The Will to Matter: Why Sex Can Never Triumph Over Metaphysics

I am re-reading Rebecca Goldstein's The Mind-Body Problem for my Philosophy of Mind class. This time around, while I should be focusing on the relevant themes to my course, I keep analyzing the motives of her protagonist, Renee Feuer.

Renee is a graduate student at Princeton, obsessed with the Mind-Body problem, but perhaps even more obsessed with her need to matter. And I love the play on words: to matter is both an intellectual /moral judgement, as well as a material affair--to be a body that exists in the world. Renee oscillates throughout the novel between the life of the mind and the life of the body, and she pursues, sexually, those "gods" on her own personal "mattering map" who she hopes will finally make her matter:

For the smart are the masters in my mattering region. And if you gain power over them, then through the transitivity of power you too are powerful (1983, 96)

The first time I read this book, I didn't dwell much on Renee's particular spin on the mind-body problem. Historically, when philosophers debate they mind-body problem, they are either trying to grapple with establishing the existence of other minds or unravelling the problem of personal identity. I tended to see Renee as preoccupied with the former question. And, yet, Renee, as Goldstein portrays her, is not consumed with the question, how do I know what others are thinking, or that others think, or that other people think like I do?

Rather, she is consumed with a need for the Other (in good old Sartrean fashion) to recognize that she exists. But not just any Other, it must be someone of great importance on her mattering map. Hence, Renee's quest is essentially narcissistic (or solipsistic, if you will). Renee bumps up against the horrific sense that we are all alone; she rebels against this void by seeking one who will devote himself to making her matter, which means to making her feel that she is not alone, isolated, and therefore insignificant to others. Like Sartre, she casts this need of the recognition of the Other to matter in sexual terms.

There it was once again: the ineradicable separateness of consciousness. The world he inhabits is his alone--with precious few of its details expressible in language and thus accessible to us. Others. How I would love to slip into his world and see thing as he does, to merge our two worlds like two drops of water. That would be to become one with him--for we are our worlds, just as Leibniz said (But windowless?) Of course, one bumps into the metaphysical facts. How close can we get? One penetrates the other, the other is penetrated, but we never break through. Sex is a battle against metaphysics. (1983, 239)

What really strikes me as interesting about this passage is that Renee's desire to "merge our two worlds like two drops of water" is not motivated at all by an interest in the Other; rather it is motivated by her own insatiable desire to escape her profound sense that she is not so important on her own mattering map. Her loneliness is not borne from a sense of isolation from others, it is borne, rather, from a sense that others don't value her enough, and more importantly, in ways that would put her at the center of her own mattering map.

Towards the end of the novel, Renee (whose name alludes to Descartes, i.e. the mind) starts an adulterous affair with Daniel Korper (the body). His lovemaking is exquisite to her, precisely because he attends so intently to her body, to her "feminine sexuality," in a way that finally makes her matter (in both senses of the word). Sensing that the affair is about to end, that Daniel will abandon her to her sense of loneliness again (particularly because she is in a loveless marriage), she protests, declaring her love and need for him to stay with her.

"I'm sorry, Renee," he finally said. "I can't do it for you. You would like a passion to sweep you away beyond decision, beyond responsibility. You won't find such a passion, at least not in this bed." He paused, and then went on. "I won't be distilled into the essence of your life. I don't have the taste for such things, not anymore." He got up and pulled up his pants. "If you want to leave your husband, leave him. But don't do it for me. Don't do it for any man."

His response is more De Beauvoirian than Sartrean (I keep thinking of De Beauvoir's brutal acount of the "Woman in Love" from The Second Sex). Her motives are laid bare; she does not want to resolve the mind-body problem in some cool, disinterested and curious way that one might associate with a more technical (analytic ?) philosopher. Rather, she wants to establish the existence of Other minds in order to justify her own existence.

This last point is what is really interesting about the novel. Because when it ends, it is clear that she has failed, utterly failed, to understand, to know her husband. A woman so consumed with the need to understand Other minds, albeit seeing them only through her own mattering map (conceptual scheme), is bad at it. She had interpreted Noam's (her husband) treatment of her as a sign that he had finally discovered that she did not mater any more. But, this was not the source of his aggression; rather, he had lost his own sense of identity, by losing his mathematical powers. He blamed her at first for distracting him from his work only to realize that the fault lie in his own degraded state.

