[Air-l] freedom and related issues
ET
et at tarik.com.au
Mon Mar 15 19:48:16 PST 2004
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!"
More information about the Air-L
mailing list