English Club Chatter

OK, I just had an idea about how to track new members- I'll put a sign in sheet at the entrance to the coffeehouse, and the student can write who invited them. Also, I think we can procure some funds to buy some pizza, but if anyone else wants to bring some snack foods, plates and cups, drinks, or desserts, please let me know and I will love you forever. In a figurative sense.

Does anyone want to go to the Shakespeare play that Jim suggested in the last thread (Sept 22, 23)? If so, we can arrange carpooling and such. Some of us went to a production over the summer and it was a lot of fun, so another trip might well be worth the gas money...

There are other theater options this term, too, so if the 22nd and 23rd are too soon, we can wait and try something else. Dr. Fahey was telling me, for instance, that the College of Wooster is doing a production of King Lear, and Love's Labours Lost is in Cleveland. Thos are just the Shakespeare options too (there are other playwrights!).

On the BIG QUESTION Trish raises -- the one for the Forum -- there are a million things to discuss, but here's one thought. Lurking somewhere in this national debate, I think, is the question of who decides what students should study. In our consumer, we're used to thinking the customer is always right, and we often apply (wrongly I think) a business model to education. So if a student is faced in class with something she finds offensive or uncomfortable, we feel she ought to have the right to reject it. Is this really true? Oughtn't learning to be partly about confronting new ideas that may be challenging, difficult, or even offensive? And (from the other side) doesn't a professor have an obligation to her field (even, dare I say it, the "truth") as well as to the students? What do you think?

No offense HH. I know they might consider this "hate speech" in Canada. but...

is it true that they give you the key that unlocks the mysteries of the universe when you receive your Ph.D? Please...enighten me.

Why should the sub-serviant minion students not question the 'key holders' authority? Are they worried they might get stoned to death?

...the student that is. no harm. Just a ravaged mind wanting the answers to it all.

What precisely do you consider to be a matter of authority? I have met maybe a couple of professors at Mansfield for whom a challenge or alternative to their opinions seems problematic, but that may just be my perception. Most seem receptive to thoughtful differences provided there is a strong basis for these expressions and that they can be backed up in a scholarly fashion.

Students should carefully consider and question much. These are major components of the learning process at this level. What might be best to avoid, however, are overly emotional and/or ambiguous responses which have a tendancy to either be gut based, meaningless, or easily and misconstrued. While these may just be the desired effect such as in anarchy, shock, and attention seeking, specific examples would be more helpful than seemingly random sour grapes.

Actually, tolkein, there's nothing at all mysterious about a Ph.D. What you get at the end is a certificate (as you do with a B.A.). All this testifies to is your having completed graduate coursework (2 and 1/2 years in my case) and other pre-dissertation requirements (in my case, several language exams and a series of oral exams on various topics), as well as a dissertation, which is essentially a book that makes some contribution to your field. You spend a number of years reading, thinking, discussing, writing, and being tested, and if you pass you get the degree.

As for the gatekeeper metaphor, is that really how it works? OSU is a public university, and on the Mansfield campus there is open admission, which means anyone can come and learn. And why would anyone become a university teacher if they're not interested in teaching? It seems to me that this institution is just crying out, "Hey, come on in and let us teach you what we know!"

We could certainly talk about different ways the university might be constructed. In the sixties (and earlier), for instance, there were experiments with colleges where students designed their own programs without constraint, or where there were no grades (or, in the schools, no grade levels). None of these seem to have caught on, though that doesn't necessarily mean they had no merit. The set-up we have at OSU-M is pretty simple. Students come here to learn. They learn from professors who have spent (and continue to spend) years learning knowledge and skills. The reason the professors are paid to teach is that they have the necessary knowledge and skills. The reason the students pay to learn is because (a) they don't have the knowledge and skills they would like to have, and (b) they recognize that they can acquire these from the professors at the university.

Obviously it's a little more complex, but not much. No mysteries, no keys, no gates. Or actually I guess there is a gate, but it's an exit rather than an entrance -- the exit you pass through when you have attained your degree.