Renee becomes moved by his suffering and tries to tell him that he needs no justification--that even though he has lost his genius, he has value in the fact he is a person (a very Kantian approach) and not for what he bequeaths to Others or the world. Noam does not take well to this consolation and the last pages of the novel are devoted to Renee lamenting the fact that she cannot console Noam to see that he needs no justification. However, the reader can see plainly why he would not (could not) believe her. She herself has constructed a world in which one much strive to matter, and matter in a particular way, to an elite group of Others. She is preoccupied with justification.

I have rehearsed all of this to you, dear readers, because in this episode lies an important insight, one that I am only now mature enough (grown up enough?) to notice: that the motives for loving the other make all the difference to the health (longevity) of the relationship. Those who choose partners, with the sole intention of justifying their existence--of fulfilling their will to matter--are the most prone to cheat, to turn to others when their partner no longer makes them the center of their own mattering map.

Don't get me wrong. The passages describing Korper's lovemaking are rapacious; they inspire in me the desire to be so loved. And yet, I couldn't help but ask myself how long such a intense passion, a stolen passion, can really last, particularly if it is fueled by ones' own solipsistic need to matter. So, I appreciate, in a way, that at the end of the novel, Noam's suffering finally rips her out of her own preoccupations and forces her to confront that essentially we do, in fact, have access to Others. We can share their sorrow, we can recognize our own battles with loss, and in those relations to the Other, we are, perhaps, overcoming the mind-body problem.

A Reality Women Would Rather Not Believe: Violence Against Women

I just got finished reading a thoughtful, and yet depressing journal entry that a student from my Women's Studies course wrote. She attended the "Take Back the Night" event on campus a few weeks ago, and decided to really confront the questions gnawing at her as she left. The situation is this: she sees a lot of women get up and tell their stories of sexual assault. She shes women get up, whom she knows and yet they never said anything before. The sheer numbers of women sharing their stories of sexual violence are overwhelming to her.

What this experience does is turn her inward. She admits that she cannot help but wonder why these women weren't more careful? Why didn't they avoid the situations wherein they got hurt? [These are legitimate questions, even if we all "know" that a victim is not to blame for her victimhood; but there is a difference between "knowing" that and really getting it].

She then goes on to tell me a story of a young man she knows who was falsely accused of rape by a young woman who wanted to "revise" the sexual encounter they had, in order to "regain her virginity." The young man lost his scholarship to an Ivy league, but was nonetheless able to successfully sue the young woman and get his good name back. Two years ago, I would've read this journal entry and been frustrated at the student. The difference between now and then is that I witnessed, up close, a young woman falsely accusing a young man of rape and saw how it destroyed his life. In the end, he prevailed, but the scars are still there.

So, what did I say to this young woman, who wrote this journal? Well, first of all, I didn't deny that false accusations happen. But, what I think all of us need to do, who have seen the damage that false accusations can do, is consider how unlikely they are to occur. After all, it takes a rather "sick" woman to knowingly and maliciously falsely accuse a man of rape. There might be incentives to do so in some sexual misconduct policies or laws (I am thinking that women in custody battles might be more tempted to make such accusations to get sole custody). But still, if a woman sets out to do this consciously, she is evil. And, if she actually believes her lies, then she is ill (and needs serious treatment).

What does this all mean? Well, if you start to look at the scores of women speaking out at "Take Back the Night" marches and think that most of them are "rewriting history" and making false accusations (ostensibly to save their reputation), then you are committing yourself to a view that most women are evil or mentally ill. Surely, there are folks out there who take this attitude toward women, but we usually call them misogynists. Look, you don't have to be a feminist to recognize how incredibly detrimental to women it is to take this misogynist attitude toward women: you are essentially indicting yourself. That is, you are affirming a worldview that views your sex with distrust.

It's frightening to me how tempting it is for women (including myself) to fall into this misogynist worldview. It is perpetuated by popular culture and pundits. Moreover, to confrong the reality of sexual violence against women, affirm that it is not "made up," is to suddenly feel very, very vulnerable. One would rather not believe it is true.

