Academic freedom and "reasonable accommodation."

[xbuzzerx]

No... it was while back probably. It looked like a closeup of a wooden Statue of Liberty. Can't describe it any better than that.

 

[maxpowr9]

Of all the group work I've ever done in college the one thing I wish I could opt out of is introductions on the first day of class. Awkward as fuck.

I had to endure a "project" class where my entire grade was based on the business plan our group came up with. My team was VERY diverse which is both good and bad and we had no say in our group. I was the only American in the group too. There was also a Chinese girl, a Vietnamese girl [and my friend], a Frenchman and an Indian man. Not surprisingly, the Frenchman was the worst of the group.

Seriously though, if you object to working in a group with others regardless of the reason and I was the professor at an American uni, I'd just give you an "I" for the class if it was past the drop date.

 

[opinterph]

No... it was while back probably. It looked like a closeup of a wooden Statue of Liberty. Can't describe it any better than that.

[LFLOAT]

[/LFLOAT]

Nothing to fear. That’s the face of the Statue of Freedom from atop the US Capitol!

I used it in conduction with the 2nd inauguration of President Obama. ​

 

[xbuzzerx]

Re: Academic freedom and "reasonable accommodation."

[LFLOAT]

[/LFLOAT]

Nothing to fear. That’s the face of the Statue of Freedom from atop the US Capitol!

I used it in conduction with the 2nd inauguration of President Obama. ​

Yeah just picture that thing staring as everyone gives their introductions, and then, when it comes to its turn, simply saying "Hiiiiii."

- - - Updated - - -

I had to endure a "project" class where my entire grade was based on the business plan our group came up with. My team was VERY diverse which is both good and bad and we had no say in our group. I was the only American in the group too. There was also a Chinese girl, a Vietnamese girl [and my friend], a Frenchman and an Indian man. Not surprisingly, the Frenchman was the worst of the group.

Seriously though, if you object to working in a group with others regardless of the reason and I was the professor at an American uni, I'd just give you an "I" for the class if it was past the drop date.

Good thing you aren't a prof-- I really can't say I know anyone who ever felt like they learned anything from college group projects other than that "working with others and depending on them to do their part is a pain in the ass."

 

[Kulindahr]

I had to endure a "project" class where my entire grade was based on the business plan our group came up with. My team was VERY diverse which is both good and bad and we had no say in our group. I was the only American in the group too. There was also a Chinese girl, a Vietnamese girl [and my friend], a Frenchman and an Indian man. Not surprisingly, the Frenchman was the worst of the group.

Seriously though, if you object to working in a group with others regardless of the reason and I was the professor at an American uni, I'd just give you an "I" for the class if it was past the drop date.

I kept getting told I had leadership skills because in project group after project group in the education program I ended up driving the group to excel. I finally told my prof that I had no interest in leading, I just couldn't sit there and let people wander and dither.

 

[opinterph]

I had to endure a "project" class where my entire grade was based on the business plan our group came up with.

EVERY upper biennium class in my major included a group project in which virtually the entire grade was dependent upon the group’s performance. I think any student who objects to interacting with specific “types” of people should recognize that education necessarily involves stepping outside your comfort zone. If a student is unwilling (for whatever reason) to engage others openly and objectively in an academic setting, he or she must somehow come to recognize the trap of the bubble from which that viewpoint is fostered.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Academic freedom and "reasonable accommodation."

Good thing you aren't a prof-- I really can't say I know anyone who ever felt like they learned anything from college group projects other than that "working with others and depending on them to do their part is a pain in the ass."

Strange. Every group project I was in required research. We often learned more from group projects than in the main class -- in fact I had one class where the entire thing was group projects and presentations, with groups reshuffled after every stage. That was probably the highest-pressure class I ever had.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Re: Academic freedom and "reasonable accommodation."

Strange. Every group project I was in required research. We often learned more from group projects than in the main class -- in fact I had one class where the entire thing was group projects and presentations, with groups reshuffled after every stage. That was probably the highest-pressure class I ever had.

