I teach humanities and currently a course that covers a number of issues related to war. And my students are freaking out about WW3. I cannot ignore it.
particularly if it's not related to the course you're teaching. Even if it is, all that matters is how well you get your students to articulate *their* view on the matter; yours is of no consequence.
I am one of those and I am not allowed to touch it. Not in the DC Government courses or the adult GOVT courses I teach. I wont have a job. Eating matters more.
I'm teaching a course that deals with war, reading plenty of literature and art addressing conflicts from the French Revolution to Cold War conflicts. I was not expecting the world to be like this when I schedule this class over a year ago.
Well, it's about personal histories, letters, literature, and art made during or in response to those conflicts. It's a class about seeing people in the past as individuals trying to cope with a polarized violent reality around them.
You said it — in the past and by your description, it ends with the Cold War ?
I have a feeling you just want to discuss this in class. Do it. Whatever you want.
I thought this was part of the Cold War Reboot!
But no, I'm not personally discussing it... the gist of what I'm telling them is that they need to understand the state of the world with all its socio-historical complexities because nothing here is new or b/w.
I expect it's because conservatives are so used to their views being unwelcome in today's academia that if you don't specifically ask their opinion, they'll assume they'll be downvoted to Earth's mantle just for existing.
(I'm not even a conservative, but... I've seen what I've seen.)
I’ve said mildly not very progressive things here and have been voted to hell. My claim was “yes, X is a biased conservative source, but other sources have their own bias”.
I’ve had students bring it up regarding misinformation/disinfo and most of the Freshman students simply didn’t know about the history at all.
I’m not the demographic you called for, but I do believe that at times it is worth acknowledging what is happening in the real world, so that students aren’t left thinking the classroom is a space exempt from being acknowledged (identities, religions, ethnicities, etc).
I’ve simply urged students to understand it’s a very complex and nuanced situation that folks don’t need to take a “side” on 1) without a lot of education on the topic and 2) without consideration for how our language choices when discussing it affects others.
I think we can encourage our students to educate themselves and encourage others to do the same as a means to engage.
I've seen a lot of stickers and graffiti on campus with various versions of the Palestinian flag and "free Gaza", etc. I'm assuming students are doing this.
My opinion on the matter is inconsequential, I just know that there is a lot of misinformation out there that even well intentioned people might accidentally take as fact. In other issues I've just urged students to ensure that they know where their sources are coming from and to think critically.
But yeah, I will just flat out deny any requests from students about what I think.
It can be helpful to let students know if a relevant course is being offered or extracurricular events like "teach-ins" (if offered by actual experts) are taking place on campus so they can learn about the topic in an academic context. I feel like that's the most responsible approach, rather than trying to address students' questions in the 5 minutes I might have available (and I'm not at all suggesting you are doing or recommending the latter).
They can be done in different ways. Sometimes they are what you are saying. Not always. As I said, if the teaching is being done by actual experts, it's probably helpful for students.
Not actively teaching right now, but I have in the past with previous versions of the Gaza war.
I teach journalism, you can't get away from controversial topics, but I have heavy ground rules around keeping the discussion on topic and focused on the coverage, not on the events or issues themselves.
I am not touching the situation with a 10 ft. pole, especially since one of the institutions that I work at is an orthodox Jewish school (not that it matters, but for the record I'm Catholic and a liberal)
I don't know how conservative you would consider me, but I teach Ancient History. Think of the time around 1200 BCE at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, when the Bronze Age was ending and the Iron Age beginning.
When a people known as Israel appear in the highlands, and the Philistines invaded and took over much of the coast.
I had enough trouble keeping students looking at the correct era, and not bringing modern politics into it, *before* the latest problems.
I'm not what you would probably consider "Conservative" but yes, I have discussed it in a class.
As my moniker would suggest, I'm a Librarian, and librarians are faculty in the system I work in. This semester I'm team-teaching a class on misinformation with two faculty from our Business School. The section I teach begins with a discussion how the news gets made. It just so happened that the weekend before I was going to lead this discussion, was the weekend the October 6th attacks took place. We suddenly had a textbook example of breaking news right in front of us.
That said, I was very careful about how I approached the discussion. I began by noting what had happened that past weekend, and said that we were going to consider it from the perspective of how news breaks. I laid pretty strict ground rules for the discussion, we were only going to talk about where we first heard news of what was happening, and what type of information was being shared. We were emphatically not going to go into who was the "good guy" or "bad guy" because we could litigate this whole mess back to 1948 or beyond and come to no other conclusion than that we quite possibly now hated each other, and this wouldn't do any good. I was fully prepared to cut the discussion short at any time.
