Page 25
As educators, we take academic discourse for granted. We expect students to care about the issues we bring up even though they are presented in an academic vacuum (for instance, Graff’s example of the views of love in the 15th century). These ideas must be given context; students need to know why they should care. A working knowledge of courtly love is integral to studying the Divine Comedy, but that explanation isn’t enough for the average 16 to 22 year old. The trick is, this information must not only relate to their own lives but to the society in which they live.
Page 39
I find troubling Graff’s implication that academia must sell itself. Doesn’t this essentially debase the quality of higher education? College isn’t a television show or music video, though some of the pop culture courses showing up on university campuses might lead one to believe that is the case.
Student life offices and academic departments operate on two totally different wavelengths as it is – I will never forget the day that Mason’s “Take Back the Night” observance began right in the middle of my Literary Scholarship meeting with a local band playing outside our classroom. Professor Owens was livid that the band’s amplifier created an impromptu (and unwanted) soundtrack for his lecture.
Page 45
Academic problems are not seen as problems – there is a “who cares” mentality of “when will I ever need to use this?” Honestly, I’m not sure if the counter argument of “It will help you become a better thinker/express yourself better” is a useful one to high school (and some college) students. The current education system has become a series of hoops to jump through because courses are compartmentalized and irrelevant to one another.
Page 47
Crandus’ students see textual explication as pointless – of course they will, unless it is placed within a relevant context. Students have to see themselves as part of the world and the texts they study as relevant to that world, not just some confusing garble of words written by dead white men.
Students compartmentalize their education and we help them. Subjects are separated, so school is separated from life. It has no bearing other than the expectations of their parents and the ubiquitous college degree. Many adults still feel this way, especially when it comes to literature. We’ve talked before about how many of us have been asked absurd questions like, “What’s the point of English class?” or “Why don’t you study something useful?” from our own peers in the real world.
Page 49
The compartmentalization of schooling leaks over into categorizing life. The response “How would I know what the author would think? We’re not close friends” is an example of such grouping. Students feel so strongly about individualism that they have denied the universal experience of humanity. We are a culture of egos – it is almost impossible to identify or even empathize with others because individuality is king.
Page 56
Individualism has damaged students’ perception of why persuasion has value. Relativism states that everyone is entitled to his own opinion or set of moral standards, so what is true for “me” may not necessarily be true for “you.” Therefore, it’s not acceptable (or PC) to try and persuade someone of your opinion (much less present it on the chance you might offend someone).
Graff says this lack of interest in persuasion is a symptom not of relativism but of the collegiate generation’s lack of faith that their opinions matter in the democratic scheme of things. He misses the point – in a relativistic society, no one’s opinions matter because they are all the same. Without a standard against which to judge what is true and what is false, everything is true. Thus, opinions (and votes) are meaningless.
Page 68
Ignoring contradictions in text is another sign of relativism’s impact. Why discuss differing opinions (or even notice them) if everyone has them and they are (again) all the same where truth is concerned?
Page 85
Civilized debate requires that those who debate respect one another. Today’s culture dictates that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot, and that only true intellectuals take or hold your position. Look at politics – liberals think conservatives are close-minded bigots; republicans think democrats are bleeding-heart socialists. Even members of the same political party slip into this (take Obama and Hilary, for example, who seem to revel in personal attacks rather than debating the issues of their campaigns).
Page 88
Tannen’s discussion of “debate/discussion” clearly illustrates the semantics/political correctness game. One is supposedly preferable to the other, because in a discussion you are somehow less likely to be violently affronted. I find this ridiculous – I have been violently affronted in many “discussions.” What it boils down to is an issue of respect for the person whom you are debating and the understanding that it is okay to present one’s own opinion even if it might be counter to someone else’s. Disagreeing with someone doesn’t make you ignorant.
Pages 122-123
Graff’s discussion of tone brings up the sense of superiority redolent in academia. Why must academic writing and discussion be so esoteric, so inaccessible? To me it almost feels as though this is a way of keeping the Ivory Tower ivory, despite all of its talk about diversity.
Page 126
Students are forced into split identities not only in courses and professorial expectations but in their writing as well. They are expected to walk a fine line between accessible and academic, leading a great number of novice students to slip into “I don’t care” mode – the same as that caused by the isolated academic problem.
Final thoughts:
Graff implies that closing the curriculum gap takes understanding on the part of the teachers and academic policy makers (70). I agree. They (we, really) are products of the same system and compartmentalize just as much as the students do, perpetuating the problem out of habit and comfort. Everybody talks about cross-curriculum mapping, but how many of us really want to do it? While we admit that good teaching is all about sharing and “stealing” ideas from other educators, we happily ensconce ourselves in our classrooms and go about our business, quite pleased to avoid outside interference in the realm in which we excel. In addition, we reinforce the relativist ideology by exhibiting the very same behaviors we eschew in our students. Like Graff points out, we don’t like to publicly disagree – we muzzle ourselves so no one individual gets their own way. God forbid we offend somebody, because what is right for me may not be right for somebody else.
Our attitudes are the reason why good English students don’t see that the skills learned in a Literature or Comp course carry over into writing clear lab reports or research papers for other disciplines. We are as much a part of the problem as the solution.
-Ginny