Iowa State University is embroiled in a controversy this week that involves two of the favorite subjects of this blog academic freedom and freedom of speech. At the center of the controversy is ISU English Professor Chloe Clark who issued a syllabus for her English 250 class that banned students from expressing opposing to Black Lives Matter, abortion, same sex marriage or other causes or groups. She warns students that they will be dismissed and “I take this seriously.” Iowa State has intervened after an outcry and forced Clark to remove the language.
The syllabus reportedly contained that following warning (not just a warning actually, but a “GIANT WARNING”):
“GIANT WARNING: any instances of othering that you participate in intentionally (racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, [sic], sorophobia, transphobia, classism, mocking of mental health issues, body shaming, etc) in class are grounds for dismissal from the classroom… You cannot choose any topic that takes at its base that one side doesn’t deserve the same basic human rights as you do (ie: no arguments against gay marriage, abortion, Black Lives Matter,etc). I take this seriously.”
Sidenote: I could not find a good definition for “sorophobia” as a form of “othering.” I did find this reference to a work on “sorophobia” on the differences among women in literature and the need to stop “the process of destructive ‘othering’ and … to continue the process of recognizing difference while refusing to re-create negative images of otherness.” If anyone has a good definition, let us know. Notably, Clark participates in an online publication called “Cotton Xenomorph” which explains its “no creeps” policy as “anything with language of oppression. That means: prejudice, racism, xenophobia, classism, sexism, ableism, serophobia, fat-shaming, intolerance of religion, homophobia, etc.” “Serophobia” is a fear of people with HIV or contracting HIV. The Iowa State Daily did explain how Clark led a “Feminist Friday” focus group that discussed her use of “monster theory” to combat “othering,” or judging those who are different.
Putting nomenclature aside, Iowa State did take a stand for free speech and issued the following statement through a spokesperson:
“The syllabus statement as written was inconsistent with the university’s standards and its commitment to the First Amendment rights of students. After reviewing the issue with the faculty member, the syllabus has been corrected to ensure it is consistent with university policy . . . Moreover, the faculty member is being provided additional information regarding the First Amendment policies of the University . . . Iowa State is firmly committed to protecting the First Amendment rights of its students, faculty, and staff. With respect to student expression in the classroom including the completion of assignments, the university does not take disciplinary action against students based on the content or viewpoints expressed in their speech.”
That is a strong and commendable statement for those who are concerned about a rising orthodoxy and intolerance on our campuses. Of course, the “giant warning” of Professor Clark will remain a giant concern of students over her tolerance for opposing views even without the express speech bans.
Notably, like many academics who incongruously oppose free speech and free though, Professor Clark seems to display the very bias that she says she loathes. “Otherism” has been defined as “the exclusion of a person based on their perceived diversions from an acceptable norm.” That would seem precisely what Clark is doing in silencing those who depart from her own acceptable norm.
The controversy is reminiscent of another recent controversy (out of LSU) where Professor Alyssa Johnson asked her colleagues for the names of any students who they believe espouse hateful views so she could ban them from her classes. There is a sense of entitlement among such academics today in the enforcement of an ideology or orthodoxy. It is a view that comes from a cultural shift on our faculties not just in terms of ideology but pedagogy.
Recently, the American Association of University Professors gave an award to a controversial academic in recognition for work that “transcends the division between scholarship and activism that encumbers traditional university life.” I have no problem with the award or the professor’s advocacy. Indeed, I have defended the right of faculty on the left and right to speak freely on social media and in support of political causes. However, the idea that the division between scholarship and activism “encumbers traditional university life” was startling. There is a role for such a separation of our roles as advocates outside of the classroom and our role as academics inside the classroom. Our students come to learn not to be indoctrinated by our personal political and ideological bias. Professor Clark is the inevitable result of the erosion of that distinction. It is the difference between pedagogy and orthodoxy.
This is why America is screwed up. Colleges and universities are filled with professors like this one.
