(If you requested lecture notes and did not receive them, please e-mail me and I'll send them to you.)
Please comment on this prompt for June 17th's class.
Next week I will post another prompt for our "movie night" (no class on campus). Write a half page ethical review of a movie of your choice.
Keep working on your papers, and just a reminder for those presenting on July 8, please e-mail me your papers by 6 p.m. on July 7th.
See you in two weeks. Enjoy the sunshine!
The film Stand and Deliver generated some interesting discussion in our small group. It’s great to find teachers that are committed to their students’ success, but I am concerned that this teacher has blurred their professional boundaries. If this person were a Counsellor, he would be in violation of the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Counselling Association in a number of areas.
ReplyDeleteThe first ethical violation would be in the area of Integrity in Relationships, in part because he is assuming too much personal responsibility for his students’ behavior (asking students to attend summer and weekend classes) imposing his own values (asking one student to choose calculus over a work opportunity, asking another student to quit working at her family’s restaurant so that she can pursue her studies) and is generally over-involved in the lives of his students. This leads to confusion in the ethical separation of personal and professional roles and is potentially damaging on both sides of the equation.
The second area of violation would be in the area of Responsible Caring. This teacher makes a number of comments to his students that are inappropriate. At one point he makes a comment about a female student’s dating life, which prompts her to leave the classroom. In the Counselling profession, this would be seen as an example of diminished empathy and respect for the client and is generally considered a warning sign of burnout or secondary trauma; it represents a failure to engage in responsible caring.
Another potential area of concern relates to self-care. Can teachers that invest themselves to this degree in the planning and delivery of curriculum, who overly invest in the lives of their students both inside and outside of school adequately maintain a healthy and well-rounded life? Over the years I’ve seen many teachers, social workers and counselors burn themselves out because they adopted unrealistic ideals during their training that they could not live up to in practice.
Sean, I think that it is interesting that it seems we discussed very similar topics in our small group discussion; however, we looked at them from a teacher's perspective. We found the same thing as you seemed to have. There are many instances in the short clip that we watched where the teacher seemed to be violating the Code of Ethics.
ReplyDeleteWhile I hesitate to judge this person too much without seeing the entire film, I feel that he crossed many barriers. The most serious thing for me was that he seemed to not be a well rounded individual. Did he have a life outside of school? As a new teacher this is something that I have found myself struggling with as the year has progressed. There were times in the year, especially in the middle of either basketball or volleyball season both of which I coached, where I found that the other parts of my life were suffering. At times, I was only at home to sleep and return to school. I was struggling with the fact that I was already burning myself out, something that I feel this teacher would have done if he continued along the path he was taking.
While I feel that coaching is an important and necessary part of teaching for me, I have come to realize that I need some time for myself as well.
The more we get into theories of morality the more it seems that many of the arguments are meant to promote rationality and reason more than a certain type of behaviour. It’s gotten me thinking about what we mean when we cite rationality or reason as the unassailable basis of morality – or at least moral thinking.
ReplyDeleteThroughout history men have been thought of as rational beings – meaning they are active, strong, independent, objective, and therefore, right thinking. What society considers valuable is based on these descriptors. Women, on the other hand, have been thought of as passive, subjective, dependant, emotional, and therefore, irrational. Even today privilege goes to reason over emotion almost every time. Kohlberg’s theory of moral development both reflects and perpetuates this kind of thinking since it is based solely on white, upper-class males and the idea that morality depends on, yup, you guessed it, being objective, independent, strong, and active.
In the ‘70s Carol Gilligan looked at Kohlberg’s developmental stages and pointed out that emotions were completely left out of his model and that, as relational beings, emotion and caring are vital to our moral development and well being. More to the point, she “reframe[d] qualities regarded as women’s weaknesses and showed them to be human strengths” (Amy Gross, cover, In a Different Voice).
I’m not sure where that leaves us now in our thinking about what makes up a rational mind or a rational person. I hope we’ve evolved our thinking but I don’t know...when Hilary Clinton was running for President it was said that she couldn’t handle the job because she wouldn’t make rational decisions. This was based solely on the fact that she is a woman. I guess there’s still a lot of evolving needed.
* Interesting side note to the above: In her book, In a Different Voice, Gilligan pointed out that female’s voices are very strong until they’re 9 – 11 yrs old and then, due to assimilating the idea that female voices don’t count and shouldn’t be loud or demanding, they literally lose their voices. They learn to disown their power and to dislike themselves.
Taking in Car Free day on Commercial Drive I noticed a kiosk that advertized and offered counselling services from a “brand new” perspective. I picked up a flyer and was surprised to find Socrates’ ideas, about the connection between a healthy body and a balanced soul, echoed in this cutting edge philosophy.
