By Tina Grazier
Do the students matter or is the agenda of the instructor more important? This was the question that ran through my head as my granddaughter described her freshman English Literature class the other day. I expected her to tell me about the classic works of literature that she had been studying. She’s always been an avid reader and very insightful so I anticipated a lively, interesting report. Instead she told me the class was divided into three units as follows:
Unit #1 Race
Unit #2 Social Standing
Unit #3 Gender/Sexuality
The new Common Core guidelines are apparently firmly in place since the students were assigned articles, short stories and novels that fit the current leftist political narrative of these three issues.
One book on the assigned reading list was McTeague:A Story of San Francisco. I haven’t read the book but recommend reviews by Paul Miller of Memphis and Martin Asiner of Jersey City at the link for contrasting views.
My granddaughter got an A in the class and an A on her final essay about how the feminist movement has changed relationships between men and women but she said the class was a disappointment because of the tendency to concentrate on social issues over universal themes, attitudes over common values.
I don’t have a problem with the choice of McTeague. I recommended Steinbeck to her when she was in High School. I did get the sense in talking with her that a left perspective was pushed in the class. I find that extremely unfortunate. Students should be encouraged to consider and explore many perspectives in college.
I don’t worry about my granddaughter. She’s always been inquisitive and curious and she investigates and explores the world on her own. It would be nice, however, at the prices we now pay for higher education, if she were actually receiving the benefit of a quality education. Unfortunately I don’t think that’s what our students are always getting.
Tina: “My granddaughter got an A in the class and an A on her final essay about how the feminist movement has changed relationships between men and women but she said the class was a disappointment because of the tendency to concentrate on social issues over universal themes, attitudes over common values.”
I’m not sure I get how social issues *aren’t* universal themes. Race, social standing and gender/sexuality are universal–they affect everybody, and classic literature is filled to the brim with these issues. You can’t talk about Shakespeare’s Othello without talking about all three of the categories you mentioned.
I agree that students should be able to disagree and debate these issues, and not be pushed to accept either a left-wing or right-wing point of view. But you haven’t shown that this is happening at your granddaughters’ school; instead, you seem to be implying that these things shouldn’t even be discussed.
I do not believe that the Common Core applies to college curricula, just K-12.
And I concur with Chris. You can take a variety of approaches to each of the three issues. Why would you assume that the young Republicans don’t get to assert their positions? Though I’m afraid it is true that if your position differs from the professor’s you’d better be able to back it up good. I remember that.
And there are professors that, if you really have to have that “A”, you just play parrot. But that’s a valuable life skill to learn, isn’t it?
Sigh.
I’d be interested to see that reading list. My nephew is finishing up at a CSU, and I have been frequently appalled by how little has been required of him.
But he don’t care, he’s gonna be a cop!
Sigh.
Chris I guess you have to have been on the planet when race, class, and sex were in literature but had not yet become the major focus of nearly every discussion to understand my point. Human beings have wonderful traits and amazing failings regardless their race, status, or gender. I just got the sense that the causes behind these issues have become the point of the class.
“you seem to be implying that these things shouldn’t even be discussed.
Not at all…but how are they discussed? I recall that the focus in literature was always consideration and discussion of plot, narrative, structure, storyline, and character development. Sexuality, class and race might come up but were not the reason to study a particular author or book.
“Race, social standing and gender/sexuality are universal–they affect everybody.”
They affect everybody? Or have we in recent years just made them excuses or reasons to gripe and divide.
We seem to have lost the ability to think in terms of mankind and the struggles of life…to be honorable over dishonorable, strong as opposed to weak, overcoming hardship, as opposed to making it the reason for being.
Libby: “Why would you assume that the young Republicans don’t get to assert their positions?”
I see no reason for “politics” at all and assumed nothing.
“Though I’m afraid it is true that if your position differs from the professor’s you’d better be able to back it up good. I remember that.”
I was concerned about that which is why I included the fact that she got A’s which would indicate that at least this instructor isn’t one of those.
“And there are professors that, if you really have to have that “A”, you just play parrot. But that’s a valuable life skill to learn, isn’t it?”
Yes I agree…but what an unfortunate waste of money and time.
LOL…well good for your nephew. We do need good cops too.
Libby: “I do not believe that the Common Core applies to college curricula, just K-12.”
Of course, you’re correct; I meant to mention that, but I honestly couldn’t tell by the article whether Tina’s granddaughter was a college freshman or a high school freshman.