It amazes me how insecure teachers seem to be. When I got my geology degree, I had a professor who loved to be challenged by literal interpreters of the age of the Earth. I also had a philosophy teacher who used to give use a question at the end of the class ans we needed to come up with the counter argument the next class.
It amazes me that anyone thinks the faculty Turley discusses are a representative sample of teachers.
This one might be too extreme to be emblematic, but most of these teachers/profs are doing things that are condoned by the university. In my mind, that strongly suggests that many ARE representative.
More importantly, the scholarship used to formulate this ideology is indeed pervasive in the humanities and many of the social sciences. These instructors are putting to use what they have learned, rather than responding to current events.
I’ve taught at more than one public university, and I doubt that a you’re speaking from experience when you say “most of these teachers/profs are doing things that are condoned by the university.” Do you think that dept. chairs or someone else requires faculty to hand in a draft syllabus and other docs, so that someone can look them over before the semester starts? That certainly isn’t my experience.
If you think “These instructors are putting to use what they have learned,” then they haven’t learned enough about good teaching. And although many grad students work as TAs, there’s very little formal teaching preparation for those who teach at the college level.
I’m not talking about the syllabus. I’m talking about teaching material based on critical theory, which is a postmodernist interpretation of social hierarchies. Those ideas are leading to all of the free speech issues Turley has been blogging about, amongst other problems we currently have.
The course description (https://catalog.iastate.edu/search/?P=ENGL%20250) says nothing about critical theory, and I have no reason to assume that it’s part of this course.
You said “most of these teachers/profs are doing things that are condoned by the university,” but there’s no evidence of that here.
It’s an ideology that shapes the perception and action of these people. SOMETIMES the course content is directly about that ideology. SOMETIMES the way they teach is shaped on that ideology. This is a case of the latter.
if that doesn’t make sense, think of it this way. You can teach a class with the notion in your mind that freedom of speech is tolerable. You might never say that in class but that doesn’t mean it’s not an important part of a dialog in the class.
Yes, that makes sense, but I doubt that critical theory influences the teaching of most university faculty, though it might be more common in specific departments that I have little experience with, like English depts.
I did NOT say “most university faculty”.
I said the “humanities and many of the social sciences”
It amazes me that some foolish people understand how deeply illiberal and unacceptable this trend in Red Guard style fanaticism is at universities.
One malefactor like this is too many. The time for pushing back on them has arrived and will now gain steam. There will be a reckoning of accounts and these awful miseducators will be begin to be restricted from doing further harm to young minds,. It may only be toned down at the edges, but, the pushback has arrived.
The virus gives us this opportunity. The class rosters are full of fat and need to be trimmed. Gender studies, critical blather, all that sort of thing is useless when the kids can’t even get calculus classes delivered securely.
The universities are at a moment of existential crisis, as so many start classes and then choke on new covid cases the drunken youth so quickly spread.
It’s high time to return discipline and order to their proper place of value in our society. Here is an easy place to start. Fire this loser. Her services contribute nothing.
Sorry I meant to say, how some fools misunderstand these cretins and the trend they represent. Perhaps today, I’m a fool too, such poor writing. I hope my point will be clear however poorly delivered.
Jim22, I doubt that could be done today. I sounds like a great stimulation exercise. But these days, that would likely be considered “intentionally racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, [sic], sorophobia, transphobia, classism, mocking of mental health issues, body shaming, etc”!
You are probably right. I remember distinctly in an early geology class the professor being disappointment when he proposed the age of the Earth being ~4by old and nobody wanted to argue with him. He kept asking, “Really? No one here has any issue with that?”. Now one might be thinking, well Jim, it was a geology class, so it probably wasn’t filled with creationists. But, when I got my first job as a Hydro-geologist, my supervisor was a literal interpreter of the Bible. He was an absolutely fascinating man and taught me quite a lot about my own beliefs. He had done his homework and didn’t just use the “God works in mysterious ways” argument. Which is no argument at all. When one plays that card it is usually a discussion ender much like playing the race card. I still believe the Earth is ~4bys old, but I understand now that it is based on a belief in radioactive decay being a constant. Testing ourselves has much value.