ReplyDeleteThe core of this counsellors’ practice is organized around ideas about self-esteem and how and how living consciously (defined as having integrity, honesty, compassion, and kindness as well as doing no harm) increases self-esteem because living this way is in accordance with our “authentic selves” and so we feel good and right. The inference here is that we have an innate moral compass or as Socrates would put it, innate reason. And just as he argued that, “vice harms the doer and that every unethical act makes it harder to remain ethical” (McLachlan, 2010, p.50), this counsellor points out that living unconsciously and going against our authentic selves makes us feel guilty and wrong. To distract ourselves from these feelings we blame and justify, which keeps us from taking responsibility and knowing our authentic selves, which perpetuates negative behaviours.
This got me curious about other “brand new” ideas. A quick scan of the self-help books on my shelf revealed that almost all of them could be generally summed up as lessons in how to embody the main virtues of courage, wisdom, temperance, and justice. So much for new ideas.
Educational Value of Avatar
ReplyDeleteThe film tells human's attempts to explore and use other planets for goodness of getting more resources and make more fortune. It is a reflection of what is going on in high rank research centers. Since people practice that in reality and there are many attempts of invading or contracting for exploring of natural resources especially oil and other minerals, are going on in different places of the world and everyone can see or tell that there is no fairness in distribution of the world's wealth. The invaders face many struggles and problem in the way to control the invaded area. Now the invaders use many way as their intelligent groups to work on the invaded area people and try to build bridges to make them accept the invasion as a help in order to control them and keep the depletion of their resources going on for the invaders.
In this movie, they found another way to overcome regular problems by hybridization of the normal human with the native of that area on the moon. The big argument in the movie regarding the destruction of Home tree, as it is on the top of rich deposit of unobtanium, which they are looking for. This argument draws attention to the possibilities as a bad effect on bio-botanical balance (natural destruction) and the hurting the people whom they connected to the tree spiritually and they have values and beliefs of the tree, which is another possibility of a war between people and destruction of human resources. The big conflict as the film is showing is one side wants the resource under the tree despite of other side spiritual values and beliefs, which is unbalanced want between two sides and we have many cases in now days of human's life like that. The educational and ethical values from the movies are in the way it reflects the problems as a major conflict in supporting of scientific projects and their goals, completely different ideas of scientists with military people and business men, the authority to get other people fortune despite every values, beliefs, and rights. Problem of not listening or considering the morality of continuous scientific researches that affect the balanced environment and global issue. This movie is helpful to educate children to focus and value nature and protect it's balanced systems, and also connects children with fauna, flora, and disturbances that could happen by invasion of another areas. It helps and extends the thinking of children to increase their nature's reverence.
Contractarianism says John Rawls is to create a state of equality and justice for all. It is necessary to overcome or ignore personal inclinations, interests and desires in order to have the ability to recognize and do the what is morally correct for the group.If the students in the movie Stand and Deliver where inspired to achieve their greatest possible outcome they had to do it as a group. They had to go through much hardship together like going to school in the summer and staying extra after school when their friends were going home. These students had to realize that they were going to be successful in this one area by committing to it and temporarily putting aside activities that would benefit them in their individual lives. It could be said that through the challenge of learning the higher order math the class was doing they created a strong group bond. Here they learned to support each other. Giving support shows that they care about each other and caring about each other in society is not easy thing to teach. An example of this was during a really hot class when they where passing oranges around to keep cool. Here they were looking past their own desires and to that of the group.
ReplyDeleteRawl also had a belief about the "Natural Lottery" where you are born into a level of society that you will most likely stay in. The administrator in the movie was shown as agreeing with this idea when she was against the teacher doing a higher level math course. She believed that there was no point in challenging the students to do this math because they where from a social order that was not capable of striving to achieve higher learning. I think that if you put these perceived limitations on students then you are failing them before they even start. People like to think that they will be successful in any endeavor they choose. If you are limited in your lot in life by a natural lottery then you need to accept that and do what you can with what you have. However striving to achieve with the group that you are stuck with will teach you many things about morals and community as shown by the movie clip. When the students believe in themselves and support each other then are capable of a great many things.
Last week we touched on feminist ethics, a view of ethical behaviour that differs from the traditional, male-dominated view. I think that this branch of ethics has much to offer, and I completely understand how a feminist version is required. Before doing the readings I did not even realize the male bias that was inherent in each perspective that we had studied so far. Men and women value different things, and ethical standards are no different. Men have tended to “emphasize an unattainable level of objectivity and rationality and centre on the individual” (115) in their efforts to construct moral theories. Women, on the other hand, generally value relationships to a greater degree than their male counterparts, and this is illustrated in the feminist ethics idea that “a good person will act in a caring manner that strengthens relationships” (115).
ReplyDeleteI certainly see value in feminist ethics offering a theory of morality that promotes values held by the fairer gender. However, I must admit that I find the same criticism with feminist ethics as I do with male-centered theories of morality: they are essentially sexist. If one purpose for having feminist ethics is to remedy the sexist male theories and bring balance to ethical theories, I feel that it hasn’t quite achieved this goal. It may well represent the feminist perspective, and for that I respect it and support its views. However, it may not adequately represent moral values that men tend to value. As such, I feel that we are not really any further ahead in terms of achieving a universal moral theory, as we are still left with an ethical perspective that represents only one of the sexes. The way I see it, we have essentially swung the pendulum from one inadequate set of theories to another. I have no answers for how we would come to a bi-gendered ethical theory that balances the values or males and females equally, but I think this would be an important aspect of any worthwhile ethical theory.