But all this is a little off-topic. What I was really concerned with is the relationship between the teacher, the student, and the body of knowledge and skills involved in a field or discipline. For example (the obvious one), doesn't a professor of Anthropology have a responsibility to teach the subject as it is currently understood by the consensus of the scientific community? If so, then the theory of evolution must be central to the course. A student may, on the basis of religious belief, feel that evolution is offensive, but does that mean the student should be able to pass the course without learning evolution? You might say this is an infringement of the student's rights, but does a student have a right to learn whatever she wants in a university course? Doesn't the professor (or the university) have a resposibility to ensure that any student who passes a certain course, or achieves a certain degree has the knowledge and skills those seem to imply? Now, no one is required to take Anthropology, so if you're uncomfortable with evolution, you can take English or History instead, but if you want to close off your mind to protect it from certain uncomfortable knowledge, you'll probably find some difficulties in English and History too.

Here's another problem, one that might come up in an English class: what if a student felt that Black people or Jews were inferior to Whites or that Gays and Lesbians were evil? How should a professor respond if this student voices these opinions in class? This seems relevant to our free-speech discussion. Should the professor squash the bigotted student (either in keeping with university policies on discrimination or to protect minority students in the class)? Should the professor encourage open debate about race, religion, or sexual orientation? Should the professor simply let the student's comments pass, in the interest of protecting that student's free-speech rights?

What do you think (on either issue)?

No, Jim..I think you are right. Most Professors are open even if a disagreement is prevalent.

And if they are not well then the student adapts.

However, back to HH's point about 'a business' verse a classroom. This pertains to Jim's thread as well. No, of course a class should not be treated as a business. (this does not mean there should not be some structure. Why else would you spend days preparing lessons) And no the student is not always right. However, a degree of professionalism should not be absent in such an environment.

Sure '20 somes' are adults. But are they not adults in transition? We may not see this in Mansfield because most '20 some' students are surrounded by 40 year olds. In other words, it's not your typical university environment.

However, visit OSU Columbus and then these '20 year old students' became..well…twenty again. . They are not completely wrapped around one pillar. Now this is a very broad brush...I realize. Not always applicable. But the undergrad is in transition no matter how old they might 'act'.

So is then a professor not an advisor? I think they are. So should this relationship not be kept professional or at least attempted. If that line of proffessionalism is breached then what does this relationship become. Just a bunch of friends hanging out in a cramped room?

Back to HH's other previous point...If the professor feels they are right and no other answer is obtainable then fine. Teach it. But should one 'truth' be imposed at the cost of another 'truth'?

HH. It seems like you certainly have that desire to enhance the professionalism in your environment. It wouldn’t surprise me if you, at one time, had experience teaching to a younger audience during one point in your career.

Tolkein,

Perfectly true -- I taught High School for several years before returning to university for my Ph.D. And I do believe in professionalism, though I think this doesn't mean a class can't be friendly and fun. I see what you mean, though, about the dangers of excess in that direction. I've had very nice and friendly teachers who taught me nothing, and I've had teachers who scared me to death that taught me a lot. But there are so many variables. The point is for teachers to be teaching and students to be learning, however it works. That's why we're all on campus, after all.

This all seems somewhat off the topic Trish suggested, however -- a preliminary discussion of the free speech forum. Can I suggest perhaps that either we start up another thread on the teacher-student relationship, or friendliness versus professionalism (or whatever)? I'd even be happy to pursue this discussion via email, tolkein, if you're inclined. It's a touchy subject, perhaps, so you may prefer to keep it anonymous, but I would be happy to talk or correspond anytime (hamlin.22@osu.edu). It sounds as if you may have some specific issues on your mind, and I'd be happy to hear what you have to say and offer my perspective (or whatever is appropriate).

As for your final point, which does sort of get us back to speech in the classroom, I didn't mean to imply that teaching should involve spouting a single, categorical "Truth," that the students dutifully copy down. In English, at least in my experience, that almost never happens. We tend to deal in small-t "truths" rather than capital-T "Truth." And when you're dealing with the meaning and interpretation of literature, it's always an ongoing and developing process. On the other hand, I know my colleagues in the sciences often take a different approach, and with good reason. If there are hard facts you have to learn, then does it profit anyone to debate them? In pre-med you have to memorize a staggering amount of stuff, about which there is little room fo interpretation (chemical reactions always work a certain way, and human physiology has a certain basic structure, etc.). Even History, although there is plenty of room for debate and interpretation, there are certain facts that must be learned -- you can argue about why the American Revolution came about, but you can't dispute the date of the first shot fired in Concord, MA. But even here, it's not like the truth is being "imposed" upon students -- surely these kinds of truths are what they want to learn?

