U of MN screening applicants for political ideology

[chanel]

All signs are that the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities is planning to enforce a political litmus test for future teachers. The university’s College of Education and Human Development intends to mandate certain beliefs and values—”dispositions”—for future teachers. Yet that is not enough. It even intends to redesign its admissions process so that it screens out people with the wrong beliefs and values-those who it judges will not be able to be brought around to the correct beliefs and values of “cultural competence” even after remedial training.

Originally, Katherine Kersten reported that the “cultural competence” requirement would be applied to graduation, not admission. However, FIRE took a closer look and discovered this:

Not only that, however, the college in its proposal promises to start screening its applicants to make sure they have the proper “commitments” and “dispositions”:

Develop admission procedures to assess professional commitments.

We recognize that both academic preparation and particular dispositions or professional commitments are needed for effective teaching. [Emphasis in original.]

This would hardly be constitutional at a private college — discriminating on the basis of political ideology. It certainly shouldn’t pass muster at a state-run university like the University of Minnesota. UM apparently wants to choke off dissent at the entry point, and only produce an army of teachers who aren’t allowed to think for themselves or hold viewpoints that diverge from the groupthink

Hot Air » Blog Archive » FIRE: Those U-Minn teacher-program requisites have our attention

Amazing. These liberal colleges aren't even trying to hide their indoctrination anymore. Anyone familiar with "FIRE" - The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a free-speech activist group that fights political-correctness codes on college campuses? They do great work.

 

[California Girl]

Why am I just not surprised by this?

 

[chanel]

Isn't the whole purpose of brainwashing not to let the subjects know their minds are being controlled? Must have some pretty shitty professors there. Lol

 

[editec]

All signs are that the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities is planning to enforce a political litmus test for future teachers. The university’s College of Education and Human Development intends to mandate certain beliefs and values—”dispositions”—for future teachers. Yet that is not enough. It even intends to redesign its admissions process so that it screens out people with the wrong beliefs and values-those who it judges will not be able to be brought around to the correct beliefs and values of “cultural competence” even after remedial training.

Originally, Katherine Kersten reported that the “cultural competence” requirement would be applied to graduation, not admission. However, FIRE took a closer look and discovered this:

Not only that, however, the college in its proposal promises to start screening its applicants to make sure they have the proper “commitments” and “dispositions”:

Develop admission procedures to assess professional commitments.

We recognize that both academic preparation and particular dispositions or professional commitments are needed for effective teaching. [Emphasis in original.]

This would hardly be constitutional at a private college — discriminating on the basis of political ideology. It certainly shouldn’t pass muster at a state-run university like the University of Minnesota. UM apparently wants to choke off dissent at the entry point, and only produce an army of teachers who aren’t allowed to think for themselves or hold viewpoints that diverge from the groupthink

Hot Air » Blog Archive » FIRE: Those U-Minn teacher-program requisites have our attention

Amazing. These liberal colleges aren't even trying to hide their indoctrination anymore. Anyone familiar with "FIRE" - The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a free-speech activist group that fights political-correctness codes on college campuses? They do great work.

I read the article you linked to.

It doesn't really tell us what the criteria are that teachers are being evaluated on, does it?

Given that we do't KNOW what this system is testing, how can we take a stance either way on it?

There's a LOT of sizzle to your article, but where's the steak?

 

[chanel]

ha ha. FIRE is investigating.

I took a course in "multi-culturism" in grad school. Basically it was about moral relativism. If Mormons and Muslims want to take child brides "who are we to judge?" If Hispanic fathers don't believe in girls finishing high school "that's ok". It was complete b.s. and I was very outspoken about it. Got an A. Of course, it wasn't in MN.

 

[Big Fitz]

You've no idea how radical some of those departments are. I strongly suspect that my ex wife was bounced from being admitted to the UW vet school because she was a white, Christian Conservative, and her essay section didn't hide that. How she got through to the U of M, I'm not sure. Possibly they had their quota of minorities and libs.

 

[Si modo]

This sort of shit keeps the honorable profession of teaching down.

 

[Diuretic]

I've got my hand up cos I'm down the back of the class (as usual) and the teacher may not be able to see me so I'll have to holler out.

