[Air-l] freedom and related issues

[ET]

Two interesting topics popped up recently on this list - the academic 
freedom post by Maximilian Forte and the number fetishism post by Alex 
Kuskis, and I 'd like to tie them into one by starting with my recent 
experiences.

Last weekend I travelled to Melbourne for the graduation party of a 
family member. Amongst the gathering there were about 10-12 people who 
were studying at university or had recently finished. The discussion 
started with a complaint about a directive in the Graduation Notes that 
instructed graduates when receiving their degrees to "bow to the Dean". 
All those listening to the discussion expressed amazement that in the 
year 2004 a university should demand that students bow to a member of 
the staff. Its even more absurd when one considers that universities 
seem to be hot beds of political correctness, yet demand this kind of 
nonsense.

The discussion then turned to the authoritarian manner in which 
universities operate,  and the obsession with "doing it their way" 
without  question. Universities did not come out smelling of roses :-)

(Before I go any further I should point out that there are, no doubt, 
many wonderfully liberated people working in universities who do not fit 
the comments I am  making nor are my comments a reflection of my own 
experiences at Curtin University. I am actually enjoying my experience 
with them - most of the time!)

Should any of us be surprised that the kind of organisations that demand 
students bow to staff members would be purging staff websites?
Should any of us be surprised that organisations that demand strict 
obedience to process should disregard the basic human rights and 
freedoms of staff and students alike?
Should any of us be surprised that elements of one academic "faction" 
feel under siege from a larger faction?

All of this comes back to human rights, and the respect, or lack of 
respect, that is generated in universities.

We are all different, I doubt if any two human brains work in exactly 
the same manner, yet it seems to me that in universities there is an 
obsession, at times, with rigid adherence to process rather than 
stimulating or even allowing individual students to develop their own, 
and perhaps better, process.

In every field there appears to be the same rigid and sad cycle.
Group A creates a new idea/field/ discipline etc. They create a mass of 
new labels and processes and demand adherence because that keeps them in 
a position of control in that field.
After a while a rebellion develops amongst those who disagree with Group 
A. They create Group B and equally demand strict adherence to their 
philosophy to ensure they are different to Group A and have a distinct 
position of authority.
Ultimately more reasonable people come along and declare that there are 
good points to the views of Group A and good points to the views of 
Group B and they create Group C - using a combination of both previous 
philosophies but still demanding conformity with process.

None of the above is good for the world because it is oppressive.

All of the above is about process, but the world is totally 
disinterested in process, the world wants results.
The world doesnt want another 50 conferences on how to feed the worlds 
starving. The world wants food to go into the mouths of the hungry.

Universities seem obsessed with process and, in demanding obedience, 
create a culture of oppression that tends to ignore the basic human 
rights of students and others involved. And this culture is bad for the 
students and its bad for learning.

Allow me to explain using an example - the art of referencing.
University A will demand that all students use referencing system A. No 
ifs or buts - you must copy the system they promote or you are marked down.
This obsession with process adds nothing to the knowledge or ability of 
the individual student.
University B will demand that all students use referencing system B and 
again, no ifs or buts.

None of this is good for learning nor is it good for the students. The 
poor student merely copies what he is told to follow without thinking 
about it, without understanding it. He enjoys no right to freedom of 
expression, no right to freedom of thought and is not stimulated to 
think for himself at all.

Could there be a better way???
Yes.
Let us imagine that the university, rather than taking a hardline and 
authoritarian stance, instead respected the students and their basic 
human rights and freedoms.
Let us imagine that the university directed the student to two or three 
major examples of referencing, and then announced that the student could 
use any referencing system they chose, including using any referencing 
system they might create.
If a student can create a referencing system that allows the lecturer to 
understand where the material was sourced from as clearly as any 
"official" system then the student has succeeded. If the lecturer has no 
difficulty understanding where the referenced material came from, then 
the result has been achieved and we should be unconcerned by the process 
involved.
Is such a system useful? Of course it is. The student has to make 
decisions. They have to scrutinise different referencing systems, 
consider if they can make a better one, and then make a value judgement 
that may cost them marks as to what system they will employ. They are 
thinking, they are using the braiways available to them in their one 
way, they have to make decisions, they are teaching themselves and their 
right to freedom of expression is still intact.
No oppression, no authoritarianism, plenty of freedom.

All of which takes me back to the comments of our Latvian blooded colleague.
I dont know if Alex was referring to me when he wrote...."

This is for our friend from Oz who is so keen on quantitative analysis
to the exclusion of all else"


or to someone else, but the sentiments expressed are again a classic example of the problems I see in academia and the 
Estonian and Scandinavian social democratic blood in me , mixed in with my usual Australian arrogance, wont allow me to keep
 quiet :-)

One group of people latches onto a particular way of doing things and begin to believe this is the only way or the best way.
Another group opposes them and launches into an equally militant stance way whilst a third group develops who 
want to take a middle path. All obsess over process rather than focussing on the end result.

We must remember that we are all different.
We all have different abilities and skills.
Not everybody can appreciate or understand the quantitative path because its not in their brainways to do so.
Similarly not everyone can appreciate or understand the qualitative path.

The process by which one arrives at a result is completely irrelevant as long as it can be followed by other people.
If person A wants to use a qualitative process to achieve a result then good on them.
If person B wants to use a quantitative process to achieve a result then good on them too.
And if person C, a student, wants to create a new process called the "person C freewheeling- throw the tea leaves over the 
shoulder" method and it is published in such a manner that it can be easily understood how they obtained their result, 
then that also MUST be respected by academia because failure to do so is disregards the human rights and freedoms of 
that student.

We can not talk about freedoms on one hand insofar as university staff websites is concerned if we do not support
the right to intellectual freedom of the student. Students must have the right to explore new methods, and new pathways
and to be given every chance to achieve top marks through individuality.Through this respect for human rights the individual
is better off, academia is better off because it allows for a greater infusion of new ideas and humankind can not be
worse off for this respect of freedoms.

Whether we are talking about the demand for students to bow before a university official, whether we are talking about purged
university staff websites or whether we are talking about the process used to achieve a research result, we should always ensure
that we are putting the rights of the individual first, because through the respect for human rights at all levels comes a more
dignified, mature and advanced society.
Only through a respect for human rights do we develop as a society, we do not develop by having an obsession with process.
 
It is important, in my opinion, that the rights of the individual be respected and that in a university environment the
respect for rights should begin with full respect of, and encouragement of, the individual students right to freedom of thought
and communication.

regards,

Eero Tarik
Adelaide, South Australia























































-- 
"If you feed monkeys caviar, they are still monkeys!"