Matt Nisbet has organized a panel for the American Association for the Advancement of Science meetings in Boston next January. The title of the panel is Communicating Science in a Religious America. According to Nisbet's posting [AAAS Panel: Communicating Science in a Religious America], the panel will discuss framing. Here's the synopsis for the panel.Over the coming decades, as society faces major collective choices on issues such as climate change, biomedical research, and nanotechnology, scientists and their organizations will need to work together with religious communities in order to formulate effective policies and to resolve disputes. A major challenge for scientists will be to craft communication efforts that are sensitive to how religiously diverse publics process messages, but also to the way science is portrayed across types of media. In these efforts, scientists must adopt a language that emphasizes shared values and has broad appeal, avoiding the pitfall of seeming to condescend to fellow citizens, or alienating them by attacking their religious beliefs.
Part of this process includes "framing" an issue in ways that remain true to the science, but that make the issue more personally meaningful, thereby potentially sparking greater interest or acceptance. With these themes in mind, the proposed panel combines the insights of scientists who have been successful at engaging religious publics with the findings of researchers on how media messages and opinion-leaders shape the perspectives of citizens. The panelists draw upon their experience working across the issues of evolution, climate change, stem cell research, and nanotechnology.
Who's on this panel, you might ask? It's some of the usual suspects and some others who I don't recognize.... the panel features Brown University biologist Ken Miller, Vatican astronomer Brother Guy Consolmagno, William & Mary anthropologist Barbara King, Kansas science standards chair Steve Case, and University of Wisconsin communication researcher Dietram Scheufele. The panel is moderated by David Goldston, former chief of staff for the House science committee, now a lecturer at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School and a columnist for Nature magazine.I have sent the following letter to Professor Goldston, the panel moderator.
As part of the panel, I will be presenting on the topic of "The New Atheism and the Public Image of Science," a first paper based on a research project I am currently working on here at American University with the help of two graduate students.
Professor Goldston,UPDATE: Jason Rosenhouse and Mike Dunford have also suggested that the panel might be biased.
I have just read Matt Nisbet's blog article on the upcoming AAAS meeting in Boston.
As I'm sure you know, Nisbet has some very strong views on this issue and he is known to be a vocal opponent of athiests like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. He has attacked the positions of many atheist scientist bloggers such as PZ Myers, Jason Rosenhouse, and me. He refers to this group as the "New Atheists," a term that is widely perceived as misleading at best, and offensive at worst.
Nisbet believes that scientists should spin their scientific messages in a way that avoids upsetting religious people and religious groups. That point of view has been hotly contested in the blogosphere. Many of us believe that this is a fundamentally dishonest way for scientists to behave. We believe that science should not be deliberately "framed" by the personal beliefs of scientists whether they are atheists - as are the majority of scientists - or Christians, or whatever.
We believe that science should be presented as uncompromised pure science and that it is wrong for scientists to consciously alter their message in order to appease religious citizens who might be offended by hearing the scientific truth. It is not the business of scientists to second guess what the religious public wants to hear, or not hear. Furthermore, it is not the business of scientists to tailor their message to the citizens of a particular country as the title of the panel implies. Is it realistic to expect scientists to communicate science one way in America, and another in Saudi Arabia, China, or France?
We all know there are scientists who have strong opinions about religion. Richard Dawkins is a vocal atheist, for example, and Ken Miller is a vocal Roman Catholic. Both of them have written books putting forth their points of view on religion. They are free to do so as long as they do not distort or misrepresent science.
But this is not what Nisbet is talking about when he refers to the public presentation of science - at least it's not what he should be talking about. Both Dawkins and Miller are perfectly capable of communicating scientific information without referring to religion, and they do so quite capably in many forums. Nisbet strongly implies that the Ken Millers of this world should be given preference over Richard Dawkins and other atheists when it comes to science education. This a form of censorship that should not be tolerated by AAAS.
I don't object to Nisbet presenting his point of view at a AAAS meeting but my respect for AAAS and your panel would be greatly diminished if the other side did not get a chance to make its case. Surely you do not want to give the impression that AAAS will only support scientists who agree with Nisbet? Surely you do not want to have a panel where the so-called "New Atheist" perspective is excluded and only religious scientists, or their close allies, are allowed to speak? Is that fair?
Please make sure that you have appropriate balance on your panel. Please make sure you don't give the impression that AAAS endorses Nisbet and his ideas about framing. The other side needs to be heard.
