I assigned Coddling to a university class, but I introduced it to my students by pointing that that it would be incorrect to read the book as an indictment of them. Instead, I said, it catalogued what we, their elders, had done and failed to do. They still didn't want to read it but, well, I insisted. And most ended up finding it a revelation. One heartbreaking example: they asked me--a late boomer--if it was really true that kids used to just run around freely without supervision. Yes, I said, that's true. I'm not at all surprised, but it's a shame that so many graduating seniors have so little compunction about judging a book and author based on nothing more than rumors and ideology.
My husband - small-town Texas - and me - South Side of Chicago - were of the "have fun and better be home by dark" generation in the 1940s and 1950s. Great memories. Sometimes supervised by an older sibling, meaning one year older. We ran in packs, looking after each other. Yes, heartbreaking.
Great article, and I particularly loved this quote:
“For one thing, a university is not a mirror. It is not supposed to show students an image of themselves with better lighting. At its best, it exposes them to people who know things they do not know, who see things they do not see, or who may even be wrong in useful ways. That’s the purpose of a university education: to cause reflection, not be a reflection.”
I heard this recently and thought there is serious wisdom there. "I always think that I am right , but I think that I am not always right". Somehow humility needs to be rediscovered as a worthwhile virtue.
This reminds me of when Harry Potter was first published and quickly denounced as a book promoting, among other things, Satanism. The usually staid Reader's Digest did an article about the reactions to the book. The highlight for me was the interview with one of the leaders of a group criticizing the book. She admitted to not having read the book. The Reader's Digest interviewer let her admission stand without a response. Their silence was damning. Loved it.
Having once been an idealistic youngster (am a better educated and much more humble oldster idealist today) I know the lovely, drunk feeling of the "shoot, ready, aim" approach to activism, so sure one is right that homework is not needed. Particularly if I suspected the homework might challenge my beliefs.
I assigned Coddling to a university class, but I introduced it to my students by pointing that that it would be incorrect to read the book as an indictment of them. Instead, I said, it catalogued what we, their elders, had done and failed to do. They still didn't want to read it but, well, I insisted. And most ended up finding it a revelation. One heartbreaking example: they asked me--a late boomer--if it was really true that kids used to just run around freely without supervision. Yes, I said, that's true. I'm not at all surprised, but it's a shame that so many graduating seniors have so little compunction about judging a book and author based on nothing more than rumors and ideology.
My husband - small-town Texas - and me - South Side of Chicago - were of the "have fun and better be home by dark" generation in the 1940s and 1950s. Great memories. Sometimes supervised by an older sibling, meaning one year older. We ran in packs, looking after each other. Yes, heartbreaking.
Great article, and I particularly loved this quote:
“For one thing, a university is not a mirror. It is not supposed to show students an image of themselves with better lighting. At its best, it exposes them to people who know things they do not know, who see things they do not see, or who may even be wrong in useful ways. That’s the purpose of a university education: to cause reflection, not be a reflection.”
I heard this recently and thought there is serious wisdom there. "I always think that I am right , but I think that I am not always right". Somehow humility needs to be rediscovered as a worthwhile virtue.
This reminds me of when Harry Potter was first published and quickly denounced as a book promoting, among other things, Satanism. The usually staid Reader's Digest did an article about the reactions to the book. The highlight for me was the interview with one of the leaders of a group criticizing the book. She admitted to not having read the book. The Reader's Digest interviewer let her admission stand without a response. Their silence was damning. Loved it.
Having once been an idealistic youngster (am a better educated and much more humble oldster idealist today) I know the lovely, drunk feeling of the "shoot, ready, aim" approach to activism, so sure one is right that homework is not needed. Particularly if I suspected the homework might challenge my beliefs.
Darn those annoying facts.
this is a really good article tho
Jon has turned having phones into satanic panic
thank you for tuning into my ted talk
Students who disrespect a speaker are curs. No tolerance for boors in the academy. Kick them out!