I think this is also why it is tempting to assign some of the blame to the women; if you do, then you can convince yourself that it won't happen to you. "After all, I am not so naive as these women were to put myself at risk . . .," thinks my student. But, no matter how clever, strong, or sophisticated you are, you can never completely escape the threat of sexual violence if you are a woman. It is pervasive.

I'll never forget my advisee who was attacked by a very deranged man a block from her dorm. We are not talking about date rape. This was a full on stranger rape. When she finally came to talk to me about it, she said: "I never believed all that hype they throw at you that you need to protect yourself against rape. I always thought it was weak women, or women who couldn't take care of themselves, or stupid women. I never used to allow someone to walk me home at night. I was all powerful. And now, now . . . I am terrified."

The allure of the misogynist world view is always tugging at each one of us, forces us to be vigilant about the reality of sexual violence against women. Unless we speak out about it, unless we believe the women who speak out (at least most of the time), we are tacitly approving of a world where men can be expected to take advantage of a foolish woman.

On How to Overcome Student Entitlement

I just got back from reading Dean Dad's post on the ever-present threat of a parent or student to sue a professor, administrator, or the institution. His post is inspired by Profgrrrl's post. I found Dean Dad's explanation of the importance of process, i.e. posting clear criteria for how decisions are made (i.e. when you are determining a grade or how to lay off employees) to be really helpful in clarifying why must threats to sue are just a bunch of hot air.

No one (knock on wood) has threatened yet to sue me. I imagine that it is only a matter of time before I bump up against this phenomenon, and reading Dean Dad puts me at ease. I have, however, had all sorts of odd conversations with students about what they think they are entitled to gradewise, regardless of my clear polcies and criteria. I was just thinking about this yesterday, as a student asked me during class discussion if I had ever personally felt challenged by students because I was female.

The example that popped into my mind, but I forgot to share with the class occurred in my second year of teaching here. The student challenging me was not a man (I don't think that male students are more likely to challenge female professors than female students are); she was a very mediocre, but clearly quite socially popular and powerful woman. She was enrolled in my Phil of Lit course.

About a week before the course was over, she walked into my office to discuss her grade. I was still pretty nervous about these kinds of conversations at this point in my career (I think it takes awhile for young faculty to develop confidence about their grading practices and standing by their grades). I asked her what in particular she wanted to discuss, i.e. the grade on her last assignment? "No," she responded. "Well, what's up?," I asked. "Well, I figure that I am getting a C- in this course, and well, frankly, that's not what I want," she said. Naively, I tried to make sense of her comment. "You mean you want to really prepare for the final," I responded. "No. You see, I am just not a C- student; I want a B."

I think it took me the rest of the afternoon to actually understand what she was saying. It had never occurred to me that a student would feel so entitled to tell me what she should get. Moreover, she had no compunction about this request. What I am proud about is that in this exchange, probably because I was so throw aback, I simply said, "look, there is nothing that I can do to give you that B outside of you earning it. If you want to talk about how to do well on your final exam, well, there's a conversation, but this . . . .?" She strutted out of my office, flipping her hair, and slamming the door behind her.

But, thank god for this experience, since it really got me over my fear of holding the line on my grading.

Femi-Nazi Tourist Playground: China Style

Za forwarded me this story from Yahoo about a tourism idea to build a "women's town" in China.

Chinese tourism authorities are seeking investment to build a novel concept attraction -- the world's first "women's town," where men get punished for disobedience, an official said Thursday.

The 2.3-square-km Longshuihu village in the Shuangqiao district of Chongqing municipality, also known as "women's town," was based on the local traditional concept of "women rule and men obey," a tourism official told Reuters.

"Traditional women dominate and men have to be obedient in the areas of Sichuan province and Chongqing, and now we are using it as an idea to attract tourists and boost tourism," the official, surname Li, said by telephone.

The tourism bureau planned to invest between 200 million yuan ($26 million) and 300 million yuan in infrastructure, roads and buildings, Li said.

"We welcome investors from overseas and nationwide to invest in our project," he added.