Laurence (Larry ) A. Moran
Professor of Biochemistry
University of Toronto
In an earlier posting, I quoted David Tyler's views about evolution and the peppered moth story [Peppered Moths and the Confused IDiots]. I didn't know who David Tyler was but he's obviously considered to be an authority (i.e., prominent IDiot) by Denyse O'Leary, among others.After joining the Department of Clothing Design and Technology at Manchester Metropolitan University, he has pursued a number of research interests related to responsive manufacturing and systems modelling. Earlier work was concerned with flow line systems and management strategies to optimise performance. Research interests over the past decade relate to teamworking in new product development and its relation to operational practices, and the optimisation of performance of textile/apparel supply chains. Since March 2000, he has managed the North West Advanced Apparel Systems Centre, a European-funded initiative to support clothing and textile companies in NW England.This is an example of the sort of expert the IDiots think is a good spokesman for Intelligent Design Creationism: a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) with no obvious background in biology.
I'm not overly sympathetic to the complaints of the "New Atheists" that they are unfairly being told to mute their criticism of religion lest they drive religious people further away from science in particular and rationalism in general. In my opinion, science is definitely not coextensive with atheism. And atheism, far from having a lock on rationalism, is, in fundamental ways arational, at least, if not outright irrational at times. And, it seems to me, if a dialogue is what you intend in which you hope to convince the religious to become atheists, starting off calling them delusional may be a tad counterproductive.This is a bit confusing. Let's see if we can parse the sentences to get at the essence of John's problem. If I understand him correctly, he is saying ...
It is fair to tell atheists to mute their criticism of religion because it might be driving religious people away from science.How, exactly, does this work, John? What is the ethical reasoning that justifies telling someone to keep quiet because you don't like their message? There is none. It's pefectly okay to disagree with us—something you do quite often—but it's a whole different thing to tell us to shut up, and maintain that it's fair to do so. It's not fair. It's unfair, ... and reprehensible.
It is fair to tell atheists to mute their criticism of religion because it might be driving them away from rationalism.John, Aren't you making an unwarranted assumption here? Aren't you assuming that the average religious person already embraces rationalism? Otherwise, how could they be driven away?
In my opinion, science is definitely not coextensive with atheism.I agree. "Science" and the lack of belief in supernatural beings are two different things. It is possible to avoid believing in supernatural beings and be opposed to science. There are many examples. In addition, there are some people who fully accept all the fundamentals of science, and its implications, while still being religious. Deists are one example. Buddhists are another.
And atheism, far from having a lock on rationalism, is, in fundamental ways arational, at least, if not outright irrational at times.The atheists are saying that they don't buy into the superstitious belief in the existence of supernatural beings. They don't accept most of the basic tenets of the major religions because they are not based on evidence. How in the world is this "irrational"?
And, it seems to me, if a dialogue is what you intend in which you hope to convince the religious to become atheists, starting off calling them delusional may be a tad counterproductive.The evidence so far is against you. We've never had so much dialogue between atheists and religious leaders as we've had since the publication of The God Delusion. It is no longer possible for religious people get away with making the unchallenged assumption that there is a God. Millions of people are hearing for the first time that their core belief is being questioned. Not only that, it's being questioned in a particularly forceful way. That makes you sit up and take notice.
I'm teaching part of a course on Popular Scientific Misconceptions. In my section we'll be talking about the evolution/creationism controversy and part of the discussion involves analysis of the techniques used by Jonathan Wells to denigrate evolution in his book Icons of Evolution. One of the chapters is Peppered Moths.Industrial melanism in peppered moths shows that the relative proportions of two pre-existing varieties can change dramatically. This change may be due to natural selection, as most biologists familiar with the story believe. But Kettlewell's evidence for natural selection is flawed., and the actual causes of the change remain hypothetical. As a scientific demonstration of natural selection—as "darwin's missing evidence"—industrial mealanism in peppered moths is no better than alchemy.Unfortunately for poor old Jonathan, the original work of Kettlewell has been replicated and natural selection is the explanation. The creationists were recently dealt a serious blow when Michael Majerus reported the results of his observations on peppered moths to the European Society for Evolutionary Biology. So what do they do now?
Open almost any biology textbook dealing with evolution, however, and you'll find the peppered moth presented as a classical demonstration of natural selection in action—complete with faked photos of moths on tree trunks. This is not science by myth-making.
