Join The Debate!

Subject: Jack

First, we have some common ground. I agree that discussion can be good, when there is critical analysis and the allowance for opposing views.

However, that wasn't the case of Omatsu's class that my wife attended.

Mush for brains was hyperbole derived from the quote from "The Paper Chase". Law classes consist of both the attainment of knowledge of the law as well as an involved critical analysis of the material.

Knowledge and critical thought is required here, too. Any knowledge or discussion in the class in question consisted of reinforcing his opinion, not analyzing different positions. Maybe a better description is that of William's main thesis; the instructor, without a healthy examination of the subject, indoctrinates malleable minds.

Anyone who knows my wife knows that there is no mush in her brain.

In reference to class fairness, the Asian, Afro-American and Latino studies classes at Pasadena City College were oriented to pump up the self-esteem, for lack of a better word, of the subject minority. There were by far a majority of Asians in the Asian studies course. There were far more African-Americans in the Afro-American studies class and Latinos in the Latino studies course.

They original purpose for these minority courses was to educate the _other_ minorities about the subject minority. Knowledge and understanding reduces ignorance and discrimination, a worthy objective.

However, this class was used to further alienate groups. There was no pretense of objectivity.

My problem with Omatsu rejecting my "reasonable" question is because he intended to incite rather than to raise consciousness. He meant that the Chinese were responsible for Stanford University, not anyone else.

Which is more factually accurate and better portrays the conflict? Which one glosses over the real conflict to in order to claim ownership? What ideas do each statement transmit?

Instead of the word “fairness” describing my desire for class balance, I would substitute “objectivity”. I do not expect that each and every class should agree with my beliefs. That would be boring. However, I do expect objectivity. If objectivity is not possible, I would settle for the polite consideration of differing ideas. Is that “fair”?

Do I think about Leland Stanford and the Chinese laborers more after this discussion? Obviously, the answer is yes. That is true for every other discussion. I will think about Charlie Brown more after a discussion of the comic strip Peanuts than before.

Do I need to constantly re-examine everything in order to maintain objectivity? No.

In the specific case of Stanford, I have been exposed to both sides of the issue. I can explore multiple sides and integrate them into a whole. If I haven't, I recognize that I shouldn't come to a conclusion. If I happen to be mistaken, I am big enough to accept the new information and modify my views.

There's the rub. This Omatsu's class was designed to push one side of an issue and then set the students forth into the world to promote change.

You may think that I'm exaggerating. However, I am not. You may believe that this is just a different “point of view”, rather than propaganda. I would agree if he had used the statement as an attention grabber to get people to think. However, that was not the case. This class was a textbook (oops, sorry) case supporting Walter William’s thesis.

You have presented a thoughtful position, which includes principles that are true for the vast majority of classes. I would agree whole-heartedly with your positions for normal classes. This was true for my college experience. The problem is that this was not a normal class.

I appreciate thoughtful discussions like this.