The motto of the new town would be "women never make mistakes, and men can never refuse women's requests," Chinese media have reported.

When tour groups enter the town, female tourists would play the dominant role when shopping or choosing a place to stay, and a disobedient man would be punished by "kneeling on an uneven board" or washing dishes in restaurant, media reports said.

The project, begun in the end of 2005, was expected to take three to five years to finish.

Oh boy! This is precisely what anti-feminists think that a feminist universe would look like. This project must have been hatched from the warped minds of men, whose imagination of what a feminist world would look like is the inversion of their own sexist, oppressive world-view.

A Father Has to Choose

Via Lindsay, I found this father's account of having to choose an abortion for his wife. It is precisely the kind of story that gets left out of the Pro-life rhetoric.

P.S. When I read blog posts like these, it only confirms my view that the dogmatism of the Catholic Church's position on abortion would change dramatically if Priests could marry.

Mexico City Legalizes Abortion

While I am still reeling from the Carhart decision, it is reassuring to see abortion legalized in Mexico City. Granted, it is still just Mexico City and that still puts burden on poor women all over the country to try and find a way to the city for an abortion, but it is better than nothing. This will also mean that thousands of women will not risk their lives try to cross the border to secure an abortion here.

Reading through the NYTimes article, it never ceases to amaze me how programmed and thereby unthinking the opposition's criticisms are to abortion. To the very serious claims that women denied abortions are dying, comes this:

“The women of the Federal District are dying from clandestine abortions,” said Leticia Quezada, of the leftist Democratic Revolution Party, which controls the assembly. “What we want is not one more death, not here, not anywhere.”

One the other side, Jorge Romero, of the National Action Party, said legalizing abortion would encourage irresponsible sex. “What we are legislating now, what we are asked to approve, is to support juvenile imprudence, unexpected pregnancies,” he said. “Understand this, lawmakers, you are legalizing killing.”

Honestly, men (or women) like Jorge Romero really frighten me. When faced with all the evidence of why women seek abortions, when faced with the evidence of how many women die when they are denied a legal and safe abortion, his response is (a) to criticize that women will become more sexually promiscuous (???) and (b) that abortion is legalizing killing (but the outlawing of abortion doesn't kill?)?

In a recent study on how the OTC status of Plan B has affected pregnancy rates (a study I need to discuss another time), the researchers also found that:

And the research makes it clear that having emergency contraception on hand does not increase risky sexual behaviors, she says.

Putting to one side the fact that empirically this claim is suspicious, the motivations of this claim are equally disturbing. The focus is always on women's promiscuity, never on men's or the possibility that women were raped by men. The story is always told with a misbehaving, unchaste, and therefore sinful woman at the heart of it. This is just plain fantasy; it bears no resemblance to the reality of women risking life and limb to seek an abortion.

When the anti-abortion folks start grappling with the real stories of women in distress and the real, painful moral dilemmas they have to wrestle with , I will pay attention. But the misogynist ad feminem attacks illustrate how weak their arguments are, not to mention the nefarious motivations.

As for the second objection, that any feminist and proponent of reproductive freedom has heard--abortion is legalizing killing--I say: yes, it is. But, it is not legalizing murder. Abortion does terminate (kill) the life of a fetus. Let's not mince words about this. The abortion debate should never be settled on that pronouncement. The question is: is it morally permissible to kill the fetus (see, I am using their language!)? To resolve this question, you need to actually take a look at the facts on the ground: why do women seek abortions? Is it purely a murderous rage against unborn life? If that you answered "yes" to that last question, then your world view is so frightening and unstable to me that I, frankly, would be more concerned about your actions than the women, who you paint in such unsympathetic and hateful ways.

Can we kill others without justification? This is one of the questions of the abortion debate. The answer, even for the opposition to abortion, is almost certainly "yes." We legalize killing when we allow self-defense. We legalize killing when we send soldiers to war. The very fact of legalizing killing is not what is morally problematic.

Obama on Foreign Policy

A link to Obama's foreign policy speech. I just read it, being sent there from Kevin Drum. Fine speech in my view. What do you think?