When Hobbs defines enlightened self-interest as limiting our behaviour to the same extent that we want others to limit theirs, the word “want” implies to me a wish or an assumption, if not an expectation. The expectation is that everyone will adhere to these unwritten social contracts. While Hobbs’ tenets are valuable, it is possible, for instance, that being a nice person to everyone around you – so that everyone will act nicely towards you and others in turn – will not work on every person that you meet. No matter how nice you can be to people, there will be some on whom this won’t work – and they might, in fact, even exploit your niceness towards their own selfish benefit. Just because we’re always nice to everyone doesn’t prevent harm from happening to us – so being nice may not work in our best interest. In this case the social agreement – “We should not do to others what we don’t want them to do to us”, or, we should do unto others as we’d have them do unto us – does not work if not all members of society cooperate or agree to its tenets. But, the idea that “everyone will give up the same amount of liberty in pursuing their own interests at the expense of others” is something I can see work well in a classroom setting, where students are expected to treat others equally and give fellow classmates as much space to express their ideas as have themselves. But if self-interest is understood as a pure form of egoism and self-absorption, as critics of this theory state, then conflicts may arise as there may be disputes on how much space or time each individual believes he or she deserves to take up (person A may value speaking time differently from person B, which can lead to disagreement). The problem can be further complicated if we take into account students’ multicultural perspectives, which will be very diverse (for instance, not paying attention to female speakers or speaking over them). Reading Hobbes’ theory about the natural state of man that encompasses competition, fear and pride, to which a social contract is an answer, I see these ‘natural or wild’ elements still operate in our society: people are still ruled by fear, greed for glory and competition, even though we do live by a social contract and ethical beliefs rooted in order and practices of justice.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Gilligan’s feminist ethics of care very much speak to teaching: we recognize that we are all emotional beings, by nature, and that it’s not always possible to make objective decisions or to act objectively at all times. Our background often influences our beliefs and responses to the world. Because feminist ethics focus on emotions, community, and relationships, I find them to align precisely with what educators deal with in their professional lives: we form and maintain relationships with our colleagues, students, parents and the community at large; we deal with our own, our students’, parents’ and the community’s emotions; and we recognize that to a large degree the quality of our professional well-being depends on the relations we have with colleagues, students, and the community. As educators, we care: we care about the opportunities that education creates for our learners; we care about our students feeling safe, comfortable and capable; we care about helping form critically thinking individuals who will take care of our communities in the future. Nell Nodding’s vision of the best self comes to mind when I think of education and of what it means to be a good educator: it “involves considering people in terms of their whole lives” (MacLachlan, pg. 116). We need to take into account the multifaceted aspects of people’s lives (private and public), and how those forces can shape their own emotions, relationships to us and to others, and so on. Working from within this ethic of care can help us create inclusive classrooms that promote understanding, acceptance, a celebration of diversity and strong ties among everyone within the school, classroom and society.
I enjoyed the realistic and practical nature of the social contract theories discussed in last class. While these perspectives take a rather pessimistic stance, I feel that they unfortunately portray human nature in a largely accurate light. Many people are selfish and are concerned with gaining as much power, fame, glory, or control over others as they possibly can without being punished. Self-serving ambitions are not one of humanity’s brighter attributes, but is nonetheless a cornerstone of what it means to be human for many people.
ReplyDeleteHobbes and Rawls recognize this facet of human nature and appropriately address it in their respective moral theories. Hobbes essentially contends that we must all agree to enter into a social contract that limits our rights but produces peaceful living conditions. In essence, we act morally in order to avoid a society in which anarchy reigns and where we all would suffer. Rawls takes a slightly more optimistic approach in proposing that we avoid satisfying some of our natural inclinations and agree to a social contract that allows for equality and justice for all. Neither of these theories is overly cheerful and optimistic in nature, however I cannot fault them for the down to earth approach that they espouse. Too many of the other moral theories we have examined, while certainly more hopeful for the human condition, simply lack the practicality that lies within the theories of Hobbes and Rawls.
We also had a lively discussion about “Stand and Deliver,” centered on the teacher. It was said that his behavior was unethical not so much for the specifics of the student interactions, but because of the time and commitment constraints. I believe this argument is based around virtue ethics like Aristotle, as well as a utilitarianism outlook that considers the overall good that the actions may cause. The primary concern was that by donating free time the teacher may be compromising his profession, and subsequent teachers will be judged and given rewards in relation to how much extra work they do. Another point of view presented was that we are free beings, and that the action of extra work, in itself, is virtuous and ethical. Perhaps this is how Kant would view the situation. I’m not sure if I have the Aristotle outlook correct, it’s kind of like when we have group discussions in class and try to decide out Aristotle, Plato, or whoever would approach a situation. I’d say that about ½ the time, ½ of the group would get it wrong(ish)! I’d like to know what other people think of extra work and how Aristotle, Plato, Kant, etc, may view it. It’s a big topic though, with union vs. non-union, socialism vs. capitalism.
