Vigorous Debate,
Cornerstone of Democracy... But Not Here!
As an adjunct instructor of English, I spent a year and a half faithfully
teaching online courses at Davenport University. Then suddenly I was terminated
(not fired)
because I'd failed to satisfy all the clients (i.e., students) by
providing positive feedback, including to the ones who submitted incredibly
sloppy assignments. Moreover, the
Writing Well
lecture I'd created for that "job" upset a few of those clients.
After all, I'd actually quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson, in an effort to stimulate
debate and free speech: "go upright and vital, and speak
the rude truth in all ways." They complained to
the Academic Coordinator Sheila Mulvaney, requesting I be "fired" because I was
a "horrible person." This is Academe today...
more client and business-oriented than ever (see
University of Phoenix).
Because of one student
complaint, Faculty Development Coordinator Linda G. Crosby requested I remove a
website link from my syllabus, indicating how little Davenport thought and
thinks of free speech.
>>> Linda Crosby
07/12/04 1:33 PM >>>
Hi Tod,
Tod I wondered if you would eliminate the URL below from your faculty
profile? While I appreciate your interest in sharing your published
works, we did have a student connect with us, as he was offended by the
content in this site. As a result, he dropped your class. I guess if
you're going to share websites or your articles with your students, I'd
prefer they were related to Prof Writing.
http://www.geocities.com/enmarge/Bennett4.html
Let me know if you have any questions/concerns about this.
Thank you, Tod,
Linda G. Crosby
Because I liked the job, I politely agreed to remove
the link (currently at www.theamericandissident.org/Bennett.htm). Perhaps
the new phrase, which has spread like the plague throughout academe as such
things tend to do (copycat mentality rather than originality pervades the
academy), "student-centered learning" does indeed imply keeping the clients
happy at all costs. The following is
the brief email I received after a year and a half of faithful service from
Academic Dean
Sherry Roslund, who will no doubt obtain great satisfaction when a prospective
employer calls her with my regard:
"DUO wants
to thank you for teaching for us; however, this message is to inform you
that we will be unable to assign courses to you in the future as our
needs have changed. We want to wish you the best of luck in your future
endeavors."
Notice the very dishonesty in the writing, the kind of writing Davenport and
its deans want to teach their clients. Unfortunately, not for America, but
for Academe, I cannot write that way, nor can I teach
students to write that way either.
The following are two post-mortem lectures I wrote and distributed to Davenport
clients and administrators. Yes, I am an ardent believer in Ralph Waldo
Emerson's statement that, as citizens, we ought to "go upright and vital, and
speak the rude truth in all ways." Two students responded (positively).
Not one administrator or instructor ever responded.
Post-Mortem Lecture for ENGL 211 (Professional Writing):
Democracy and the First Amendment at Davenport University
Many of
you wrote positive comments in your evaluations regarding my teaching and I
thank you for that. A few of you wrote damning comments, which was certainly
your right. In any case, I write this “post-mortem lecture” to inform you what
occurred due to the damning student complaints and lack of Free Speech and
Expression at Davenport University. In fact, much more important than taking a
course in Professional Writing, DU students (and administrators) ought to be
required to take a course in Democracy and the First Amendment. In such a
course you’d learn a little bit more than “Ye shall know the truth, and the
truth shall make thee mad” (Aldous Huxley). Indeed, amongst other things, you’d
learn
"The Constitution may impose limits only on the government, but the First
Amendment is premised on the idea that there should be a free marketplace of
ideas. Private universities, for example, are not constrained by the
Constitution, but most choose to follow it anyway, because they recognize that
the exchange of ideas—no matter how wrongheaded or obnoxious—is good for
education." (Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor)
“…The function of
free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed
best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates
dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."
(Supreme Court, Terminiello v. Chicago)
The Academic Dean, Sherry Roslund, wrote the following “professional” email:
"DUO wants to thank you for teaching for us; however, this message is to inform
you that we will be unable to assign courses to you in the future as our needs
have changed. We want to wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors."
Unfortunately,
“professional” seems to have come to mean anything but the truth, as long as
polite and civil. How sad for America. Why not simply write that due to
student complaints and one of your lectures (“Writing Well”), we do not want you
teaching with us any more despite your loyal one and a half years with us. And
what kind of inanity is “We want to wish you the best of luck in your future
endeavors”? Sounds a bit like Enron “professionals” probably wrote to the
thousands of employees that got shafted by their corruption. It is a
hypocritical statement, if one considers that the Academic Dean will not write
me a letter of recommendation. “Professional” is more than suit and tie and
vacuous civility. More than anything else, it is truth. The SS Nazi gang was
very “professional,” but hardly truthful. In fact, the Angel of Death Mengele
was known to be quite civil. The Enron-gang wore suits and ties and were
vacuously civil, but they failed when it came to truth also.