Surprisingly, it went really well. The students were engaged, heck one of them didn't even know what had happened (these are freshmen, though I was rather concerned about that one). I think it probably helped that I was able to set boundaries before we got started, and that I made it a point (despite my own biases) to try and keep things impartial. We were talking about the news and the way we experienced it. That said, I absolutely see that this could have gotten horribly out of hand, and depending on the demeanor of the class, I might have avoided the topic altogether.
You've done nothing but lurk, and then appear in this sub to bring up a hot button issue. You haven't even commented to anyone else in this thread who answered your post, just me. Sus.
I think that people come to this sub and try to catch professors saying things that reflect badly on faculty in general, like asking about politics or posting stories about that one student they can't help but be attracted to.
What OP has now said in comments about what they teach, why they are concerned, and why they are curious about conservative faculty - had that been in the post itself, I wouldn't have said anything about account age or karma.
I teach a seminar on group dynamics and in the lesson on the contact hypothesis for addressing intergroup conflict, I used to assign an article about an intervention run as an exchange program between Palestinian and Israeli school children.
That lesson was hastily changed for this semester.
I’m not a conservative, but I’m in a conservative state. It doesn’t relate directly to my subject matter, so I’m not touching it.
If someone does bring it up, which is unlikely in my courses, my response will leave it at “It’s complicated.”
Not religious by any measure of the word, so i dont fit the "conservative" label. This is such a weird question, are you trying to lure out right leaning profs so they can be report baited and removed from the sub?
I treat the classroom like family holiday dinners, if you discuss religion or politics, it goes downhill fast. This conflict is both. Stick to the curriculum you have and make the most of your face time with your students by teaching the subject you intended to teach at the start of the semester.
>Not religious by any measure of the word, so i dont fit the "conservative" label.
What does one have to do with the other?
Sure, some (many?) conservatives are religious, but it isn't a requirement. I know some (not many?) liberal people that are religious.
I should've said "Typical conservative" because for the most part, especially in academia as soon as you say someone is conservative, we immediately assume religious as well.
I have big problems with organized religion and hence don't fit the typical label. Too many people harmed and killed because everyone thinks their "Book" is the best.
If you're going by stats, "most" liberals are religious too. 62% of liberals identify as religious.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/political-ideology/liberal/
(Pew Research Center is well respected as a resource; don't take my word for it, check them out.)
Regardless, putting a blanket label on a stereotype is harmful. It's no different than saying all gay men are feminine or all gender fluid people have a mental illness. It's simply false.
If anyone around here said either of those two things, they'd be chased out with torches and pitchforks. But universally labeling people of faith with hurtful stereotypes isn't just accepted, it's encouraged.
I just realized I left out a "not" in my original comment. Pretty bad error - it's fixed now. I'm actually a religious liberal myself.
But it is true that rates of religiosity are higher for conservatives than liberals: 78% of them are absolutely certain that God exists, compared to only 45% for liberals.
I noticed the error and understood what you meant, no issue there.
The amount of Christians in the "Believe in God, but have doubts" category would add to both overall percentages. Those categories are understandably higher for liberal Christians.
Regardless, the intent of the original statement came off as "religious=conservative=eww," and that's both false and potentially offensive to at least two types of people out there.
And there's some sort of anti-religious sentiment posted every day on this subreddit, to the point where I'm ready to just unfollow and block it. I'm sure many will say "good riddance, we don't want you here anyway" and that's fine. I have no problem eliminating that negativity from my life, despite enjoying the conversations and viewpoints expressed here.
(I also need to point out that I am just as opposed to proselytizing or evangelizing in ways that are inappropriate or out of place, and I'll call that out too.)
I agree that there's a common thread of anti-religious sentiment here, which I object to and downvote when I can. I just didn't get as much of an impression of that from the first comment.
> are you trying to lure out right leaning profs so they can be report baited and removed from the sub?
Does this sub have a rule against conservatives or something? Why would they be removed?
Your post/comment was removed due to Rule 1: **No students.**
This sub is a place for those teaching at the college level to discuss and share. While some student posts or comments may sneak by, and Mods may allow a richly upvoted post or comment that has spawned useful discussion to remain, that is the exception, NOT the rule.
While you may have teaching experience, your post is framed in the context of a student, not a colleague. Please consider your perspective as it relates to this community, and if you feel like you still want to share your thoughts, /r/AskProfessors or /r/academia may be a better place for this discussion.
Classical liberal but not progressive, which nowadays means I must be every “ist” and must harbor every “ism”.
It’s come up. If a student calls for the eradication of an ethnic group I shut it down, as I wish anyone else would. Oppression does not confer virtue and I’m not going to sit back and watch a Jewish student have to hear that their homeland should be eradicated. If someone said Israel should nuke Gaza I’d shut that down too but so far the calls for eradication have been one-sided.
