Sanitized for your protection

I'm told that years ago, and today in other countries, there was and is a certain formality in college classrooms. But just as so much proper and appropriate language has disappeared from college papers, so too has it disappeared from college discussion.

I find students in general to be earnest and respectful, and can't say that inappropriate speech is really a problem I often encounter. Yet there is a casualness that, while promoting a more comfortable learning atmosphere, does have some negative consequences. Occasionally a student will use a cuss word, offer an off-color or crude remark, or somehow otherwise not employ any kind of mental editor before speaking. This type of gaffe is usually fairly easy to handle, as a gentle joke usually makes the point. ("I see you were in the navy.") Bigoted remarks are a little tougher and require a bit of a rebuke without causing too much embarassment. ("That may be a controversial opinion but we can't have that discussion here. You might consider keeping your back to the wall, though.") The most difficult are those who just aren't sophisticated and polished enough to recognize what is appropriate and professional, or perhaps are unpracticed in utilizing the "mental editor." A brief and easy going we're-not-on-the-street-corner-now discussion after class usually helps, but not always.

It is no wonder that students use such casual speech and manners given what some instructors bring to the classroom. A very few professors will curse, reference sex and drugs, and engage in otherwise "unprofessional" (from my perspective) speech, but who am I to judge, especially if questionable opinions are somehow related to the class and are couched as opinions. While this behavior may often be distasteful to me, censorship is even more so, and the aegis of "academic freedom" is a broad one (more on this later). However, freedom of expression in the classroom seems to be increasingly constrained if it is deemed to be offensive. By that I mean while coarse language, questionable references, controversial positions, etc., may be more common, there seems to have arisen a "backlash" in recent years. And this is the interesting point. Students seem to be able to say more that is questionable, and instructors less. While academic freedom theoretically allows great latitude for instructors in what is presented and how it is presented, controversial speech and opinions seems increasingly subject to the "offended student rule."

For example, if I were to use a Social Darwinism metaphor in explaining business success, and was then asked what Social Darwinism meant (and I would be asked), I'd probably have to be careful in explaining this concept and its links to evolution. While to me evolution is an indisputable fact, I better be careful when trodding in that area lest I offend the rare individual who holds creationism dear. In another example, I grew up at a time when "black" was the appropriate term for those with darker skin pigmentation, and in fact that is the term most of my more melatonically gifted friends will use in describing themselves. However, in the classroom when describing demographic segments, for instance, I may use the more contemporary "African-American" term instead to play it safe. As a final example, while I don't curse and am uncomfortable with off-color remarks, if I were to use some of George Carlin's "Seven Words You Can't on Television" in class, I'd probably be OK, and might even get by with some f-bombs, but imagine what might happen if I were to use Martin Luther King as a possible example of plagiarism (and I have read that a significant portion of his doctoral dissertation was plagiarized).

The irony here is that while students seem to have license to voice any inappropriate thought with only minor repercussions, for instructors, any display of politically incorrect behavior has potentially dire consequences, with administrators loathe to defend freedom of expression. Of course, there are some good counter-arguments to this, and maybe one of the three people or so who ever read this may choose to dissent. Feel "free" to do so.

Red Sox Nation

This "Red Sox Nation" thing is getting out of hand. When I was in college I used to hop the trolley down to Kenmore Square and pay my $2.00 to get into the Fenway bleachers to watch a pretty good team play in a pretty bad park (the parts you couldn't see on TV, that is) to a half capacity crowd. But 2004 was the year for the ages for the long suffering Fellowship of the Miserable. Now pinkhats fill the much-improved park (Monster seats, waitresses, salads and even an executive chef!), which is always sold out though nobody can afford to go (A couple of kids and mediocre seats costs you $300 for the evening). I understand the "bandwagon effect," (not so much Wally, though), but what is all the swagger from these come-latelies? Nevertheless, for many of us the Red Sox are a religion and in our blood and something that those who refer to Boston as "Beantown" (never uttered by a local) will never understand. These are the good old days for New England sports, even better than the mid-Eighties, with the Pats dynasty, formidable Sox, and recent rescusitation of the Celts (and even strong entrants in the minor markets of college football, professional soccer, etc. Who knows, maybe even the moribund Bruins will come around). I can't help thinking as the Nation goes into the ALCS round, "Do you realize that there are three year olds who have never seen this team win a world championship?"

Eloi

When I was a kid, I remember my dad showing me how to snake a wire through a wall to put in a new light fixture and switch. Though I've used this knowledge a couple of times in my adult life, I remember thinking at the time, "Why should I know this? You know how, and I know you."

Now the internet has made a society of intellectual dilettantes. (Odds are you won't be using a dictionary if you need to look that one up). With a few clicks we have immediate access to information it took experts years to acquire. My kids ask me a question I don't know, thirty seconds later I do know it. We've graduated from Cliff Notes to calculators to Google Searches. Why read, why study, why research? There is really no need to know anything anymore, as it is all on that magic screen. And sure enough, while there are some that know more and more about less and less (let's call them academics), there are many who know less and less about more and more.