A Scholarly Game...

Building on the previous post…

A colleague of mine teaches a rhetorical criticism. In her early class, she asked the class to define the following terms and then discuss their similarities and differences: Rhetoric and Education. To this list I would add Propaganda and Indoctrination.

What do these terms means and how do we understand them and use them in the classroom?

Advocates for the “Student Bill of Rights” argue for a balanced classroom (though they never petition business schools to teach Marx.) What does this ultimately mean? What are the limits to having a balance of ideas in a class? (I imagine that business schools would not teach Marx because they would say Marx is wrong. But is this a correct view of history?)

This is not about indoctrination...

One of my students told me about this film. I have not seen it yet. Here is a clip from ABC News.



The preview of the movie states that the movie is well balanced. It does not state whether or not the people at the camp are sane or insane.

Where do Iraqis stand on Roe v. Wade?

Yesterday, an article in The Washington Post discussed the number one characteristic potential Defense Department employees would need in order to work in Iraq: no, it is not knowledge about the Middle East nor knowledge on post-war reconstruction; these would be beneficial. No, the number one characteristic was loyalty to President Bush.

Some great excerpts from the article:

"O'Beirne's staff posed blunt questions to some candidates about domestic politics: Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror? Two people who sought jobs with the U.S. occupation authority said they were even asked their views on Roe v. Wade."

"A 24-year-old who had never worked in finance -- but had applied for a White House job -- was sent to reopen Baghdad's stock exchange. The daughter of a prominent neoconservative commentator and a recent graduate from an evangelical university for home-schooled children were tapped to manage Iraq's $13 billion budget, even though they didn't have a background in accounting."

"To recruit the people he wanted, O'Beirne sought résumés from the offices of Republican congressmen, conservative think tanks and GOP activists. He discarded applications from those his staff deemed ideologically suspect, even if the applicants possessed Arabic language skills or postwar rebuilding experience."

"Smith said O'Beirne once pointed to a young man's résumé and pronounced him "an ideal candidate." His chief qualification was that he had worked for the Republican Party in Florida during the presidential election recount in 2000."

"One former CPA employee who had an office near O'Beirne's wrote an e-mail to a friend describing the recruitment process: "I watched résumés of immensely talented individuals who had sought out CPA to help the country thrown in the trash because their adherence to 'the President's vision for Iraq' (a frequently heard phrase at CPA) was 'uncertain.' I saw senior civil servants from agencies like Treasury, Energy . . . and Commerce denied advisory positions in Baghdad that were instead handed to prominent RNC (Republican National Committee) contributors."

I have very little faith in either party, and if the Republicans win the mid-term elections, I will have even less faith. How can one party diminish almost their entire ethos and still hold office and still receive support from citizens in this republic?

Plato may be correct.

A Fanatical Devotion to the Pope

Over the weekend I found out that certain people-- certain people who write for this blog-- have never watched "The Spanish Inquisition." Ha. Ha. Ha. (Diabolical Laughter.) Nobody expecs the Spanish Inquisition.

Addressing democratic education again...

In CULTURE WARS: SCHOOL AND SOCIETY IN THE CONSERVATIVE RESTORATION, Ira Shor writes the following:

"Students will resist any process that disempowers them. Unequal, disabling education is symbolic violence against them, which they answer with their own skills of resistance--silence, disruption, non-performance, cheating, lateness, absence, vandalisim, etc. Very familiar school routines produce this alienation: teacher-talk, passive instruction in pre-set materials, punitive testing, moronic back-to-basics and mechanical drills, impersonal and shabby classrooms, tracking, the denial of sexual themes and other subjects important to them, the exclusion of student co-participation in curriculum design and governance, and the outlawing of popular idioms in favor of correct usage" (183).

A lot of composition theorist (particularly critical pedagogues) make these sorts of claims. They tell us that student resistance is rooted in the oppressive nature of teacher-oriented education. And I suppose that this argument makes sense, but it doesn't answer for why teachers who enact student-centered classrooms are also met with resistance. I wonder if it's not just an issue of youthful rebellion. No matter what your pedagogy--whether you downplay your authority or not--students will always view teachers as authorities and many of them will rebel accordingly.

