Thursday, October 15, 2009

I thought this was what we WANTED!

I just posted this over at Pharyngula's neverending thread, but I'm so bewildered by Dawkins' attitude and that of some of his commenters that I feel compelled to post it here as well (leaving aside, for the moment, the misogynistic-language issue):
Richard Dawkins:
If any teachers are reading this, who are in the habit of giving credit for attendance at visitor talks, I am asking you to please NOT give credit for attending any talk of mine. I have a number of venues to come on my current US tour. I shall make a point of asking, at the beginning of each talk, whether any students are there because they have been told to be there, or because they have been offered extra credit for attending. If the answer is yes, I shall ask them publicly to leave. I cannot compel them to leave but if, as has happened at most of my talks on this tour, there is an overflow crowd outside, I shall draw it to their attention and invite them, as a matter of personal conscience, to give up their seats.
This is incredibly stupid, quite frankly. Teachers, as Dawkins should know, give assignments for credit to encourage students to expand their horizons - to be challenged by ideas that go against what they've long accepted unquestioningly. This is at the heart of a university education. It can be a painful, emotional process, and people understandably are often hostile to new ideas, but few aspects of education could be more important. And he wants to impede these efforts? At any talk, there are going to be a number of people there who are obliged to be by a professor, friend, spouse, whatever. For every one who enters and leaves unchanged or more hostile, I would speculate that there's at least one who comes away thinking about things in a new way (especially when we're talking about a speaker of Dawkins' caliber). I can't tell you how many stories I've heard of people who later became activists having transformative moments when they were dragged to a public talk by a friend or spouse. Why on earth would anyone want to stop this? I would love to attend a talk by Dawkins, but I would be happy to relinquish my seat to someone who doesn't want to be there, especially a young person.

As for asking the students at the beginning of the talk to leave, this sounds insane to me. How the hell is it a "matter of conscience" to deny oneself a learning opportunity? And thinking back to my university years, when I was even more shy than I am now, I would have been utterly and enduringly traumatized by being singled out in front of thousands of people and asked to leave in a situation in which I was trying to do what my teacher had asked and had fairly obtained my seat. I would also have thought that atheists were assholes. The whole idea of it is horrifying, and I hope Dawkins changes his mind about this plan.
We want people who don't know about us to be exposed to our ideas. I'm astounded by Dawkins' stance here.

8 comments:

  1. "And thinking back to my university years, when I was even more shy than I am now, I would have been utterly and enduringly traumatized by being singled out in front of thousands of people and asked to leave...."*

    That was my first reaction when I read what Dawkins said. My second, cynical reaction:

    Students are the least likely to be in a position to buy his books. This is a book tour. He thoroughly enjoyed being on the NYT Bestsellers list with TGD & cares more about continuing that status than exposing any questioning, as-yet-undecided minds to the subject at hand (in this case, just that pesky little evolution meme...)

    Proposition: Most of the books one buys reflect the convictions one already has. (I know I'm guilty; I have most of Dawkins's books & will no doubt pick up TGSOE, even though my evolution bookshelf already groans from the weight of volumes...) Many of Dawkins's sales occur at or prior to his appearance in big markets to flog said books.

    Not that there isn't plenty of good that comes out of that system--publicity for the cause, public displays of numbers for the reality-based community, and, of no little significance, some support for the critically endangered book publishing industry.

    But at the expense of students--an audience that just might be the most critical to reach--well, it just sort of shows where the priorities really lie.

    I also ask--how much does celebrity go to one's head? Seems like RD already insulates himself from the commoners. I find his website pretty dull for lacking real input & give-and-take from the man himself. Strikes me mostly as secular hagiography.

    *Note to SC: Originally tried to use blockquote tags for that but was informed they are not allowed...Is it me or this site?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm so annoyed by this I finally registered at Dawkins' place to comment on it. Seriously. I adore Dawkins, but he was being an egotistical jerk there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Carlie, is there a thread at his site about this? I didn't find one, at least where I expected to find one...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Proposition: Most of the books one buys reflect the convictions one already has.

    I'm sure that this is true, and I think it's different with most of the public talks which one attends!

    *Note to SC: Originally tried to use blockquote tags for that but was informed they are not allowed...Is it me or this site?

    I think it's a Blogger thing. I just use italics, but then I'm a tech ignoramous. If anyone knows better, please inform.

    Carlie, is there a thread at his site about this? I didn't find one, at least where I expected to find one...

    I only know about the one that I linked to here (click "Richard Dawkins" in my post). If there's been anything subsequent to that, I would love an update.

    ReplyDelete
  5. SC, thanks for the answers. I notice that on the thread in question, RD went conspicuously quiet after the issue with his previous remark was raised...

    That thread did put the remark in a more nuanced context; but I would have liked to have seen him agree that his first statement sounded awful on reflection...

    Carlie, nice job! One can only hope that those who both want to hear RD & serendipitously get extra cred as well won't be made to feel humiliated...and that the few who might actually reframe their thinking after exposure to RD would remain as well...

    SC, from the brief glance I took at the Pharyngula thread, am I correct in gathering that there was some defense of RD's misogynist language?

    ReplyDelete
  6. SC, from the brief glance I took at the Pharyngula thread, am I correct in gathering that there was some defense of RD's misogynist language?

    [If you read the whole tail end of that thread, you'll see an extensive discussion of the teacher/lecture issue.]

    Yes, by an idiot (he's the one who drew my attention to the thread in the first place, trying to justify his own bigoted behavior by pointing to Dawkins').

    Ophelia Benson and I have exchanged some information about threads in which sexist/misogynistic language has been discussed, and I've mentioned that I'm planning to put together an index, so that we don't have to argue the same points over and over and over and over and over again. Bigots are a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Heh. I looked at the vertical scroll-bar level when linking again to the Pharyngula comment; ah, below the half-way mark, thinks I. Won't be so long...then I notice I'm at comment #730 or so...Well, I did skim a lot of said thread...was most interesting to see the different take from those across the pond...

    My skimming did not uncover another point which occurred to me about the subject. To wit, in addition to the exposure to the renowned authority and the content of the lecture itself, might there also be some revelatory effect from just being in the midst of a relatively huge audience of whom the majority are in total agreement with the speaker? If there happens to be anyone attending for extra credit who might have come from the sort of fundie-brainwashing background that paints evil evolutionists and depraved atheists as some sort of kooky, fanged fringe, it might open some eyes to see the strength of numbers & intelligence that comprises "the other side." Given that some of these folks start off as exceptionally swayable by group ideologies, the experience of a scientific, secular showing of knowledge & bonhomie might just plant a seed of doubt, if nothing else.

    (And I concur with you. Some of the most vivid memories of my academic years were hearing Carl Sagan, Garrett Hardin, Louis. B. Leakey, Jane Goodall when she was about grad-student age, etc. (In that era, we didn't get extra credit.) To this day I make an effort to go hear worthwhile speakers whenever they're within range, esp. if I can take one or more of my kids.)

    Kudos to you & OB for pursuing misogynist language. One of the things I love about Pharyngula is PZ's essential zero tolerance for same...And yes, this argument is so old it's nearly impossible to summon the energy to address it anew each and every time.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree that sending students to get credit is generally a good thing. I disagree with Richard on this. He should just leave it alone.

    ReplyDelete