Harvard Now Values ‘Kindness’ Not Learning

I see 'kindness' as a code word, sorry but there it is. under that rubric anything can be construed as hateful, overly critical etc. I get your point Chanel, dissent in the college classroom is a must, it opens minds and sharpens skills, and furthers intellectual acuity and knowldge.

Kindness sounds like a lever to soften or allay debate that appears to offend anyone that can naturally be misconstrued to encompass, well anything and any comment.

maybe years of having to deal wiht and watch the god awful 'self esteem' trng. has made me overly sensitive but.....
 
I see 'kindness' as a code word, sorry but there it is. under that rubric anything can be construed as hateful, overly critical etc. I get your point Chanel, dissent in the college classroom is a must, it opens minds and sharpens skills, and furthers intellectual acuity and knowldge.

Kindness sounds like a lever to soften or allay debate that appears to offend anyone that can naturally be misconstrued to encompass, well anything and any comment.

maybe years of having to deal wiht and watch the god awful 'self esteem' trng. has made me overly sensitive but.....

Academic freedom does not include incivility. And as to academic freedom in a nursing program, I suppose you want it to be OK for future nurses to completely reject use of the sterile process for sterile procedures, refuse to wash hands, and generally ignore all infection control practices. Go it! I pity you.

There are some areas which allow no room for 'academic freedom.' Safe medical/nursing practice is one of those areas.
 
Last edited:
I can't disagree with you there sunshine. But I don't think following procedures has anything to do with "kindness".

Poor choice of word. Respect, civility, and following a code of conduct are "enforceable" and "do-able". Kindness must come from within.
 
Originally they wanted all the freshmen to sign the pledge and put it on display, but they nixed that idea. I guess they considered it "unkind" to the dissenters.

PC BS at its finest. Legislating "niceness"? Who could oppose that?

Wait til we see the slew of lawsuits over free speech vs anti-bullying laws on campus. A lawyer's wet dream.

If you were a professor having to deal with incivility in the classroom and possibly being stalked and threatened, you would change your tune.



Trust me.... no professor at Harvard has to deal with incivility in this classroom.
 
"that 'we' have to have COLLEGE AGE kids sign pledges of honor, character and behavior."


Maybe signing the pledge, is another way of teaching kids to honor something, if only their signed commitment. All in all, I think there is nothing in the traditional pledge that can be harmful to anybody in anyway and may just do some good.
 
“As we begin at Harvard, we commit to upholding the values of the College and to making the entryway and Yard a place where all can thrive and where the exercise of kindness holds a place on par with intellectual attainment.”
Harvard Pledge Values
Golden Rule
"Treat Others As You Want To Be Treated."


A short essay on the golden rule

The golden rule is endorsed by all the great world religions; Jesus, Hillel, and Confucius used it to summarize their ethical teachings. And for many centuries the idea has been influential among people of very diverse cultures. These facts suggest that the golden rule may be an important moral truth.

Let's consider an example of how the rule is used. President Kennedy in 1963 appealed to the golden rule in an anti-segregation speech at the time of the first black enrollment at the University of Alabama. He asked whites to consider what it would be like to be treated as second-class citizens because of skin color. Whites were to imagine themselves being black -- and being told that they couldn't vote, or go to the best public schools, or eat at most public restaurants, or sit in the front of the bus. Would whites be content to be treated that way? He was sure that they wouldn't -- and yet this is how they treated others. He said the "heart of the question is ... whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated."

The golden rule is best interpreted as saying: "Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation." To apply it, you'd imagine yourself on the receiving end of the action in the exact place of the other person (which includes having the other person's likes and dislikes). If you act in a given way toward another, and yet are unwilling to be treated that way in the same circumstances, then you violate the rule.

To apply the golden rule adequately, we need knowledge and imagination. We need to know what effect our actions have on the lives of others. And we need to be able to imagine ourselves, vividly and accurately, in the other person's place on the receiving end of the action. With knowledge, imagination, and the golden rule, we can progress far in our moral thinking.