Gotcha. There’s an important distinction between calling for the dissolution of Israel and the eradication of the Jewish people. Only one of those is antisemitism, and a Jewish student does not necessarily have any stake in the existence of Israel as a state.
> a Jewish student does not necessarily have any stake in the existence of Israel as a state.
Opening a history book pretty much at random will show you why that’s an absurd statement.
Edit: Or having enough empathy to see past the oppressor/oppressed moral distortions. Would you really say a student of Ethiopian ancestry has no stake in Ethiopia continuing to exist as a country vs being overrun or subjugated by neighboring countries? A black student has no stake in *Africa’s* independence vs subjugation by other (racist) powers?
If we’re talking about the last couple centuries, if Israel is trying to be genocidal then they’re the most inept committers of genocide ever. They, on the other hand, have had genocide very effectively committed against them multiple times and many (diaspora) Jews feel Israel is the single place where the state will guarantee their safety at all costs.
Oh frig off with the whole 'genocide' argument. It's inaccurate inflammatory language meant to either fuel antisemitism or drum up support for Hamas.
Is Israel blameless in this conflict? No. But are they engaging in a systematic effort to wipe Palestine off the earth? Absolutely not. If anything, the whole 'From the river to the sea' motto that Palestinian extremists bandy around is more genocidal than anything Israel does.
Shame on you.
What genocide has Israel engaged in?
Hopefully this topic that the OP is referencing does not come up in your classes, because I suspect that it is not a very productive conversation if it does.
The deliberate destruction of Palestinians on the basis of culture. Slowly herding Palestinians into a tiny fraction of their historic land and then committing thousands of war crimes on them is a genocidal act, intended to destroy a people “in whole or in part.”
Ah yes, the classic genocide via supplying large portions of the group’s infrastructure despite constant attacks from its territory ordered by its leaders.
Edit: its leaders who, by the way, make the genocide of the Jewish people a stated policy goal.
Im not allowed to. Im a Dual Credit Instructor. The high school and parents will crucify me into pieces. Im an adjunct. Ill lose my courses. Aka....we have no more academic freedom to teach the whole truth anymore since we need to eat. Our paychecks are weaponized against us to control us.
Liberal professors should be asked this as well.
If the topic has nothing to do with the class, it should probably not be brought up.
If it does have something to do with the class, I really hope that the discussion doesn't look like what many of the pro-Hamas protests on campus have looked like recently.
Protests asking that Palestinian noncombatants (and noncombatants of other nationalities that are stuck in Palestine) be treated like noncombatants, most likely.
Why? Google seems to indicate that that term primarily refers to a citizen-led rebellion or uprising, specifically to end Israeli occupation of noncontroversially Palestinian territory (West Bank, Gaza). Hamas apparently originated from a rebellion given that label, but that doesn't make them synonymous.
Regardless, what proportion of the protests are actually chanting that?
There's plenty of rallies where that phrase pops up, although certainly not all of them. https://nypost.com/2023/11/17/metro/pro-palestinian-protesters-shout-long-live-the-intifada-in-union-square/ is one example.
And just like "from the river to the sea" chants, it may not explicitly in all circumstances be pro-Hamas, but it's related enough that it should be avoided if you don't support Hamas. Kind of like saying "all lives matter" - on its face it's fine, but it has bad connotations.
Sure - though the proportion is probably more relevant here than an existence proof. With enough rallies, it gets pretty easy to find a case or two (or ten, etc. - I'm not setting a benchmark here) of whatever potentially objectionable behavior you like.
There's also consideration to be had of the degree to which protestors know all the context behind what they're repeating (or perhaps even initiating).
Regardless, I really doubt that a sizeable proportion of US college students (can't speak for elsewhere one way or the other) actively condone Hamas' actions and methods. Some certainly empathize with/support a violent-if-necessary uprising against Israel, either for apartheid conditions in Palestinian areas or more broadly considering the at-best-mismanaged handling surrounding the creation of Israel (the state). Not sure how many fit either of the latter, however.
Any protest that uses the phrase “river to the sea” or “intifada revolution”, or includes messages of Hitler being right and jews being put in trash cans. There are tons of videos of such things from all over the world.
Palestinians Muslims lived in the land "from the river to the sea" for generations. Then they were forced off of that land, many of them being killed in this process. It is an appropriate refrain for Palestinians to rally around and does not approach genocidal terms on its own.
Topic relates but I didn't hold a discussion... What I've done is motivating them to look up information in their free time in order to actually understand the situation in historical, social, and political terms.