For Harrogate, who likes raisins and D&D:

Education in 15 Years

In both of my classes (one on Social Movements, one on Religious Communication- Church/State Conflict), we discussed Facebook. The majority of students in both classes use Facebook (I have never used it and I never liked the lack of Privacy with it) but they were upset with the new Privacy changes that allowed users to track the movements of other users.

While discussing Facebook in my Social Movements, we discussed Communication phenomenon that would cover the use of facebook. I, being rhetorically minded, thought of two: (1) symbolic convergence theory and (2) technological determinism. While I am not a big fan of the first, I, sometimes, concede the power of the second.

After discussing technological determinism, I have spent most of the afternoon thinking about education. Oxymoron provided a post last week about "Democracy" and "Education," through an online Tech Writing class. I still remain unconcvinced that Democracy and Education are two values that should be combined together, but I digress.

This leads me to the point of my post: What will be the state of education in 15 years?

There seems to be a few trends that I have noticed over the last few years since I have been pursuing my Ph.D.
(1) Students read very little to not at all. This decreases the amount of traditional literacy.
(2) Students spend more time on facebook or watching t.v. or working or hanging out.
(3) Students do not spend as much time developing critical thinking skills. With the rise of a business education, there is less focus on writing or critical thinking than there is on consuming.
(4) Students need to be entertained..

How will these developments alter education?
Will professors need to spend more time entertaining students than teaching them and getting them to think?
Will professors need to develop different "literacy" skills to speak to their audience?
Is egalitarianism or democracy good or necessary for education?
How do we persuade our students to be "students"? Now? In 5 years? 10? 15?
How does political affiliation alter education? Do students look to see the politics of the prof and is this necessary for education? Will this alter education? Will it doom education?

The absurdity of picking NFL games, let alone a Season

I decided I would be absurd as the experts by picking the records of NFL teams game by game before the season begins.

Why? Each week during the season, my wife and I pick the winners. Last season I picked 62% of the games correctly for the season. My highest week (Week 9) I went 12 - 2, picking 85%. For my lowest week, I picked only 43% (6w - 8l-- the only week I was under .500).

This system does not account for many things: It only looks at head to head (no injuris, no in week momentum). But here it is:

AFC

AFC East:
MIami Dolphins: 12 - 4
Buffalo: 11 - 5
New England: 10 - 6
N.Y. Jets: 3 - 13

AFC North:
Cincinnati: 14 - 2
Pittsburg: 10 - 6
Cleveland: 6 - 10
Baltimore: 5 - 11

AFC South:
Indianapolis: 14 - 2
Jacksonville: 11 - 5
Tennessee: 3 - 13
Houston: 2 - 14

AFC West
Denver: 13 - 3
San Diego: 12 - 4
Kansas City: 7 - 9
Oakland: 2 - 14

NFC

NFC East:
Philadelphia: 12 - 4
NY Giants: 10 - 6
Dallas: 9 -7
Washington: 9 - 7

NFC Norris:
Chicago: 13 - 3
Detroit: 4 - 12
Minnesota: 4- 12
Green Bay: 3 - 13

NFC South:
Carolina 14 - 2
Tampa Bay: 10 - 6
Atlanta: 6 - 10
New Orleans: 4 - 12

NFC Who Cares?
Seattle 13 - 3
Arizona: 8 - 8
St. Louis: 7 - 9
San Fransico: 1 - 15

Playoffs:
AFC Seeds
(1) Indy
(2) Denver
(3) Cinci
(4) Miami
(5) San Diego
(6) Buffalo

NFC Seeds
(1) Carolina
(2) Seattle
(3) Chicago
(4) Philly
(5) NY Giants
(6) Tampa

AFC Playoffs
Cinci over Buffalo
San Diego over Miami
Indy over San Diego
Cinci over Denver
Indy over Cincinnati

NFC
Chicago over Tampa
Philly over NY Giants
Carolina over Philly
Seattle over Chicago
Carolina over Seattle

Indy over Carolina

Comments:
There should be a + or - 2 associated with this.

