Editor:
A teaching assistant asks students if they are LDS. Students voluntarily raise their hands. TA questions the history of the LDS Church and lack of apparent diversity within its hierarchy. Some students are upset that their church is under attack and are angry that they did not get a chance to rebut. Welcome to the tyranny of the classroom.
Last time I took a biology class, evolution was given center stage. No time for rebuttals from those who believe in creationism. No time for people to defend their church’s view that creationism is not only true, but also that the concept of evolution itself is the most heinous form of intellectual humanism ever devised by the (color and gender neutral) devil itself.
Like it or not, time is limited, and not everyone is given the time or opportunity to speak (thank gosh!), not every problem or idea can be fully explored from all sides. The best a teacher can do is plant the seed of inquisitiveness and inspire students to think and research for themselves.
A university education should be purposefully challenging?not only intellectually but also emotionally and spiritually. That means that each student should be exposed to ideas and concepts that are so foreign that their own understanding of the world is fundamentally challenged (I have doubts that the U is such an institution). This is not easy, this is not always pleasant, but if a university truly believes that its mission is to present concepts and ideas from many points of view, and to help student to learn how to think for themselves, then people will be challenged.
Unfortunately, in this society such challenges are considered offensive, cause discomfort and are therefore to be avoided.
In fact, everyone should be offended/uncomfortable at one time or another. What makes a good student (and I suggest a good person) is to seriously consider the point of view of others and then accept or reject all or some of these alien viewpoints. This approach not only allows for tolerance, but intellectual, emotional and spiritual growth.
This does not necessarily mean an external debate, but rather the far more difficult internal debate that occurs when a person’s basic tenants are challenged. Certainly, to lash out and throw a temper tantrum (no matter how wrapped in legalisms and holier-than-thou shrouds) is childish and illustrates how so many people just don’t understand that an education is not offense free.
What a shame. Shame on these students for not embracing another person (whose only mistake seems to have been asking who was LDS) on the same difficult life journey we are all on.
Shame on The Chronicle for not supporting the concept that ideas are valuable?that ideas sometimes offend (as its articles sometimes do) and that a mistake is an opportunity for everyone to grow. Shame on the university for not fully supporting this TA, who may have made a legalistic mistake, but one that is understandable.
Discussions and forums can be useful to explore these topics. Perhaps these students could sponsor a discussion that the whole school could attend in which both sides are present and allowed to explore not only the difficult concept of institutional racism but how the LDS Church responds to such perceptions. Perhaps The Century could publish an article on the subject.
All of these responses are appropriate and can actually lead to a greater understanding and tolerance. None require petty legalistic maneuvers that stifle a free (even if only one-way) exchange of ideas.
I hope these students will find it within their hearts to forgive whatever slight they felt. I also hope that this event does not stop this, or any other TA or teacher, from asking hard, perhaps unpleasant questions of their students.
I also hope that this event will not stifle the presentation of all alternative ideas, however difficult and challenging they may be.
Phillip Drinkaus, Graduate Student, Mechanical Engineering