ReplyDeleteThis exact situation is extremely relevant to the teacher’s profession in BC. The BCTF may have strict policies on how many hours of work are acceptable, although I must say that my in-school experience tells me this isn’t so. That would mean that those of us that are, or are planning to be, teachers will have to sit down and work out our own ethics and how we will plan and justify our actions. Another immediate consequence from this same ethical dilemma is the expectation and need for coaching at secondary schools. It is my understanding that a person’s likelihood at getting a job is somewhat predicated on their willingness to coach or participate in extra-curricular activities. I also have friends who have been nudged or slightly pressured to take on coaching duties. This gets very difficult because not only do teachers have to make an ethical decision as a teacher but they need to reconcile it with their family ethics and values.
It is interesting that two famous examples of Difference Makers in teaching, taken from the movies Stand And Deliver and Freedom Writers, are generally seen as being unethical. Does something like Aristotle’s “Golden Mean” result in “Golden Mediocrity”? Are the ethics involved in these two movies just a coincidence, or do difference makers necessarily push boundaries? Finally, there is the possibility that there are difference makers without ethical dilemmas and they are just too boring for Hollywood.
ReplyDeleteBefore we broke into our smaller groups to discuss Stand and Deliver, I was trying to figure out what "ethical issues" the movie presented. The only one I could really come up with was the fact that the way education is dispensed in North America does not seem to be "equal opportunity" based, despite our best efforts. However, once we did break into the smaller groups, the first issue one of my group members came up with was, "The teacher is too close to his students. There are clearly some boundaries being pushed and lines being crossed in terms of the teacher-student relationship". Now, I completely understand where this was coming from. however, as I mentioned in earlier posts, these issues of personal vs. private life really distress me.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the "powers that be" have decided that those in possession of teaching certificates (at least in Canada) are perfectly capable humans in terms of educating the youth of tomorrow, is no longer enough. Despite being certified and supposedly capable to teach, we are being held to an “ethical standard” that seems to undermine our abilities. Messing up is part of being human, and the messing up that kids/teens tends to be on a more frequent basis. I'm not trying to validate messing up on the job, or being “above the law” in one’s personal life. Rather, if I can offer my (future) students personal anecdotes concerning real life issues, why should I censor myself? If I talk about very human issues with my students, that may not be seen as "politically correct" to their parents or the administration, but will help them grow as people, why should I have to censor myself? Getting back to the matter at hand - if the teacher in Stand and Deliver didn't connect with his students with examples like, "how many girlfriends does..." and have this clearly personal connection with the kids, do you think he would have been able to convince them to come in on a Saturday?
I would argue that it is unethical for a school board to make at teacher contractually obligated to refrain from engaging students on a personal level or use real world issues to get their points across. Having a relationship with a student with the motives of improving their livelihood, or reaching them philosophically, should be promoted in a school, not prohibited.
Klowy, you touch on something that I feel like I've been constantly struggling with since this class started. I too feel very anxious about the idea that now that I have received my teaching certificate, I am must always be extra careful when doing anything in public. I don't have any big plans to act unethically, but if I am a talented teacher, I think that should speak for my teaching, not how I spend my free time. Furthermore, who decides what is and is not ethical for a teacher on their free time? What are these standards? On the other hand, when I picture putting my kids in school, I would hope the teacher is well rounded in his/her life, but also ethical. So, I'm still miffed...
ReplyDeleteI found the Avatar activity to be really helpful. For me, it showed me how important collaboration is for teaching. While the focus of the activity was aimed at ethics, I really enjoyed seeing how all the group members came up with such different ideas for the same, very small, film clip. Throughout PDP we have heard the about the benefits of collaboration. I think I finally agree.
Considering John Rawls’s views regarding contractualism, I think that by asking the students to sign a contract regarding their participation in the calculus class, the teacher in Stand and Deliver (1986) shows the students that they are all receiving the same opportunity, regardless of their “personal attributes ” (which Rawls argues result in inequality and unequal opportunities) (Jane Ann McLachlan, 2010, p. 106); it is as if the teacher ignores the students’ characteristics that usually cause them to be treated unequally. According to Rawls, if people would not pay attention to these characteristics that produce inequalities and would rather “imagine [themselves] without…these… [characteristics]” (McLachlan, 2010, p. 107) people could agree “about the moral rules which should govern [everyone]” (p. 108) and “choose rules that protect…’primary goods’ of the most disadvantaged” (p. 108). By telling every student that they have to sign the contract and thus ignoring these characteristics, the teacher is “choos[ing] [a] rule… that protect[s]…’primary goods’ of the most disadvantaged” (McLachlan, 2010, p. 108). By signing the contract, the students are also ignoring their characteristics which usually cause them to be treated unequally. I think that the teacher and students illustrate their agreement regarding the opportunity that they all think that they deserve (this is illustrated when the teacher creates the contract and the students sign the contract); I think that this agreement parallels Rawls’s idea that people can agree about the moral rules which should govern [everyone]” (McLachlan, 2010, p. 108) and “choose rules that protect…’primary goods’ of the most disadvantaged” (108) if they ignore the personal characteristics. I think that the contract illustrates that the “primary good” that the teacher and students are striving for are “an opportunity, or the ability to achieve secondary wants (wealth, etc.) through [their] own efforts” (McLachlan, 2010, p. 108). I think that in the case of the film, this primary good refers to the fact that the calculus class is an opportunity that can open up more opportunities for the students, when they look for jobs and when they want to access better jobs.