AFC: East
Miami- if #8 stays healthy and he regains his touch, they win the division. If not, place New England or Buffalo here.
Buffalo is my suprise team from the AFC because their back 8 is so favorable- aside from INDY, their two "hardest" games are against Miami and Jacksonville in Western New York after November 1st. Unfortunately, Bills fans have become conditioned to ignore the Bills from November on. Instead, the fans in Buffalo turn to the Sabres from the near beginning, hoping they will raise the Cup in the Spring of 2007.
New England will not make the playoffs this year. This is their year to fall. I blame injuries and their kicker. But mostly, I just want to watch them not make the playoffs and return to being the hapless Pats of the 1980's and 1990's.
NY Jets. Oh well. Some people watch college football because they enjoy it. You'll watch college football to find a quarterback for next year. And maybe a running back. And maybe 20 other people.

AFC: North
Cinci: if Carson's knee holds up, AFC championship. If not, Pittsburg will claim the division.
Pitt: Good luck. But distractions will rip through this team and my 10-6 record will end up looking optimistic.
Cleveland: Go Brownies. You will earn respect eventually but you will not overcome a first week loss to New Orleans.
Baltimore: I just don't think Mr. Fragile will be the answer.

AFC South:
Indy- Repeat again this year: "This is your year Peyton." At least you have a better kicker. I hope he is healthy.
Jacksonville- This record is way to high for you. But, you will at least win 4 - 5 in your division. Now that you have a tough schedule, let's see if having no offense will help you. A freak second half blizzard in Buffalo will doom you and keep you out of the playoffs.
Tenn- Vince Young today. Vince Young Tomorrow. Vince Young... will you ever hold on to the ball?. Your other options won't help.
Houston- Maybe next year you'll take the top player in the draft when you have the #1 pick. Oh. You won't get the number one pick because San Fransico will.

AFC: West
Denver: At least you'll lose to a new team in the playoffs this year.
San Diego: Playoff bound. But it won't help.
Kansas City: How Long till Coach Edwards will want to coach the Steelers?
Raiders: I will refuse to use any Aaron Brooks jokes- so, let's see how Brady Quinn will look in black instead of Gold and Green. Will the refs protect him in the pro's as they do in college?

NFC: East
Philly- Fresh air and a division title.
NY Giants- Just beause you play in the NFC. That is the only way in which you will reach the playoffs.
Dalllas- Tony. Toni. Tony. Toni. WIll Drew retire or want to be traded? If Toni Romo is not starting by Oct., the city will implode.
Washington: Another team where the focus will be on the backup quarterback for most of the season.

NFC: North:
Chicago: I do not believe that Chicago will win 13 games. However, I do not have the time to go back week to week and correct this. Nor do I care to do this for a team that will lose in the second round of the playoffs. Let's face it. Their division is terrible and they should go 6-0 in the division. They will lose 2 to the AFC east and one to Seattle. They beat Tampa because they play in Chicago after October.
Detroit, Green Bay, and Minnesota: You will only beat each other. If you beat someone else, no one will notice.

NFC: South:
Carolina: You'll lose another Superbowl. But it is not your year. Maybe next year.
Tampa: A sixth team needs to make the playoffs and you are that team. Good Luck.
Atlanta: I want to like this team but I cannot find anything about them on the field that makes me want to say they will be successful.
New Orleans: They'll make the playoffs in 07. But this year?

I wish your team(s) luck this year. Unless of course your team is Dallas, New England, Houston, Detroit, Green Bay, or San Francisco. For the first two, I do not care. For the last four, you have no hope and you should pick up another hobby. Or maybe read a book. Or maybe go for a walk. Or maybe adopt a cat. Or maybe...