The golden rule is best seen as a consistency principle. It doesn't replace regular moral norms. It isn't an infallible guide on which actions are right or wrong; it doesn't give all the answers. It only prescribes consistency -- that we not have our actions (toward another) be out of harmony with our desires (toward a reversed situation action). It tests our moral coherence. If we violate the golden rule, then we're violating the spirit of fairness and concern that lie at the heart of morality.

The golden rule, with roots in a wide range of world cultures, is well suited to be a standard that different cultures can appeal to in resolving conflicts. As the world becomes more and more a single interacting global community, the need for such a common standard is becoming more urgent.

The Golden Rule
 
Originally they wanted all the freshmen to sign the pledge and put it on display, but they nixed that idea. I guess they considered it "unkind" to the dissenters.

PC BS at its finest. Legislating "niceness"? Who could oppose that?

Wait til we see the slew of lawsuits over free speech vs anti-bullying laws on campus. A lawyer's wet dream.

If you were a professor having to deal with incivility in the classroom and possibly being stalked and threatened, you would change your tune.



Trust me.... no professor at Harvard has to deal with incivility in this classroom.

Afraid I'm going to have to differ. Particularly since Harvard has its own website on the issue:

Managing Hot Moments in the Classroom(Warren, 2000
Hot Moments in the Classroom

Handling controversial topics and heated discussions can be stressful and difficult. However, controversy can be a powerful tool to promote learning. This article offers instructors practical strategies for turning difficult encounters into learning opportunities.

I have no doubt that students at Harvard, while most aren't from a ghetto culture, have still been politically and ideologically indoctrinated in their political stances and will go to the mat for them at the drop of a hat. And those who are there on scholarship do, in fact, come from a very different cultural perspective than the wealthy students. I saw this factor play out at Vanderbilt, 'the Harvard of the south.'

Edited to add: Coming from wealth does not endow one with good behavior and common sense. Case in point: Paris Hilton. In fact, I found the opposite to be largely true where I worked. Every third cousin twice removed of some country music has been tries diligently to commaneer the classroom.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many kids are taught that in Kindergarten anymore.

This editorial struck a nerve with me for two reasons: a. NJs over-reaching anti-bullying law and b. My son is in college pursuing comedy writing. Are blonde jokes "unkind"? You betcha. Two of his closest friends are Jewish and Muslim. They mock each other publicly. Could that be forbidden in the near future? Slippery slope.

As someone stated, pledges mean nothing (unless they are enforced.) Coming soon?
 
“As we begin at Harvard, we commit to upholding the values of the College and to making the entryway and Yard a place where all can thrive and where the exercise of kindness holds a place on par with intellectual attainment.”
Harvard Pledge Values
Golden Rule
"Treat Others As You Want To Be Treated."


A short essay on the golden rule

The golden rule is endorsed by all the great world religions; Jesus, Hillel, and Confucius used it to summarize their ethical teachings. And for many centuries the idea has been influential among people of very diverse cultures. These facts suggest that the golden rule may be an important moral truth.

Let's consider an example of how the rule is used. President Kennedy in 1963 appealed to the golden rule in an anti-segregation speech at the time of the first black enrollment at the University of Alabama. He asked whites to consider what it would be like to be treated as second-class citizens because of skin color. Whites were to imagine themselves being black -- and being told that they couldn't vote, or go to the best public schools, or eat at most public restaurants, or sit in the front of the bus. Would whites be content to be treated that way? He was sure that they wouldn't -- and yet this is how they treated others. He said the "heart of the question is ... whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated."

The golden rule is best interpreted as saying: "Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation." To apply it, you'd imagine yourself on the receiving end of the action in the exact place of the other person (which includes having the other person's likes and dislikes). If you act in a given way toward another, and yet are unwilling to be treated that way in the same circumstances, then you violate the rule.

To apply the golden rule adequately, we need knowledge and imagination. We need to know what effect our actions have on the lives of others. And we need to be able to imagine ourselves, vividly and accurately, in the other person's place on the receiving end of the action. With knowledge, imagination, and the golden rule, we can progress far in our moral thinking.

The golden rule is best seen as a consistency principle. It doesn't replace regular moral norms. It isn't an infallible guide on which actions are right or wrong; it doesn't give all the answers. It only prescribes consistency -- that we not have our actions (toward another) be out of harmony with our desires (toward a reversed situation action). It tests our moral coherence. If we violate the golden rule, then we're violating the spirit of fairness and concern that lie at the heart of morality.