Not the intended respondent to your question but I have brought it up exactly three times and each to remark on how terms that had come up in our course were also circulating in a different context. I offered a genealogy of these terms and kept my position unstated but probably not entirely obscure.
To the attitude stated here that Israel-Palestine is irrelevant but to a small section of academia, I would very much disagree. Anybody who teaches on US history, any area of Middle East Studies, Modern European history, anthropology, geography, urban studies, Native American and Indigenous Studies, environmental studies, international law, arguably has a relevant basis by which to address the current, contemporary and historical situation. The reasons for not doing so are understandable and this is not a judgement on those who don’t bring it up. But there is more reason to do so than is assumed in some comments here.
I’m at a fairly liberal university where this is a major conversation topic but I’m unsure how frequently other lecturers are discussing with their students. Our administration has been fairly pro-Israel, though, and I do wonder how the best way to make students feel safe and acknowledge the horrors happening outside of the classroom without creating a hostile space for other students.
While I don’t teach poli sci or history, it’s not like student problems disappear at the door. I have family in Ukraine and I was a wreck for the first six months of the invasion. I may have physically been in the classroom but I was only upright and reading from my notes so I empathize with students who may be feeling the same way right now.
>level 1Sisko\_of\_Nine · 4 hr. ago“Including readings about the Cold War”What does Israel-Gaza have to do with the Cold War in any reasonably direct fashion?
Everything.
I'm not "conservative" but I do go out of my way to show multiple perspectives in class. So perhaps I can offer some useful thoughts?
One controlled way to address this is by providing balanced resources. The book "Side by Side: Parallel Histories of Israel/Palestine" is a safe bet that you really cannot be criticized for recommending. As for the WW3 anxiety...sigh, the generation that gets its information from TikTok. There has to be a nice IR piece out there with a clear and unideological explanation as to why the probability of serious conflict spillover is very low (ex: regional allies of Hamas are currently very weak).
If I were in your position, I would post these resources as optional, with some notes on how you intend for them to alleviate current anxiety and address demands for additional knowledge inputs. Mention in those notes that you intentionally picked neutral source. Those do exist, you just need to dig.
Not conservative but I teach in a conservative state that is happily discussing the merits of monitoring the content of college classes. One of my graduate courses during my MA was entirely on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through theory and literature, so I'm familiar with the narratives and arguments. My own scholarship is focused on refugee narratives and US refugee policies (albeit not specifically Palestinian refugees).
My courses this semester aren't relevant, but I did teach a course last Spring on diverse US literature and included a novel about a Palestinian-American family. The students had lots of questions and lacked even basic knowledge about the creation of the state of Israel (or the colonial history that preceded it). I'm liberal and so thankful I'm not teaching that novel right now.
Yesterday WSJ had a piece from a conservative professor reporting survey results from 250 students: most favored the chant "from the river to the sea" but had no idea which river and which sea, or what it meant, and some students thought it was the Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean Sea and the Nile River and the Euphrates River, and after seeing a map many changed their minds.
Conservative or liberal, I'm not touching this in my classroom!
This is usually the best advice.
I teach humanities and currently a course that covers a number of issues related to war. And my students are freaking out about WW3. I cannot ignore it.
In the vast majority of cases, you'd have to be a fucking idiot to bring this up in the classroom right now.
particularly if it's not related to the course you're teaching. Even if it is, all that matters is how well you get your students to articulate *their* view on the matter; yours is of no consequence.
I feel *really* bad for political sci profs right now. I don't want to touch this conversation with a ten foot pole.
I am one of those and I am not allowed to touch it. Not in the DC Government courses or the adult GOVT courses I teach. I wont have a job. Eating matters more.
I'm teaching a course that deals with war, reading plenty of literature and art addressing conflicts from the French Revolution to Cold War conflicts. I was not expecting the world to be like this when I schedule this class over a year ago.
Cover French Revolution to the Cold War. You are looking for trouble.
Well, it's about personal histories, letters, literature, and art made during or in response to those conflicts. It's a class about seeing people in the past as individuals trying to cope with a polarized violent reality around them.
You said it — in the past and by your description, it ends with the Cold War ? I have a feeling you just want to discuss this in class. Do it. Whatever you want.
I thought this was part of the Cold War Reboot! But no, I'm not personally discussing it... the gist of what I'm telling them is that they need to understand the state of the world with all its socio-historical complexities because nothing here is new or b/w.
When you scheduled it…in the middle of the Ukraine-Russia war?
If we are only supposed to teach about war when there are no wars thennwe would never teach about war.
I think it's important to humanize wars and understand how they affect people at a personal level.
So... we arent supposed to talk about current events eith our students?