Ok, I’ve been reading but not responding to this blog for a while…but…well damn it I have to respond to HH on one point and then I’ll slink back into the shadows. Ok two points, first when discussing what should be taught and who decides you have to realize there are two distinct groups of students. One group that wants that piece of paper so the can own the BMW and one group that wants knowledge (there are no doubt others as well but they fall into sub groups of the two). So I guess you have to balance the two groups against the established norms and taboos and strike some sort of compromise.

Next, and what really got me was Do We Let The Racist, Sexist, Bigoted, Etc, Etc…Student express his/her ideas? We do not. Not that we shouldn’t, that would be debatable, but as a practical matter the truth is we don’t allow people to step very far out of the accepted norms. An interesting experiment to prove this would be for a professor to give a history of an imaginary country (or race if they could pull it off) and then attribute negative attributes to the inhabitants. I would be willing to wager that soon there would be some champion of the imaginary group pop up to remind us that we shouldn’t “judge” others and that it is wrong to disrespect different cultures. This would only work in a class where students were at ease with the proff but it would be interesting.

Ok, now it's back to the shadows for me.

and there is a good reason for this separation. Crossing the line looks like what we occasionally see here. Or at least the consequence. and this most certainly does not help the student.

oops...got cut off. try this one.

Well. It's a little hard to follow. But I think it's somewhat understandable. I am not sure that "student=bigoted, racist etc.". Sure, I know this comment would be entailed as sarcasm by the previous poster ( Bennett). I am not quite certain, but there probally are not too many professors that inheritably believe these qualities inhabit the student.

So I am assuming 'Bennett' is a proponent of free speech in the class room. And fantastic. However, with all due respect, we must understand what free speech is. Does free speech guarantee you the pulpit? Does it mean that one should be made for you if one does not exist? and back to my previous point in a previous post…..is a college class room an environment where we hang out and yell out ideas? or do we listen to the ideas in a structure suitable for .... learning. (this is I suppose considered a classroom.)

If we believe we are always right...then does this not make all of us right. And if this is the case why even bother with school. So someone is wrong. someone is right. of course opinion is never right. but as hh previously stated in so many words...2+2=4. well. I tell you. that is right.

Sure. students want an environment where they can be considered right and 'hang out and yell out'. But what separates the student from the professor then?

I think Bennett made my previous point from my previous post...a professor is an advisor to the 'transitional adult' aka 'twenty some' student.

and there is a good reason for this separation. Crossing the line looks like what we occasionally see here. Or at least the consequence. and it most certainly does not help the student.

I'm reading and listening carefully to the posts in here, but I feel I must be missing some key bit of information or implied information that is central to this discussion and, I think, at least peripheral to other discussions.

This is unfortunate because I want to be able to join in on the dialogue in here, but I sense that I'm not even talking about what other people are "talking about".

If anyone would care to enlighten me as to the hidden agenda or the two-ton elephant I missed, please email me at snyder.524@osu.edu. I'm not after innuendo or gossip, but would like any case of truth so that I can absorb the comments in a more helpful context.

Thank you.

Jim, you're not alone, I'm sure, in feeling left out. I would hope that we could all find a way to reserve, if not abandon, the cryptic (and mostly personal) remarks for non-public fora. As club advisor, HH has the final word, but as English faculty, I find the "wink wink nudge nudge" routine a bit tiresome.

Passive-Aggression in loopy ones, must not unwatched go.

I know what you mean. A nod isn't always as good as a wink.

I find it to be a perfectly reasonable topic. I'm not to sure about Benny's personal cut but nevertheless....

