Sociology: A “Hate-America” field? No. It’s a “Know-America” field.
There was an intriguing post over at Minding the Campus today. Apparently, Candace de Russy has a problem with an exam from an Introduction to Sociology course because it encourages students to consider issues from multiple perspectives (Sound the alarm! Critical Thinking ahead!).
She calls this problem “Hate-America Sociology”, because in her opinion it is anti-American to criticize or even speak factually about our country’s true history and our influence, for better or worse, on other areas of the world. I suppose she would prefer our youth to maintain ignorance on issues such as history, international relations, immigration, war, genocide, segregation, racism, and sexism. Let’s just pretend none of that ever happened, okay?
In her words:
“Recently, a colleague forwarded to me a copy of an exam from an introductory sociology class found lying in a room at a public college in the east. It was graded 100%. The exam deserves to be quoted at length, as parts of it are virtually indistinguishable from the old Soviet agitprop of the Fifties:
Question: How does the United States “steal” the resources of other (third world) [sic] countries?
Answer: We steal through exploitation. Our multinationals are aware that indigenous people in developing nations have been coaxed off their plots and forced into slums. Because it is lucrative, our multinationals offer them extremely low wage labor (sic) that cannot be turned down.
Question: Why is the U.S. on shaky moral ground when it comes to preventing illegal immigration?
Answer: Some say that it is wrong of the United States to prevent illegal immigration because the same people we are denying entry to, (sic) we have exploited for the purpose of keeping the American wheel spinning.
Question: Why is it necessary to examine the theory of cumulative advantage when it comes to affirmative action?
Answer: Because it is unfair to discredit the many members of minority groups that have (sic) been offered more life chances through the program.
Question: What is the interactionist approach to gender?
Answer: The majority of multi-gender encounters are male-dominated. for (sic) example, while involved in conversation, the male is much more likely to interrupt. Most likely because the male believes the female’s expressed thoughts are inferior to his own.
Question: Please briefly explain the matrix of domination.
Answer: the (sic) belief that domination has more than one dimension. For example, Males (sic) are dominant over females, whites over blacks, and affluent over impoverished.
This exam was part of the curriculum in a for-credit class at an accredited degree-granting institution. Introductory sociology courses like this one are frequently required, even for non-majors. A student who matriculates in this field of study will have nothing in the way of useful skills, but will be convinced that his country is rotten to the core, and that whites and males are evil.
China encourages its brightest students to study mathematics and engineering. India has become known as a hotbed of tech-savvy computer programmers. Meanwhile, the U.S. spends billions to teach postmodern, left-wing misinformation as objective “fact.”
It seems rather foolish to remain optimistic about the future of this nation when millions of its most “educated” are systematically being taught to loathe it.”
Dr. de Russy, this exam explores many common sociological theories. Not once does it proclaim that a certain way of thinking is right or wrong, nor does it force the student to feel a certain way about America; in fact, the student actually begins an answer with “some say…”, which means the student recognizes that these are just theories, not objective fact.
The questions are asking the student to examine, explain, describe, compare, and analyze. Contrary to your claim, all of these skills are highly desirable in most career fields. Sociology as a discipline emphasizes critical thinking, not blindly following the “old Soviet agitprop of the Fifties”, as you say.
I’m not sure what China and India have to do with this topic, since many universities in both countries offer comprehensive liberal arts and social science programs, including Sociology. I encourage you to do some research on Peking University, Tsinghua University, and Nankai University in China, and the Indian Institute of Technology in India, before assuming that they have eschewed all humanities and social sciences (“hate-America” fields?) in favor of technology, mathematics, and engineering – which are, apparently, fields that really love America.
Posted on January 7, 2010, in Academia, Sociology and tagged Academia, Affirmative Action, assimilation, college, critical thinking, curriculum, Education and Schooling, higher education, students, teaching. Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.
Allow me to help you out there:
“Question: How does the United States “steal” the resources of other (third world) [sic] countries?”
Assumes that the United States steals resources. How do you answer this if you don’t believe they do?
“Question: Why is the U.S. on shaky moral ground when it comes to preventing illegal immigration?”
Assumes the U.S. is on shaky moral ground. How do you answer this if you don’t think it is?
“Question: Why is it necessary to examine the theory of cumulative advantage when it comes to affirmative action?”
Assumes it is necessary to examine the theory of cumulative advantage, and implicitly assumes that affirmative action is justifiable. How do you answer this if you don’t think either is?
Did you notice that steal is in quotation marks? That usually means it is someone else’s phrase, and that the author of the exam may or may not agree with them. Here’s an example: You accuse me of stealing something. My response to you may be, And just how exactly did I “steal” something from you? In this way, I am using your words even though I do not agree with your assertion.
Here’s another example: Bob said he thinks Saddam Hussein was a “respectable” politician, can you believe that? Here, I do not agree with Bob, so I am using quotes around the word respectable.
Exactly how the student answered it, which is to start by qualifying the answer with “some say”. This phrase means one of two things: the student does not necessarily agree that the U.S. is on shaky moral ground, or the student knows of theorists who do not agree that the U.S. is on shaky moral ground. Either way, the student is using critical thinking and multiple perspectives to explore the topic.
Do you know what the theory of cumulative advantage postulates? Allow me to help you out here: “The theory of cumulative advantage…implicitly require[s] the intergenerational transmission of [educational] opportunities and the advantages associated with them in order to compensate for discrimination” (Andrew, n.d., p. 2).
So I don’t agree that it implicitly assumes affirmative action is justifiable. You can see that the theory actually states a reason why affirmative action may not be as successful as people think it should be. That to me does not imply anything about the justifiability of the program.
Source:
Andrew, M. (n.d.) “Cumulative Advantage in the Intergenerational Transmission of Education: Quantities and Qualities”. Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin – Madison. Retrieved from here.
I take this blog at its word. The above quiz represents what passes for academic objectivity with progressives.
I never said the exam was academically objective – that is a different matter entirely. In this post, I am arguing that the exam is not “anti-America” as Dr. de Russy claims.
A closer reading on your part would have avoided this error.
“the U.S. spends billions to teach postmodern, left-wing misinformation as objective ‘fact.’”
This statement represents so many mis-understandings, I’m not sure where to begin. Thus, I’ll focus on one primary point. She apparently criticizes instructors for being too postmodern in their teaching, but then also criticizes them for teaching “objective fact.” The contradictions and level of mis-understanding demonstrated by that criticism are almost enough to make the head explode.