Denyse O'Leary thinks there's still propaganda to be made from the peppered moth story so she links to an article from last week that shows the new strategy. Denyse's link is here [Evolution in the light of intelligent design encyclopedia - new entries]. The article by David Tyler is The Peppered Moth: when will Darwinians admit that mistakes have been made?. The concluding words of Majerus' lecture are these: "If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all: The Proof of Evolution." This quote explains why the issue is still important: Darwinists have always sought to use the peppered moth story as a proof of Darwinian evolution. This is a burden that cannot be carried by the evidence. Even with Majerus' new improved methodology, we have an example of natural selection within the peppered moth population with differential predation being the causal mechanism. It is an extraordinary mental leap to go from this to the origin of novelty, complexity and new body plans - which remain the central challenges for any theory of evolutionary transformation.Okay, let's take this slowly so that even IDiots like David Tyer and Denyse O'Leary can understand.
Is it scientifically defensible to find an example of natural selection within a population of an animal, and then use this as an evidence for evolutionary transformation from the first single cell to the extraordinary diversity of life that we find in the biosphere?No.
When this simple question is answered with a negative, then we can have a more constructive dialogue.David, or Denyse, I'm ready whenever you are. To start with, do you understand the minimal definition of evolution [What Is Evolution?]. Get back to me when you do.
[Photo Credit: The photographs are from bill.srnr.arizona. The original source is unknown.]
During the semester you have an opportunity to earn up to 6% worth of extra credit points to be added to your course grade at the end of the semester. You may earn any number of extra credit points up to the maximum of 6 points. To earn the whole 6% you must start early and sustain your extra credit work throughout the semester. There is also an option for one additional bonus point if you complete one of the two "Bonus" projects in addition to the maximum number of projects determined by the date you start your extra credit work.I'm dumbfounded. How widespread is this practice?
Extra Credit projects require that you engage in some independent learning in areas of biology that interest you, write a brief report or review and then read the work of your classmates and interact with them via the Web Crossing computer conferencing system to share and discuss what you and your classmates have learned.
Extra credit projects are due at three specific times during the semester - before each of the hour exams and at the end of the semester. You may earn two extra credit points at each of these due dates.
For most extra credit projects, one extra credit point can be earned by writing one project review and completing two interactions (dialog entries) by reading and replying to two classmate's extra credit projects. While you must write at least one dialog entry to a classmate for each extra credit point, you may count another student's dialog entry to your project as your second dialog entry. If no one writes to you, you must then write a second dialog entry to another student.
The number of people in the UK who opt for non-religious funeral services is set to rise dramatically over the coming years, according to a presenter at the Death, dying & disposal conference organised by the University of Bath today (Friday 14 September).I want to make sure that everyone in the Toronto area knows that non-religious weddings and funerals have been available for 10 years through the Humanist Association [Humanist Association of Toronto: Ceremonies].
Around two per cent of UK funerals are currently non-religious, but according to 2001 census figures 27 per cent of the population consider themselves to be non-religious.
This, says Simon Allen, a Humanist Officiant, suggests that the current growth in secular funerals is just the beginning of an immense and rapid change in funeral practice.
The DMCA has been criticized for making it too easy for copyright owners to encourage website owners to take down infringing content and links when it may not in fact be infringing. When website owners receive a takedown notice it is in their interest not to challenge it, even if it is not clear if infringement is taking place, because if the potentially infringing content is taken down the website will not be held liable. The Electronic Frontier Foundation senior IP attorney Fred von Lohmann has said this is one of the problems with the DMCA.[2]I'm constantly amazed at how easy it is to use legal trickery to curtail basic freedoms such as free speech. In this case, the freedom/anarchy of the internet seems to be too much to stomach for those people who want to control peoples' thoughts. I suppose we should have seen this coming. After all, the other kinds of media are also highly censured in America.
Many sites are receiving DMCA notices and taking down links to infringing material as a result. Because the links are taken down it is rarely challenged in court resulting in link liability being a grey area of the law, although based on previous legal cases it leans in favor of copyright owners.[3] Stephan Ott of LinksandLaw.com states that "linking to infringing content is unlawful and that is also what most of the courts say."