Is it not legitimate to discuss 'roles' and how these roles should be defined in and outside of the classroom? I thought our intellectual capabilities did not stop at the class room door. I thought this is why the faculty expanded the classroom to the realm of cyberspace. Which is, most certainly, an appropriate venue of sharing between student and advisor.

I believe that it is certainly legitimate to discuss roles, however it seems a dangerous road to try to define the roles in and/or out of the classroom. We are each of us unique, and, lest we revert to secondary or primary school type atmospheres where roles seem more easily defined, it is likely counterproductive to learning and growth for the 'transitional adult' to conitnue to be constrained in a defined role. Even the term 'transitional adult', someone's attempt to define and label, is problematic. Some twenty-somethings (and thirty, forty, etc.-somethings) appear closer to the 't' in transitional and some closer to the 'l'. Isn't it a disservice, then, to try to define all roles all the time?
Clearly harassment and other infringements of citizen's rights require definition and appropriate legitimate consequences, but some things might be best served with cautionary guidelines, particularly where individual rights are concerned. While these may carry with them peripheral or personal consequences (hence the cautions and guidelines), to have it otherwise seems to me to be begging legal and, likely, unnecessary personal turmoil.
Fortunately we are still afforded in this country and this academic environment the ability to voice nearly all of our opinions and to discuss these opinions freely and openly with free and open minds. At least it seems to work best with open minds.

Now we're on a roll. So Jim...then you understand that these predefined roles provide an element of safety or at least may be reasonable. Of course you refer to this as a set of 'cautionary guidelines'.

These 'guidelines' allow this safe environment where the student or employee would not feel pressure from 'out of the classroom or workspace' influences through the actions of a superior. Maybe they retain the pressure and intimidation of making the grade but at least these 'cautionary guidelines' forbid certain elements of intimidation from superiors.

Of course you can feel intimidated by a professor in the classroom. However, is this not normal. We all have worries about making that grade. Maybe the professor is very demanding and expects more from his or her students. But this sort of intimidation is different from say the intimidation through 'sexual harassment'.

Your example was sexual harassment. Perfectly acceptable. If there were no predefined roles then the premise of sexual harassment would be non-existent. Am I wrong?

Of course some choose not to perceive these roles. But these roles do exist, right? Then the question I pose (which I believe Jim began to answer) do these roles serve an honorable purpose? Are they not helpful to the growth and achievement of the subordinate? Could it be possible that if we step beyond these roles then it may in the end diminish our achievements?

I did mention harassment, not necessarily limited to the sexual nature and certainly not wholly pertaining to authoritative/subordinate scenarios. I'm not sure I follow what you mean by predefined roles, which makes responding difficult. Are you referring to certain expectations individuals carry with them into and out of the classroom? Or are you specifically referring to roles as might be defined in institutional policy? Once again, using the term 'roles' to me creates limitations. So, your assumption that I "understand that these predefined roles provide an element of safety or at least may be reasonable" may or may not be true depending on what you are talking about. I don't recall indicating that I had any understanding of predefined roles. I agree that any form of undue abuse of authority by a person of authority unto a person in a subordinate role is unethical. Undue abuse seems more readily definable than all things pertaining to matters of ethics.

At least I think am beginning to understand where all of the earlier blogs were leading, though it has taken time and effort. This will certainly make it easier for me to drop out of the conversation. It seems unfair to talk in generalizations and then apply the words of others who respond in generalizations to things more specific. I'm still a bit politically naive.

And, in almost any circumstance, I feel you are wrong if you think sexual harassment would not exist even if there were no 'predefined roles'.
Your questions as to the honorable nature of roles, at least for me, need some clarification, lest my responses be misconstrued.

Also, I'm with HH on this one as far as this being an improper venue for specific instances of certain issues. Done.

Fair enough. To bring the circle to it's completion...what is free speech in a classroom? An open and free exchange of ideas is needed, yes. But who has the ultimate say in returning to the prevelant question that was originally raised. The superior. The professor.