For some students,
as well as the Academic Coordinator and Academic Dean, that “Writing Well”
lecture was entirely incomprehensible, akin to the Communist Manifesto for
Senator Joseph McCarthy. For them, the discourse on criticism and Emersonian
“rude truth” must have been like Nuclear Physics or the Republican discourse for
Democrats… or vice versa. Equally incomprehensible must have been my statement
on not including positive comments on my teaching in that lecture because that
would be self-serving.
It is astonishing to me that “Writing Well” lecture could actually anger
students and DU administrators. Astonishing, that is, if one omits to consider
higher education today, where praise has become its purpose, as opposed to truth
seeking, as it once was supposed to be. It is sad that some students and even
administrators lack the ability to read a text without drawing unfounded
conclusions. That “Writing Well” lecture never stipulated that I only speak
“ugly truth” (yet how can truth be ugly?). I have always praised students in my
classes. It has never been my policy to be nasty to students, but rather
frank. The following is what the Academic Coordinator Sabina Mulvaney wrote:
"I have gotten numerous student concerns about your ENGL211 course this
session. Most of them have the same comments as to your style of instructing:
'rude', 'condescending', 'arrogant', 'inappropriate' etc. While we both know
that some students write abysmally, we are in the business of instructing
budding writers and not just critiquing. I did read your 'Writing Well' lecture
(although that was not brought to my attention, surprisingly enough) and I would
agree that false praise to raise one's esteem is not called for and not
effective in producing good writers. Neither, though, is the 'ugly truth' in
many cases. There are many ways to point out mistakes and redirect writing, and
frankly your style is turning off a number of students to the writing process as
a whole and Davenport in particular. I am not sure what to do to reconcile our
two 'styles' at this point of the session, but I would hope that you would put
yourself in the role of the learner and contemplate what you would want to be
brought to your attention in a public forum and what tone you would like that
constructive criticism to take."
As I’m certain you
know by now, I am an avid defender of American democracy above all else,
including my pocketbook and American higher education. Sadly and most oddly,
both democracy and higher education seem to be increasingly in conflict today
(e.g., censoring or firing instructors who present undesirable viewpoints).
Numerous instances of that conflict have been recorded (see for example
www.thefire.org). In fact, many institutions of higher education like DU
establish and encourage an Enron-like culture of rampant self-censorship, back
slapping, and weeding out of anyone apt to question and challenge, or otherwise
make waves. In reality, these are not universities, open forums for the free
flow of ideas at all. They are training schools. To call them universities is
intellectually fraudulent. DU, if honest, should call itself Davenport
Professional Training School. The following was my response a month ago to the
Academic Coordinator’s email.
Well, I’ve waited a
few days before responding to your email in order to contemplate the serious
issue you’ve evoked. As I’m sure you’d agree, this is a delicate matter for you
and me to discuss. My viewpoint on the issue is probably irrelevant given my
status as adjunct instructor and even moreso given the very state of higher
education today, where students have become clients and clients necessary for
profitability. But I shall express them anyhow.
Needless to say, I am appalled at the level of English composition of a number
of my DU students and have asked myself how they managed to enroll in a
university and more importantly how this is going to affect democracy in
America… down the road. (Of course, other DU students write quite well and
receive compliments from me for it.) I do receive assignments—not most, but a
handful—that have essentially no merit and that entirely ignore the suggestions
provided on previous assignments. I have found it difficult, where I suppose
most other instructors have not, to include positive and encouraging remarks
regarding those assignments and students.
It would perhaps be interesting for you to ask students who have complained to
provide the remarks I’ve made on their papers that provoked the complaints.
Just the same, given the state of higher education and our country as a whole
today, I fully comprehend that a “good” instructor is one who satisfies his or
her students… and evidently that has not been my case. Clearly, dissatisfied
students might be tempted to bring their business elsewhere and that, sadly, has
become the bottom line in higher education today and will inevitably continue to
help erode democracy in America.
By the way, I was not aware that so many of my students were dissatisfied [this
semester]. Sadly, it seems that adult students are somehow being encouraged to
be fearful, rather than courageous, and bring their concerns directly to an
instructor’s superior prior to giving the instructor a full opportunity to
resolve them. How is this type of encouraged behavior going to be positive in
the business world for these business students?
Here is an interesting comment from student Towanda McCallum: “Hi Tod, I am
sorry. I thought I read the agenda thoroughly. Thank you for sharing with me
the explanation for the results of my assignment. Other online instructors
post grades with no explanation.”