Only one 3-bedroom left...

I was driving to the store the other day, when I saw an apartment complex advertising a three-bedroom vacancy. I was immediately reminded of a similar sign in Omaha, Nebraska.

After finishing by B.A. a few years back, Mrs. Oxymoron and I moved to Omaha, where I would work on my Master's degree. A few months before our move, we made a trip to that lovely Nebraska town to look for an apartment. We were looking for a place with two bedrooms. As we drove along Dodge Street, we saw a very nice complex with a big sign that read, "Only one 3-bedroom apartment left." A phone number was also present.

I said to my wife, "I know they've only got one 3-bedroom left, but I wonder if they have any two-bedrooms available." She wondered as well, as the sign could be read in one of two ways. Either the sign meant that they had only one apartment left, and it happened to be a 3-bedroom; or it meant that they had only one of their 3-bedroom floorplans left. The latter interpretation suggests that some 2-bedroom and studios might still be available.

Desperate for a nice place, I called the apartment manager. I said, "I just drove by [name of apartments], and your sign said that you only have one 3-bedroom apartment left. I was wondering if you have any 2-bedrooms available." His response took a derogatory tone: "Well, what's the sign say?" I tried to explain that it was a bit ambiguous, but he acted as though I were unable to read a simple sign. He cut me off, saying, "We only have a 3-bedroom left." Then he hung up.

I felt stupid, which is typically warranted, but not this time.

Humor from the NFL

The New England Patriots traded for Doug Gabriel. According to CNNSI: "The Raiders received an undisclosed draft choice" [for Gabriel]."

Now, this is powerful writing. According to the article, the Raiders traded #2 Wide Receiver and do not know what they will receive in return. I guess New England wanted to suprise them. I imagine when the two teams discussed the terms of the trade, New England said, "We'd like Gabriel. Sure, we'll give you something... Nudge. Nudge. Wink. Wink. Say no more, say no more. A nod is as good as a wink to a blind bat."

And Oakland must have said: "Wow! Suprise us! We love surprises. I mean, look at our quarterback situation. We also love to figure out just what is going through Randy Moss' head most days."

Maybe the report should read: "Terms of the deal were not disclosed," or, "Oakland did not state what it received in the day," or, "No one really cares about Oakland in the first place so we will only report on what New England does. Like college football, people only want to hear about Notre Dame so we will only tell you about the fighting Irish."

The Same Bat Wages

I saw this on Andrew Sullivan. It needs wider play. What would Batgirl say today?

What's a Democracy?

Keith Olbermann, former Sports Center host, calls Rumsfeld for task on Rummy's recent speech to the American Foreign Legion.



The text of the speech can be found here.

This week, both President Bush and Rumsfeld played the 1940's Fascism card. I will try to post more on these speeches this weekend.

Lost footage fuels suspicion (even more)

"Tis a Fair Court"

This story continues to bother me.

To review: Professor William Woodward at Wisconsin believes certain conspiracies about 9/11 (For a review of conspiracy theories, go here. For refutations of the conspiracies, go here.) According to Inside Higher Ed, the professor believes that, "U.S. leaders have lied about what they know about 9/11, and were involved in a conspiracy that led to the massive deaths on that day, setting the stage for the war with Iraq." Sometimes, he expresses these views in class (the article states that when he discusses his views, he makes clear to students that his views “are controversial” and that most people disagree. (Local press reports, quoting students of a variety of political views, back Woodward’s summary of his class approach on the issue.) However, the article does not say how he presents these views, especially if he offers his students a chance to refute them or if he mentions other views. Academically, Woodward studies psychology, focusing on political psychology and psychology of race. This semester he is teaching a class on Islam.

State and Congressional Representatives, mainly Republicans, want the University to fire Professor Woodward. According to Inside Higher Ed, one representative wants to fire Woodward because, "“there are limitations to academic freedom and freedom of speech” and that “it is inappropriate for someone at a public university which is supported with taxpayer dollars to take positions that are generally an affront to the sensibility of most all Americans.”