Invitation to Debate Some Pedagogical Practices

Today's post is a call for discussion and resources on matters of teaching. One of the real benefits of blogging is my interactions with other academics or students, who have really pushed me to reflect on my pedagogy and the goals of teaching undergraduates. Specifically, what I have been mulling over the last few days are two common practices/attitudes I see among college professors.

The first is the desire to make examinations as "objective" as possible. There are lots of motivations for this: i.e., to ensure that multiple sections of a course are fairly standard or to ensure that faculty preferences or dislikes of students don't factor into evaulation. I am sympathetic to the last goal. I am not so enthralled by the first goal. The desire to ensure some kind of uniformity among multiple sections of a course, such as Intro to Philosophy, seems to me to take the judgement and expertise away from the faculty teaching the course, and opting instead for pre-programmed and "canned courses," which frankly, anyone could teach. If we were to standardize our intro courses, for example, we might begin by adopting a common book, which comes with pre-made lectures, exam and quiz banks. We would adopt a common syllabus and the faculty member would merely be an administrative type: giving the pre-programmed lectures, and the pre-programmed tests and quizzes that are easy to grade.

The obvious downside of this model is that the Ph.D. is totally meaningless in this context. It would be cheaper to hire upper-class students to run these sections, rather than waste the more expensive resource of Ph.D. faculty.

The other problem with this model is that "objective tests" often translate into multiple choice, T/F, fill in the blank type questions. What I want to hear, from my readers, is why on earth faculty think that objectivity is best captured in these sorts of examinations? I fully admit that I am skeptical, but I imagine that there are folks out there who are up on pedagogical techniques and aware of research that demonstrates the value of these sorts of examinations. The object, as I understand it, is to assess if the students are learning the material. But, I remain unconvinced that such standardized tests really teach us anything about what our students know, and how well they have absorbed the information and skills we are trying to impart to them.

My second agenda item is the importance of attendance policies. I am someone who has an attendance policy. I have adopted it for various reasons, including: that I think I am teaching students how to be successful by getting them to participate in their education; that class interactions and discussions are important means for reinforcing the material being learned as well as fostering other skills such as speaking in front of peers or learning to ask questions; and, to be able to better track students who are struggling. However, many of my colleagues forgo such attendance policies.

One common retort I hear is that if a student is perfectly capable of doing well on examinations and papers without attending class, then why force them to sit through a class. What bothers me about this response is that it, once again, demeans the role of the professor in the same way that the "canned" classes do. Why on earth should we even be paid to teach if our courses are so designed that students can do perfectly well on their own? I am not suggesting that we create a dependency in them, but rather that what underlies this attitude, it seems to me, is a very different view of what education is about. If it is merely about teaching students lessons in a book, written by one of our colleagues (who we may or may not agree with), then it seems to me that we are wasting way too many precious resources by hiring "teacher-scholars" to run these courses.

My bias is that faculty adopt these sort of teaching practices solely to free up their own time and to minimize the amount of time they invest in students. Sometimes faculty do this in order to focus on getting enough publications to get through tenure. Sometimes faculty do this because they are lazy. My sense is that they rationalize these practices as being more "objective," but that is not really what motivates them.

I would like to hear from other faculty or students on this, particularly if I am terribly mistaken in my views or being uncharitable.

Tarantino's Grindhouse: Did you like it?

Za finally succeeded in convincing me to see Grindhouse last night (along with IsThatLatin and her S.O.). It was a hard sell since I am neither a Quentin Taratino fan, nor a B movie fan, nor a horror flick fan. However, I have to admit that I liked the film (well, it's more than a film, more like two with all sorts of other hilarious 70s type interludes). Za kept telling me that it was a feminist film to try and get me to go. "A feminist film," I asked. "What makes it a feminist film"? Za would answer: "Well there is a chick who loses her leg, gets an AK-47 strapped on her stump, and kicks ass." Now Za knows perfectly well that this sort of description of a film is in no way likely to sway me that it is a feminist film. In fact, every time we had this conversation he would laugh as I would roll my eyes and say "how messed up are you if you think a feminist film denotes chicks kicking ass with large weapons."