I watched President Bush on TV the other day. I was wondering where his buddy was hiding. Ahh, here he is ...If U.S. and coalition forces left Iraq before Iraqis could defend themselves, moderates would be "crushed," extremists would push the country into "chaos," and competing factions including groups backed by Iran "would unloose an all-out war, with the violence unlikely to be contained within Iraq," Cheney said.Now, where have I heard that before. Google is my friend ....
"The ensuing carnage would further destabilize the Middle East and magnify the threat to our friends throughout the region," he said.
Here it is. It's called the Domino Theory.The domino theory was a mid-20th century foreign policy theory, promoted by the government of the United States, that speculated that if one land in a region came under the influence of communism, then the surrounding countries would follow in a domino effect. The domino effect suggests that some change, small in itself, will cause a similar change nearby, which then will cause another similar change, and so on in linear sequence, by analogy to a falling row of dominoes standing on end. The domino theory was used by successive United States administrations during the Cold War to justify American intervention around the world.It worked before. Americans stayed in Viet Nam for years because of the Domino Theory. Eventually 58,000 soldiers died and another 350,000 were wounded. Between one and two million Vietnamese citizens died. And the dominos didn't fall when America pulled out.
Referring to communism in America and Mexico, Eisenhower vocalized the theory:"Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the "falling domino" principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences."
Forty years ago it was thought that the amount of DNA in a genome correlated with the complexity of an organism. Back then, you often saw graphs like the one on the left. The idea was that the more complex the species the more genes it needed. Preliminary data seemed to confirm this idea.
Today we know that there isn't a direct correlation between genome size and complexity. Recent data, such as that from Ryan Gregory's website (right) reveals that the range of DNA sizes in many groups can vary over several orders of magnitude [Animal Genome Size Database]. Mammals don't have any more DNA in their genome than most flowering plants (angiosperms). Or even gymnosperms, for that matter.Anyone who states or implies that there is a significant correlation between total haploid genome size and species complexity is either ignorant or lying.It is notoriously difficult to define complexity. That's only one of the reasons why such claims are wrong. Ryan Gregory wants everyone to know that the figure showing genome sizes in different phylogenetic groups is not meant to imply a hierarchy of complexity from algae to mammals.
Back in the olden days, when everyone was sure that humans were at the top of the complexity tree, the lack of correlation between genome size and complexity was called the C-value paradox where "C" stands for the haploid genome size. The term was popularized by Benjamin Lewin in his molecular biology textbooks. In Genes II (1983) he wrote.The C value paradox takes its name from our inability to account for the content of the genome in terms of known function. One puzzling feature is the existence of huge variations in C values between species whose apparent complexity does not vary correspondingly. An extraordinary range of C values is found in amphibians where the smallest genomes are just below 109bp while the largest are almost 1011. It is hard to believe that this could reflect a 100-fold variation in the number of genes needed to specify different amphibians.So, the paradox arises even if we don't know how to rank flowering plants and mammals of a complexity scale. It arises because there are so many examples of very similar species that have huge differences in the size of their genome. Onions, are another example—they are the reason why Ryan Gregory made up the Onion Test.
The onion test is a simple reality check for anyone who thinks they have come up with a universal function for non-coding DNA. Whatever your proposed function, ask yourself this question: Can I explain why an onion needs about five times more non-coding DNA for this function than a human?
Imagine the following scenario. You are absolutely convinced that humans are the most complex species but total genome size doesn't reflect your conviction. The C-value paradox is a real paradox for you. Knowing that much of our genome is possibly junk DNA still leaves room for plenty of genes. You take comfort in the fact that under all that junky genome, humans still have way more genes than simple nematodes and flowering plants. You were one of those people who wanted there to be 100,000 genes in the human genome [Facts and Myths Concerning the Historical Estimates of the Number of Genes in the Human Genome].1. Thirty years ago we had to teach undergraduates about DNA reassociation kinetics and Cot curves—the most difficult thing I've ever had to teach. I'm sure glad we don't have to do that today.
Hahn, M.W. and Wray, G.A. (2002) The g-value paradox. Evol. Dev. 4:73-75.
Mattick, J.S. (2004) The hidden genetic program of complex organisms. Sci Am. 291:60-67.
Taft, R.J., Pheasant, M. and Mattick, J.S. (2007) The relationship between non-protein-coding DNA and eukarotic complexity. BioEssays 29:288-200.
[Photo Credits: The first figure is taken from a course webite at the University of Miami (Molecular Genetics. The second figure is from Ryan Gregory's Animal Genome Size Database (Statistics).]
