Antonio Zaragoza, Photo Editor
In an attempt to assist students registering for the 2012 spring semester, the San Diego State College Republicans organization released a “Teach or Preach” list.
The list categorizes 72 SDSU professors who either strictly teach his or her subject or preach personal opinions and political biases in the classroom.
Lx Fangonilo, president of the SDSU chapter of the College Republicans, said the club would like to make students more aware of certain teachers before they decide to take the professor’s class.
“When teachers are preaching political biases in the classroom, we are not getting the education we paid for,” Fangonilo said.
Active members of the College Republicans, SDSU alumni and current SDSU students were involved in the creation of the list. According to Fangonilo, SDSU is the first school in the nation to put together this kind of list and the College Republicans club plans to continue to make a new list each semester.
Dr. Dipak Gupta, listed “preacher” and professor in the Department of Political Science, said in some cases, there is no way to avoid adding one’s own opinions. Overall, he is not bothered by the list and opens the opportunity for students who disagree with him to do so publicly in class.
“I teach an undergraduate course called ‘Political Violence.’ While talking about social conflict, it is often not possible to suppress your own ideological orientation. Although in this case, the difference between a liberal and a conservative position is not always very obvious,” Gupta said. “In any case, having a clear social perspective is not an offense, either for a student or for an instructor.”
In comparison, Dr. Kurt Lindemann was listed as a “teacher” on the list, yet feels strongly about teachers describing their personal beliefs and life experiences in the classroom.
Courtesy of College Republicans
“It’s what makes classroom experience such an invigorating and valuable component in the learning process,” Lindemann said. “I don’t think we can expect teachers or students to leave those beliefs and experiences outside the classroom door. I think teaching students to approach subjects, topics, events etc. with a healthy skepticism that considers different points of view is part of the critical thinking process.”
As far as publicizing the list, Lindemann accepts the College Republicans’ right to do so. Although he, as well as other faculty members, continue to question how scientifically sound the list really is.
Question for Michael:
Forget politics for a second and focus; do you now know, or have you ever known, how to use spell check?
You’re at a university level class, if you can’t form your own political opinions at this level and separate a professors bias’ then perhaps you should not be enrolled at the university. But to make a list of teachers that you believe preach to their students… I believe is wrong and unethical… (Are they preaching to their students or are they passionate about their subject?) although you may have legit and honorable intentions….so did McCarthy.
Just my opinion.
Can I get a list of Gay teachers please, what about republican teachers, democrat teachers? Teachers who supported Ross Perot in his 1992 bid for presidency? (I know there is a couple of them…) Just asking…. I find your list helpful and hurtful at the same time, cause now I know who to celebrate and who to shun and annoy.
I’m curious to know how many of the so-called “preachers” were approached and made aware that their style of teaching was unappreciated. I just came from class from one of the professors listed as a preacher. The subject of the list was brought up (not by him) and he said no one confronted him about it, but he would have welcomed it if they had.
This leads me to believe that this list wasn’t meant to improve the quality of education provided by the professors. Rather, it was meant to publicly demean them.
There has to be a happy medium between teaching and preaching. There also must be some onus on the student to recognize their professor’s opinions and then evaluate their truth value. The beauty of the higher learning institution is the ease with which ideas can be exchanged without harsh judgement. The easiest way to learn is to exchange opinions in the market place ideas and then critically examine their merit. I have no problem with a professor stating her opinions as long as she is able to accept the value of opposing ideas. A certain element of bias on the part of the professor is crucial in breaking the monotony of rote memorization of information that a strict teacher provides.
What bothers me about the list is the unscientific way in which it was created. According to the article, “Active members of the College Republicans, SDSU alumni and current SDSU students were involved in the creation of the list.” Basically, the club members and a couple of their friends, all with similar political opinions, gossiped about the professors they had. There were no opposing opinions or counter arguments and, consequently, no reason to take the list seriously.
WTF is your goddamned problem? what’s with this f-ing “share” thing that won’t get out of the f-ing way???