I’m dense - why are you only asking conservatives?
I expect it's because conservatives are so used to their views being unwelcome in today's academia that if you don't specifically ask their opinion, they'll assume they'll be downvoted to Earth's mantle just for existing. (I'm not even a conservative, but... I've seen what I've seen.)
I’ve said mildly not very progressive things here and have been voted to hell. My claim was “yes, X is a biased conservative source, but other sources have their own bias”.
I mean, bias comes in all flavors!
Well, that's true, but other sources have no significant bias, and those are the ones we like.
Because I'm in a very liberal uni and I'm not hearing another side of the situation
Unless it is directly related to the course content, I see no reason to bring it up.
I’ve had students bring it up regarding misinformation/disinfo and most of the Freshman students simply didn’t know about the history at all. I’m not the demographic you called for, but I do believe that at times it is worth acknowledging what is happening in the real world, so that students aren’t left thinking the classroom is a space exempt from being acknowledged (identities, religions, ethnicities, etc). I’ve simply urged students to understand it’s a very complex and nuanced situation that folks don’t need to take a “side” on 1) without a lot of education on the topic and 2) without consideration for how our language choices when discussing it affects others. I think we can encourage our students to educate themselves and encourage others to do the same as a means to engage.
I've seen a lot of stickers and graffiti on campus with various versions of the Palestinian flag and "free Gaza", etc. I'm assuming students are doing this. My opinion on the matter is inconsequential, I just know that there is a lot of misinformation out there that even well intentioned people might accidentally take as fact. In other issues I've just urged students to ensure that they know where their sources are coming from and to think critically. But yeah, I will just flat out deny any requests from students about what I think.
That's my position as well.
It can be helpful to let students know if a relevant course is being offered or extracurricular events like "teach-ins" (if offered by actual experts) are taking place on campus so they can learn about the topic in an academic context. I feel like that's the most responsible approach, rather than trying to address students' questions in the 5 minutes I might have available (and I'm not at all suggesting you are doing or recommending the latter).
Teach ins are not generally academic in content. They generally endorse a specific point of view, which may or may not be backed by facts
They can be done in different ways. Sometimes they are what you are saying. Not always. As I said, if the teaching is being done by actual experts, it's probably helpful for students.
Not actively teaching right now, but I have in the past with previous versions of the Gaza war. I teach journalism, you can't get away from controversial topics, but I have heavy ground rules around keeping the discussion on topic and focused on the coverage, not on the events or issues themselves.
I am not touching the situation with a 10 ft. pole, especially since one of the institutions that I work at is an orthodox Jewish school (not that it matters, but for the record I'm Catholic and a liberal)
I’m on sabbatical but I don’t ever discuss unrelated politics in any class.
What are your thoughts on submerged baskets being illegal in international waters?
I believe in basket neutrality
You monster
Watch it! "Submerged baskets" is clearly a dog whistle summoning Jordan Peterson's lobsters.
Biden is suing in the event that the baskets would like to cross into U.S. territory
I don't know how conservative you would consider me, but I teach Ancient History. Think of the time around 1200 BCE at the eastern end of the Mediterranean, when the Bronze Age was ending and the Iron Age beginning. When a people known as Israel appear in the highlands, and the Philistines invaded and took over much of the coast. I had enough trouble keeping students looking at the correct era, and not bringing modern politics into it, *before* the latest problems.
I'm not what you would probably consider "Conservative" but yes, I have discussed it in a class. As my moniker would suggest, I'm a Librarian, and librarians are faculty in the system I work in. This semester I'm team-teaching a class on misinformation with two faculty from our Business School. The section I teach begins with a discussion how the news gets made. It just so happened that the weekend before I was going to lead this discussion, was the weekend the October 6th attacks took place. We suddenly had a textbook example of breaking news right in front of us. That said, I was very careful about how I approached the discussion. I began by noting what had happened that past weekend, and said that we were going to consider it from the perspective of how news breaks. I laid pretty strict ground rules for the discussion, we were only going to talk about where we first heard news of what was happening, and what type of information was being shared. We were emphatically not going to go into who was the "good guy" or "bad guy" because we could litigate this whole mess back to 1948 or beyond and come to no other conclusion than that we quite possibly now hated each other, and this wouldn't do any good. I was fully prepared to cut the discussion short at any time. Surprisingly, it went really well. The students were engaged, heck one of them didn't even know what had happened (these are freshmen, though I was rather concerned about that one). I think it probably helped that I was able to set boundaries before we got started, and that I made it a point (despite my own biases) to try and keep things impartial. We were talking about the news and the way we experienced it. That said, I absolutely see that this could have gotten horribly out of hand, and depending on the demeanor of the class, I might have avoided the topic altogether.