So, I stand corrected. I do think that Grindhouse is a feminist film; and, in part, I think it does have to do with the nature of the violent, kick ass female characters in both films. What I finally concluded after the second segment "Death Proof," is that it was refreshing to see women characters, especially in a B movie horror genre, not just get mauled or violently dismembered. Sure, some of that exists in the films. But, overall, the female characters become the heroes, they are the ones who avenge the wrong, and protect the others. Now, they do so while kicking serious ass. But, when they do, man do their victims really, really deserve it. It's like the female Jack Bauer. Why doesn't she exist? So, I am grateful that directors like Tarantino is breaking with the usual formulae for horror flicks and portraying women who can resist and fight evil, while protecting others.

What did the rest of you think of Grindhouse? Some of you may not have appreciated the ode to 70s B Movie films. Some of you might not have liked the length (it was a strain on me these days!). But, of those who saw it, is it a step in the right direction for Hollywood to start portraying women this way?

UPDATE: Amanda already wrote a longer and more thoughtful post on this film. There are spoilers in her analysis, but if you don't care read it.

What if You Could Eliminate Your Period?

Za sent me an interesting article today from the NYTimes debating the cultural consequences of a new pill, called Lybrel, that allows women to "turn off" their period for months/years at a time. The article suggests that there are no serious health risks to taking this pill, and if we accept this as true, we need to debate whether or not it is a good thing for women that they can control more powerfully when they get their period.

Given that I tend to be less anti-technology and science than some feminist critics (not all), I don't really see a moral issue with this pill. I can imagine that some feminists can make more sociological arguments that I would be sympathetic to, rather than the ethical arguments. From the standpoint of whether or not I should be permitted to take Lybrel, I say "hell yes." But, there is always the larger question of the unintended consequences of such biotechnologies (the sociological argument). If the majority of women opt to take Lybrel (the Times quoted a study that said 2/3 of all women expressed an interest in giving up their period), what sort of effect will this have culturally on our tolerance for women who do not opt to take Lybrel?

At this point, the usual move is toward the alarmist, Brave New World or Gattaca type scenario wherein greater advancements in our ability to "intelligently (re)design" ourselves (a phrase I am borrowing from Daniel Dennett) will ultimately mean that we will use the technology for bad, for punishment of deviants, and to set up a superclass of periodless women who dominate all the power jobs over those who cannot access the drug or who choose to renounce such technology.

Over the years I have grown sort of disaffected with the alarmist rhetoric that creeps up everytime a new technology is reported on in the press or other popular journals. I am equally concerned that many of my fellow Philosophers tend to buy into this alarmist and Luddite rhetoric. I guess I don't see that scientific knowledge and advancement always lead to the dystopia scenarios that folks fret over. I don't even think that they necessarily lead to greater sexism or intolerance of sexual difference, as marked by biological events such as menstruation.

The core question here, to my mind, is what's wrong with women intelligently redesigning themselves in ways that fits with their ideals and aspirations. I personally get no deep meaning or satisfaction from having my period (especially since it hurts a whole lot). But, I also don't make the mistake (largely because I don't hold a particular theological view that God created all of nature and thereby it is all good) that what is natural is always better (naturalistic fallacy). There are lots of natural events and phenomena that are bad: let's take viruses. If we didn't try to combat them, I am pretty sure they would (and still might) wipe us out.

In any case, I am curious to hear what you all think of Lybrel. Perhaps you have some compelling arguments that I should pay attention to for why it is concerning to engineer away our periods?

Check out the Gender Genie!

Via Lindsay at Majikthise, I have discovered the Gender Genie. You can test the prose on your blog and the Gender Genie, via some algorithim, will predict whether or not the writer is male or female. I took two different paragraphs (from different blog posts) to test it out. The first paragraph (which I took from the first paragraph of my post today) was deemed to be written by a female. The second paragraph I took from my post on the Supreme Court ruling yesterday and Gender Genie judged it written by a male.

I guess I am an androgynous writer. Cool.