ReplyDeleteI think that if the students realize how determined the teacher is to get all the students to sign the contract, they will understand that there is a reason why he wants them to sign the contract. By asking the students to sign the contract, the teacher shows the students that someone believes that they can succeed. The teacher’s belief in the students will motivate students to do well in the class because they will not want to let him down. On the other hand, students who are reluctant to sign the contact because they do not believe in themselves will also be motivated to do well in the class because they will want to prove to themselves that they can succeed. Also, a contract makes one feel a sense of responsibility to do what they agreed to do when they signed the contract. Thus, the latter can also serve as a motivating factor.
Watching Stand and Deliver was a good reminder of the perception gap between student and teacher. I watched it when it first came out. I only saw it on its surface level of being an inspiring movie about some wonderful teacher who cared when no one else did. I had no concept of how screenwriters change reality to make it fit a “good story” mould. I’m sure that the real teacher didn’t ride around in cars teaching his students lessons about their direction in life.
ReplyDeleteI felt a little uncomfortable watching some of the scenes. I was concerned about some of the interactions that Hollywood was portraying as how a caring teacher should behave. My guess is that there are students who lack loving relationships at home who come away from movies like this thinking that teachers should be overly involved in their lives if they really cared. We aren’t in the business of saving children. We can mentor. We can help them to open doors for themselves.
I have also been thinking about the use of popular movies in class. I heard one student in my environmental education class say that her sponsor teacher had every Friday as movie day. There are definitely days where teachers reach for the “lesson plan in a box”. When we show movies, we elevate their credibility. Some students think that the there must be some inherent value to the movie if the teacher is choosing to show it. I used to show Super Size Me when nutrition was in the Science 9 curriculum. I didn’t have time to look at bias or to find counter agreements. I used it to get them thinking about what they ate in a way that was very accessible to them. That accessibility can also make movies a powerful tool. One of my co-workers became vegan after watching Food Inc. We have to be aware that we aren’t choosing movies just to get us through another hour of class.
Like Klowy, I too wondered at first what the ethical issues were in _Stand and Deliver_, other than the hug at the end of the scene we watched. I suppose this could even be fuzzy because it seems as though "Kemo" and the student formed a special student/teacher bond. I still don't think hugging your students is acceptable, but it's kind of an unfortunate set of circumstances that our main concern must be to "cover our butts" rather than to comfort a student. (Nel Noddings has some good readings on the Ethics of Care, and it's interesting to look at how our roles as teacher often restrict our ability to build relationships, especially when relations--according to Noddings, as far as I can tell--should be the chief concern of education.)
ReplyDeleteAnyway, one thing someone brought up in our group in relation to Kemo caring about the whole student was when the student said he needed to work weekends and Kemo convinced him otherwise by saying he could be the one designing the cars instead of the one working on them. Though this sounds supportive to begin with, if we examine the underlying message of this, I see some problems. By asserting that it's "better" to design cars than to work on them, Kemo is essentially recreating the system that has marginalized and oppressed these kids to begin with. I'm not saying there is no point in teaching inner city students algebra; I'm saying that creating a hierarchy of jobs and types of knowledge just works to perpetuate the ideologies that separate our society already. I think everyone should be given the same opportunities but that those opportunities need not be qualified in the sense they were in that scene.
The movie Stand and Deliver raised some interesting debate in our group. One member in our group brought up the possibility that volunteering is unethical. First I would like to outline my position. I am a big proponent of volunteerism. Having worked with Non Governmental Organizations for a number of years, I know of many such organizations that would not be able to operate without an army of volunteers. I believe it to be one of the sincerest forms of charity, the donating of your time. I also think it's a great tool to develop leaders. I am firmly on the volunteering is good camp.
ReplyDeleteThat group member did bring up some really good points stemming from the movie. As a teacher, how would you feel if someone like Jamie Escalante started coming in early and leaving late and committing the an amount of time and energy beyond what is required that you, a fellow teacher could not make. There is also the pressure of teachers doing more with less. For example, coaching school teams, staying behind for extra help or even paying for school supplies out of your own pocket. Another group member gave me this illustration. If a principal is interviewing you and asks if you would coach a sports team would you say yes to improve your chances at being hired?
These are real life problems that I never considered.
