“I been telling people all of my life that I am male. What does it mean to be a male? Is there any such thing at all, or does being male or female really only exist on some sort of continuum?”
It seems to be that if these are questions where you really are interested in finding out more, you might want to read books that discuss homosexuality or that discuss transgender types of issues. If, otoh, you’ve already reached your conclusion, then I suppose there’s no need to read or learn anything.
“Actually, that type of viewpoint and values may be mainstream in many areas.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx”
It’s not mainstream among the crowd of people who apply to highly selective colleges.
^do we know that for a fact, PG?
I guess we have to separate it into those applying, those admitted, those matriculating.
I would love to know.
eta: I am still mulling over loukydad’s contention most applicants wouldn’t have already had significant great books exposure. Some of this idea of “most” comes from our own little bubble. imho.
"But seriously, why would Conservative Christian students even choose a mainstream, secular university? They surely must know that their way of life and their values are not mainstream.
Actually, that type of viewpoint and values may be mainstream in many areas.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx"
The anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-minority viewpoint of many conservative Christians are increasingly farther from the way of life and values of mainstream America.
It is true that not accepting evolution is a fairly mainstream view, but it is not a way of life or a value. It is also true that the more intelligent and educated you are, the more likely you are to accept evolution as a fact. From a scientific perspective, it does not really matter what people believe. All of the evidence is that evolution happened, no matter how many people think it did not happen. People’s beliefs will not change reality. You can decide not to believe the germ theory of disease, but you will still get sick like everyone else.
It is also interesting that while many people say they do not accept evolution, no one is doing significant research to disprove it. It would be very easy to disprove. For example, one human fossil in the stomach of a T-Rex would do it. Why is no one looking? Because if they have reviewed the evidence, they know it does not exist. Searching for it would be a waste of money.
It is similar to the situation with prayer. Lots of people believe in it, but credible research shows virtually no effect. People continue to believe that it works, but they are not doing any significant research because they know it does not hold up to scrutiny and if their study is done honestly, they will end up spending money to add more evidence that the thing they believe in is simply not true.
The facts are that the percentage of people who want to know the truth, whether it is what they want it to be or not, is pretty small. For most people, if you ask them whether they would really want to know if a closely held belief was wrong, or whether they would rather just go on believing it, the will say that they would rather just go on believing it.
Some of these views may still be mainstream in some areas. For example, anti-Latino views can be a trump card for gaining support in some political contexts, and many states still would not recognize same-gender marriage if it were not for a recent SCOTUS decision.
alh - I wanted to say, but missed the opportunity, that I really liked your post at #133.
If we differ in perspective at all, it may be here. You mentioned only the focus on “challenge” to the ideas and contributions from the great books. Challenge is great, yes we should and rigorously so. But my view is that just as much we should be looking for what is complimentary, and that we should be seeking to build upon what they gave to us, which is a great treasure. Somehow today some have the notion that the only thing valuable is to tear down and destroy. The who cares what dead white men said mentality. Of course I reject that totally. Especially when you couple that with the notion that since these are only dead white men anyway, don’t even bother to read it in the first place. Indeed accept our rejection of it as your own rejection without reading and examining it for yourself, and read what we offer in its place instead. Sad to me, because within these books I see the very spirit of intellectual inquiry and challenging old ideas in the first place. I can find everything from the principles that led to the abolition of slavery, to the civil rights movement, to women’s suffrage and anything else that came from the “challenge” you are speaking of.
Sorry I am rambling. I am in a hurry but this is something I really wanted to share. I appreciate the thoughtfulness and consideration I see in your posts. I see great value in understanding how people who are very different than me look at these issues.
@T26E4 I don’t see what you’re referring to about him reading all but the objectionable parts in that article either.
I suspect kids who have a creationist view probably don’t apply to secular colleges and many were mostly home- or religious- schooled. That’s just my gut feeling though.
There are sites that list colleges that teach creationism, which is not the same as colleges that teach evolution but attract kids who don’t believe in it, I realize.
https://answersingenesis.org/colleges/
http://nwcreation.net/colleges.html
…and an interesting article on religious students who go to evangelical colleges and there in science are taught…about evolution.
LOUKYDAD I agree with you here. That trying to find the good, the noble, the brave, the kind, is never a bad thing. And yes, there is a tendency in modern literature and art for the negative to be “appreciated” perhaps more than it should be. But, having read this “controversial” book, it is about important issues, at least to the age group we are talking about. It is not a “Great Book” with the capital GB. Perhaps not “noble”, but with issues that are still important and certainly worth talking about, if more in a “water cooler” way than in a literature course. Which I think is the goal for this sort of summer assignment. And I’m not talking about acceptance of homosexuality. More about honesty in relationships, growing up, and understanding other human beings without papering over their failures.
I have taught at (very) religious and secular (public) institutions. I’ve actually found that, when I teach concepts from linguistics that conflict with what we might call conservative Christian worldviews (things like the timedepths historical linguistics works with not fitting into Bishop Ussher’s chronology), I’ve gotten as much blowback from students at secular institutions as at religious ones (if not more, though in neither case has it been remotely a majority of students). There are a whole lot of students at secular institutions who believe things like intelligent design and a young earth and so on, even if they wouldn’t identify themselves as conservative Christians.