If you prefer, I’d
gladly do as those “other online instructors.” It would certainly be less time
consuming and, evidently, no comments probably lead to fewer complaints. On the
Discussion Board, I often express what I really think and encourage students to
do the same. Perhaps I should not do this because some students do not like my
opinions and complain about them. Yet wouldn’t that run entirely contrary to a
university’s obligation to permit, if not encourage, freedom of expression?
Here is an interesting comment regarding the Writing Well lecture from student
Jarod Reif, one that DU administrators perhaps might wish to contemplate: “I
enjoyed the lecture, I thought it really spelled out what was expected of the
students in this class. I have felt during my time at Davenport that a lot of
students were getting away with a lot. In all of my classes online,
students were allowed to get away with atrocious spelling and grammar mistakes
in assignments and on the discussion boards. The same goes for on campus
classes, but that's a slightly different ball of wax. I am glad to finally see
an instructor who doesn't sugar coat things and forces the students to watch
spelling and grammar. I cannot fault an instructor for being rude, if they are
correcting me and trying to make my work better. The only thing I saw wrong
with the lecture is, I think someone else said it as well, it is a little on the
long side. It was nice to see other students comments though.”
Does DU not run the risk of gaining a reputation of being an “easy,” as opposed
to rigorous and demanding, institution? Such a reputation would doubtfully be
positive in the eyes of would-be employers who want to hire graduates who can
write a sentence without committing numerous errors and who are able to take
hard critique without getting overly upset.
Student S. Rainey wrote regarding the Writing Well lecture, which by the way I
did spend a lot of time composing for DU: “I have even passed along some of
your "tips" to my fellow students in my other class in which we are writing a
group project and I am the proof-reader—isn't that ironic?”
Student Alissa Bolema stated regarding the lecture: “Your views on honesty are
refreshing. Although the truth is often referred to as brutal, it is only
brutal if the recipient is not ready to admit a mistake or fault. I will try to
remember this the next time I feel guilty about being honest.”
These things said, I have thoroughly enjoyed teaching for DU and would certainly
be willing to follow directives with regards my exchanges with DU students,
though I suspect my honesty in this email and with students will prove fatal to
my future employment with you. If you like, I’d certainly be willing to
eliminate the Writing Well lecture or just the discourse on Emerson’s “rude
truth,” since most people cannot seem to comprehend it. I could also make it a
point to place a sentence of praise in each and every assignment, merited or
not, if you would like me to do so.
Below I include the student evaluation comments made by 13 of you, something you
probably never get to see. They are anonymous. I do not know who made which
comments and do not care. However, it is sad that a student writing “G. Tod
is a horrible teacher and a horrible human being” was not held to provide
precise instances to back such a damning assertion. Does that student even know
what the definition of “horrible” is? I cannot fathom what I might have
possibly written to that student for him or her to make such a nefarious
declaration. It is mind-boggling. Clearly, DU must have an open-enrollment
policy, admitting essentially anybody… with the appropriate cash. The harshest
thing I wrote on papers (unless a student had been exceptionally rude to me—and
that does not interest administrators) was “Please read the agendas carefully
and please do not continue ignoring my Writing Well lecture. You’ve made
numerous errors examined in it.” True, I also wrote on one or several papers
that the work ought to have been outright rejected because of the 20-30 spelling
errors. Well, if I were “smarter” like other DU instructors, I would have
simply given the students in question a B-grade and without comment.
In general, the evaluations were not that bad at all, but the student who wrote
“FIRE him and hire no other instructors like him” evidently got
his or her wish. Too bad I’ll never know what I wrote to get that student so
hateful. Well, today I am “fired” and without health insurance, though DU does
not offer health insurance to its many instructors because it simply does not
care about those instructors. In fact, it willingly partakes in the cheap-labor
scheme of hiring adjuncts to avoid having to bother with health insurance. Yes,
you ought to have examined that in your group projects on the health-insurance
crisis. In any case, how does one possibly please everyone? Yet apparently
there are instructors who manage to do this at DU. Well, that is certainly not
my goal, nor will it ever be. That is the goal of our politicians and sadly, it
seems, our academicians too. My goal is to express myself and the truth as I
see it, as well as encourage free and open debate. Those students who were
unhappy chose not to debate with me, but rather to complain to my superior like
children. Because I tend to speak openly does not necessarily mean I am not
civil. On the contrary, I am polite. George Orwell also spoke openly and he
too was known to be polite.