The golden rule, with roots in a wide range of world cultures, is well suited to be a standard that different cultures can appeal to in resolving conflicts. As the world becomes more and more a single interacting global community, the need for such a common standard is becoming more urgent.

The Golden Rule

I have struggled with the Golden Rule for years. And for years, I couldn't really discern exactly why. But now, I know that treating others as I would like to be treated is not always going to work on many different levels. I don't need to be buttered up, sucked up to, or coddled. I can deal with the straight truth even though it is unpleasant.

I think the Myers-Briggs personality inventory shows this in all its glaring truth. Personally, I don't need to have my employer always stroking and encouraging me. I like to work independently and... If they pay me that's quite enough. That's because I am INTJ. If you look at the ESFP personality on the Myers-Briggs, you will find that people who fit that category really NEED a lot of stroking and encouraging. They don't perform well without it.

Treating others as I would like to be treated will only work with another who has the same personality organization that I have. ...
 
I wonder how many kids are taught that in Kindergarten anymore.

This editorial struck a nerve with me for two reasons: a. NJs over-reaching anti-bullying law and b. My son is in college pursuing comedy writing. Are blonde jokes "unkind"? You betcha. Two of his closest friends are Jewish and Muslim. They mock each other publicly. Could that be forbidden in the near future? Slippery slope.

As someone stated, pledges mean nothing (unless they are enforced.) Coming soon?

They certainly enforce the Honor Code at Vanderbilt. BUT, I suspect that if this pledge becomes enforceable, it will likely only pertain to things that actually seriously disrupt the classroom, sporting activities, and college life in general. I don't see it being a whiner's haven.
 
“As we begin at Harvard, we commit to upholding the values of the College and to making the entryway and Yard a place where all can thrive and where the exercise of kindness holds a place on par with intellectual attainment.”
Harvard Pledge Values
Golden Rule
"Treat Others As You Want To Be Treated."


A short essay on the golden rule

The golden rule is endorsed by all the great world religions; Jesus, Hillel, and Confucius used it to summarize their ethical teachings. And for many centuries the idea has been influential among people of very diverse cultures. These facts suggest that the golden rule may be an important moral truth.

Let's consider an example of how the rule is used. President Kennedy in 1963 appealed to the golden rule in an anti-segregation speech at the time of the first black enrollment at the University of Alabama. He asked whites to consider what it would be like to be treated as second-class citizens because of skin color. Whites were to imagine themselves being black -- and being told that they couldn't vote, or go to the best public schools, or eat at most public restaurants, or sit in the front of the bus. Would whites be content to be treated that way? He was sure that they wouldn't -- and yet this is how they treated others. He said the "heart of the question is ... whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated."

The golden rule is best interpreted as saying: "Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation." To apply it, you'd imagine yourself on the receiving end of the action in the exact place of the other person (which includes having the other person's likes and dislikes). If you act in a given way toward another, and yet are unwilling to be treated that way in the same circumstances, then you violate the rule.

To apply the golden rule adequately, we need knowledge and imagination. We need to know what effect our actions have on the lives of others. And we need to be able to imagine ourselves, vividly and accurately, in the other person's place on the receiving end of the action. With knowledge, imagination, and the golden rule, we can progress far in our moral thinking.

The golden rule is best seen as a consistency principle. It doesn't replace regular moral norms. It isn't an infallible guide on which actions are right or wrong; it doesn't give all the answers. It only prescribes consistency -- that we not have our actions (toward another) be out of harmony with our desires (toward a reversed situation action). It tests our moral coherence. If we violate the golden rule, then we're violating the spirit of fairness and concern that lie at the heart of morality.

The golden rule, with roots in a wide range of world cultures, is well suited to be a standard that different cultures can appeal to in resolving conflicts. As the world becomes more and more a single interacting global community, the need for such a common standard is becoming more urgent.

The Golden Rule

and if I may add the new age addendum;

"remember though that your feelings trump all those round you, you may articulate your feelings but others may not as you may find offense in any realm on any topic no matter how innocuously couched, have no fear the gov./institutional nanny is here; we have codified speech, speech police and aclu on speed dial" .....

