The Decaying Evolution of Education...

[Bushman]

Same, Tony, but for different reasons. My parents were adamant about me learning to swim, to the point at where I was old enough I was enrolled in swim lessons at the high school near my maternal Grandfather's house (my parents attended there in their teens, and we visited my Grandfather often enough to where I was able to attend the swim class there). Ironically, I would return to the same pool I learned to swim in, as a competitor when I joined the swim team in my sophomore year of high school. My family didn't even have a pool until I was 7 or 8, and prior to then I had only ever swam in a rubber kiddie pool, in Lake Michigan, or in the Kankakee River whenever I went camping. Suffice to say my parents had never had to worry about me drowning, and I passed the swim test every time when I went to summer camp (you needed to pass a biweekly test to swim in the deep end). Interestingly enough, but my mother's sister had always been adamant about her kids swimming, too, and my eldest cousin goes to college on a water polo scholarship, and my youngest cousin is on the swim team at the local high school.

 

[belfastboy]

I entered elementary school in the mid fifties, back in the day when corporal punishment was not only allowed it was the norm. Fast forward to the early 2000's when I volunteered as an elementary school mentor for young boys I asked my charge what were the consequences of getting into trouble. James answered that first we had to talk it out and then maybe take a time out. When I told him that back in my day they just hit you. He looked back at me, replied "oh yeah, we did a field trip to the Burnaby Museum and the teacher showed up a razor strop that they used on kids." In that moment I felt very old.....a piece of my childhood was now ensconced in a "museum".

 

[LizzieMaine]

I've spent my entire life a rock-throw from the Atlantic Ocean (except for the six months I spent a rock-throw from the Pacific) and I've never learned to swim. I have *tried* to learn to swim, but something to do with my body density makes it impossible for me to actually do it for any more than a couple of feet before I sink.

It was actually not uncommon where I grew up to not be able to swim -- we thought of the water as a place where people worked, not a place for recreation. There was no swimming pool in town, there were no swim teams, and there was no Y, and the shore where I grew up was covered with oily residue, fish guts, and bright orange waste from the chemical plant on the other side of the bay, and you'd have to be nuts to want to swim in that.

 

[belfastboy]

Coming from a non water family swimming is not in my genes. But as a 12 year old I decided I needed to know how so as not to be left out. Down to the YMCA, my first shock was to discover that my bathing suit was not needed and they trudged us out to the pool 'au natural' and then ordered us to jump into the deep end. 12' deep in fact. In spite of my deeply seated fear, the fear of cowardliness forced the jump. The longest few seconds of my life as I touched bottom and eventually bobbed back to the surface. Between the nudity and the belief they were secretly trying to kill me I never went back for lesson #2. Fast Forward 40 years and I committed to my men's group to learn to swim in three months. On March 1st they would throw me in the creek, swim or sink.
I learned to swim, survived the swim across the creek and back, declared myself a swimmer and 15 years later have not entered any water, other than a bathtub, since.

 

[EngProf]

I learned to swim in the Boy Scouts, and I'm glad I did, just as a safety measure.

However, I was unfortunate enough to be in the last class at my college to have "physical education" as a required "course". We were in the clutches of the swimming coach, and we first had to swim laps until we were tired, then play water polo in the deep end until we almost drowned, and then the losers had to do pushups on the side of the pool.
He did a great job of making us hate swimming.
I have NEVER been swimming as recreation since that time - a very long time ago. If I am near a pool or hot tub I'll gladly sit and soak, but as for actual swimming, no way.

 

[ChiTownScion]

My granddad in his teens was a lifeguard who worked with another teenage lifeguard by the name of Johnny Weissmuller- who later became better known for swinging through jungle trees. So, there was family pressure to learn to swim early. I was at age seven enrolled in a local park district learn- to- swim program but the whole thing impressed me as idiotic: holding on to a side of a pool and blowing bubbles. So, having seen Olympic swimmers on television, I decided to learn on my own: jumped into 18 feet of water and it was "sink or swim." I swam. Later honed the skills in a high school swim class but never competed.

 

[tonyb]

I know people who can't walk but can swim. It can be great exercise for people with certain physical disabilities.

The human body is less dense than water. So without some other force countering that (an undertow, say) you will float.

I have demonstrated this to more than a couple of people afraid of the water. I've carried them into water and when I could see they were comfortable in the knowledge I wouldn't let them sink, I gradually pulled my arms away.

See! You're floating! So now you know you won't drown should you fall off the dock, or the boat, if you don't panic.

