Posted on 02/27/2005 2:50:28 PM PST by prman
If parents and students are right to be alarmed by the results of recent national tests that show U.S. schoolchildren falling behind Latvia in math scores and doing even worse in science education, then they will really be puzzled by the latest initiative at the University of Michigan: requiring that all students take a mandatory course on gender and sex.
The same people who brought you racial preferences in college admissions, “hate speech” codes and mandatory courses in race and ethnicity now want another official captive audience so they can hector their charges about “oppressive” heterosexual dominance, homophobia, male harassment, “antiquated” religious beliefs about sex, and the usual laundry list of liberal enthusiasms. Students who might refuse to take the course cannot graduate.
Behind this effort is a small group of students who call themselves the “Gender and Sexuality Requirement Committee,” who gathered about 1,000 signatures over the past year.
A proposal was then presented to the University’s College of Literature, Science and the Arts (LSA), with the idea that the course would be taught primarily by the faculty of the women’s studies department. The next hurdle involves making a formal pitch to the LSA curriculum committee later this semester, the first step to getting approval by the entire LSA faculty.
Proponents of this scheme tip their hand when they indicate that their preferred faculty to teach such a course would be that of women’s studies, possibly the most politicized department at the university.
A haven for “feminist scholarship,” women’s studies course descriptions make no bones about where their objectives and politics lay: “The course does not merely provide analyses of women's oppression, however, but suggests strategies for ending that oppression.” Or “This course will also encourage students to consider ways in which [the] texts both reflect and participate in the construction of sexuality, sexual identity, gender, and desire.”
The proposal declares that such a course “will create new dialogues, challenge hegemonic discourse, break taboos and stigmas, and open up realms of communications among all students.”
Given that 60 percent of Michiganders voted to ban gay marriage in the recent referendum, it would seem that courses that tub-thump for liberal sexual mores would go against popular opinion.
Not to worry, says the student committee co-chair Catherine Malczynski, “We think [these things] are very important today and that people should be educated on, [sic] like they are educated on race and ethnicity.”
But after the gay marriage vote, striking a note of pessimism, she added, “it showed a lot of homophobia and that people might not be willing to do this.”
If Tom Wolfe’s scathing indictment of out-of-control sex on college campuses in his new book, "I Am Charlotte Simmons," is close to the truth, it would seem that the kind of course recommended by the student committee might make the problem worse, since conventional morality doesn’t seem to be part of the approach.
Rather, course advocates seem transparently only to want to shape student attitudes about gender and sex issues, to get them to think like they do. They assume, mistakenly, that because some might not, then they are wrong. Making such a dubious course mandatory is just a more convenient yet heavy-handed way to wield their ideological club.
I suspect that if such a course were offered simply on a voluntary basis, it would wither on the vine from lack of interest. One can only speculate whether the instructors would demand congruity with their views for successful completion of the course.
In a national educational environment where overall student achievement is comparatively low, and where most students (and their parents) must cough up considerable sums of money to get an education and prepare for their future careers, it seems highly questionable that they should be burdened with a course with little actual academic substance, and motivated by those only wishing to proselytize.
It’s high time that colleges and universities get out of the attitude-shaping and indoctrination business, and pretending that they are “promoting diversity,” “widening their knowledge” and other pious, empty and specious claims.
I have a son who will be college-bound in three or four years. As things stand now, when we sit down to prepare a list of the final five or six colleges that he will apply to enter, the University of Michigan will not be on it.
Barrett Kalellis is a Michigan-based columnist and writer whose articles appear regularly in various local and national print and online publications. He may be reached at kalellis@newsmax.com.
Go Green!!!! Go White!!!!
Get your children out of government schools, including colleges.
It's not the U. Michigan that I went to. And that's why I refuse to send them money.
We used to call UM Berkley East.
Michigan State University
"THE" University of Michigan......SPARTY ON!!!
I advise all young college students, in all universities everywhere across the United States , to drop out , take a break , and enlist/join the United States Armed Forces .
To 'heck' with these putrid institutions and their liberal agendas, the US is at War and we need to prosecute this war
with all vigor and need young people to take up the sword (etc) to do this. Turn your back on these colleges and universities for a good while and go serve your dear country.
It amazes me how this comes from those who always preach that the government should not force morality on people.
It is the Michigan I went to. Thing is, I have so much trouble with authority figures that they made me a Republican.
That's the only way to deal with marxism...do not participate in any way.
FMCDH(BITS)
I don't know about UM, but Northwestern gives a "personal survival pack" to each student, either every quarter or every year (not sure which). The "personal survival pack" contains three condoms, some K-Y jelly, and a piece of candy "to represent the fact that some students choose abstinence". (Why don't they include a water pistol and a soap bubble toy, to complete the patronizing insult?) I guess the implication is that "personal survival" at Northwestern requires promiscuity, and that abstinence is immature behavior?
The administration regards this as "forward-looking" and proactive behavior on their part.
I wouldn't buy condoms for my own kids, why should I give money to Northwestern to buy them for other peoples' kids???
PING
Now we know why-they want the government to force immorality on people, and at as early an age as possible.
Actually, go to college first, then join the military...
My wife is due to give birth in two months. I've already made up my mind that I'm not saving one penny towards my kid's college education. What a complete waste of money. If you want to learn, just turn on your computer.
About damn time they learned to tell what they are without having to look in their pants every time a form asked for their sex ;-)
Dang, the "personal survival" pack when I went to Michigan in the 80s included things like soap, deodorent, and toothpaste. Which, come to think of it, are also useful, if you wanted to get laid.
So, I ended up dating the only leftist who didn't believe in premarital sex. Go fig.
da only trouble with dat is dat afta college deh get no more
brain dat is not all kapakai with Liberal bs ;^)
Do they get to go on field trips?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.