Soropha. George Soros
It seems that the conglomeration of oddities that is the left is beginning to consume their own, finally, a self-produced end to this madness for the past century.
Popcorn. Lots and lots of popcorn. Popcorn as far as the eye can see.
Iowa State was foundaitonally an ag and tech school. No clue why one school after another has dispensed with its distinct institutional personality in favor of higher ed blancmange. Had they a proper respect for their vocation, the English department would consist of a handful of teaching faculty there so the students could fulfill distribution requirements (if they had an English department at all).
“Sorophobia”/”sororophobia” seems to be based on the Latin “soror” (“sister,” as in “sorority”), so it could be a fear of / aversion to sisterhood. This dissertation defines it as “female figures participating in misogyny”: https://sites.google.com/site/historyofrapeabibliography/author-index/author-index-m/marturano-2017-violence
Given the placement between “homophobia” and “transphobia,” she might just mean criticism/disapproval of lesbianism, or perhaps it’s a typo for serophobia.
I find this huge blanket speech ban inappropriate, and I also find some of it strange (e.g., “You cannot choose any topic that takes at its base that one side doesn’t deserve the same basic human rights as you do (ie: no arguments against gay marriage, abortion, Black Lives Matter,etc)” is odd in that abortion opponents would argue that they’re in favor of embryos having human rights and that abortion rights proponents are the ones saying that embryos don’t deserve rights).
I am afraid Ms. Clark failed her logic class, assuming she took one.
Is she a full professor?
At any rate, this:
“Iowa State Forces Professor to Lift Ban on Criticism of Black Lives Matter”
BY JEFFERY MARTIN ON 8/19/20 AT 12:12 AM EDT
https://www.newsweek.com/iowa-state-forces-professor-lift-ban-criticism-black-lives-matter-1526032
Excerpt:
“The syllabus statement as written was inconsistent with the university’s standards and its commitment to the First Amendment rights of students,” read a Monday statement from the University. “After reviewing this issue with the faculty member, the syllabus has been corrected to ensure it is consistent with university policy. Moreover, the faculty member is being provided additional information regarding the First Amendment policies of the university.”
In addition, the statement clarified that disciplinary action would not be taken against students because of personal opinions expressed in the classroom, “including the completion of assignments.”
___
She’s an aberration.
Is she a full professor?
Nope, lecturer, granted an MFA at Iowa State in 2016. She’s teaching the course (which is outside her skill set) because the regular faculty cannot be bothered.
Iowa State should get rid of her.
Looks like she’s a lecturer with an MFA, not a professor: http://iastate.academia.edu/ChloeClark
Thanks.
Perhaps an aberrationist?
She looks much like I pictured her: homely, glasses, unstyled hair, and probably couldn’t get a date with blind guys on Tinder.
I’m sorry she’s overweight and dumpy, but that’s not the fault of the Republicans who get stuck taking classes from her (or from any of the others among the ample population of a**holes you find on any faculty).
Where did you find a picture?
Comments not being processed here
Because they aren’t constructive.
If you live in Iowa then ask to defund that dumb “school”.
This woman is the result of years of academic control by the mind-bot liberals. It is a travesty that our colleges have been taken over by ill-educated, fascists like her. Good traditional Americans have taken care of their families and communities, respected their neighbors, obeyed laws and the Constitution, and worshiped their God, while these mind-bot liberals have infiltrated society, academia, and government to pull all of it down and re-make it in an unnattainably absurd socialist nightmare. They are quite honestly just evil. And those who have supported and abetted them, acting as if they were just the left wing of their party, are to blame.
This “professor” believes in reeducation camps. With such a closed mind she shouldn’t be teaching on any campus that is publicly funded. She is discriminatory towards one segment of the student population.
Language makes some people feel bad. Let’s ban all the words. Return to grunting and snorting to communicate.
Then deviants won’t feel bad.