It is a responsibility which is often necessary even though the professor would, at times, like to have the time to explore all things from all angles. I think professors do their fair share of learning in classrooms. Most don't stop just because they have the degree and the course outline. Ten weeks is not a lot of time to get to everything or even most things. This is why discussion boards can be so useful to those who have relevant things to say, but prefer to do so in writing, have run out of time in the classroom, or for whatever reason.
I can remember some lively discussions in classes here that never quite made it back on point and also continued while another class came in and also continued down the hall and also continued in the writing lab and also continued in my dreams at night. We didn't have much in the way of discussion boards at the time.

well. anyways. you'll have plenty of time to rattle those fantastic little under grad brains before it again becomes rather boring. oh say around november.

yawn. Other than Jim's positve response the lack of enthusiasm on this topic is rather disturbing. touch a nerve?

all that I can say is a topic was put on the table for further discussion ("It's surely an important conversation (to continue) to have" -sept.4). Maybe our arguments are as thin as our patience.

well, time to pull out those old fantasy role playing games, put on another episode of star trek, sip on assorted wine coolers, dust those paper back graphic novels and enjoy the rest of summer in a new Spock jam-jam set with matching slippers.

no more of this 'wasting time business' discussing relevant topics. Thanks for the attempt Jim.

It's been far too long since I posted (at least, I think so). I've avoided the blog for a time due to what I saw as a lack of substance and a long discussion of trivialities (mostly dealing with what I percieved as thinly veiled personal attacks on most, if not all, consistent posters). I understand that human nature leads us to want to one up each other in discussions both scholarly and not, both meaningful and not.
god knows I have an ego. That said, I've got a lot of topics (and people ;) to try to hit on here.

First and out of the way, I percieve the student-teacher relationship as one of peers in which they learn from one another. I've shocked myself and (hopefully) a professor or two with ideas that hadn't been exposed to us personally during our time in the ivory tower. I've also had a drink with at least one of them. And I've talked at length with several professors outside of the classroom about topics ranging from poiltics to god(s) to the Daily Show to anything under-and worshipping-the sun. When I'm talking with professors (both inside and outside the classroom) I'm talking with other human beings. Those of you that have had me in class I'm sure notice that I push things as far as I can, sometimes farther. It's not that I disrespect the authorative status of a professor, it's that I don't believe that those constraints are always productive. Yes, there is a certain amount of structure that is necessary for a classroom to "work". However, when any of us fall into the habit of blindly accepting that authority we fall into the problem of big and little "t" truths (thanks to ALL professors who I've heard that distinction from). We should accept the professor as a guide for the sharing of knowledge (after all, they've already had the schooling we seek), but the professor's ideas are not the be all and end all, otherwise we'd become stagnant. I think the greatest problem with the student-professor relationship becomes when we can't approach them as people. If a professor can't appreciate each individual's intellect (however great or limited that may be) and simultaneously appreciate each student's ideas, then what are they teaching for? If a professor already knows everything he can, why is he still in the institution? He should be spending all of his time writing authorative documents, or something. I don't know of one professor, regardless of how they present or carry themselves, that isn't still reading new information for the purpose of learning. Students are just as much a source of new knowledge as humans who already have degrees and write the texts our professors read to help prepare themselves for teaching.

On the subject of free speech, campus policy aside, free speech is what lets me say things about the authority that controls my life (the government?) just the same as it allows people in the Westboro Baptist Church to protest at the funerals of my brothers in arms. It's unfortunate that we have to place constraints on what can and can't be said in a classroom because there are some of us (myself not excluded) that can't discuss certain topics without getting heated or overly defensive. We all have a propensity to turn everything that might possibly be a counter point to what we believe or argue against into an enemy. I'm not suggesting that just any misogynist, or racist hate speech should be accepted on the basis of free speech alone, but it should not be automatically silenced either. The religious majority in america today feels persecuted, because they aren't allowed to discuss their point of view on why the 10 commandments should be allowed in court rooms, because atheists, or other believers, don't want christianity "pushed down their throats". We end up with a situation where some refuse to hear any "free speech" on the basis that it disagrees with their own view of life and the world. Instead of carrying on a conversation wherein we accept that we may be wrong (religious and scientific alike), we carry on a conversation in which we, personally, CANNOT be wrong.

Finally, just to throw a little personal attcks at our anonymous posters...

Tolkien? Socrates?