There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Toronto today as word has just been received that the Burj Dubai, under construction in the United Arab Emirates (UAR), has surpassed 553 metres. This makes it the tallest building in the world. The record has been held by the CN Tower in Toronto for over 30 years."The accomplishment of being the world’s tallest free-standing structure is another defining moment for the multinational team of over 5,000 people who are using their collective intelligence to make this iconic structure a symbol of human achievement," said Mohamed Ali Alabbar, head of Emaar Properties, which owns the new tower. "This architectural and construction master-piece is truly an inspirational human achievement that celebrates the can-do mindset of Dubai."Okay, so we're not quite ready to officially concede just yet but the writing is clearly on the wall, so to speak.
CN Tower officials are playing it cool and, so far, the website still calls it "the world's tallest building." A short statement, sent out by email, said, "When the time comes and the building is complete, we will congratulate the Burj Dubai project on their unique achievement."
One woman, who didn't want to give her name, shrugged off the slight to Toronto as "such a guy thing."
"Who really cares? Trust me, length doesn't matter."
I'm teaching part of a course on Popular Scientific Misconceptions. In my section we'll be talking about the evolution/creationism controversy and part of the discussion involves analysis of the techniques used by Jonathan Wells to denigrate evolution in his book Icons of Evolution. One of the chapters is Fossil Horses and Directed Evolution.The reason for their campaign, however, is more interesting than the horse icon itself. People used to regard the old icon as evidence that evolution was directed, either supernaturally or by internal vital forces. Neo-Darwinists now ridicule directed evolution as a myth, and cite new evidence that evolution is undirected.This is a strange line of reasoning. The original claim that horse evolution was directional surely falls into the same category that Wells criticizes. It must be philosophical, not empirical. Therefore, Wells should approve of scientists who refute the false evidence of directionality in order to remove a philosophical myth from the story of horse evolution. It seems logical that reverting to the null hyporthesis—no evidence of directionality—is preferable to promoting a mechanism that by Well's own admission might be supernatural.
But the doctrine of undirected evolution is philosophical, not empirical. It preceded all evidence for Darwin's theory, and it goes far beyond the evidence we now have. Like several other Darwinian claims we've seen, it is a concept masquerading as a neutral description of nature.
Clearly, biology students are being taught materialistic philosophy in the guise of empirical science. Whatever one may think of materialistic philosophy, there is no doubt that it is being imposed on the evidence rather than inferred from it. And this is the real significance of neo-Darwinian efforts to reverse the picture of horse evolution. Although there are scientific issues involved, what really matters is the myth.I'm looking at the tree of horse evolution. I don't see any evidence of directed evolution, do any of you? What's wrong with saying that there's no evidence of directed evolution; therefore we have to conclude that it wasn't directed?
We've heard it all before. Those "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris are doing far more harm than good. They're turning off the general American public and making it more difficult to get them interested in science. Why is that? It's because the New Atheism links science to a lack of belief in God and the public won't buy into science if they think it requires atheism.Listen, I am an atheist. I do not believe that religion and science are internally consistent. However, if there is one thing that I have learned about politics, it is that political discussions are not predicated on internal consistency. (Example: Prior to WW2, the American public was in favor of lend-lease, yet was not in favor of entering the war. These two propositions are mutually exclusive.) Whether or not, religion and science are internally consistent is largely beyond the point. The point is what we can reasonably expect the public to accept. The public is not going to accept both atheism and science over the short-term.Jake isn't very clear about how he intends to proceed. I can only surmise that he will disguise his true feelings (that religion and science are internally consistent) in order to appease theists who want to learn about science.
This concept—hiding what you believe to be true for some "higher" purpose—is called framing by Jake's fellow accommodationists. Indeed, as you might expect, Jake quotes approvingly from the master framers, Nisbet and Mooney, who also want the New Atheists to go away quietly. And as quickly as possible.Further, embracing a big-tent approach will not prevent scientific or even atheistic values from taking over. While the majority of the American public is religious, the number of atheists is growing. New atheists will be created in the same way that new atheists have always been created: by a kid waking up in class one day and saying, "You know that invisible man business doesn't make sense."Jason Rosenhouse over at Evolutionblog demolishes the idea that keeping a low profile is the best strategy for making atheism acceptable [Young on Dewey on Being High-Brow]. It didn't work for gays. It didn't work for women either [Suffragettes].
