do no harm:


idit dobb-weinstein: "teaching is action and thinking at once. What I try to guard against most when I teach is not speaking as if my answer were conclusive, so as to avoid (to the extent possible) any kind of dogmatic appropriation. It is understandable why students might wish to imitate their teachers, but there are different modes of imitation. I try very hard to avoid the mimetic appropriation that is immediate, passive, and occludes thinking. One other reason is that if I made clear what my views were, and my views appeared as if they were final, it would preclude the possibility of first, students challenging me and second, learning from my students. The relation between the student and teacher is, to me, a dynamic relationship . . . Teaching and learning is a movement that occurs between. In other words, we are at once both agent and patient, both teacher and learner. If we are not very careful, we can do a great deal of harm. And that, too, I have learned from my teachers, Maimonides especially.

I believe my task is to provoke students to think and to engage them in genuine dialogue and questioning. To paraphrase a rabbinic saying, 'I have learned from my teachers, and I have learned from my peers, but I have learned most from my students.' And that is a continuous process of learning."

Thursday, 14 October 2010

educational workplaces?

Keith A. Fink, said he was pleased with today's rulings.

``The First Amendment's protection for freedom of speech doesn't give an
employer the right to sexually harass a woman in the workplace,'' Fink said.
``Defense counsel's argument in his motion that a boss can denigrate a woman
with demeaning and degrading sexual comments is one that has no basis in the
law and is an affront to important civil rights principles set forth in anti-
discrimination legislation.''

http://server.finklawfirm.com/content/view/154/57/

this statement was made in regards to labor law.  what i find very interesting is the way every one writes themselves theoretical exemptions of every kind for any reason for any thing.

if one thinks of a school as a workplace, and one thinks of the students as clients, is there any reason to assume . . .

well . . . oh yes there are also laws specific to verbal sexual harassment at schools . . . .
check this way---------------->
if eckford and bartelt still are confused about these perhaps they
should take kenneth lanzer's legal research

well lately my brain has been tending towards nihilism and anarchy.
and in that context, i must really give LACC
A+
for disrespecting women.

if that is what they are going for.

actually it might be fun to do a scorecard:

campus: B+ (historic architecture)
food options: D-
hatred of women: A+ (on the curve)
student government: F
technology: C-
tuition: A+
public relations: D+/-
rapes on campus: C+
sheriff's office: b+
likelihood of being called something sexist: A+
counseling services: A+
vending machines:A+
styrofoam: A+ (copious earth-destroying amounts of it)
recycling: C-
library: A+
insensitivity: A-
grade retaliation for reported sexism: A+
che guevara flag: A+
diversity: A+
languages: A+
student body: A+
adversity: A+
graffiti: B+ (keep practicing!!!!  take more art classes guys . . .)
economic struggle: A+

i am actually positively homesick for california!!!!!!!

i love you so much!!!!

stay strong my activists!!!!!!

resist!
rise up!
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)