Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with OP.

One LAC offers a course titled Queer Feminist Environmental Studies (Hamilton College).

This could be a very interesting class, depending on the syllabus and how it is taught.

It does look interesting.

https://hamilton.smartcatalogiq.com/current/college-catalogue/courses/envst-environmental-studies/300/envst-323/

It’s queer AND feminist and of color. That’s pretty specific and represents a tiny population when dealing with environmental studies. I would imagine there is only ONE acceptable perspective when submitting papers or engaging in discussions in that class. Only one at least of you want an A or even to pass the class.

$65k in tuition for this class:
This seminar examines U.S. climate politics through a queer and feminist of color lens. We analyze the disproportionate, intersectional, gendered harms of climate change inflicted upon queer and trans people. Examining case studies, students interrogate critical environmental justice frameworks and practice using tools from queer theory, queer of color critique, and women of color feminisms to fill the gaps of traditional climate justice frameworks and address its exclusion of queerness. Turning to activism throughout the seminar, students also analyze how queer and feminist social movements fight for climate justice

But the point of this class is to consider how to think about an issue or topic from a variety of different viewpoints. Theory is an academic approach, and there is actual rigor in how types of theory view a topic. I purposely took a few classes like this so that I could learn to look past my own beliefs and examine things from multiple angles. For public policy, it was a way to examine unintended consequences of policies made into law. I also took a theory class that went over several different theories. Some seemed crazy to me at the time. But all of this widened my perspectives and these classes were some of the most valuable I took. I grew up in an average midwest town, and now have a job as a lawyer. I hope all kids would take something like this. This is the entire point of education. Be curious. Learn about things you don't already know. Look at things differently. None of this means you have to believe in it and good professors don't actually care if you agree or disagree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"White cis-males", "toxic masculinity" and other woke slogans are ruining the study of literature.

There are parts of the world where it is still illegal for women to read. Maybe you would be happier there?

And yet the woke crowd are the first to champion and defend those cultures. So maybe YOU would be happier there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure. And physics departments shouldn't discuss any theories developed after Newton's Opticks!

They shouldn’t discuss Newton. He’s just another dead white guy, after all.

And this is where you fail. Of course they should discuss Newton. But not be afraid of relooking at his contributions in light of Einstein. And understanding him differently than on would in the 1800’s. That is both fine and necessary for us to keep moving.

Do tell! I can just feel that whatever you say is going to be non-sensical and yet highly entertaining.

Anonymous wrote:"White cis-males", "toxic masculinity" and other woke slogans are ruining the study of literature.

What exactly does that mean? If you are going to attack terminology you need to provide an accurate explanation of precisely what the problem is. Otherwise you just sound like you are imitating Florida politicians. What is lost in the study of literature by continuing to bring additional analytical techniques to bear? Not agreeing with the politics associated with a given analytical technique is not a good reason to eschew it if it has the potential to produce insight.

Anonymous wrote:"White cis-males", "toxic masculinity" and other woke slogans are ruining the study of literature.

There are parts of the world where it is still illegal for women to read. Maybe you would be happier there?

"White cis-males", "toxic masculinity" and other woke slogans are ruining the study of literature.

Wellesley College is one of a handful of colleges that upholds rigor. And here's a student's saying why Shakespeare has to go (advice hopefully not heeded by Wellesley's English department):

"Shakespeare’s works contain many problematic undertones. Thus, to hold so strongly on to Shakespeare is also to hold onto the dominating perspective of white-cis-males in literature and writing. It is to hold onto the racism in “Othello,” the antisemitism in “The Merchant of Venice,” the toxic masculinity in “Romeo and Juliet” and the misogyny in “The Taming of the Shrew."...English is more than just the giants who are considered canon, “great literature” is not exclusive to them. We do not need to continue to fetishize and bandwagon one white man’s perspective of the world and of the human condition."

https://thewellesleynews.com/2021/10/13/wellesley-ditch-the-barb-drop-the-shakespeare-requirement-for-english-majors/

You can get an English degree without any Shakespeare courses, yes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/04/23/skipping-shakespeare-yes-english-majors-can-often-bypass-the-bard/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see you're not a big fan of tolerance or freedom of expression.

NP. No, I think they’re a fan of an actual education.

Exactly. Woke ideologues whose main contribution to thought is that Shakespeare was racist and Dickens was racist and Walt Whitman was racist are ruining the study of literature.

Are there any university literature programs that do not include courses in Shakespeare, really? OR is this all made up fear mongering?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see you're not a big fan of tolerance or freedom of expression.

NP. No, I think they’re a fan of an actual education.

Exactly. Woke ideologues whose main contribution to thought is that Shakespeare was racist and Dickens was racist and Walt Whitman was racist are ruining the study of literature.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm the OP and that's ridiculous.

I think there's really a two-front war in defending the integrity of the university.

On the right, you have those who want to teach sanitized history or creationism.

Then there's the woke left who want think the proper teaching of the humanities should be replaced by faddish identity politics.

I reject both.

Dude, Shakespeare just isn't the most important literature in the world anymore. Shakespeare himself would probably be a bit embarrassed to see how his work is revered by people who don't even understand the language he wrote in or the world he wrote in.

I agree, studying J.K. Rowling is every bit as valid as studying Shakespeare.

Anonymous wrote:I see you're not a big fan of tolerance or freedom of expression.

NP. No, I think they’re a fan of an actual education.

Paying $65K for a degree in any literature is ridiculous from a financial RoI perspective, so that's not that the OP question is about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure. And physics departments shouldn't discuss any theories developed after Newton's Opticks!

They shouldn’t discuss Newton. He’s just another dead white guy, after all.

Here we are in a thread discussing the best way to study dead white authors... and your response is to just not discuss dead white scientists?

How does that even make sense?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure. And physics departments shouldn't discuss any theories developed after Newton's Opticks!

They shouldn’t discuss Newton. He’s just another dead white guy, after all.

And this is where you fail. Of course they should discuss Newton. But not be afraid of relooking at his contributions in light of Einstein. And understanding him differently than on would in the 1800’s. That is both fine and necessary for us to keep moving.