Tina: “Chris I guess you have to have been on the planet when race, class, and sex were in literature but had not yet become the major focus of nearly every discussion to understand my point.”
What a silly thing to say.
It may be true that race, class and gender were not always so openly discussed as they are today. But that doesn’t mean these factors didn’t have a huge impact. Racism, sexism and classism are nearly constants throughout history.
The standard conservative line these days seems to be that these issues were never really all that bad until ’60s liberals started talking about them. And if we could just stop talking about these things, we’d all magically become more tolerant and racism and sexism wouldn’t be problems anymore.
“I recall that the focus in literature was always consideration and discussion of plot, narrative, structure, storyline, and character development. Sexuality, class and race might come up but were not the reason to study a particular author or book.”
You’re leaving out “theme.” Race, gender/sexuality and class are all themes that are just as valid, and have just as much impact on the other considerations you mentioned, as themes like war, love, death, ambition…
And if anything, your statement that race, class and gender went unexamined for so long should be more reason to focus on them now; that means there are more original perspectives students can bring to a classic work of literature. There are still things to say about Shakespeare that haven’t been said.
“They affect everybody? Or have we in recent years just made them excuses or reasons to gripe and divide.”
Let me just say that if you were black you wouldn’t even think to ask this question.
I don’t understand why so many conservatives try to hark back to some mythical time when race and gender didn’t matter. That time never existed. What they actually seem to be wishing for is a return to a time when race and gender didn’t matter to THEM. That is an aspect of unexamined privilege. These things may not matter to you; that doesn’t mean they don’t matter to millions of other people around the world.
“We seem to have lost the ability to think in terms of mankind and the struggles of life…to be honorable over dishonorable, strong as opposed to weak, overcoming hardship, as opposed to making it the reason for being.”
I’ve taken literature classes that focus on race, gender and class, Tina. None of them glossed over any of the issues mentioned above.
I really hate the idea that the concerns in multicultural or feminist literature aren’t “universal,” but, what, every book about a white man fighting a war or hunting some big creature is? I think if you take a moment to actually examine that assumption you’ll see that when you say “universal,” you’re really just privileging one perspective that happens to be the dominant one.
Off topic, but powerful video. Hope it copies over from FB.
https://fbcdn-vthumb-a.akamaihd.net/hvthumb-ak-ash3/t15/p75x225/1096682_650609928332404_650608894999174_24314_1709_b.jpg
Peggy all I get is a photo of a young blond woman with a nice looking young man to her right and surrounded by a crowd of other folks. I’ve had a lot of work and been out of the loop…should I know what this photo is?
Hogwash
Here Tina, try this. The video is from HBO’s Newsroom series. Makes me wish I had HBO.
Strong language warning.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=newsroom+video&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=64945432088D54713AC264945432088D54713AC2
Goodness, Peggy. How can we both approve of that? I’m baffled.
Bill O’Reilly is about as far as you can get from Walter Chronkite. You heard that part, right?
Thanks Peggy, much better! And you’re right the last part of this, set up by the preceding portion, is powerful.
I noticed many subtle things, however that the writers fudged to make the left and the right appear differently than they are:
Liberals have never in the past attributed our greatness to opportunity. They even created that ad that avers: Our progress, our strength comes from our diversity.
Conservatives have always thought of our greatness in terms of the speech made at the end by Jeff Daniels. It was never about chest pounding or arrogant bragging. Only a narcissistic leftist would hear the words spoken by Reagan as bragging.
Consider the tribute to Reagan from Lech Walesa, President of Poland and Nobel Peace Prize recipient who said in part:
America is a great, inspirational country but our people are not better…instead we are fortunate to live in a nation founded in freedom and inspired by men of vision and morality. In freedom we aspire to greatness…in freedom our dreams are given space…in freedom we are supported in becoming our best selves.
The Daniels character is correct about one thing. The radical progressive agenda has diminished the values and ideals that made America a great country. Lowering standards, mocking morality, devaluing work and encouraging dependency, and denigrating achievement, waging class and race warfare, eliminating or devaluing traditions like the pledge of allegiance, learning national anthem, going to church, the have all following the golden rule, respecting authority have all led to American decline and division among our people.
If I’m remembering rightly, Walter “retired” over CBS playing footsies with the government with regard to the Vietnam war … and he wouldn’t be a party to it.
Those days are long gone, seemingly.
Tina, missed the differences, just thought the ending powerful and was surprised to see it on TV show. But, then again it was on HBO not the msm.
Libs, glad to see we can agree on something. I’m not a Bill O’Reilly fan, so that makes two.