Interesting discussion folks! As a Duke alum, I have gotten a lot out of discussing this issue over the summer a couple times with my kids. Frankly it’s probably a better discussion than the book will generate. So let me play Blue Devils advocate for a second:
Response removed due to being off topic and related to politics
ED
Mod
202 --> [ / quote] Forgive me for doubting whoever gave this assignment is really interested in thoughtful discussion and debate with me or my children about anything. There is no balance at all in these discussions anymore, only agenda. And then we all go back to our respective echo chambers. [ / quote]
So perhaps next year there should not be just a single book, but two books, or several, purposely intended to gore the ox of both ends of the spectrum. Then kids could choose to argue their own view or play devil’s advocate. Now maybe that would better accomplish what Duke intended.
Nobody said you have to be sheep and stick to what the Administration suggested. Those who object to a single choice can decide to nominate an alternate next spring for the 2020 freshmen.
I will be forever grateful to my Duke freshman roommate for arguing any and every point and even flipping inconsistently when it suited him. I hope you all get a similar chance to stretch your minds. The kids who expressed an opinion on the suitability of the book itself have started that process.
loukydad: thank you, I’m flattered.
Just so you know, this is what I think. Great Books are necessary for an understanding of our culture and history, without which we really are doomed to just repeat the same mistakes endlessly. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. I think the Chinese cultural revolution had unintended negative consequences. However, as a whole, these books are a history of the patriarchy. (obviously not every single play and poem and book,) When I wrote I wanted my children to read works that challenge Great Books, that is because I want all our children to overthrow the patriarchy. I think the Bible is an example of how patriarchy has negatively impacted society. The exception is parts of the Gospels. Perhaps my views aren’t very mainstream, well reasoned or intelligent, but there they are, and basically I do want to tear down and destroy. And I am incredibly hopeful that may come to pass. fwiw
Did they suggest more than one book? Does anyone know the list of choices?
In the case of evolution, even Oral Roberts University which is pretty conservative, has thrown in the towel and is teaching it in science classes. They probably don’t like it, but at least they accept the evidence honestly. I am impressed by that.
The fact is that evolution is the only way to understand biology and why organic bodies are the way they are. It is the thread that ties all living things together. Once you understand that you realize that there are only two possibilities either evolution happened, or God poofed everything here in such a way as to look like evolution happened, just to mess with scientists. Maybe he is just a practical joker. idk
Pizzagirl, the full, complete, uncut videos are posted online. There is no altering.
So your enlightened position is that you would not change your opinion even in the face of shocking evidence, likely criminal, that your own eyes can see? It is your own agenda that is showing.
Isn’t this the point of Kierkegaard’s leap of faith? Accepting what we can’t prove?
Intelligent people make that leap.
off topic, but if you enjoy thinking about this sort of stuff, Robert J. Sawyers’ sci fi novel Calculating God has an interesting take.
I think part of the issue with this particular book is that it may seem ickier to some people because it’s a graphic novel and feels more in your face.
If I were a Duke parent, I would not be pleased that for all that tuition my kid is asked to read a comic book!
I have not read a lot of graphic novels, but I think calling them comic books is missing the point. A few years ago I read Watchmen and as an part-time artist I was equally impressed with how the story was put together visually as well as verbally. Page lay-outs, the story within the story, the use of color… It reminded me a lot of the one film course I took while in college. I learned a whole new vocabulary for how to tell a story. It was fascinating. I think graphic novels are an up and coming art form that is not going away.
@mathmom bad news for me then. I find them very distracting, but then I have ADD, so anything with lots of visual clutter with or near words is difficult for me.
Grasso’s piece in the Washington Post was thoughtful and intelligent . . . unless you have actually read Fun Home, and know that it has nothing to do with pornography or depiction of sexual acts. If you know what he’s talking about, it’s just a reasonable coat of whitewash, shallow and tinny, over a thoroughly ideological position.
If he truly believed that somehow a visual depiction of sexual activity, however brief and (comparatively) modest, was especially harmful to the sanctity of sex, then he could easily read the 200 or so pages of the book that contain no such images and skip over the two or three that do. His argument, though, is that he can’t possibly read any book that, anywhere, contains visual depictions of any sexual activity. In order to say that, and to make it sound reasonable, he has to maintain that any kind of visual representation has far more power and importance than any kind of narrative. Because if his position was that he wasn’t going to read any book in which he might come across a narrative depiction of some kind of sexual activity . . . well, there goes the canon, starting with the Old Testament. He might as well not bother showing up for college.
So it’s awfully convenient – but not awfully based on any religious principle of which I am aware, or which he explicates – to decide that incidental visual depiction of sexual activity is where he draws the line. He can refuse to read – and it’s 100% clear that he refused and continues to refuse to read – a book that is not about sex but is about homosexuality and repression. I think he’s a liar.