In this situation I lean on the the deontological argument that it is our intention that matters. Mr. Escalante's primary goal was to get his students to pass the Math AP course. His intention were to open up educational opportunities for his students. If the consequences where that his students do perform well and some other staff members are threaten then it doesn't matter according to this ethical view.
Perhaps because I am not teaching right now, that I am not aware of these issues of internal politics within the teaching system. It does sadden me a bit to think that if I volunteered to coach a team or stay back and offer extra help it may be looked down by my fellow coworkers.
I am actually happy to find read about feminist ethics. To me it seems like we rely on logic because it is consistent and predicable. Emotions seem to be on the other end of the spectrum but that does not mean it does not have it's own value. In the Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis wrote about the dangers of raising a generation of thinkers and not feelers. He called them "Men without Chest". The are trained on logic in an emotional void and then expected to be moral. I think the pole that our moral compass aligns itself with does need to include both logic and care.
@Allie
ReplyDeleteThat's why they invented side hugs.
As I mentioned in class, I am very interested in the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). I am particularly interested in Rousseau’s influence on the German Romantics (including Friedrich Schiller, the Schlegels and Friedrich Hölderlin). In addition, Rousseau wrote one of the most famous (and infamous) educational treatises of all time: Emile: or, On Education. This book caused so much consternation that an arrest warrant was issued for Rousseau, and he had to leave France to go into exile. Emile is a fascinating—and somewhat infuriating—work. Rousseau has been rightly critiqued for the many inconsistencies in his philosophy. Nevertheless, I believe that Rousseau’s view that we should educate the whole child, and that and we should use a variety of active teaching methods (prefiguring John Dewey’s “learning by doing”) have contemporary appeal. Like Montaigne, Rousseau’s educational theory emphasizes the freedom and the innate goodness of students (and people). Rousseau argued against corporal punishment and claimed, “Integrity of the heart when fortified by reason produces an accurate mind.”
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, Kant was a big “fan” of Rousseau. In Rousseau as Educator Mabel Sahakian and William Sahakian make the following interesting claims: “The classical German philosopher Kant, who declared that no book had moved him as deeply as had Emile, was so greatly influenced by Rousseau’s writing that he changed his attitude toward the masses from one of disdain to one of wholesome respect. Kant, whose daily walks were carried out with minute regularity and precision, was disturbed because he could not pull himself away from reading Emile. It inspired him to write his own famous treatise on education, which included many ideas generated by Emile. (120) I am fascinated by this sort of thing.
In my group most people thought the teacher in “Stand and Deliver” was acting in an unethical way by crossing boundaries into the lives of his students both physically and emotionally. I have to admit that it didn’t really strike me this way. I think he was passionate and he cared. He found any way he could to reach those kids and create a pathway to success for them. One thing that interests me though is the personal life of the teacher. I’ve never seen this movie, but I’ve seen other based on a true story teaching movies where the teacher (usually a woman) ends up losing her marriage or partner because of her commitment to her job. I guess this kind of sacrifice would be based on the greater good concept. If a teacher sacrifices his/her personal life on an individual level a few people suffer but society stands to benefit from the good that stems from a whole class of people succeeding.
ReplyDeleteK-Lyn mentioned that we teachers shouldn’t use movies to pass the time. In other words the movies should complement a unit or move the thinking of our students forward. I have to agree with this, but I’d like to take this idea step further with a question: Are teachers morally obliged to teach for change?
Rawls and “the natural lottery”
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading the section of our book on Contractarianism, I was drawn to the idea of “contingent attributes” or the “natural lottery” . Rawls believes that “we must get beyond these contingent attributes in order to agree upon ethical truths”. When I read that, I immediately thought about how difficult it would be to make decisions without bias, as though we had not been born and did not know how the laws/rules/social contracts would apply to us. I immediately thought that some people would gamble that they would be on the positive side of the equation (as is discussed in the “Critic’ View” section). Then, I recalled post I had read on a blog regarding Warren Buffet and his belief about the lottery of birth. In the post, Warren Buffet is quoted as saying,
“If you could put your ball back, and they took out, at random, a hundred other balls, and you had to pick one of those, would you put your ball back in? Now, of those hundred balls … roughly five of them will be American. … Half of them are going to be below-average intelligence, half will be above. Do you want to put your ball back? Most of you, I think, will not. … What you’re saying is, 'I’m in the luckiest 1% of the world right now.' "
If you think of it that way, maybe people wouldn’t be the gamblers that I had first anticipated. Maybe people who were making decisions from a “pre-birth” mindset would try to protect and treat all people fairly just in case.