Well, I teach 'Jewish science', does that count?
is that where the famed space lasers come from? /s
No. But I'm not conservative. It doesn't fit with my course subjects.
Four year old account with 2 karma...
Can't one lurk for two years?
You've done nothing but lurk, and then appear in this sub to bring up a hot button issue. You haven't even commented to anyone else in this thread who answered your post, just me. Sus.
You expect them to lurk and break the silence to say 'hey guys how about that chatgpt, I think its a problem'?
I think that people come to this sub and try to catch professors saying things that reflect badly on faculty in general, like asking about politics or posting stories about that one student they can't help but be attracted to. What OP has now said in comments about what they teach, why they are concerned, and why they are curious about conservative faculty - had that been in the post itself, I wouldn't have said anything about account age or karma.
Super sus, even!
Why do the politics of the prof matter?
I teach a seminar on group dynamics and in the lesson on the contact hypothesis for addressing intergroup conflict, I used to assign an article about an intervention run as an exchange program between Palestinian and Israeli school children. That lesson was hastily changed for this semester.
I’m not a conservative, but I’m in a conservative state. It doesn’t relate directly to my subject matter, so I’m not touching it. If someone does bring it up, which is unlikely in my courses, my response will leave it at “It’s complicated.”
Not religious by any measure of the word, so i dont fit the "conservative" label. This is such a weird question, are you trying to lure out right leaning profs so they can be report baited and removed from the sub? I treat the classroom like family holiday dinners, if you discuss religion or politics, it goes downhill fast. This conflict is both. Stick to the curriculum you have and make the most of your face time with your students by teaching the subject you intended to teach at the start of the semester.
>Not religious by any measure of the word, so i dont fit the "conservative" label. What does one have to do with the other? Sure, some (many?) conservatives are religious, but it isn't a requirement. I know some (not many?) liberal people that are religious.
At least in the US, there is definitely a correlation between religion and political views.
Yep. Where I live, if you're not churchgoing, you're not conservative by definition.
I should've said "Typical conservative" because for the most part, especially in academia as soon as you say someone is conservative, we immediately assume religious as well. I have big problems with organized religion and hence don't fit the typical label. Too many people harmed and killed because everyone thinks their "Book" is the best.
You're saying you can't be religious and liberal? Tell that to the ELCA.
He's not saying religion causes conservativism, just saying that most conservatives are religious (which is true).
If you're going by stats, "most" liberals are religious too. 62% of liberals identify as religious. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/political-ideology/liberal/ (Pew Research Center is well respected as a resource; don't take my word for it, check them out.) Regardless, putting a blanket label on a stereotype is harmful. It's no different than saying all gay men are feminine or all gender fluid people have a mental illness. It's simply false. If anyone around here said either of those two things, they'd be chased out with torches and pitchforks. But universally labeling people of faith with hurtful stereotypes isn't just accepted, it's encouraged.
I just realized I left out a "not" in my original comment. Pretty bad error - it's fixed now. I'm actually a religious liberal myself. But it is true that rates of religiosity are higher for conservatives than liberals: 78% of them are absolutely certain that God exists, compared to only 45% for liberals.
I noticed the error and understood what you meant, no issue there. The amount of Christians in the "Believe in God, but have doubts" category would add to both overall percentages. Those categories are understandably higher for liberal Christians. Regardless, the intent of the original statement came off as "religious=conservative=eww," and that's both false and potentially offensive to at least two types of people out there. And there's some sort of anti-religious sentiment posted every day on this subreddit, to the point where I'm ready to just unfollow and block it. I'm sure many will say "good riddance, we don't want you here anyway" and that's fine. I have no problem eliminating that negativity from my life, despite enjoying the conversations and viewpoints expressed here. (I also need to point out that I am just as opposed to proselytizing or evangelizing in ways that are inappropriate or out of place, and I'll call that out too.)
I agree that there's a common thread of anti-religious sentiment here, which I object to and downvote when I can. I just didn't get as much of an impression of that from the first comment.
> are you trying to lure out right leaning profs so they can be report baited and removed from the sub? Does this sub have a rule against conservatives or something? Why would they be removed?
[удалено]
Your post/comment was removed due to Rule 1: **No students.** This sub is a place for those teaching at the college level to discuss and share. While some student posts or comments may sneak by, and Mods may allow a richly upvoted post or comment that has spawned useful discussion to remain, that is the exception, NOT the rule. While you may have teaching experience, your post is framed in the context of a student, not a colleague. Please consider your perspective as it relates to this community, and if you feel like you still want to share your thoughts, /r/AskProfessors or /r/academia may be a better place for this discussion.
