|
BOUNDARIES BETWEEN Framework for Civil, Constructive Conversations I.
Anti-inflammatory Description
II. Polarizing Views or
Questions III. Worthwhile Results |
|||
|
I. Anti-inflammatory Description Focus on Boundaries between Professional, Personal, and Political lives:
Why bother? Under what conditions should this issue be avoided? Under what conditions are the benefits associated with this issue likely to result? Are there any important pre-requisites that must be in place? Under what conditions are the risks associated with this issue too likely to occur - so that this issue should not be pursued or implemented? Who cares?
(Who should be involved in
considering this issue? |
II.
Polarizing Views or
Questions 1. As professionals, faculty members should keep their personal beliefs (religious, ethical, etc.) and political activities entirely private - outside the academy. 2. Faculty members should encourage and permit students to express personal or political opinions only when directly relevant to specific course assignments made within the institutionally-approved curriculum. 3. The speech and actions of each member of a learning community should always reflect his/her deepest convictions - personal, political, etc. ["Are there any boundaries?"] 4. No faculty member can establish a genuine personal connection with every student. No student can establish a genuine personal connection with every faculty member. Students and faculty members should not establish genuine personal connections.
GAINS: RISKS:
|
III. Worthwhile Results
List desirable, feasible outcomes of participating in “Dangerous Discussions” activities for this issue. [At the very least, deflate the hype and defuse artificial disagreements – restate the issue and challenge in more realistic and less inflammatory ways. And then accomplish something that is visibly and demonstrably useful!] What are some of the desirable outcomes that would be easiest to agree on and accomplish? [Select one or two, agree on a plan, and get working!] What are some of the desirable outcomes that are feasible, but would be most difficult to accomplish? [Agree on a realistic timetable and plan for one or two of the most important of these and defer others.] What are one or two of the desirable outcomes that are so difficult that we should exclude them from these efforts (perhaps find some other way of proceeding or simply learn to live with the disappointment). EXAMPLES: Email vs. F2F for Faculty-Student Contact (Office Hours?) Students uncomfortable expressing support for war in Iraq in classroom Christian student organization distributing info via Whitman mailboxes, etc. - info invites participation [proselytization?] Flashlight Online Survey - designed to enable Whitman College participants to identify easy/difficult outcomes and prepare to set priorities for their work together. Preliminary Results of Flashlight Online Survey for Whitman College 3-6-2006 1. ...Actions 2. ...Policies |
|
|
IV. Evidence and
Priorities 1. ... Generic Questions 1. What evidence is already available and likely to help make relevant decisions? 2. What kinds of additional evidence would be likely to help make relevant decisions? 3. Why are people unlikely to be influenced by apparently relevant evidence? What other factors are likely to influence relevant decisions? 4. What priorities (institutional, personal, ...) might make some kinds of evidence irrelevant? might influence the impact of evidence? |
|||
|
V. What do YOU care about most? Personally, professionally, ...?[See also "Fundamental Questions"] 1. What do you most want to gain?
[Regain?] |
|||
|
ONLINE
RESOURCES - Examples
of Online Tools
|
|||
|
Inquiry, Evidence, Argument:
“The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”
Are different methods of inquiry, different methods of argument, and
different definitions of evidence appropriate in different realms? On campus
vs. off campus? In different academic disciplines? To what extent can or should a faculty member control the kinds of argument permitted in a classroom discussion? In an online discussion?
New Technologies, New
Boundaries, New Connections
New Definitions of
Appropriate Behavior Is “harassment” online different from “harassment” on campus or elsewhere?
New
Professional/Personal/Political Boundaries To what extent should faculty members’ outside-the-classroom, off-campus experience and beliefs in “relevant” areas be acknowledged or discussed with students? How/where?
Individual vs. Institutional
Rights and Responsibilities How, if at all, does “in loco parentis” apply to what a student who lives in a campus dorm writes in a blog that resides on a commercial server? The college or university probably has no direct control of the blog at all, but might have control of the student’s access to the Internet. |
|||
|
READINGS, REFERENCES, DEFINITIONS I. Definitions of Authentication and Authenticity Authentication in computing/Internet: “…the process by which a computer, computer program, or another user attempts to confirm that the computer, computer program, or user from whom the second party has received some communication is, or is not, the claimed first party. - Wikipedia, 2/10/06 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authentication Authenticity in education: “Being authentic means that what you see is what you get. What I believe, what I say, and what I do are consistent. Of course creating that consistency is a lifelong challenge as we encounter new experiences, new persons and new information.” – Chickering, p. 8, in Encouraging Authenticity & Spirituality in Higher Education.
II.
Encouraging Authenticity and
Spirituality in Higher Education III. Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card
Full text of novelette available at:
Analog magazine, August, 1977. Extended and published as a full novel
in 1985. IV. Something about the Turing Test … “…In the Turing test, a judge has conversations (via teletype) with two systems, one human, the other a machine. The conversations can be about anything, and proceed for a set period of time (e.g., an hour). If, at the end of this time, the judge cannot distinguish the machine from the human on the basis of the conversation, then Turing argued that we would have to say that the machine was intelligent.” a. Dictionary of Cognitive Science, Univ. of Alberta, Michael R. W. Dawson, David A. Medler http://www.bcp.psych.ualberta.ca/%7emike/Pearl_Street/Dictionary/contents/T/turing_test.html as of 2-5-2006 V. 1st chapter of George Lakoff’s _Don't Think of an Elephant_ Know Your Values and Frame the Debate http://www.chelseagreen.com/2004/items/elephant Note: the Lakoff chapter may be irritating to some people, but his concept of “framing” is very useful for working on the kinds of issues we’ll be exploring. |
|||
|
Your Questions, Suggestions, Comments If you have any questions or comments about this workshop, please contact Lisa Star at online@tltgroup.org Please send your questions or suggestions for improving our online workshops - including topics or leader/presenters that you would like us to include.
Send to Steve Gilbert at:
|
|||
Joys and Sorrows
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
TLT-SWG Highly Moderated Listserver Since 1994 Faculty/Professional Development Program |
|||