The post is located at http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2010/03/31/warren-buffett-on-the-lottery-of-birth/
Stand and Deliver
ReplyDeleteIn our group, we were really caught up in the fact that the teacher in the movie seemed to be a little too close to his students (we wondered if he was taking the ethic of care too far). The hugging scene and the crazy driving (of the student’s car, no less) scene were concerning to us. When I was driving home, I began to think about other inspiring teacher movies (Lean on Me, Dangerous Minds, The Principal). I LOVE these kinds of movies. They are inspiring to me. Upon reflection, however, I realize that most of the “heroes” in these movies are mavericks or rule breakers. I can understand that one might argue that people do need to break the rules if the rules are unethical. As a vice principal though, I see how many of the rules are in place to protect staff and students. Others are there as a form of social contract. I also see how for every single hero, there are dozens of mavericks who have failed. I should say that I am not a rule breaker. I am more of a work within the system to change the system type educator. Does that mean that I could not reach great heights in education? Does it mean that we have a bell curve of educational glory with mavericks at both ends and rule followers in the middle? Is it ethical to glorify the mavericks?
As a side note:
ReplyDeleteWhen we were talking about the power dimensions in language such as black and white, male and female(postmodernism), it made me think of the book Blink.
In the book, there is an online quiz you can take to test your associations with age, gender, race, sexuality, etc. The quiz is described as “a way to compare your stated beliefs with your unconscious beliefs”.
The website is https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ (click on demonstration).
It is actually pretty interesting and fun to do. If you read the book, he makes the suggestion that if you are doing the race test and you think of really positive role models of African descent before you take the test(think Martin Luther King, Jr.) your unconscious beliefs about black people pictured in the survey will improve.
What stood out for me in the lecture was the section on postmodernism "We cannot possibly know other people and what is right for them. Too much is depends on all the particulars. We cannot judge someone's intentions or actions as moral when we can't know the whole situation and we are not inside the culture or even the person's head." When I think of this, I invision a teacher or parent saying to a child "I know what is best for you." As an authority figure in the classroom I would would only want the best for my students, as I do for my child, but I worry that what I think is best may not be best for that individual and I would hate to lead them astray. In my mind it is like preparing them for disaster. I think students need guidance and as a so called "expert" in the field I think it is important to tell them what we think but I think too many people think they know what they don't know.
ReplyDeleteAs for the video we watched in class: I have mixed feelings on how the teacher treated his students but I think of his treatment as "tough love". I think the teacher truly cared about his students he just portrayed it in a different manner. I will have to rent the movie and watch the whole thing. In the end though, I think what the teacher did for his students was a a great thing. It definitely showed many people that they were wrong. It would be interesting to see how many of those students actually benefitted from that class.
I really like what Joanna said in her blog regarding Gilligan’s Ethics of Care, which I also find very applicable to the work done by Counsellors. Our network of social service agencies has been heavily influenced by Feminist theories of all kinds. What I find particularly relevant in Gilligan’s concept is the emphasis on strengthening relationships.
ReplyDeleteAt present, many social services in BC are moving away from these feminist ideals (how our decisions affect others, support and strengthening relationships) into a more rational, objective system which emphasizes the bottom-line and budget constraints. We have moved from the ethics of care toward a market-driven system.
Example: Large multi-national corporations are now providing employment services in BC and Ontario where they had no existing relationship to the community. These corporations are displacing the grassroots agencies that first acknowledged the needs of their own communities; agencies that have provided quality care for 30+ years. These new ‘corporate helping agencies’ are mandated to get welfare recipients off social assistance as quickly as possible and into jobs, no matter the cost to the individual, including cutting people off who refuse to take a job. Although some may argue that social assistance recipients should be forced into jobs or cut off the welfare system, this approach is not about strengthening relationships with individuals or communities and it rarely considers the whole person.
I really enjoy the clip from the movie of “Stand and Deliver”. While most of my group members came up with many ethical issues the teacher had displayed. I find him to be a very good teacher in contrast. The teacher really tries to bring the best out of every student in tackling calculus. Even though there are minor ethical problems like making the students go to class on Saturday and making jokes in class, I find the teacher to be dedicated in his teaching and most importantly, never give up on his students. After reflecting back to the film at home, I find him to be an ethical teacher like inspiring students to study difficult subject and try to teach outside of the status quo in the education. Being able to teach outside the frame/box is one of the most inspiring things teacher can offer to students. After the discussion in class today I find ethics to be very debatable in different situations and it is hard to force everyone to do exactly the same in teaching. But we can at least follow the basic ethical approach and fulfill our ethics of purpose and do what causes the most good and least harm for all concerned. An ethical teacher to me is one that cultivates mutual respect and absolute tolerance (caring about the students despite individual abilities/culture/ethnicity) while being a reflective practitioner on their teachable moments and constantly improving on difficult teaching situations instead of disregarding them.
ReplyDeleteControlling our natural impulses is something that, in general, we are accustomed to. From the time that we are small children, the majority of us are taught to share and take turns, even though our base impulses would direct us toward selfishness. This practice of balancing the greatest good for us as individuals with the greatest good for all around us is far from clear, however, leaving much grey area in many cases.