Group projects for me were always waiting around at some point past midnight the day before it was due waiting for the flakiest person to e-mail me their portion of the work, while I was beginning last-ditch efforts to do their part for them in case they didn't send it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Academic freedom and "reasonable accommodation."

Group projects for me were always waiting around at some point past midnight the day before it was due waiting for the flakiest person to e-mail me their portion of the work, while I was beginning last-ditch efforts to do their part for them in case they didn't send it.

The education department policy was that if anyone was considered by the rest of the group to be not upholding their share, that person would be detached from the group and expected to come up with a presentation just as heavy-duty as any group did -- so no one slacked.

In the sciences, people just didn't slack -- not sure why.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Re: Academic freedom and "reasonable accommodation."

The education department policy was that if anyone was considered by the rest of the group to be not upholding their share, that person would be detached from the group and expected to come up with a presentation just as heavy-duty as any group did -- so no one slacked.

In the sciences, people just didn't slack -- not sure why.

It would have been great if there'd been a policy like that. I think in actual practice, everyone just sorta resigned themselves to the fact that most of the work would be done by the most concerned person, and if you got anything from the flakier people, you were lucky. No one really tattled that I can ever recall hearing of, but people not pulling their weight was definitely part-and-parcel of dreaded group projects.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Academic freedom and "reasonable accommodation."

It would have been great if there'd been a policy like that. I think in actual practice, everyone just sorta resigned themselves to the fact that most of the work would be done by the most concerned person, and if you got anything from the flakier people, you were lucky. No one really tattled that I can ever recall hearing of, but people not pulling their weight was definitely part-and-parcel of dreaded group projects.

There was no tattling -- we had to do evaluations of the members of our group on a weekly basis. If someone showed up in an evaluation as not participating, but a group hadn't reported it, a prof would be likely to put a black mark on the group for not being responsible to make sure it was a group that worked together.

 

[bankside]

I actually don't accept that the geographic location should have a bearing on whether men and women can be educated together. I recognise "places that get it" and "places that fail to get it." But I don't accept that "culture" legitimises in any way the "places that fail to get it."

Also I don't really care whether the rationale is religious or cultural; the rational for coeducation is still sound either way.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I actually don't accept that the geographic location should have a bearing on whether men and women can be educated together.

I don't know that anyone suggested that it did, other than you. The only reason geography or location of the campus was brought up was in regards to "if you choose to go to college in x place, you should reasonably assume the culture there will largely reflect the culture of the host country." If you went to university in Japan people would bow--- and there is a status element built into those bows, how low they go, and how low someone bows to someone else based on their status as a student, a teacher, or a senior teacher, and by age. Even if you or I would disregard that as "an outdated, negative throwback to an unequal class system."

I recognise "places that get it" and "places that fail to get it." But I don't accept that "culture" legitimises in any way the "places that fail to get it."

Also I don't really care whether the rationale is religious or cultural; the rational for coeducation is still sound either way.

There is a difference between recognizing cultural differences and forcing a false notion that we are forced to choose which one is correct or which one is "better." Though admittedly the west tends to be obsessed with the latter. It goes to the point of seeming like an inferiority complex at times.

 

[bankside]

It's entirely possible that two different cultural notions are equally worthy. But it's also possible they are not.

My point about geography was that yes; this student could reasonably expect a Canadian school to presume coeducation is the norm. But that doesn't make it correct. If he thinks otherwise, it's possible that coeducation is bad. The thing is, he has no case to make there; if he thinks that, it is because he is mistaken, not because he has a different cultural perspective or something.

 

[xbuzzerx]

It's entirely possible that two different cultural notions are equally worthy. But it's also possible they are not.

My point about geography was that yes; this student could reasonably expect a Canadian school to presume coeducation is the norm. But that doesn't make it correct. If he thinks otherwise, it's possible that coeducation is bad. The thing is, he has no case to make there; if he thinks that, it is because he is mistaken, not because he has a different cultural perspective or something.

I think that's a bare bones oversimplification that if applied widely stands to really pre- and misjudge things.

I went to school, for example, with a couple of Egyptian guys. I asked them one time if they would marry American women or if they would only marry Egyptian women.

"Probably not American, unless she was from a family from a Mediterranean culture, it wouldn't have to be Egyptian," they said.