My question is simple: instead of trying to refute the arguments by using, oh, I don't know, evidence, why do politicians employ red herrings? And further, as one commenter to the post said, why are these officials concerned about offending the sentiments of the people when so many things legislators do offend the people?

Virtual balls

The semester officially started yesterday. I'm teaching a Web-based technical writing class for the first time. I love teaching writing, so I've been a bit bummed out about the idea of not having the traditional student-teacher interaction to which I'm accustomed. On the other hand, I've been quite excited about engaging Internet technology as a full-time teaching tool.

Yesterday, I sent an instructional handout to my students. The handout tells them how to login to and navigate through our course site. It's pretty basic stuff. Now, for anyone who has taught before, you know that it can be difficult to get students to speak up during the first week or two of class. Such is not the case online. Within no time of emailing the handout, students started browsing the site and even introducing themselves. The introductions began without any sort of prompting by me. As soon as they found the blog section of the site, they just started writing. I'm still a bit in shock.

What makes the rhetorical situation of the online course so different than that of the traditional classroom that students are anxious to speak up? I don't know. But I do have a few ideas. Two, in particular:

1) The online course let's students create ideal personae. Unlike the traditional classroom, instead of feeling that their real selves--personality flaws and all--are on constant display, the virtual classroom let's students reveal to the public only those qualities that they want to reveal, those qualities with which they are most comfortable. Stduents feel less exposed online.

2) Given the (theoretically) democratic nature of Internet technology, maybe the oppressive structure of the traditional classroom is circumvented, creating an honest-to-God decentered classroom. Accordingly, instead of waiting for teachers to fill their heads with knowledge, students take a more active role in their education. If this is true, then teachers of online courses may finally become those facilitators for which process pedagogy has had them striving for nearly forty years.

I don't know if either of these points is relevant. But they seem very likely to me. In the end, however, I don't really care what drives the eagerness of students to participate in the online course. I'm just glad they seem to be excited it.

For your enjoyment and intellectual stimulation

Having not made a blog entry for several days, I nearly forgot how genius my posts were. This one is certainly no exception.

For the Money: #10 of Top Ten Worst Reasons For Going To Graduate School In The Humanities

Harrogate realizes that this one's so obvious to everyone considering entering the field, that it probably merits no elaboration whatever. Yet, because humanities professors tend to own houses, as well as cars made within five years, and they for the most part seem to know their way around airports, and the like, Harrogate could see how a cautionary word or two might be in order.

Simply remember this. Consider those who enjoy the most material success as a result of being a humanities professor at a major institution. Take their work ethic, their talent, intellect, and ingenuity, and factor this in with their willingness to put up with b.s. generally, and then enter those elements into a business endeavor of almost any kind, and you wind up with so much more material reward, and so much less loan burden along the way, that it's infinitely more mind boggling than the fact that Pluto has suddenly been stripped of planetary status (it has been stripped, that is, at least untl the steroids allegations are cleared up--Pluto continues to maintain it is not, nor has ever been, juiced, but whatever).

In forthcoming posts Harrogate will elaborate on the nine other, far more seductive and thus pervasive worst reasons for getting a doctorate in the humanities. Until then, gentle humans, take care. Take care.

For Solon: Bret Hull Was In The Crease

OK, one more and then Harrogate will refrain from YouTube for a bit. But this one's been bothering Harrogate for more than seven years, now. Indeed, it is something Harrogate the only moderately enthusiastic hockey fan will take to his grave. That, of course, and one smokin' body.

Triple H Entrance Backyard

Harrogate is breaking back into the blogging business slowly, after a week off whilst visiting with family. So, to follow in the tradition of the already-controversial _Basic Instinct_ parody he posted earlier, here is a great parodic/tributary treatment of the great Triple H, one that foregrounds the concept rhetoricians refer to as Register. Enjoy, fellow humans. Enjoy.

Heh, heh