On Being A College Professor after the VT Massacre

I had nightmares about the VT massacre last night. It was on a two day delay. I knew that eventually the horror of what had happened would start to eat away at me. In part, I think my dreams haunted me precisely because I didn't talk, or rather listen, to what students thought about this. I didn't check in to see if they were suffering, in shock, afraid . . . I had to think a lot about why I didn't, especially after the Provost sent us a thoughtful email encouraging us to do so. What it comes down to is that I didn't want to think about it. I didn't want to actually confront the horror of this event. I wasn't prepared for hearing any vitriol, anger or racist statements either (not that students would've made such statements, but I worried). I am scared and frightened by what happened, and in my selfishness, I didn't want to hear anything about it, or how it affected my students.

I started to realize how frightened I was by the events yesterday while talking to my colleagues in the Philosophy lounge. I had been studying the faces of the dead at the NYTimes website. But, more importantly, I had been studying the faces of the dead professors. One of them, Jamie Bishop, looked like the sort of colleague I have here. He was young, married, and well-loved by his students. Don't get me wrong, I paused on pictures of young women and men, who could've been my own students, and found myself speechless over the loss. But, seeing the pictures of dead professors haunted me the most. And, it is precisely that which I dreamt: being hunted by a former student, being called to protect my class from an armed assailant. These are not tasks that one signs on for when he/she becomes a college professor.

Kerry reminded me of a student we both had a few years ago, who I am convinced was schizophrenic. He was the right age and gender for the onset of schizophrenia. His papers were long, stream of consciousness writings full of references to disturbing sexuality. The more I was around him, the more frightened I became of him. I would shudder if he came to my office and I never had any idea of what to do with his papers. During his senior thesis presentation, I think we all just sat, aghast at what nonsense had been uttered and scrambled to figure out what to do.

I think that one of the hard realities that we, as college professors, have to face in the wake of the VT massacre is our responsibility to get troubled students serious help (even if they frighten us). Many of us like to just avoid this responsibility (me included). After all, we're not therapists! And, I am not claiming we should start acting like therapists either. But, I do think we have a serious obligation to pay attention to our students who seem deeply troubled, and figure out ways to get them help. If we just try to get them out of our class, or ignore them, or rationalize to ourselves that they are just lazy, mean or insubordinate, then we may find ourselves deeply regretting that we didn't do something to stop them from hurting others or themselves.

The story of Cho Seung-Hui is not an anomaly. We know that there are lots of disaffected, troubled young people in our schools. And while the news reports are starting to show that his professors, at least, tried to take action, what stands out to me is how most people just ignored his behavior. Everyone knows the loners on their campus. And, most of the time these loners are the butt of jokes. Allowing such a disconnected community to exist is no longer safe, forget the moral concerns.

So, the lesson I draw from the VT massacre is that I can no longer afford to ignore the students who are manifesting very troubling behavior; I am responsible to them as well as my community.

Supreme Court Upholds Late-Term Abortion Ban

I can't say that I am at all surprised by this decision. After all, this is precisely why Bush and Co. have been trying to stack the judiciary with folks like Robert and Alito. Moreover, I was out there protesting Roberts during his hearings because I knew, despite what well-meaning folks tried to tell me, he was no moderate.

Of course, my sentiments are best expressed by Ruth Ginsburg:

'Today's decision is alarming,'' Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in dissent. She said the ruling ''refuses to take ... seriously'' previous Supreme Court decisions on abortion.

Ginsburg said the latest decision ''tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.''

The most troubling part of this ban is that it will undoubtedly result in the death of women, whose lives are no longer as important as the fetus they are carrying.

I think that what troubles me even more about this decision is drive to "draw a bright line between abortion and infanticide." The sentiment here is that ethical question, particularly difficult and troubling ethical questions, can be easily resolved by "drawing a bright line." It astounds me that the administration even thinks this is possible, especially since we can rarely do this in scientific knowledge. Where to you draw a bright line between some species? When do you draw a bright line between clinical depression and grief? These are hard questions, and the scientists often recognize that such bright lines do not exist.

What hubris of this administration (and the SCOTUS majority) to think they alone have the ability to draw such bright ethical lines on matters that are inherently fuzzy and hence why they lead to such impassioned ethical debates. Ethical deliberation is not intended to answer "easy" questions, it's intended for the very difficult questions, such as a pregnant woman having to consider a late-term abortion to protect her own life.