By the way, I am founding editor of The American Dissident, a literary
journal of critical thinking. Last year, one DU student complained about the
journal’s website (www.theamericandissident.org). DU administrators therefore
requested I remove mention of it from my DU biography, which I did. Some lesson
in democracy and the First Amendment for that student! In any case, good luck
in the future. Despite what this letter might seem to argue, I really do enjoy
teaching and did enjoy your class. Please reserve a little place in your minds,
hearts, and “professional” behavior for democracy, the free expression of all
ideas, debate, and intellectual criticism. If we do not stand up for these
things today, the whole of America will become monopolized by
democracy-indifferent institutions like Davenport University. Indeed, we will
become a fascist nation proudly boasting how great our democracy is… in an
Orwellian-twist. If you would like further discussion on the issues underscored
here, feel free to email me and consult my DU-banned website (www.theamericandissident.org).
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely, Ex-Instructor G. Tod Slone, PhD
1. How would you improve this
class?
A new instructor. I'm sure this
class would be great it it were taught by a professional instructor. G. Tod was
ALWAYS rude, unprofessional, inpatient and condecending. I learned absolutey
nothing in this class except to dislike something I used to enjoy. He clearly
was reprimanded during the last few weeks of class and this made him even more
mad. He was more rude, and condecending, totally inappropriate. G. Tod is a
horrible teacher and a horrible human being.
The instructors so called constructive critisim was at times
unprofessional. Though he preached professionalism the second he was informed of
complaints from students he began changing assigned disscussion questions to
reflect his apparent anger and resentment at the complaints. This is very
childish for a professor who seems to have the abilty to "dish out" the critisim,
yet can not apparently take it. I expected more from a Davenport instructor.
Very disappointing.
The only thing I would like to see improved, but probably
won't happen is students to take criticism as helpful and not taken personal.
Its not the class that needs to be changed it would be the students taking it.
There isn't much I would do to improve. THe instructor was
great, I really enjoyed it. I would make the Portfolio Artifact a personal
assignment instead of a group project. I hate working with people who have NO
IDEA on how to write papers.
I thought the class was well formulated in regards to
business writing. I had a mixture of research and personal type documents.
I would improve this course by
not writing such a long lecture about how rude previous students felt the
instructor could be. I think this only sets up the current student to expect
this from the instructor instead of forming their own opinions. I would only
inform the students I was going to be honest about their writing.
2. How was this class directly
related to your career?
I have gain the knowledge to better prepare a memo, resume,
coverletter, and a follow up letter. This will help me not only gain a career
but also know what to detect when resumes are submitted to me.
Not at all, I learned nothing
It was supposed to teach me how to communicate in a business
enviroment.
This class helped to prepare me for things such as resume
writting and professional memos. The content was very helpful.
This class, I would consider, to be directly related to every
career. Writing is something that is done in every job and everyone should have
this as a requirement for any career path.
It improved my skills in looking at my writing.
Professional writing relates to everything.
This course helped improve my writing skills and learn to
better communicate using facts
As a accountant it is important to be able write in a
professional manner, therefore this class has directed in the right direction.
This course did teach me how to be a more professional
writer. I originally thought the course would be geared toward writing for
business, but I learned from the class all the same.
This class will help to improve
my written communication skills for memos, letters, and reports.
3. Was this class consistent
with the quality that you expect from Davenport University? Please explain:
I was surprised by T. Slone was an outstanding instructor. I
will always remember him because he has allowed us as student to explore the
world of writing, my favorite subject
By no means. All of my experiences at Davenport were positive
before this point. G. Tod has certainly tainted my impression of this
institution. I think it would be wise to have more people monitoring the online
classes so that the university is more aware of how teachers treat students. I
know several people dropped this class right near the end, presumably because of
the instructor, I'm sure other sessions have felt the same way. FIRE him and
hire no other instructors like him. Being rude and condecending is by no
means contructive criticism.
Not at all. The instructor was very unprofessional and very
rude and arrogant. His instructions were very unclear and in one instance he
waited until two days before a portion of the group assingment was due to tell
the class who was in our group and we then had to rush to get the assingment
done. I would not recommend Mr. Slone as a instructor to anyone. His attiude
towards his students is very rude and unprofessional. His teacing skills leave
something to be desired.
The content of this class was consistent with my
expectations, the instructor was NOT!!
This class was above and beyond my expectations. The
criticism I recieved was very straight forward and understood. I feel this
instructor was not like any other. I am not saying that other instructors were
not good, just that this instructor has been my favorite.
I have come to not expect much at Davenport. Every class I
have been in has changed direction to teach to the least common denominator. I
never walk away learning much.
Very good learning experiance!