At least throw down some less well-known pseudonymns to get our attentions and make us look something up. If you're so much better than us that you want us to learn to be like you, or be as smart as you, or whatever, or something, sign you're shit with Bukowski or Sacher-Masoch. These anonymous posts and personal attacks are no better than the shit that Professor Hamlin warned us about when the english club mailing list was used as a forum to discuss my use of vulgarity in the poem shared last winter break by one of our own about pop culture that contained excessive use of the fuck-word.

Naganooch!

Hi All,

I told myself I'd be quiet on this thread, but now that Nic has steered it back to its original topic (free speech in the classroom), I'll toss in another comment. My own inclination, as a teacher, is not to silence anyone or forbid any topic or opinion if someone wants to express it in class. But there's a huge difference between the right to express an opinion and the right to have that opinion respected. In my view, the latter doesn't exist. So if someone expresses a bigotted or offensive opinion, I'm not going to tell them they can't think or express this (though if it gets personal I might have to consider OSU policy on discrimination and harassment). But I would tell them their opinion was ignorant, bigotted, or offensive. This would also apply, by the way, to any other statement expressed in class. Everyone has the right to an opinion, but some opinions are better than others. If a person can't back up their opinion, there's no reason why someone else shouldn't tell them it's flawed. Hopefully this can be done in a nice way. And this should apply to professors too, of course. I'm usually delighted to be challenged in class, if the challenge is a thoughtful and intelligent one, and I'm happy to be corrected if I say something wrong or limited. As Nic said, we're all here to learn, professors as well as students. The dialectical model is a useful one to have in mind here: someone makes a statement, someone else makes a coounterstatement, and another person produces a synthesis that advances knowledge or understanding (repeat as necessary).

Yes! Yes! Yes! I knew HH would do it for some reason. Learning-Truths vs. Truths-right vs wrong-friend vs. advisor-Freedom of Speech. All one big circle. Preach on!

Nevertheless, I have to believe that one of the reasons the 'private fora' crossed to the 'public fora' was to shed those walls that constrain our thoughts. Inevitably, more voices would appear than what might in a private email thread.

It is at times simple to ridicule and 'shout down' reason or arguments but what advantage does this have in a class. Be it online or inside.

In my opinion, this thread has been a fantastic start to the discussions of speech and freedom and in defining these terms as it pertains to a class room of young adults. Just because they pay a small amount of your salary, does this make them your boss? superior? equal? partner? etc?

And in regards to these freedoms of speech..must not a sound argument exist? Finding a topic "a bit tiresome" does not exactly prove a point.

Well. That's all you will hear from me. maybe. I'll continue enjoying the circle of logic from those that participate and choose to stand by their actions/opinions/etc. through sound arguments. and if none exists. fold 'em and move on.

Does anyone know the name of the short story by Woody Allen where two guys play chess by mail?

I may be slighting some responses here by missing their comments that I now repeat. If that is the case, forgive an old prof whose chemo is kicking in. My daughter tells me to quit playing the "C" card. Enough of that.

(1) I want to slightly disagree with HH. Well, clarify. I would say that a student has the right to say almost anything in class, with the exception of speech whose intention is inflamatory. Being a neo-Aristotelian at heart, I think that the narrative reveals its Aristotelian affective intention. (Not the author) So, were a student to yell fire, or announce a desire to obtain carnal knowledege of someone in class, such statements would be unacceptable. However,for example, if a student feels that LGBT folks are evil AND IS WILLING TO SUBMIT THAT STATEMENT TO THE RIGORS OF ACADEMIC DISCOURSE, THEN HAVE AT IT. Such an endeavor, however, is not undertaken on the strength of any single text or source. Neither I nor HH can publish without being vetted; and Shakespeare scholarship, and scholarship on Hollywood westerns, must have detailed and closely vetted links to many verified sources of "truths" on which the majority of us agree at the time. In other words, we all have opinions, but believing that the earth is flat is not going to get far in an academic setting.

(2) The notion of "academic setting" leads me to consider the type of university we are talking about. OSU is not as liberal as Berkeley, but more so than St. Boneventure or Niagara University. Hence, classroom environment will likely be varied. OSU is not, in other words, providing a Christian education. It is,hopfuly, providing a liberal, egalitarian education. Is it?