;)
 
also apropos the topic overall..let me share this; I watched stossel's 'stupid in america' segment on education in America, he had the union head for the DC school district on and in the midst of the interview they spoke of firing teachers who were clearly incompetent or just not effective, cutting etc. ala Rhee's firings which roiled the whole system when she was running it, his response;" we have to take into account the effect of the firings on the teachers lifestyles and state of mind...":rolleyes:
 
They still value learning. But they are sad Republicans have learned to become heartless.
*DING DING DING DING* WE HAVE A WINNAH

YAY it's the inevitable political disgression of the thread to start a cat fight, at last! Goodness it took 19 whole posts to get there; the people in this place are slipping!!

The left sucks! No wait the right sucks! Bush! Obama! Tea Party! There's my opinion and the wrong one! My side is always right! Yours is always wrong! You guys are stupid! We're great! blah! etc! blah!

wheeeeeeeee :clap2:
 
Once more: This is a freshmen pledge. It is a symbolic gesture at most and in the end basically means nothing. Freshmen will take this little pledge and then go out and act however they were going to act anyway. It's not like they're going to stop and go "whoooaa, wait a sec, I can't do that - by golly I took that pledge"

2. "Educational attainment" does not equal "learning".
Depends how you define the terms, but I give up: what do you think the diff is? Sound the same to me, or awfully close.

Is this more a statement on the kids today, or their parents?

So, is this a statement on how kids are being raised today, or just the laissez-faire attitudes of today's youth?
Yes.

I teach HS sunshine. I am well aware of the "incivility". Hence, opinions of any kind are not welcome in a public school classroom. But college? My goodness. Professors should welcome dissent - even if it's deemed "unkind".
"opinions of any kind are not welcome in a public school classroom?" I'm glad I never went to that school. That's beyond ridiculous and good luck finding many teachers to agree w/that - not to mention the hypocrisy to have such an extreme opinion and then go "oh but it's OK in college." ?? (PS: many colleges are public)

Opinions should be welcomed at ALL ages, for the most part, but tempered according to various specifics.


Anyway "why incivility occurs" is not complex and hardly a mystery. Discipline has largely become passe, even hated, among an unbelievably high % of parents now who are are mindless as they are spineless, yet they are seemingly breeding like cockroaches...and our brilliant legal system has joined in by bowing before the onslaught of ridiculous lawsuits and shredding school teachers'/administrations' authority.
 
Last edited:
And that's what I meant. "Educational attainment" is being spoonfed content - like we do in public high schools. "Learning" requires a diversity of ideas - some even "outside the box" and even "unkind" to some.

Here in NJ, we have the toughest anti-bullying law in the country. It is a speech code that applies to K-12 through college. It's not a pledge; its the law. Harvard, along with all other universities may be soon to follow. That is, if it's not challenged in the Supreme Court first.
 
Originally they wanted all the freshmen to sign the pledge and put it on display, but they nixed that idea. I guess they considered it "unkind" to the dissenters.

PC BS at its finest. Legislating "niceness"? Who could oppose that?

Wait til we see the slew of lawsuits over free speech vs anti-bullying laws on campus. A lawyer's wet dream.
GMAFB. Even high schools have pledges the students must sign.

Sounds like Harvard got religion, I'm surprised you aren't applauding them.
 
They've been loony over there for a long time now. The shocking part is that a lot of other schools consider Harvard 'too conservative.' University culture has gone way off the deep end.
 
Well the Golden Rule would have sufficed. And guess what? The world needs pricks too. Someday one of those Harvard grads may have to be "that guy". True story. Lol
 
And that's what I meant. "Educational attainment" is being spoonfed content - like we do in public high schools. "Learning" requires a diversity of ideas - some even "outside the box" and even "unkind" to some.

Here in NJ, we have the toughest anti-bullying law in the country. It is a speech code that applies to K-12 through college. It's not a pledge; its the law. Harvard, along with all other universities may be soon to follow. That is, if it's not challenged in the Supreme Court first.
Thx for clarification. Not getting the "bullying" laws, but I have a hunch that does not mean people are never allowed to voice their opinions. Really I suspect we're all more in agreement than it may sound at times.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top