"Why Mediterranean?" I asked.

"Because a lot of Mediterranean cultures share a lot of the same ideas about home and family and a lot of emphasis on the father having a job that allows the mother to take care of the children," they answered.

"Why that specifically? Do Mediterranean cultures not like women working?"

"No no, nothing like that. But when we were little kids, when we came home from school we had our mother there taking care of us, and we feel like we were better off because of that than the kids who came home and were by themselves all afternoon until the parents came home from work. And we would want our kids to have that too."

Mind you, these were substantially Americanized Egyptian guys... they'd come over at 5 or 6 years old. But they still placed a lot of value on what we would call a "traditional/old-fashioned gender role in the home." And many people, especially with no context or whatever, would broad brush that entire tendency with "sexism" and "wanting to keep women unequal." And I'm sure that judgment does apply to some misogynists in their culture, and to social conservatives or religious fundamentalists, and to many parts of the Middle East or the Mediterranean. I'm also nearly 100% sure these guys weren't lying to me, because they were fluent English speaking Americans born in Egypt who went to school with and formed study groups with men and women all the time. One of their sisters went to med school later, in fact. So I have no reason all of this stemmed from any "illicit" belief that women should be curtailed or not have freedom of choice.

So supposing the topic were "traditional female gender roles in the home", my problem with your reasoning is that it'd be all too easy for us to say: "It's simple. It's a question of whether you value females as equals or not, and if you don't, you're wrong." When that's not only a broadbrushed but also a contextless summary judgment of something that may actually be quite a bit more complex and maintained for a variety of reasons that go beyond what we'd simply rush to label as gender inequality or sexism.

All of that being said? Of course I'm not defending either that women shouldn't be educated with men, or that there is any harmful effect of women being educated alongside men. But equally: you are leaping to the conclusion that this was his belief or the reason for his request.

 

[bankside]

I would find your egyptian classmates more convincing if they had given some thought to staying home and raising the kids whilst their wives enjoyed whatever career they were skillful at.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I would find your egyptian classmates more convincing if they had given some thought to staying home and raising the kids whilst their wives enjoyed whatever career they were skillful at.

I'd be careful with that-- there are some real, not imagined, advantages to the mother-child relationship which even our courts acknowledge when deciding custody cases.

 

[bankside]

I'd be careful with that-- there are some real, not imagined, advantages to the mother-child relationship which even our courts acknowledge when deciding custody cases.

That's a very benvoluted argument, and I'll have no part of it. Women are better at pushing babies out of their vaginas than men are. After that, male or female parents are able to be just as skillful and effective. I'm surprised to hear what amounts to a court submission for the religious right seeking desperately to prevent equality in matters of adoption. And I'm surprised that the "judicial status quo" would be offered up as an argument in favour of anything. Your courts have also acknowledged everything from sodomy being inherently unnatural to black people constituting three fifths of a person.

What is more likely? That a man from a culture that is obviously patriarchal (that would even refer to itself as properly or justly patriarchal) would overlook and dismiss the possibility of a woman having a career while he raised the kids, or that a man is truly incapable of providing the kind of familial stability that he enjoyed as a child under his mother's care.?

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

What think you?

According to the article another student taking the same online course abroad was already exempt from the assignment.

I wouldn't fuss about this issue unless it was a blatant violation of regulations that had been unambiguously formulated before the student registered for the course.

 

[xbuzzerx]

That's a very benvoluted argument, and I'll have no part of it. Women are better at pushing babies out of their vaginas than men are. After that, male or female parents are able to be just as skillful and effective. I'm surprised to hear what amounts to a court submission for the religious right seeking desperately to prevent equality in matters of adoption. And I'm surprised that the "judicial status quo" would be offered up as an argument in favour of anything. Your courts have also acknowledged everything from sodomy being inherently unnatural to black people constituting three fifths of a person.

Now you're being thick. The reasonings that lend favor to a mother in a custody hearing do not extend to "banning men from having children", or banning fathers from having custody. The courts do however acknowledge that with other factors being equal, the psychological bond of mother and child is a factor to weigh in the decision.