(3) What, though, does this do for the devoutly religious person who feels compelled to believe LGBT folks are evil, given his/her reading of the Bible? I sense that such a student might not feel as welcome in many classes here. Am I wrong?

(Suggestions) Might we invite some pastor perhaps, or someone who feels free to argue such "what's-wrong-with-the-academy" points? Do we need to get outside folks for some slots on this panel? Is it going to be advertised off campus?

JF

On the forum, I would be inclined to keep it small and local, an English Club event rather than something for the campus or community. I don't mean anyone can't come, but if we advertise through club channels and perhaps with some posters, the group will be of a manageable size, everyone should be able to pitch into the discussion, and no one should feel intimidated by speaking to a large crowd. But Trish and others Club powers, you can decide.

One the questions/issues raised by JF, I think we agree pretty much. It's hard to be precise when thinking about these matters in the abstract. Actually, if someone launched into a position on sexual orientation (say) in a class on Milton or Shakespeare, I'd probably redirect or ask the student to speak to me outside class, unless the position somehow related to the topic for the day. If it did relate, I think the distinction JF makes between speech intended to be hurtful or destructive and speech intended to engage in serious discussion is absolutely right. It's a tricky line to draw, however, especially since some debates (race, sexual orientation, religious belief, gender) have real personal implications for many of us. As JF says, what if someone makes the argument (ever so nicely) that someone else is evil or wicked? Hard not to get somewhat emotional. And would it really be wrong to get angry? I always find the "hate the sin not the sinner" argument a bit false, since what one person defines as a "sin" another may see as an essential part of who they are -- so that definition is itself offensive.

I think it's hard to make clearcut distinctions here. Certainly, if we're thinking about matters of law or institutional policy, we have to try to be precise. But when talking with each other, all we can do is try our best, aiming for a free and open dialogue that at the same time respects both our commitment to reason, learning, and knowledge, and our respect for the rights and feelings of everyone in our community.

On questions (2) and (3), I think it's again difficult to be categorical. My own feeling is that as a public university, OSU has a responsibility to be open and non-partisan, in religious matters as well as others. Those who prefer to attend colleges affiliated with particular religions (Catholic, Presbyterian, Evangelical, Jewish, or any other) are free to do so. At OSU, no religious beliefs are discouraged or excluded, but neither are they given any special privilege. I teach the English Bible, and we spend a good deal of time discussing religious history and ideas, but not from any particular perspective. And these ideas are all subject to open question and examination, just like any other ideas on campus. No student should feel excluded on the basis of their beliefs. On the other hand, if those beliefs conflict with the basic mission of the university -- to promote a free and open exploration and exchange of ideas -- then the student is inevitably going to feel uncomfortable. One right that a university should NOT respect (in my opinion) is the right to be protected from exposure to ideas that one finds challenging or uncomfortable. Close-mindedness has no place in any school, college, or university. And of course this should apply to everyone here -- faculty as well as students. But my sense -- and I could be wrong, or partly so -- is that this is generally the case.

Oh well. I guess I have trouble keeping silent (probably what led me to English!)

Wait a second, JF, I have taken several of your classes and you are probably my favorite professor(no offense HH), but…(aint there always a but after the compliment) you have said things about politics or lifestyle issues that I wholeheartedly disagreed with. The thing about the touchy topics is the way that these subjects are handled. I have never once felt uncomfortable in one of your classes.

That said, and without mentioning the professor (gone now anyway) I have experienced a class environment where I almost agreed with the premise, but the delivery of (and finger pointing in) the message made me so angry that for the next few years I took every chance I could to warn others away from the professor. I’m not entirely sure what hidden agenda or sniping I managed to jump in on earlier (nor do I really care) but rest assured this is not an attempt to point the finger at anyone. I am just thinking that there is no topic, from holocaust denial to racial matters, sexism to religion, LGBT issues to welfare, that cannot be broached in a class of reasonable people. I think instead of limiting what we introduce into the learning environment we might better spend our time relearning (or learning) how to act and argue civilly.