ReplyDeleteThe social contract is meant to help us make those grey decisions; by providing restraints on our selfish tendencies, Hobbes believed that society would thrive both in terms of the individuals within the society, as well as society as a whole. The problem I see in the social contract is that although it is great in theory, it relies on the complete participation from all members in society; something that cannot be guaranteed. As soon as one person in the society acts in his/her own best interest, to the detriment of the group as a whole, the system would be in chaos, as everyone would revert back to the Diyonesian (impulse driven), and rationality and logic would fall to the wayside.
I love Rawls’ idea of the veil of ignorance being in place when we make ethical decisions as a method of deciding what it the right thing to do qua the right thing to do, rather than what is the right thing for oneself and one’s loved ones. It reminds me of a numeracy task I saw as an idea for a young math class: students were directed to put together goody bags for a birthday party and were only directed to make them fair – they would not be choosing which bag they would get at the end. The students were then given pictures of different items (special pens, stickers, candy bars etc) and a few paper bags. Of course, there were not enough of any one type of goody to go in all of the bags, choices had to be made. The discussion of what was fair, which items could be considered to others etc. was fantastic, and the veil of ignorance was an amazing motivator to ensure that all of the bags would be appealing and fair. I think that this would be a great activity to illustrate Rawls’ view in a classroom setting… have I just found my lesson plan?
~b
It is sad but also funny when I read through the notes and got to the part on Mary Wollstonecraft that labelled women as self-indulgent, overly emotional, and narcissistic I started thinking about society in general. If this is truly a result of a lack of education then what are we doing wrong now.
ReplyDeleteNarcissistic fits in very well with the current idea of the me generation. We all know people and other living things are suffering yet many people focus on what they want. As my brother always puts it life is short so just have fun. What about those who are not having fun. Those we can help via volunteer work or donations. Another example is how 85% of people living in B.C would accept a donor organ and only 15% have actually registered to donate their own organs.
Self-indulgent is the most obvious one. As a society we are eating too much of what we want instead of focusing on what we need. Many people who eat meat, for example, could not kill a cow themselves to eat stake. One factor that stops them is the desire to let the cow live, it is as if they do not think it is right to kill the cow if they don’t have to (they could eat something else.) Yet, they like the taste of meat so they will eat steak and burgers anyway. We also enjoy the luxury of many ‘toys’ that we know have harmful effects on the planet and others. We buy some of these toys from countries where we know child labour is in service and we do not agree with child labour. But we do it anyway. The plague of walmart’s and superstore’s feed our desire for meaningless material things that we want but don’t need. We often buy items as cheap as possible avoiding the fact that what we just bought could not have been manufactured fairly at that price.
Overly emotional fits well in today’s society if you think about how easily offended people are. Our society comes up with terms and changes them over and over again. Examples include the change from handicapped to disabled to challenged to with disabilities to special needs. It gets to the point where you do not know what to say or how to say it with the proper terminology so you don’t offend someone. Driving also bring this out in many people. A simple lane change to get into the turning lane is perceived as a threat or insult to the driver who ends up behind you. For many people a simple misunderstanding is often blown out of proportion.
I am in no way a saint and am indulging in many of these wrong doings myself. Our society is in desperate need of a proper education in ethics. We have all the major symptoms of a lack of a proper education. The question becomes what if anything are we prepared to do about it?
Feminist Ethics
ReplyDeleteAs an accountant in China, my mom earned most income for family, which might be as quadruple as what my father earned from being dentist. Meanwhile, I have to admit that my mom pays lots more attention to my live, such as study and specific interest to any subjects. In general, my mom may have a higher social recognition and status than my father in China.
Well, could my mom be recognized as my feminist? I am now always around my mom and observe her behaviors all the time, but I do have certain knowledge about what she does as a manger in a company and a mom in family. She's objective, she has a higher position any many male employees in her company, she does have good relationships with many others while loves to being alone sometimes (she didn't go back home for dinner most of time when I was in secondary school and I realized that she had dinner with her friends outside.
I often blame my after about his ability to manage the family as a father and ability to get more money to support out family. My mom always strike me back: does it really matter who earns the money and who manages the house the most? Your father gets recognitions by his dental skills to his patients, he is reputed by his ways to treat the others. I feel pretty satisfied when I heard about those things. Then I am silent.
I respect the contribution by Gilligan for her study on the moral development. However, her studies are bit biased.First, her studies focus on young boys and girls. To make it clear, young girls are pretty much different from women. When a person grows and become mature, he/she will have different thoughts, ethic standards with regards to individual and social responsibilities. I don't think that a girl who just graduate from high school will have identical views and visions as a woman who has been in the workforce for 15-20 years. Besides, the relationship to the others may have different meaning for a teenage girl and a woman. The latter may be more selective about their relationship that affect their life and work condition.
ReplyDeleteWhen feminist criticize the equality between male and females, do they also consider that the inequality among men may be even severe than men and women? Also, there are many emotional and subjective males around the society, no only women.
The society could never be equal even though we work towards the equality for everyone. Equality for men and women doesn't mean that we do need a female president in the US. If Hillary Clinton is the president of the US, are you worried about her decisions that might be made based on emotion and subjection, as what feminist describe women?