"Have they actually done anything yet?"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

ha ha. FIRE is investigating.

I took a course in "multi-culturism" in grad school. Basically it was about moral relativism. If Mormons and Muslims want to take child brides "who are we to judge?" If Hispanic fathers don't believe in girls finishing high school "that's ok". It was complete b.s. and I was very outspoken about it. Got an A. Of course, it wasn't in MN.

Mormons do not take child brides.

 

[Modbert]

Mormons do not take child brides.

Joseph Smith disagrees.

List of the wives of Joseph Smith, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 

[Diuretic]

ha ha. FIRE is investigating.

I took a course in "multi-culturism" in grad school. Basically it was about moral relativism. If Mormons and Muslims want to take child brides "who are we to judge?" If Hispanic fathers don't believe in girls finishing high school "that's ok". It was complete b.s. and I was very outspoken about it. Got an A. Of course, it wasn't in MN.

I like moral relativism. It's more difficult than moral absolutism but I still like it.

 

[chanel]

ha ha. FIRE is investigating.

I took a course in "multi-culturism" in grad school. Basically it was about moral relativism. If Mormons and Muslims want to take child brides "who are we to judge?" If Hispanic fathers don't believe in girls finishing high school "that's ok". It was complete b.s. and I was very outspoken about it. Got an A. Of course, it wasn't in MN.

Mormons do not take child brides.

I understand that some groups have distorted the religion; just like the Muslims. But it was discussed.

And while editec changed his mixed metaphor, allow me to expand on that. Where there's smoke, there's fire. Best that the FIRE people investigate now, before it's too late. Why wait for some innocent student to be denied admission or degree and then sue? That could take years.

Oh and diuretic - being a moral relativist in your line of work may do no harm. Applying those standards in the social, cognitive, and MORAL development of CHILDREN, is very dangerous. Teachers are supposed to teach kids right from wrong.
Can you imagine a school with no rules or standards of behavior? Check out Chicago.

 

[Diuretic]

ha ha. FIRE is investigating.

I took a course in "multi-culturism" in grad school. Basically it was about moral relativism. If Mormons and Muslims want to take child brides "who are we to judge?" If Hispanic fathers don't believe in girls finishing high school "that's ok". It was complete b.s. and I was very outspoken about it. Got an A. Of course, it wasn't in MN.

Mormons do not take child brides.

I understand that some groups have distorted the religion; just like the Muslims. But it was discussed.

And while editec changed his mixed metaphor, allow me to expand on that. Where there's smoke, there's fire. Best that the FIRE people investigate now, before it's too late. Why wait for some innocent student to be denied admission or degree and then sue? That could take years.

Oh and diuretic - being a moral relativist in your line of work may do no harm. Applying those standards in the social, cognitive, and MORAL development of CHILDREN, is very dangerous. Teachers are supposed to teach kids right from wrong.
Can you imagine a school with no rules or standards of behavior? Check out Chicago.

Good point chanel. I would definitely agree that children need to have unambiguous indoctrination at an early age. No problem with that.

But as they get older they need to be helped to appreciate that the absolutist ideas that worked for them as young children must be replaced by an acknowledgement that moral relativism is the norm in society. Or should I say it's replaced by moral ambiguity.

Children should be educated appropriately to understand and accept that absolutist proposition but they also need to be able to work out things for themselves in the hope that they will be able to do so as adults. I'm thinking of a Brunerian approach.

I know you would be familiar with Piaget and Kohlberg on moral development and I think they put forward a stage theory that at one point sees the transition from absolutist morality to relative morality and that sort of nodal point is where moral ambiguity as opposed to moral absolutism needs to explored

 

[chanel]

I teach high school. Kids see too many shades of grey in just living their lives. Sometimes a black and white approach is exactly what they need. Moral relativism applied to teaching equals apathy.

In a perfect world, parents would teach children values when they are young. Unfortunately, in many lives, that is the role of the teacher.

 

[Diuretic]

I teach high school. Kids see too many shades of grey in just living their lives. Sometimes a black and white approach is exactly what they need. Moral relativism applied to teaching equals apathy.

