Anonymous wrote:People who obsess over what they hate and not what they love are boring. OP isn't qualified for involvement in anyone's literature study.

So true!

People who obsess over what they hate and not what they love are boring. OP isn't qualified for involvement in anyone's literature study.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how faddish ideological "reading" of Shakespeare is to literary studies what quantum mechanics is to physics.

I promise you that when quantum mechanical ideas were introduced, many many physicists, including great ones that laid the foundations of quantum like Milliken, wrote it off as nonsense. Sometimes (often?) writing off fads is the correct approach. But once in a while you learn something from them.

+1

Also seems misleading to so simplify 20th century progress as to say Einstein “built upon” the work of Newton. It’s fair to say he complicated Newton’s work, even upended it at certain scales.

Or even, dare I say, “disrupted” it.

*firehose

Anonymous wrote:Some "woke" high school teachers, who presumably studied English in college, want Shakespeare to be treated as just another playwright. A little bit more subtle than "toxic masculinity" and "cis white male" though:

https://disrupttexts.org/2018/10/25/5-disrupting-shakespeare/

The worst thing is this be done supposedly for the "benefit" of children of color and from immigrant families.

The premise of this thread is that higher level literature curricula have been fundamentally compromised at such a massive scale that the OP needs help finding a program that hasn’t “succumbed.” And yet the links provided in support of this premise include an op-Ed by a student, a course description for a class in an entirely different department, and a an outsider effort by a small group to “disrupt” the canon at the high school level (paradoxically proving the point that Shakespeare remains canon).

Did I miss the hard evidence? The meta-analyses? If you’re actually well-educated, surely you know that one can cherry-pick small bits of “evidence,” then place these bits among a firehouse of unsubstantiated opinion and hand-wringing in order to present a completely distorted picture of reality.

Which seems to be what’s happening here. I cannot imagine why OP is wasting time and energy in this way, unless they are (a) addicted to outrage or (b) a useful tool of some other agenda.

Anonymous wrote:I don't see how faddish ideological "reading" of Shakespeare is to literary studies what quantum mechanics is to physics.

I promise you that when quantum mechanical ideas were introduced, many many physicists, including great ones that laid the foundations of quantum like Milliken, wrote it off as nonsense. Sometimes (often?) writing off fads is the correct approach. But once in a while you learn something from them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I thought this was well known. Newton’s theory of gravity assumed an intertial frame. Which means his laws of motion are accurate at low velocities (which is most of stuff on earth). But relativity introduces a cosmic speed limit and Newtonian mechanics go out of whack close to the speed of light since the relativistic frames matter. So did Einstein reject Newton? No of course not. But his theories reshaped how we under Newtonian mechanics. And Einstein never took to quantum mechanics because he was never happy with its statistical nature. Theorists who are trying to reconcile quantum mechanics and gravity are looking at - wait for it - different frames to study the problem. It’s what scholarship is all about.

This is not “relooking at” Newton’s contributions. His contributions remain his contributions, Einstein and others who followed built upon his contributions. I think you clearly understand that, but your attempt to paint this as analogous to what is being discussed in this thread (basically rejecting classical literature because modern society declares the contributors to be racist or sexist or transphobic, etc.) is where YOU fail.

In other words, no one is trying to teach Newtonian mechanics as the end-all be-all of physics, but on the other hand no one is pretending that his contributions to science weren’t brilliant and significant and hugely influential because he… was a product of his time and did the best with what he had, so to speak.

This is the whole point. Our understanding of newton’s contribution today is different than it was in the late 1800’s. We have also dropped some of his stuff - we no longer teach alchemy. Now admittedly in the sciences, the arbiter of what works survive and what works do not is Mother Nature herself. Which is less subjective.

But to get to Einstein and quantum physics, you could not teach Newton as invariant. You had to allow the community to continually re-examine the axioms. And from there, we developed a deeper appreciation and context for Newton. It is really no different in literature. You re-read and re-examine according to what is going on around you today. Most times, the frames you use to re-look are flawed and dropped by future scholars. Every once in a while, the re-examination leads to dropping a classic and identifying a new set of classics. Not sure why this bothers you so much.