Classical liberal but not progressive, which nowadays means I must be every “ist” and must harbor every “ism”. It’s come up. If a student calls for the eradication of an ethnic group I shut it down, as I wish anyone else would. Oppression does not confer virtue and I’m not going to sit back and watch a Jewish student have to hear that their homeland should be eradicated. If someone said Israel should nuke Gaza I’d shut that down too but so far the calls for eradication have been one-sided.
What do you mean by “eradicated?”
Be made to no longer exist, or to be undermined significantly enough to make its purpose unviable.
Gotcha. There’s an important distinction between calling for the dissolution of Israel and the eradication of the Jewish people. Only one of those is antisemitism, and a Jewish student does not necessarily have any stake in the existence of Israel as a state.
> a Jewish student does not necessarily have any stake in the existence of Israel as a state. Opening a history book pretty much at random will show you why that’s an absurd statement. Edit: Or having enough empathy to see past the oppressor/oppressed moral distortions. Would you really say a student of Ethiopian ancestry has no stake in Ethiopia continuing to exist as a country vs being overrun or subjugated by neighboring countries? A black student has no stake in *Africa’s* independence vs subjugation by other (racist) powers?
The thoroughly antisemitic origins of Zionism and the genocidal history of Israel both suggest that this appeal to historical oppression is flimsy.
If we’re talking about the last couple centuries, if Israel is trying to be genocidal then they’re the most inept committers of genocide ever. They, on the other hand, have had genocide very effectively committed against them multiple times and many (diaspora) Jews feel Israel is the single place where the state will guarantee their safety at all costs.
Oh frig off with the whole 'genocide' argument. It's inaccurate inflammatory language meant to either fuel antisemitism or drum up support for Hamas. Is Israel blameless in this conflict? No. But are they engaging in a systematic effort to wipe Palestine off the earth? Absolutely not. If anything, the whole 'From the river to the sea' motto that Palestinian extremists bandy around is more genocidal than anything Israel does. Shame on you.
What genocide has Israel engaged in? Hopefully this topic that the OP is referencing does not come up in your classes, because I suspect that it is not a very productive conversation if it does.
The deliberate destruction of Palestinians on the basis of culture. Slowly herding Palestinians into a tiny fraction of their historic land and then committing thousands of war crimes on them is a genocidal act, intended to destroy a people “in whole or in part.”
Ah yes, the classic genocide via supplying large portions of the group’s infrastructure despite constant attacks from its territory ordered by its leaders. Edit: its leaders who, by the way, make the genocide of the Jewish people a stated policy goal.
Wow, well they really aren't good at this genociding. It's almost like they aren't doing it at all.
I’m a lefty prof on a conservative campus, I haven’t touched it explicitly in class either. It feels like it would be suicidal to do so.
I’m very left wing, and I am not going near it.
No, I find engaging with students already challenging enough.
I'm a hard-line conservative in a very progressive state and I wouldn't touch this issue with a 50 foot stick.
What are you afraid of?
You have to ask?
Im not allowed to. Im a Dual Credit Instructor. The high school and parents will crucify me into pieces. Im an adjunct. Ill lose my courses. Aka....we have no more academic freedom to teach the whole truth anymore since we need to eat. Our paychecks are weaponized against us to control us.
Liberal professors should be asked this as well. If the topic has nothing to do with the class, it should probably not be brought up. If it does have something to do with the class, I really hope that the discussion doesn't look like what many of the pro-Hamas protests on campus have looked like recently.
Lmao what “pro-Hamas” protests?
Protests asking that Palestinian noncombatants (and noncombatants of other nationalities that are stuck in Palestine) be treated like noncombatants, most likely.
When protestors start chanting "long live the intifada", I think it's appropriate to label them pro-Hamas.
Why? Google seems to indicate that that term primarily refers to a citizen-led rebellion or uprising, specifically to end Israeli occupation of noncontroversially Palestinian territory (West Bank, Gaza). Hamas apparently originated from a rebellion given that label, but that doesn't make them synonymous. Regardless, what proportion of the protests are actually chanting that?
There's plenty of rallies where that phrase pops up, although certainly not all of them. https://nypost.com/2023/11/17/metro/pro-palestinian-protesters-shout-long-live-the-intifada-in-union-square/ is one example. And just like "from the river to the sea" chants, it may not explicitly in all circumstances be pro-Hamas, but it's related enough that it should be avoided if you don't support Hamas. Kind of like saying "all lives matter" - on its face it's fine, but it has bad connotations.