I'm discussing the Freedom in the Classroom (2007) report from the American Association of University Professors [Freedom in the Classroom (2007]. The 1940 Statement of Principles provides that teachers "should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject." The origin of this admonition lies in the concern of the authors of the 1925 Conference Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure for immature youth or, more accurately, a concern by the administrators of small and often denominational colleges for potential adverse parental reaction to their children's exposure to thought contrary to the conventional pieties of small-town America.14 The admonition was reconsidered and addressed in an interpretive comment to the 1940 Statement, appended by the joint drafting organizations in 1970:The question is not so much about trivial irrelevance, it's about serious deviations from the advertised course content. But how do we define those serious kinds of irrelevance? Are all irrelevant comments out-of-bounds? Should the university set up some sort of "irrelevance police" to check out every classroom?The intent of this statement is not to discourage what is "controversial." Controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed to foster. The passage serves to underscore the need for teachers to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject.The 1940 Statement should not be interpreted as excluding controversial matter from the classroom; any such exclusion would be contrary to the essence of higher education. The statement should be interpreted as excluding "irrelevant" matter, whether controversial or not.
The question, therefore, is how to determine whether material is "irrelevant" to classroom discussion. In some contexts, the meaning of "irrelevance" is clear. Students would have every right to complain if an instructor in ancient history dwelled on internecine conflict in her department or if an instructor in American literature engaged in lengthy digressions on his personal life. But such irrelevance is not the gravamen of the contemporary complaint.
The group calling itself Students for Academic Freedom (SAF), for example, has advised students that "your professor should not be making statements . . . about George Bush, if the class is not on contemporary American presidents, presidential administrations or some similar subject." This advice presupposes that the distinction between "relevant" and "irrelevant" material is to be determined strictly by reference to the wording of a course description. Under this view, current events or personages are beyond the pale unless a course is specifically about them. But this interpretation of "relevance" is inconsistent with the nature of higher education, in which "all knowledge can be connected to all other knowledge." Whether material is relevant to a better understanding of a subject cannot be determined merely by looking at a course description.Excellent point. Surely we don't want classrooms where the Professor is forbidden to make comments about real world events and how they might relate to the material in the course or to the ideas that are being discussed?
Might not a teacher of nineteenth-century American literature, taking up Moby Dick, a subject having nothing to do with the presidency, ask the class to consider whether any parallel between President George W. Bush and Captain Ahab could be pursued for insight into Melville's novel? Might not an instructor of classical philosophy, teaching Aristotle's views of moral virtue, present President Bill Clinton's conduct as a case study for student discussion? Might not a teacher of ancient history ask the class to consider the possibility of parallels between the Roman occupation of western Mesopotamia and the United States' experience in that part of the world two millennia later? SAF would presumably sanction instructors for asking these types of questions, on the grounds that such questions are outside the purview of an official course description. But if an instructor cannot stimulate discussion and encourage critical thought by drawing analogies or parallels, the vigor and vibrancy of classroom discussion will be stultified.This committee of the American Association of University Professors had some smart people. They were able to summarize the problem succinctly. Here are their names.
The committee deals with a number of specific examples, including that of Prof. Turner who was dismissed from the University of Pittsburgh in 1934 for comparing contemporary political figures to historical figures in his history course. The committee concludes with,
- MATTHEW W. FINKIN (Law), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, chair
- ROBERT C. POST (Law), Yale University
- CARY NELSON (English), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
- ERNST BENJAMIN (Political Science), Washington, D.C.
- ERIC COMBEST, staff
How an instructor approaches the material in classroom exposition is, absent breach of professional ethics, a matter of personal style, influenced, as it must be, by the pedagogical goals and classroom dynamics of a particular course, as well as by the larger educational objective of instilling in students the capacity for critical and independent thought. The instructor in Melville or classical philosophy or Roman history must be free to draw upon current persons and events just as Professor Turner did seventy years ago. Instructors must be free to employ a wide variety of examples in order to stimulate classroom discussion and thought. If allusions perform this function, they are not "irrelevant." They are pedagogically justified.
At root, complaints about the persistent interjection of "irrelevant" material concern the interjection of "controversial" material. The complaints are thus a variant of the charge that instructors have created a "hostile learning environment" and must be rejected for the reasons we have already discussed. So long as an instructor's allusions provoke genuine debate and learning that is germane to the subject matter of a course, they are protected by "freedom in the classroom."