In a perfect world, parents would teach children values when they are young. Unfortunately, in many lives, that is the role of the teacher.

I take your point. In fact I'd be a bloody fool not to.

I was thinking more of developing a sense of judgement or discrimination and teaching kids ways of coming to grips with the shades of grey you mentioned. Those kids are growing up in ambiguity, they may have no firm standards taught to them and that means they have been deprived of that early understanding of right and wrong. Why didn't they get it? Okay the parents might not have instilled it into them but kids to to school at the age of 5 and there's plenty of time to develop their sense of morality from 5 to about 12 or so.

I think helping them to develop the ability to be effective at making morally relativistic judgements is warranted. If you simply present them with a set of preconceived ideas which are black and white then that's not about developing their thinking, it's about teaching them to comply and compliance is a very low level affective response.

I need to make this point - this is an abstract discussion, not grounded in present reality.

 

[chanel]

I don't deal in abstracts diuretic. I work with disaffected youth that generally come from single parent households. In 40 minutes, I cannot change their way of thinking; only their behavior. Racist language and gratuitous comments about sex are unacceptable in the classroom. I used to get on my soapbox to try to explain how harmful words can be; now I just tell them to say it at the dinner table. That will most likely get me in hot water someday. lol

 

[code1211]

Channel and Di: This is a good discussion.

Regarding Moral absolutes: Like the Bill of Rights or the most of the Ten Commandments, describing what cannot be done is helpful and leaving what can or should be done to the individual is enriching.

As I wrote this, it occurred to me that the Liberals in our society annoy me becuase they tell me what I must do. The Conservatives annoy because they tell me what I cannot do.

Choosing between these, I think that prohibiting a few things and allowing all else allows more freedom than compelling a few things at the expense of all else.

Regarding the U of M from which I graduated, there is a mental illness in the administration of the University. When I was there, note that this is a Big 10 school, the mind set was that success in athletics was considered proof of a non-serious approach to education. They like the prestige of being in the Big 10, but withhold support for athletics because providing support is non-serious.

What's wrong with this picture? It's like they want boast to all that they swim with the sharks but hate getting wet.

The low point in the history of the U of M for the Administration of this Universtity was in 1960 when they won a National Championship in Football. Since that year, they have successfully avoided any National Championship problems and since 1967, have avoided any Conferance Championship problems. This team does, however, attend every Homecoming dance in the Conferance.

And yes, Virginia, the administration and faculty are all Liberals with very upper case L's.

 

[IanC]

why is it that the call for diversity never entails the call for diversity of thought and ideas? I don't hear of any university panels saying only conservatives will be hired until the ratio of consevatives to liberals matches the population proportions.

 

[chanel]

Because conservatives are wrong Ian! We cannot have stupid, racist, Nazis teaching our young, can we? (please note sarcasm)

 

[code1211]

Because conservatives are wrong Ian! We cannot have stupid, racist, Nazis teaching our young, can we? (please note sarcasm)

Sarcasm noted.

The educational establishment has made the decision that we need to have enlightened, elitist Communists teaching our young.

The reason? The educational establishment is comprised of people who make their livings from taking the largest piece possible from the pie of tax revenues. Capitalists are feeding money into that pie. Communists are taking money out of that pie. If the taking of the money is not both noble and jusitified, then the proffession of teaching which is funded by this taking is neither noble nor justified.

It is not that it's wrong to be stupid, racist and Nazi. Those who are stupid, racist and Nazi but are somehow exotic and sophisticated and share the same enemies as the elect, are embraced. Hugo Chavez dises Bush and is loved. Wow!

You are not particularly wrong to be anything else, but you are only right if you are enlightened, elitist and Communist.

The degree to which you are these things is guaged by the degree to which you embrace the narrow beliefs of those who run the establishment. This is as true in the education establishment as it is true in the establishment of other disciplines. Other disciplines, though, see those who are accepted as being useful while those in education see those who are accepted as equally elite, above the unwashed mass.

By this definition, any who are not in the elect are, by definition, inferior. The inferior are not capable of critical understanding of what is essential and therefore their opinions are unworthy.

A neat circle of justification of elitism. Not racist at all. Racists are not sufficiently exclusionary.