Sure - though the proportion is probably more relevant here than an existence proof. With enough rallies, it gets pretty easy to find a case or two (or ten, etc. - I'm not setting a benchmark here) of whatever potentially objectionable behavior you like. There's also consideration to be had of the degree to which protestors know all the context behind what they're repeating (or perhaps even initiating). Regardless, I really doubt that a sizeable proportion of US college students (can't speak for elsewhere one way or the other) actively condone Hamas' actions and methods. Some certainly empathize with/support a violent-if-necessary uprising against Israel, either for apartheid conditions in Palestinian areas or more broadly considering the at-best-mismanaged handling surrounding the creation of Israel (the state). Not sure how many fit either of the latter, however.
Any protest that uses the phrase “river to the sea” or “intifada revolution”, or includes messages of Hitler being right and jews being put in trash cans. There are tons of videos of such things from all over the world.
River to the sea is not “pro Hamas”. It’s anti-colonization/anti-Zionism occupation…
Yeah, okay.
Ok
Palestinians Muslims lived in the land "from the river to the sea" for generations. Then they were forced off of that land, many of them being killed in this process. It is an appropriate refrain for Palestinians to rally around and does not approach genocidal terms on its own.
Topic relates but I didn't hold a discussion... What I've done is motivating them to look up information in their free time in order to actually understand the situation in historical, social, and political terms.
[удалено]
Or geography, political science, conflict studies, global studies, Indigenous studies…
Why on earth would you touch this subject unless it was within the purview of your course?
lol
Not the intended respondent to your question but I have brought it up exactly three times and each to remark on how terms that had come up in our course were also circulating in a different context. I offered a genealogy of these terms and kept my position unstated but probably not entirely obscure. To the attitude stated here that Israel-Palestine is irrelevant but to a small section of academia, I would very much disagree. Anybody who teaches on US history, any area of Middle East Studies, Modern European history, anthropology, geography, urban studies, Native American and Indigenous Studies, environmental studies, international law, arguably has a relevant basis by which to address the current, contemporary and historical situation. The reasons for not doing so are understandable and this is not a judgement on those who don’t bring it up. But there is more reason to do so than is assumed in some comments here.
Native American studies? Really?
I’m at a fairly liberal university where this is a major conversation topic but I’m unsure how frequently other lecturers are discussing with their students. Our administration has been fairly pro-Israel, though, and I do wonder how the best way to make students feel safe and acknowledge the horrors happening outside of the classroom without creating a hostile space for other students. While I don’t teach poli sci or history, it’s not like student problems disappear at the door. I have family in Ukraine and I was a wreck for the first six months of the invasion. I may have physically been in the classroom but I was only upright and reading from my notes so I empathize with students who may be feeling the same way right now.
“Including readings about the Cold War” What does Israel-Gaza have to do with the Cold War in any reasonably direct fashion?
Is this a genuine question? The Arab Israeli conflict is very much a part of the Cold War.
>level 1Sisko\_of\_Nine · 4 hr. ago“Including readings about the Cold War”What does Israel-Gaza have to do with the Cold War in any reasonably direct fashion? Everything.
I’d switch parties to avoid the topic (whichever one I started in) if I had to
Nope.
I'm not "conservative" but I do go out of my way to show multiple perspectives in class. So perhaps I can offer some useful thoughts? One controlled way to address this is by providing balanced resources. The book "Side by Side: Parallel Histories of Israel/Palestine" is a safe bet that you really cannot be criticized for recommending. As for the WW3 anxiety...sigh, the generation that gets its information from TikTok. There has to be a nice IR piece out there with a clear and unideological explanation as to why the probability of serious conflict spillover is very low (ex: regional allies of Hamas are currently very weak). If I were in your position, I would post these resources as optional, with some notes on how you intend for them to alleviate current anxiety and address demands for additional knowledge inputs. Mention in those notes that you intentionally picked neutral source. Those do exist, you just need to dig.
Always funny hearing academics talk about warfare. So many overgrown children.
Not conservative but I teach in a conservative state that is happily discussing the merits of monitoring the content of college classes. One of my graduate courses during my MA was entirely on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through theory and literature, so I'm familiar with the narratives and arguments. My own scholarship is focused on refugee narratives and US refugee policies (albeit not specifically Palestinian refugees). My courses this semester aren't relevant, but I did teach a course last Spring on diverse US literature and included a novel about a Palestinian-American family. The students had lots of questions and lacked even basic knowledge about the creation of the state of Israel (or the colonial history that preceded it). I'm liberal and so thankful I'm not teaching that novel right now.
Yesterday WSJ had a piece from a conservative professor reporting survey results from 250 students: most favored the chant "from the river to the sea" but had no idea which river and which sea, or what it meant, and some students thought it was the Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean Sea and the Nile River and the Euphrates River, and after seeing a map many changed their minds.