![[NoIndoctrination.org]](/title.gif)
Warning: Postings are only opinions. (See Terms of Service) Note: Although the postings appear to be anonymous, NoIndoctrination.org knows the posters' names. We communicate with the posters before putting their comments online. We also research each posting and ask for corroborating material when appropriate. Record for NoIndoctrination.org entry #439.
| University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) |
Nov. 7, 2004 |
|
|
|
| Course: MCD BIO 40: Aids and Sexually Transmitted Diseases |
|
| Course Catalog Description: Lecture, five and one-half hours; experiential service learning, 30 minutes. Introduction to interdisciplinary debate surrounding the personal and societal response to AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. [MCD = Molecular, Cell, and Developmental Biology] |
|
| Professor: Roger E. Bohman |
|
| Required? Met a General Ed./diversity/other requirement with a few course options. |
|
| Lecture Bias: Objectionable |
|
| Comments: One specific example of bias in the classroom happened about half way through the Fall quarter of 2003. Professor Bohman, although a nice man, proceeded to blame President Ronald Reagan for the progression of the world's AIDS epidemic. His argument was that because Reagan ignored the AIDS issue, his policies caused it to spread like wild-fire. Why is this bias? Well, obviously many reasonable individuals wouldn't agree with such a statement. But this is not my reasoning for posting this statement. This was Bohman's understanding of the situation, and he used it in his lectures (on more than one occasion this specific example was mentioned) to not only express an opinion to 250+ students, but also to thousands of students over many years. One person (Reagan) is not responsible for the AIDS epidemic, especially a man who didn't have AIDS, use drug-related products that spread AIDS, or have sexual relations with individuals who had it. It is outrageous just thinking about it. However, one could argue that policies affected the spread of it, which Bohman proceeded to argue, but ONLY ONE SIDE was presented. This is indoctrination. This is like saying, let’s talk about baseball and the Red Sox, but forgetting to mention the Yankees. Furthermore, Professor Bohman had guest speakers attend lectures with their opinions, also claiming that Ronald Reagan was to blame. One of these guest speakers was an older woman who was an AIDS activist, the other from a gay rights group. Professor Bohman, the AIDS activist, and the spokespersons for the gay and lesbian rights group all had the same agenda. It is hard to believe that every person in the lecture hall on this campus, and even in California, agrees with Bohman’s argument that Reagan is responsible for the AIDS epidemic. Many in the AIDS community do not agree with that assertion. Surely, one can argue an opinion, as Bohman has done, but when an individual in Bohman’s position, as a professor to thousands of students over time, takes a stance on a controversial issue, both sides should be presented. Maybe he could have invited a guest speaker who supports the Reagan Administration’s policies or at least someone who disagrees with the assertion that Reagan was the sole cause of the spread of AIDS. Obviously, and sadly, presenting multiple views was NOT Bohman's intention; he believes in something and he believes you should believe it too, and without your say. Understandably, many of us believe Bohman’s claim is wrong (or at least debatable), but others don't even know it is debatable because Bohman presents only ONE view. The fact is that we live in a democracy, where diversity of opinion should be praised, especially on a college campus like UCLA. However, at UCLA, as I have experienced, professors and administrators alike claim diversity, but mean something else. This is wrong and only separates the students who don't agree with professors, while alienating them at the same time. A failed democracy is where a diversity of opinions is oppressed or not discussed. Most of the country is on track, except college campuses. Why? The professors teach the students to believe in something they believe in, without expressing what other people might think about the subject. Individuals then go on believing it to be truth. However, there is personal responsibility on both sides. Students should research what people say, and professors should research what they say, and vice-versa. |
|
|
|
| Comments: There was no discussion section for this class. There was never a question and answer period with the professor. He just lectured. However, there was a question and answer period with the guest speakers. But I was not willing at the time to "call-out" any of the speakers. Honestly, I was intimidated as a first year transfer at UCLA. Nevertheless, I should have said something in regard to the questionable statements the speakers were making. In that case it is my fault that I did not stand for truth, or at least a difference of opinion. |
|
| Readings Bias: Noticeable |
|
| Comments: The Reagan example mentioned above also included a short reading on the fact that Reagan's policies caused the spread of AIDS. No other opinion was mentioned or discussed. |
|
| General Comments: U.C.'s statement on Academic Freedom (http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/apm-010.pdf) states,"The University also seeks to foster in its students a MATURE INDEPENDENCE OF MIND, and this purpose cannot be achieved unless STUDENTS AND FACULTY are free within the classroom to express the widest range of viewpoints in accord with the standards of scholarly inquiry and professional ethics." UC's Faculty Code of Conduct (http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/apm-015.pdf) states, "The University seeks to provide and sustain an environment conducive to sharing, extending, and CRITICALLY EXAMINING KNOWLEDGE and values, and to furthering the search for wisdom." Professor Bohman did not honor either of these two obligations as a professor. Overall the course was fairly enjoyable and full of good information, but basically, the professor let his opinions get in the way of his teaching. Bohman is a passionate man, and loves teaching, which I respect him for, but his opinions in this case are not facts, and therefore not encouraging for a free intellectual environment. Nonetheless, on more than one occasion Bohman did state that "we" did not have to agree with him. However, this does not make it right, especially according to the regulations that UCLA has set for all professors and faculty to follow. |
|
|
|
| When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here. |
|
|
The opinions expressed within NoIndoctrination.org are not necessarily those held by NoIndoctrination.org
|