I confess that I don’t read The Minaret every week. The headlines come to my inbox and I read the occasional article.
Nevertheless, articles from the last two editions caught my eye and made me consider that I should pay more attention to our university’s weekly newspaper.
Those articles were Camilla Chebet’s, “Military Service Preys on Fragile Minds of the Youth,” and Hannah Webster’s January 26, 2011 article — I’ll put it delicately — about relationships. Both articles had a powerful message for me.
Despite the fact that I have not had either student in class, the clear message is that I am failing as a teacher. After all, I am a part of the university community that is responsible for their education.
The Minaret articles in question coincide with my reading of the recently released book Academically Adrift by Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa.
Arum and Roksa present research showing that universities are not achieving important learning objectives in the first two years of college, including improving students’ critical thinking skills.
They hypothesize that this may be due to recent changes in curriculum or it may be because current students say in surveys that they study about half as much as previous generations.
Arum and Roksa also document how universities have lost their place in society as developers of moral purpose and character. The Chebet and Webster articles indicate that Arum and Roksa’s research is on target.
Let’s start with Chebet’s article about military service.
She is concerned that military recruiters target young men and women and hypothesizes that they do this because young minds are fragile and will “easily submit to authority.”
Her assertions confirm the findings of Arum and Roksa and tell me that I may be failing in my attempts to improve critical reasoning skills in the classroom.
If I had done my part Chebet may have considered that one reason the military prefers younger recruits is that military careers are often physically demanding and better suited for young bodies, not necessarily young minds.
If I had improved her critical thinking skills even more, surely she would have consulted published research about why people join the Army rather than making the assumption that recruits join because of “the allure of adventure and being exposed to guns and actually being able to use them [sic]. ”
If she had consulted published research she may have found a 1999 Rand study that indicates that the primary reason recruits enlist in the Army is for the education benefits. She might have even seen the irony when comparing the initial drafts of her article and the published research.
Finally, if I had really made an impact on her critical thinking skills, she would have actually talked to some of the many ROTC cadets on this campus and asked them why they chose to serve their country.
I suspect if she had done that, her findings would have mirrored my discussions with young people choosing to serve today.
In my experience mentoring ROTC cadets in a post-9/11 world, I find that they are very aware of the risks and sacrifices of military life and have no illusions that military service promises them “glory.”
If Chebet had taken the steps I suggest, she may have reached broader conclusions about the role of the military in society versus the role of universities.
Certainly universities can have a positive influence on character development; however, as a 21-year veteran, I know that the military is also well aware of its impact on the character and moral development of its recruits.
The Chebet article raises other concerns for me as an educator. Aside from my failure to improve her critical thinking skills, I fear I have not done enough to teach Ms. Chebet about history and traditions of western thought.
She seems to think that the U.S. employs military power primarily to invade sovereign nations and “steal resources.”
I know this line of thinking is prevalent in some areas of our society; nevertheless, have I not taught her about the terrible history of totalitarian and fascist regimes in the twentieth century?
Have I not exposed her to discussions of just war theory? Have I not given her sufficient knowledge of American history to appreciate the noble role that the United States has often played in world affairs?
I know America has not been perfect in its conduct throughout its journey, but have I focused too much on its imperfections and not enough on its achievements?
I fear that I have failed Ms. Chebet and I will strive to do better in the future.
So now that I have discussed evidence that I am not teaching critical thinking skills or history very well, what about my influence on the character and moral development of the students?
Ms. Webster’s article indicates that I am failing here too.
I must only consider that nowhere in her article about the role of oral sex in relationships is there a discussion about the moral implications of promiscuity for young adults.
I know her article implies that students are in “relationships” and one may argue that this doesn’t imply promiscuous behavior, but let’s get real here and ask what is the length of these relationships?
Is there more to consider than her statement that “I don’t think oral sex is something that should be given out as easily as handshakes?” Have I not taught her that decisions about sexuality in college can have far reaching consequences for future happiness in relationships?
Have we not had discussions about the health risks of promiscuity?
I know that we have taught her that it is important to feel good about your body, but apparently we have not taught her that everything that feels good is not necessarily a positive course of action.
Additionally, I am concerned that her article shows no indication that we at UT have taught her anything about propriety.
Have we had no discussions that maybe some topics are not suitable for a news publication — at least when those topics are dealt with so flippantly?
These recent Minaret articles trouble me and cause me to reflect on the role of higher education in society.
Arum and Roksa conclude, “Historians remind us that higher education institutions initially were created largely to achieve moral ends.
A renewed commitment to improving undergraduate education is unlikely to occur without changes to the organizational cultures of colleges and universities that reestablish the institutional primacy of these functions — instilling in the next generation of young adults a lifelong love of learning, an ability to think critically and communicate effectively, and a willingness to embrace and assume adult responsibilities.”
What role do I have in this charge from Arum and Roksa?
For one, it has been over three years since I have written a column for the Minaret. These recent articles make me think that I should contribute more frequently.