 

[sheeplady]

My mother had never learned to swim despite going to an abandoned quarry most of her adolescence. She had never been in a pool until the 1980s when she took me for waterbabies class. (She was promptly told never to bring me again as I was picking up her fear of the water, I've never seen her in a pool or any body of water in my memory...)

The college I went to was one of the few left that had a swim test you must pass to graduate. If you didn't pass your freshman year (dive in, length on front, back, front, get out) you had to take lessons until you passed. Two of my friends couldn't swim and learned thanks to that... one now is an avid canoer, so thank goodness she learned.

My friend from St. Lucia learned to swim in her forties here in the US. She told me that it was rare to learn to swim in her country, and many fishermen die each year from drowning because they can't swim.

Hence my children are tortured with swim lessons. If they go to my husband and I's almamater, they can pass the swim test. and if they don't, maybe they can swim if they (heaven forbid) fall off the edge of a pool someday.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Growing up in Florida the theory was you'd better learn to swim by the time you learned to walk. Not for recreational competition, but because as soon as you were mobile you were going to find water. I don't remember not being able to swim.

 

[Harp]

The University of Chicago Academic Freedom Letter has spiked furious debate on-and-off campus.

 

[Bushman]

The University of Chicago Academic Freedom Letter has spiked furious debate on-and-off campus.

I may be of the earlier (late '80s to '90s) Millennial generation, but I completely agree with it. There are no safe spaces or trigger warnings in real life. When you get to college, it's time to grow up and acknowledge the world is the not kind and benign place we think of it as when we're children. Life is a harsh reality that makes the few sweet moments we get seem all the sweeter.

 

[belfastboy]

I learned to swim in the Boy Scouts, and I'm glad I did, just as a safety measure.

However, I was unfortunate enough to be in the last class at my college to have "physical education" as a required "course". We were in the clutches of the swimming coach, and we first had to swim laps until we were tired, then play water polo in the deep end until we almost drowned, and then the losers had to do pushups on the side of the pool.
He did a great job of making us hate swimming.
I have NEVER been swimming as recreation since that time - a very long time ago. If I am near a pool or hot tub I'll gladly sit and soak, but as for actual swimming, no way.

I went to school in the 50's and 60's and it seemed to me a qualification most is not all Phys Ed teachers had to possess was that of sadist. I think their impact was enormous in getting kids to hate physical exercise.

 

[Fading Fast]

Even my father, whose parenting philosophy was "you are clothed, fed, have a warm bed and school to go to - my job is all but done

I may be of the earlier (late '80s to '90s) Millennial generation, but I completely agree with it. There are no safe spaces or trigger warnings in real life. When you get to college, it's time to grow up and acknowledge the world is the not kind and benign place we think of it as when we're children. Life is a harsh reality that makes the few sweet moments we get seem all the sweeter.

Personally, I'm glad my childhood wasn't a "safe" place in terms of being protected completely from life's realities. Yes, food, clothes and shelter were provided, but my parents made it very clear that the world is a hard, unfair and, quite often, brutal where, if you didn't prepare to and, then, take care of yourself, you'd be eaten up alive.

I am not exaggerating one bit when I write the above - I had chores to do, period / I respected my parents, period / I appreciated what I had (food, clothes, shelter), period - as nobody was going to give me anything for free in the world later. That toughness helped me deal with life as it was - unfair teachers, unfair rules, unfair this, that and the other thing - I just kept plowing forward. Yes, I argued when something was ridiculously unfair, but overall, I took it and found a way to still go forward.

IMHO, all this "safe place," "trigger warnings," "micro-aggressions" stuff is only hurting the kids it's suppose to protect. Even if Corporate America adopts the veneer of some of those ideas (and it wouldn't surprise me as Corporate America plays nice on the surface with whatever cultural movement is dominant), the arm-to-arm combat of real life with still be there beneath the surface and my money will be on the kids who didn't have or know about "safe places," etc. And if your life takes you elsewhere than Corporate America - government, non-profit, a trade, a union, etc. - life will be hard, brutal and unfair beneath whatever shine those institutions put on their apple.

I had few rainbow and unicorns growing up (but the basics and no abuse as so many sadly suffer) and am glad for it - it left me half ready (who is every more than that) for the real world at a young age.

 

[Harp]

I may be of the earlier (late '80s to '90s) Millennial generation, but I completely agree with it. There are no safe spaces or trigger warnings in real life....