Yes, expectations were high and I appreciate that I have to
present hard work and dedication in order to succeed.
It was beyond my expectations. G. Tod Slone has been the best
instructor I've had at DU so far. He's received a lot of grief this term and I
don't feel it is warranted. His approach is direct and honest, by no means rude.
DU could stand to have a few more of him around to weed out the slackers, which
there seem to be plenty of.
Yes it was. The instructor
expected a high quality of work from his students as he should. I felt the
course was challenging and represented Davenport well.
Post-Mortem Lecture #2 for ENGL 211 (Professional Writing):
Democracy and the First Amendment at Davenport University
“[…] the
vitality of your college or university depends in great part on the freedom of
your teachers to speak freely, including to speak freely with you [the student].
—French, Lukianoff and Silverglate, constitutional lawyers and authors of
FIRE’s Guide to Free Speech on Campus
Half of my former
class will not receive this second lecture because the reaction of the Academic
Dean, Sherry Roslund, to the first lecture was not to engage in healthy debate
but rather to immediately curtail my access to DU. Your email addresses I have
because when you wrote I saved them.
What really angers
me, as an American citizen, is that the Dean, and other university
administrators like her, are teaching students to remain ignorant of the very
importance of free speech at a university, public or private. They are also
teaching professors to be self-censors.
“In a free society,
speech is permitted to demean, upset, and offend (indeed, much honest criticism
and polemic aims to do precisely that), and such speech is protected under the
First Amendment,” note French, Lukianoff and Silverglate.
The Academic
Coordinator, Sabrina Mulvaney, ought to heed those words. She, along with a
couple of students, found my Writing Well lecture to be somewhat reprehensible
(“ugly truth”). The best thing she could do for those complaining students
would be to have them read this very lecture, as well as FIRE’s Guide to Free
Speech on Campus. The best thing she could do for herself would be to
contemplate the following: “Sheltering students from speech is patronizing and
paternalistic” (French, Lukianoff and Silverglate). Here is what a full
professor at a state college in Massachusetts wrote the other day regarding the
first letter I sent and the Writing Well lecture:
“Took time to read
your letter which was excellent. I have already told you how outstanding the
writing well lecture is. In fact, if you could download and print out, I would
be eternally grateful for a copy. It is the highest professional ethics for
writing as well as creative thought. You are to be praised rather than
chastised. Also, it represented a hell of a lot of work on your part. What is
wrong with these people who need always to be praised for shit? That is right.
Praised for shit? That is what it is coming to.
‘Forget the
learning process….don’t even bother to mark my papers….just tell me what my
grade is/was.’ There, I’ve hit it on the head. Give me the grade.”
The following is
another quote from French, Lukianoff and Silverglate. Evidently, all
administrators at Davenport University ought to examine it carefully. Will
they? Of course not.
“Is the
administration simply interested in ‘quiet on its watch’ rather than real
education and honest human interaction? Remind administrators that pain and
offense—the inevitable by-product of having ones fundamental beliefs
challenged—is a vital part of the educational process, and that if students
graduate without ever having to evaluate their positions on fundamental
principles, then the university has failed them. Finally, for those who are not
interested in principled arguments, remind them that history shows us that the
censors of one generation are the censored of the next. […] You are part of the
community; do not let the administration that it must censor speech to please
the community. The idea that there is a conflict between free speech and the
academic community fundamentally misunderstands both the goals of higher
education and the nature and role of free speech.”
Finally, one must
wonder why administrators like Roslund, Mulvaney, and Faculty Development
Coordinator Linda Crosby (because of one student complaint, the latter requested
I remove mention of The American Dissident in my DU biography, as if it
where a shameful publication) are so fearful of ideas and open discussion. Why
do they seem to detest democracy and the First Amendment? Why do they encourage
students who detest the latter to have a “chilling effect” (i.e., stifling) on a
professor’s right to express himself? Do they really believe that my voice is
so powerful as to threaten them? Do they believe that by killing my voice, they
somehow protect students or is it rather themselves and the general façade of DU?
How did their education fail them? What went wrong? Do they not even realize
the damage they do to democracy and this country? Yes, they will teach you how
to become “professional” appearing, sounding, and thinking, but they will
certainly not teach you how to become responsible citizens.
When adults like DU
administrators become obsessed with censoring anyone and anything that might be
OFFENSIVE to someone, deeming him or it as UNPROFESSIONAL, they inevitably
OFFEND the very Constitution of the United States of America. Since there has
been no response to the previous lecture with the exception of the Academic
Dean’s indirect response, this will be my last lecture. After all, what point
is there in talking to a vast brick wall?
Thank you for your
attention.
