This fascinating post here combines two very intriguing ethical issues.
Please read it.
What do you think? Either issue is a good one to comment on, the academic freedom questions raised or the issues specifically raised against Glenn Reynolds.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Thanks,
I've fixed the link on the original post.
I certainly believe that advocating the murder of civilians, even atomic scientists, is wrong. I believe that Professor Reynolds does a disservice to his students by blindly advocating such a position. However, the issue is not killing Iranians or radical mullahs; Professor Reynolds has no power to make that happen. The chief concern is the purpose of academia. I don't care what views the professor is suggesting, but he denies his students the true purpose of education by not presenting both sides. Education should be about teaching people how to think critically not about teaching them how to think. I believe Professor Reynolds and Professor Churchill should be allowed to be fired if they are not presenting a fair argument in the classroom. They certainly shouldn't be fired for having unpopular opinions, but if that is the only view that is expressed in class, then I think the school should have the ability to fire someone, whether their opinions are protected by free speech or not.
Although, Reynolds, I believe, has never done anything illegal, I believe it is unethical for teachers to voice their opinions regarding politics and other social issues. When teacher's announce their opinion on a subject, students tend to "believe" them and agree with them as they think it will help them get a good grade. In politics and philosophy, however, students need to develop their own ideas and learn to express them without undue interference from the person who is grading them. It is alright for them to seek the opinions of others who are not going to be judging/grading how well they did, just not get "answers" from those who are going to give them a grade.
Post a Comment