Sho' raised a ruckus. And the more progressive-minded campus folk are all the more flummoxed.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Pfft. It has more to do with publicity-mongering than with any kind of bold educational stand.

I've said before, and will say again -- I know a lot of millenials. I know more millenials than I do people of my own age, and I have never met one -- not *one,* including those with Ivy educations -- who gave a single fat damn about any of this stuff. The only people I've ever met who *do* are middle-aged/elderly pearl-clutchers who either write tedious articles for the Atlantic Monthly or the National Review about how kids aren't all tough like they were when they were young -- or who read such articles and get all up in a swivet over them because there's evidently so little else for them to worry about in their lives. It seems like many of them wouldn't be satisfied unless every kid has to walk a gauntlet of sandbags and rubber hoses for four years just to get their diploma -- and then wrestle the dean to the ground no-holds-barred in order to take posession of it.

Yawn.

Meanwhile, the millenials I know are out there making a living and dealing with adversity and coping with life just fine.

 

[sheeplady]

I think some trigger warnings are absolutely appropriate. If you're going to talk about sexual violence or show a movie with sexual violence you can warn students ahead of time and give them appropriate alternatives if they want to sit out.

I mean, come on, one out of four women have been raped, with college being a time when many people are victimized. Is it honestly that hard to say, "we're going to watch a movie next week that details sexual violence and talk about it?"

How is that infringing on your rights? What exactly is your right there, to make women and men sit through a graphic representation of how they were violated?

Sexual assault is a topic we should be talking about on campuses. A lot. It's something we *have* to address. But how hard is it to let students know you're going to be talking about it ahead of time? I think we've lost our sense of compassion. Geeze.

 

[Fading Fast]

Pfft. It has more to do with publicity-mongering than with any kind of bold educational stand.

I've said before, and will say again -- I know a lot of millenials. I know more millenials than I do people of my own age, and I have never met one -- not *one,* including those with Ivy educations -- who gave a single fat damn about any of this stuff. The only people I've ever met who *do* are middle-aged/elderly pearl-clutchers who either write tedious articles for the Atlantic Monthly or the National Review about how kids aren't all tough like they were when they were young -- or who read such articles and get all up in a swivet over them because there's evidently so little else for them to worry about in their lives. It seems like many of them wouldn't be satisfied unless every kid has to walk a gauntlet of sandbags and rubber hoses for four years just to get their diploma -- and then wrestle the dean to the ground no-holds-barred in order to take posession of it.

Yawn.

Meanwhile, the millenials I know are out there making a living and dealing with adversity and coping with life just fine.

I do know some kids who've encountered this stuff at college, but have no idea the degree of its adoption, sway, impact at colleges overall.

My point is not that I think kids should be keelhauled in order to get a degree - I'll stand arm and arm against any such nonsense - I personally hate how vicious the world is, but my point was coddling - despite how good the intent - hurts the one it intends to protect the most.

To emphasize (1) I simply don't know how much is smoke and how much is fire about this "safe" stuff at college, but know it does exist to some extent at some colleges but maybe it's blown way out of proportion in the media and (2) I can't stand abuse, bullying, mindless "dues paying" etc., but do believe introducing the realities of life is part of what college is about as it prepares one for life.

To sheeplady, as with all this "stuff," a modest and judicious application as you suggest makes incredible sense to me, but in the media - and I'm talking major news outlets, CNN, NYT, WSJ, etc. - it is not presented as limited and thoughtful warnings about topics to be covered.

For example, all three media outlets I noted have reported on speakers - like Condoleezza Rice (whatever you think of her politics, she is a former Secretary of State and not a fringe person) either being uninvited or choosing not to accept (in Rice's case an invitation to speak after a faculty council issued its opposition) as some meaningful opposition arose not simply to the speaker's ideas, but to the idea of them actually speaking as the teachers or students in opposition didn't want to be exposed to their ideas.

I'm fine and encourage opposition, but not shutting down your opponent from speaking, but defeating him on the battle field of ideas. Debate, show all sides, invite speakers of all points of view, etc., but that - at least in the major media outlets - is not how it is being presented and reported.

If students and teachers don't want to hear opposing ideas and don't want to let others on campus hear opposing ideas, then something is breaking at those colleges. If the media is distorting the story to the extent that what I noted above isn't true, then something is badly broken at our major media outlets as I've read those stories repeatedly over the last years from all three outlets mentioned.

 

[LizzieMaine]

To sheeplady, as with all this "stuff," a modest and judicious application as you suggest makes incredible sense to me, but in the media - and I'm talking major news outlets, CNN, NYT, WSJ, etc. - it is not presented as limited and thoughtful warnings about topics to be covered.

