At 12:25 PM -0400 7/24/06, Christopher D. Green wrote:
Paul Brandon wrote:
At 11:45 AM -0400 7/24/06, Miguel Roig wrote:
There was an interesting Op Ed piece in the NY Times by Stanley Fish that I
thought would be of interest to the list:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/23fish.html.
So far, sounds pretty reasonable.
However, the author (Stanley Fish) at times seems to be saying that
you can _study_ any topic in your field of competence, but your
rights to _talk_ about it are restricted.
Read the column.
I did.
It is not talking, per se, that is not convered by academic freedom
(according to Fish), but rather *advocating.* Not all talk is
advocacy. In Fish's opinion, apparently, *no* advocacy is
"academic." One may bring forth any topic in the classroom "as
objects of analysis rather than as candidates for allegiance."
Although I thnk this is an important distinction, I wonder how well
it actually delineates the territory covered by academic freedom. Do
not (some) biology professors "advocate" and "endorse" evolutionary
theory? Would we of the rationalist/scientific "party" (which
obviously does not cover everyone on this list) actually want some
watchdog on the hunt for instances of illicit "evolutionary
advocacy" in the classroom, with an aim to punishing "violators"?
This was my point.
His distinction sounds good until you apply it to specific situations.
--
The best argument against intelligent design is that people believe in it.
* PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* Psychology Department 507-389-6217 *
* 23 Armstrong Hall Minnesota State University, Mankato *
* http://krypton.mnsu.edu/%7Epkbrando/ *
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