Maybe contributing to the Minaret is one way faculty members can expand our role in the university community beyond the classroom. Clearly we’ve got to engage beyond our narrow disciplines or we are failing as teachers.
Michael R. Weeks is an Assistant Professor of Management in Sykes College of Business.
UT Student-
Your comment is the silliest comment I have ever read. It is the professor’s opinion- let him express it. Do not get in the habit of trying to shame someone for something they have written. There are more constructive ways. “Shame on you,sir” isn’t one of them. You are a student, he a professor-learn your role. He wrote a COMMENTARY on his opinion- not fact. Give it a few more years in school and you will learn the proper way to argue your point. It takes a while- I am 30 and I am still learning.
Also, I have yet to see one article in the Minaret that I would classify as anything but average. I read it every week and am disgusted by it. It shows a lot about the student body when these types of articles are written, accepted, and continue to be printed. He has his opinions, you have yours, I have mine. No need to get hostile about it.
This is the silliest commentary I’ve ever seen. This professor, who confesses in the first sentence he only infrequently reads the Minaret, is declaring himself and higher education in general complete failures based on TWO ARTICLES. He has never taught these students. He has never even met them. He provides no indication that he has read any of their regular work besides these TWO ARTICLES. Yet, he is somehow a failure and so is the entire student body of UT and higher education in general because of what they have written. The Minaret produces dozens of articles every week. Most are perfectly fine, a few are great, and a couple are below average. The Chebet article was in the latter camp, and has prompted enough criticism already. This professor is simply cherrypicking and piggybacking and making grandiose statements without sufficient back-up. Two articles is not sufficient back-up. If he tried that in peer-reviewed research, he’d be laughed out of the room. My advice, professor: Become a regular Minaret reader, take the time to talk to these students you callously hold up as the embodiments of failure, and drop the cynicism. Mistakes in a few columns provide important lessons just as much as successful ones. Yet, you seem to have already given up. Shame on you, sir.
I would argue that Prof. Weeks’ column was written with some thought and research of which Chebet is lacking in the articles Professor Weeks “cherry picked”. I, too, had issues with the two articles and was glad to see them called out. Whether his evidence is “ad hoc and anecdotal” is debatable, but at least he included something one could reference to determine if they agree with his views or not. I understand “ad hoc and anecdotal” to mean evidence that can be used for only one situation but has been misused in a specific instance. I feel that “evidence” is not the correct word to use and “references” is more fitting.
I concede that journalism is indeed filled with untested hypothesis- we see it every week in the Minaret. However, when writing a column that would be considered hurtful or prejudice towards a specific group one should be sure to present some form of “evidence” or references to back up their claims. Otherwise, they open themselves up for criticism and backlash. I also believe that the use of the word “head” in the title of the second article Professor weeks referenced was a bit misguided. If you want respect- respect your readers. Who edits this trash?
I suspect his column will garner much more support than those articles he “cherry picked”, and will hopefully foster a change in the relationship between students and professors. Rather than trying to bash our fellow students and professors, why don’t we use the recent controversy drummed-up by these articles to plant the seed of change.
@Da Prof
Sir, your comment hints of a personal dislike or disdain for Professor Weeks. His column was written from the perspective of a professor who cares about his students and understands the impact he can have in their lives. Your comment reeks of personal feelings and is a bit catty. You are in a position to approach your fellow professors in private to discuss your feelings, yet you chose to do it in the comments section on the school newspaper’s website.
Perhaps you could have written your own column- as was suggested by Prof. Weeks- where your views could be expressed in a much more constructive and respectful manner. Your comment only undermines the respect that should be shown to professors. If a student sees one professor disrespecting another professor on here they may see it as a green light to do so in the classroom. We all have differing opinions, but let us have some civility when critiquing someone else’s.
Journalism writ-large is full of untested hypotheses. My colleague who has written this article has clearly cherry picked two articles he disagrees with for normative knee-jerk reasons. He criticizes ad hoc and anecdotal evidence while writing an article that relies on exactly that. Too bad his teachers failed him.
I hope the recent articles do prompt some change in the school environment and discussions among faculty. Professor Weeks, I have never been a student in one of your classes, but as a student at UT I can tell just from reading this article that you care. Thank you.
I’m not sure talking to ROTC trainee’s is the way to gain a broader perspective. Speaking for all the veteran’s out there ROTC is not anywhere near what the true military is. They do their train in the comfort of a college setting and can almost look at the military as an extra curricular activity. Camilla should have sought out the veterans on campus, most of whom did join the military in the 17-19 year old range…
Great commentary. I agree with Spartan. The disrespect towards professors and overall disconnect between them and students is pretty bad.
I am glad that a professor finally took the time to pick up their own university’s paper, think it over, and put together a thoughtful response. I agree with what Professor Weeks is saying. It is comforting to know that there are still (some) professors that care about the well being of their students. I believe this should prompt a long overdue discussion between faculty and students.