For example, all three media outlets I noted have reported on speakers - like Condoleezza Rice (whatever you think of her politics, she is a former Secretary of State and not a fringe person) either being uninvited or choosing not to accept (in Rice's case an invitation to speak after a faculty council issued its opposition) as some meaningful opposition arose not simply to the speaker's ideas, but to the idea of them actually speaking as the teachers or students in opposition didn't want to be exposed to their ideas.

As with anything reported in the media, take two grains of salt and call me in the morning. "Controversy" sells, especially in mass media outlets like those named, and especially in those not named that pursue very specific agendas and use "controversies" to whip up the base.

As for guest speakers, I'd think that would depend on under whose auspices the speaker is being presented, and for what purpose. If a speaker is speaking to a class as part of a lecture series, fine -- that's part of the class. Diverse points of view are part of the deal. If a speaker is there outside of a class setting, as, for example, a commencement speaker, well, yes, I do think students have every right to speak up against or boycott that speaker if they feel the speaker represents a point of view or a standard of behavior that they, as a body, find reprehensible. Bill Cosby will never be invited to speak at a commencement again, and for good reason. If I'm watching television or listening to the radio and someone comes on whose views I find reprehensible, I don't feel like I'm under any moral obligation to sit there and listen to them just for the sake of fairness.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Diverse points of view are part of the deal. If a speaker is there outside of a class setting, as, for example, a commencement speaker, well, yes, I do think students have every right to speak up against or boycott that speaker if they feel the speaker represents a point of view or a standard of behavior that they, as a body, find reprehensible. Bill Cosby will never be invited to speak at a commencement again, and for good reason. If I'm watching television or listening to the radio and someone comes on whose views I find reprehensible, I don't feel like I'm under any moral obligation to sit there and listen to them just for the sake of fairness.

It's peculiar ground, commencements. It's supposed to be for the students, "their day," in recognition for a difficult goal achieved. I could have had the law diploma mailed to me, but for so long that image of donning the doctoral robe and walking up an aisle kept me going when it would have been so easy to call it quits. I'd have been pretty upset if they'd invited some self aggrandizing nitwit as a "keynote speaker" to ruin it.

Inviting him/ her to a seminar to present a controversial view is a whole 'nudder matter. But there are no questions from the crowd at a commencement exercise.

 

[sheeplady]

I think about the media, there's a couple of things to consider:
1. Being sensational sells (as Lizzie said). Campuses as places where no free speech is tolerated sells and sells well.

2. Young people as sniveling little brats who can't make their own way in the real world, are over protected, etc. is a common generational story line. Each generation has been treated like idiots who have no grasp at reality when young. Now the script is those idiot kids who need "safe" spaces. The script used to be those idiot kids who listen to rock and roll. We love a familiar story with a new hook, and older generation's tend to have a near fanatical obsession with tearing down young people. The media knows this.

3. Along the lines of 2, the media knows who its audience is. It''s not the young kids leading this movement watching. It's the 34+ market... so they sell the story of those idiot kids.

4. The media is conflating some totally different issues. Trigger warnings are totally different from microaggressions and outright isms. Lots of the people who are encouraging trigger warnings for things like explicit racial violence, sexual abuse etc. are also trying to get people to understand what micro aggressions are and to help us as a society eliminate them. You'll notice that those are two different things. If your course deals with violence, why can't you put that in your course description? That's what a trigger warning is. For microaggressions, they are focused much more on educational efforts... teaching people how to recognize and avoid them and calling them out when they use them. (Quite frankly, if we have any hope of eliminating racism it starts with teaching the young, so I have zero problem with this.)


I've worked on college campuses all of my life. I have never been afraid to discuss any issue. I have yet to have a student come in guns blazing about how I am creating unsafe space.

Now, I have seen some horrid things on campuses which have been largely tolerated because of the rank of the offender. We're talking things like sexual abuse, outright racism/ sexism, etc. Some of what students are fighting against are THAT sort of behavior. Tenure is meant to protect your right to do forward-thinking research and teaching that the administration may not support, not protect you from dismissal when you beat your student you had an inappropriate sexual relationship with (see what happened at Sussex).

And besides, students and faculty have the right to protest (including filing a formal grievence if the University alows it) against any speaker. These speakers get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars per gig and tuition isn't cheap. I'd be upset if my university was lining the pockets of a rapist with my tuition dollars.