Colorado Springs
Feb. 11th, 2006 03:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stoutfellowThere are worse sins than abuse of authority. Still, that is one of the sins to which I have the most visceral reaction. I'm not sure why; perhaps it is because it is one of the besetting sins of people in my profession, educators. In any case, it enrages me to hear of it.
As an undergraduate, I spent a year or so in ROTC. One day, in one of my Military Science classes - this must have been late in 1976 or early in 1977 - the instructor, a major, began talking about politics, making his Republican preferences quite clear. Then he began going around the class, asking each of us how we had voted. When he got around to me, I told him that I would prefer not to say; he stopped a moment in apparent surprise, then nodded. He didn't ask anyone else. I don't know that I've ever been angrier with a teacher than I was that day. A few months later, I left the program (for entirely different reasons), but that memory has stuck with me, and continues to rankle.
In my classes, I don't talk about politics, or about religion. (Well, with certain exceptions: in my History of Math class, religion is occasionally relevant, e.g. in discussing Pascal, but I try to keep my discussion purely descriptive.) It would be deeply unethical for me to do so, in my judgement.
It is for reasons like this that the scandal over proselytizing at the Air Force Academy offends me so. John Cole - no liberal he - has a good discussion of the matter. If I, a civilian mathematics professor, am ethically constrained in this respect, how much more so an officer at a military academy? An officer has far more influence over a cadet than I could possibly have, and it is therefore far more incumbent on him - or her - to use that power ethically. As an individual, yes, s/he has the right to attempt to propagate his/her faith; but within the confines of the Academy, s/he does not, cannot, act as an individual, but only as a representative of the United States and of its armed forces. I think, as Cole does, that the guidelines put forward a few months ago were wise ones, and I am disturbed that they seem to have been watered down.
As an undergraduate, I spent a year or so in ROTC. One day, in one of my Military Science classes - this must have been late in 1976 or early in 1977 - the instructor, a major, began talking about politics, making his Republican preferences quite clear. Then he began going around the class, asking each of us how we had voted. When he got around to me, I told him that I would prefer not to say; he stopped a moment in apparent surprise, then nodded. He didn't ask anyone else. I don't know that I've ever been angrier with a teacher than I was that day. A few months later, I left the program (for entirely different reasons), but that memory has stuck with me, and continues to rankle.
In my classes, I don't talk about politics, or about religion. (Well, with certain exceptions: in my History of Math class, religion is occasionally relevant, e.g. in discussing Pascal, but I try to keep my discussion purely descriptive.) It would be deeply unethical for me to do so, in my judgement.
It is for reasons like this that the scandal over proselytizing at the Air Force Academy offends me so. John Cole - no liberal he - has a good discussion of the matter. If I, a civilian mathematics professor, am ethically constrained in this respect, how much more so an officer at a military academy? An officer has far more influence over a cadet than I could possibly have, and it is therefore far more incumbent on him - or her - to use that power ethically. As an individual, yes, s/he has the right to attempt to propagate his/her faith; but within the confines of the Academy, s/he does not, cannot, act as an individual, but only as a representative of the United States and of its armed forces. I think, as Cole does, that the guidelines put forward a few months ago were wise ones, and I am disturbed that they seem to have been watered down.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-02-12 12:16 am (UTC)I'd heard about this from the usual left-wing sources and, unfortunately dismissed it. After all, if one reads early 20th century writers, the picture of drawn of the type of religious language used by officers, professors and people of authority would have them nowadays, drawn and quartered for the offense. And, I'll note their prowess in either profession compared favorably to (v. favorably in the latter case) to those today.
And then I read:
I'll need to investigate further, but, for the nonce: Yoiks. That doesn't look good. Keep in mind, however, that Cole is quoting from the WaPo: Trust, but verify.
no subject
Date: 2006-02-12 12:18 am (UTC)Sorry about that.
Keep in Mind ...
Date: 2006-02-12 12:25 pm (UTC)http://www.greatertalent.com/biography.php?id=541
Hardly a lefty ...
From the Air Force Times:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1477125.php
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1521345.php
Re: Keep in Mind ...
Date: 2006-02-13 12:21 am (UTC)