Giant Warning says it all. Since it is a 200 level class most students will not HAVE to take it for their major, so would be best advised to avoid her at all costs. Right now, the university needs a monitor in her classrooms.
Where are all my comments?
Reaction to your trolling?
In the void of intolerance and ignorance (& under the guise of “liberty”).
Any student remaining in the class is heading for trouble. Dont think for a moment that the change in the syllabus description has changed that professors views or future actions. You will never be evaluated honestly. Only if you conform to her beliefs will you get a good grade, the rest D’s or F’s. Run, dont walk away from her classes.
True. This should be a firing offense. She has no business in academe.
It would be worth enrolling just to submit essays that challenge her postmodern sense of social justice.
Fire in the attic!
Teacher! Teacher! I declare:. We can see your underwear!
Fire her.
Looks like English professor, Chloe Clark could use a course in writing.
The English department at Iowa State appears to be an omnibus department which encompasses things which in other schools would be in separate faculties. Chloe Clark is not a literary scholar. She is a creative writing maven and her training consists of an MFA degree.
They have in that department ample manpower to staff their introductory literature courses, so one of the scandals is that this woman was assigned to teach them.
1. She doesn’t belong in the English department. She belongs in the writing center, or on the communications faculty, or in a creative writing program that does not incorporate teaching courses in literature.
2. She needs to stay in her lane. Aesthetics, not social issues, are the province of the literature and allied faculties.
3. She needs to grow up and figure out how to appreciate (and contend with) other viewpoints.\
4. She needs to grow up and figure out that the University is not the sandbox of its faculty. Republicans aren’t exempt from the taxes and other charges which generate her salary. Faculty are usually spoiled ingrates. She’s more clueless and obnoxious than most.
Happily the only college profs I have any contact with any more are either in STEM disciplines, members of my gun club or both.
She belongs in an occupation where the work she performs has tangible value for society. Very good chance she’s never experienced that.
She should be fired
The fulcrum of change can be the unfolding disaster at universities as they have brought so many kids back to justify their overinflated tuitions, and now have COVID spread all over their hands.
The youth are undisciplined and can’t avoid alcohol binge parties. This is an ongoing aspect of university life that is a vice to fill the lack of virtue.
The whole thing is a mess. it should be cut to the bone and it CAN be cut to the bone
We know we value STEM.
The humanities are in need of total purge and rebuilding. This is a long task that will take at least a decade. We must face the necessity of it today.
We must heap hot coals of criticism and abuse on the failed adminsitrative leaders and the incompetent boards of trustees and governors. We must cut their budgets, we must subject them to withering audits, and as needed, criminal charges for malfeasance.
A massive and well organized purge of the Red Guards and their masters from universities is a necessity.
“A massive and well organized purge of the Red Guards and their masters from universities is a necessity.”
Foxes are guarding the henhouses.
I would tend to agree with you. Start with the President, the provost, various functionaries of the provost’s office, the dean of students and functionaries therein, and HR. Hint, any official with ‘diversity’ in their job title gets canned. In re the faculty, you have academic faculty and vocational faculty. Among the vocational faculties, teacher training, social work, and journalism are fat targets. In and among the academic faculty, victimology programs, other inter-disciplinary programs, sociology, anthropology, and American history should be targets. Hint, anyone whose research publications include papers on race-class-gender should be a target.
100% on target absurd. i suspect these thoughts are shared by others. the question as always is, will anyone with the power to accomplish such things, even try?
nonetheless, the question to get it rolling is, not only who needs firing and defunding, but then, how to make it happen? .
The university should fire her. It’s not a free speech issue, even though Iowa State is a public institution. This has to do with how she performs her job. Students have a right–yes, a right, not a privilege–to be taught by responsible teachers. Ms. Clark is not one. She should go.
Students should not take a class with that “teacher”. They need tee shirts which say: “Teacher, Teacher I Declare: We Can See Your Underwear!”
Americans are a very confused people.
Thanks for the non sequitur. Always and education.