job entails moving around quite a bit?  Does this mean the employers change the nature of the job or the employee figures out how to do the job, take a leave of absence, or go on disability? The latter of course.

So, if a student cannot tolerate, for any reason, the nature of the subject matter in a course, the course does not need to change, the student must regroup and figure out how to work with the need for change. Like an employee, the student can always approach the professor or the Chair or the Dean and discuss possible alternatives. BUT if the alternatives change the nature of the learning outcomes for that course, the student then is not actually engaging in that class. This then means the student must meet their objectives for core coursework or major concentration by changing classes, period. The student must acknowledge that there is more personal work to be done before they can fully engage in their academic ambitions.

There is no law or rule that says one cannot return to school when more mature, secure, or confident. After all, putting education on your terms is not about treating learning like a commodity or creating a rigid protocol on what you are willing to encounter, but acknowledging that you have limitations to overcome and strengths to draw from and taking the responsibility to make the changes and adjustments needed rather than forcing very carefully considered and scheduled materials to be altered.

Advertisements

Adjuncts’ Prospects: An Open Disgrace With No Foreseeable Consequences (For the Schools That Is)

Follow this link to the New York Times article: “Crowded Out of  Ivory Tower, Adjuncts See a Life Less Lofty” http://nyti.ms/1aCBVpb

As much as I love academia, I cannot abide the persistent devaluation of adjuncts’ worth. We are more than merely replaceable cogs in a degree machine. We are qualified professionals who, regardless of the poor pay and often less-than-hospitable treatment by senior colleagues, actually care about the educational welfare of our students and the learning outcomes of our courses. The students that that we often encounter have been ill served  by their high schools and sometimes given a false sense of their abilities. Many universities then admit them without any statement of remedial work needed or recommended and may offer certain unrealistic academic shortcuts (passes on taking foundation courses and placement right into a higher level) that further their unrealistic  ideas of the level of difficulty and work expected in the adult, graduate, and corporate world. Those of us who seek a balance and offer students a chance to truly learn and excel based in their own initiative, effort, and individual talents are relegated to the ranks of necessary evil and minimum expenditure.

Lets do our students, our children, a justice and teach them properly from the start that each of them have different strengths and that some academic areas may be more challenging for them. They must step up and meet these challenges. Any subject they are not strong in can at least be met with competence. Why lie and lead them to believe that nothing should be hard or, if it is, that it’s the fault of someone else? A grade of “C” is average work and must be worked up from, not complained about. An “A” is not a right but an accomplishment earned via hard work met according to nonnegotiable guidelines the educators are trusted to set and maintain.

Let adjuncts dedicate themselves to the students’ right to truthful feedback from valued professionals. Let the scholars of the world be respected and compensated properly rather than discredited and starved.