Actually in science today we are seeing a lot of papers but fewer radical ideas. This “accepting of the masters” is really bad for innovation.

Some "woke" high school teachers, who presumably studied English in college, want Shakespeare to be treated as just another playwright. A little bit more subtle than "toxic masculinity" and "cis white male" though:

https://disrupttexts.org/2018/10/25/5-disrupting-shakespeare/

The worst thing is this be done supposedly for the "benefit" of children of color and from immigrant families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I thought this was well known. Newton’s theory of gravity assumed an intertial frame. Which means his laws of motion are accurate at low velocities (which is most of stuff on earth). But relativity introduces a cosmic speed limit and Newtonian mechanics go out of whack close to the speed of light since the relativistic frames matter. So did Einstein reject Newton? No of course not. But his theories reshaped how we under Newtonian mechanics. And Einstein never took to quantum mechanics because he was never happy with its statistical nature. Theorists who are trying to reconcile quantum mechanics and gravity are looking at - wait for it - different frames to study the problem. It’s what scholarship is all about.

This is not “relooking at” Newton’s contributions. His contributions remain his contributions, Einstein and others who followed built upon his contributions. I think you clearly understand that, but your attempt to paint this as analogous to what is being discussed in this thread (basically rejecting classical literature because modern society declares the contributors to be racist or sexist or transphobic, etc.) is where YOU fail.

In other words, no one is trying to teach Newtonian mechanics as the end-all be-all of physics, but on the other hand no one is pretending that his contributions to science weren’t brilliant and significant and hugely influential because he… was a product of his time and did the best with what he had, so to speak.

Nobody but nobody is rejecting classical literature. It is foundational, respected, and worthy of intense scrutiny. Why be offended by deep analysis and/or the prospect of different conclusions? So what? Where is the issue? So long as new generations continue reading the classics where's the actual worry?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I thought this was well known. Newton’s theory of gravity assumed an intertial frame. Which means his laws of motion are accurate at low velocities (which is most of stuff on earth). But relativity introduces a cosmic speed limit and Newtonian mechanics go out of whack close to the speed of light since the relativistic frames matter. So did Einstein reject Newton? No of course not. But his theories reshaped how we under Newtonian mechanics. And Einstein never took to quantum mechanics because he was never happy with its statistical nature. Theorists who are trying to reconcile quantum mechanics and gravity are looking at - wait for it - different frames to study the problem. It’s what scholarship is all about.

This is not “relooking at” Newton’s contributions. His contributions remain his contributions, Einstein and others who followed built upon his contributions. I think you clearly understand that, but your attempt to paint this as analogous to what is being discussed in this thread (basically rejecting classical literature because modern society declares the contributors to be racist or sexist or transphobic, etc.) is where YOU fail.

In other words, no one is trying to teach Newtonian mechanics as the end-all be-all of physics, but on the other hand no one is pretending that his contributions to science weren’t brilliant and significant and hugely influential because he… was a product of his time and did the best with what he had, so to speak.

Anonymous wrote: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/

That is not a fair reading of the article. And even if some colleges do not require a course solely focused on Shakespeare as a graduation requirement, that is not the same as claiming they don't offer such a course, or don't teach Shakespeare at all or that lit grads will have read zero of the Bard.

I don't see how faddish ideological "reading" of Shakespeare is to literary studies what quantum mechanics is to physics.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I thought this was well known. Newton’s theory of gravity assumed an intertial frame. Which means his laws of motion are accurate at low velocities (which is most of stuff on earth). But relativity introduces a cosmic speed limit and Newtonian mechanics go out of whack close to the speed of light since the relativistic frames matter. So did Einstein reject Newton? No of course not. But his theories reshaped how we under Newtonian mechanics. And Einstein never took to quantum mechanics because he was never happy with its statistical nature. Theorists who are trying to reconcile quantum mechanics and gravity are looking at - wait for it - different frames to study the problem. It’s what scholarship is all about.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"Case studies" you say. Hm.

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?

How is supporting serious reading requirements in college and objecting to the dismissal and denigration of Shakespeare ("white cis-male", "toxic masculinity") akin to supporting the Taliban?