The opponents of the act ''have not demonstrated that the Act would be unconstitutional in a large fraction of relevant cases,'' Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it is true that most women will not die or suffer significant health consequences if they are denied a late-term abortion. What bugs me is that his own reasoning assumes that there is a small (tiny?) fraction of women who will die or be harmed. I cannot believe it is acceptable to these men (Ginsburg dissented) that any woman would die based on their decision today.

UPDATE: See Ann's post at feministing for more analysis of Ginsburg's dissenting opinion.

UPDATE UPDATE: It occurs to me the hypocrisy of the "pro-life" mindset expressed in this opinion. I wonder how they would consider a law that outlawed all guns?

Serious Pedagogical Differences

A commentor on my blog, Bunetta, just referred to my pedagogical practice of giving students study sheets before exams, as follows:

The pedagogy you describe is a little like drug-testing airline pilots on a schedule that you mail to them in advance.

I have already responded more in depth to the comments. I just thought I would see what y'all think of this analogy. Short story: Bunetta and I have very different pedagogical goals.

Gun Violence

Kerry has written a really kick ass post today, calling the clergy to preach against the NRA and easy access, in this country, to guns. Frankly, the only coherent thought I have had about the VT massacre is that this should, once again, be a wake up call to all of those 2nd amendment loving, NRA card holding Americans.

I am also wondering if there is a connection between where these incidents of violence occurs in schools and the guns laws of the state? Any thoughts?

More later, I am sure . . . .

Tragedy at Virginia Tech

As I wrapped up my afternoon course today, my students informed me of the 31 deaths at Virginia Tech today. It was the first I heard of it and so I immediately looked to the news and am now glued to the press conference airing on NBC.

It is uncanny that this shooting tragedy has occurred in the same week as Colombine, 8 years ago (the very day I was interviewing for my job here). I am not sure what to make of this event yet, other than to be utterly horrified by this event and sorrowful for the community at Virginia Tech. We don't yet know how many of the deceased are students and how many are faculty. These details are sure to emerge over time.

I am dismayed by the tone of the press, who launched into an attack of VT's President for not locking down the campus after the first shooting incident in the morning. The idea of lockdown and the idea that in the future we might have to post guards on our college campuses is frightening. This is a tragedy. This was an event that no one could've forseen (unless I am persuaded by evidence to the contray), and to respond to this event with greater militarism on college campuses horrifies me (perhaps more than the event itself).

I will no doubt have something more to say about this event after I learn more facts and digest the coverage. In the meantime, I would appreciate any links to blogs from VT students or other bloggers covering this story.

UPDATE: From the Huffington Post

A White House spokesman said President Bush was horrified by the rampage and offered his prayers to the victims and the people of Virginia.

"The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed," spokeswoman Dana Perino said

BARF!

Scientist, Heal Thyself.

SteveG has a really superb and thoughtful post up today on the difference between training and creating intellectuals (what might be the point of teaching, at least at "elite" institutions like our LAC). There is a context to his post: Steve did dare question the usefulness of some labs that are adjoined to science courses and thereby pissed off a great deal of scientists, beyond the gates of our esteemed college. I want to stress that he did not ridicule the notion of lab-based learning per se and I would go so far as to wager that Steve values the sort of learning that takes place in labs that are designed to maximize the learning of how to do science well (not sure, but that is my guess). My observation, as a member of the Pre-Health Committee (which vets applications to Medical and Dental school) is that the students who excelled best in the science departments here are those who did research with professors or were encouraged to design their own research project.

What I find interesting about Steve's post today is how Chad Orzel wholly misunderstands SteveG's point. But, I assume that is because he only knows Steve from his infamous "lab" post. Chad assumes that Steve's call for eliminating "canned" labs from, frankly "canned" introductory courses, is to make science even less threatening to a largely illiterate humanities-inclined student population, i.e. that Steve was calling for more "physics for poets" classes. Hell no! And if anyone knew Steve, they would see how utterly ridiculous this interpretation of his argument is.

The real problem is not that students are "afraid" of science or math. Rather, they are afraid of how science and math courses are taught. And, you know what, I don't blame them. As someone who also loves science and who spent most of her undergraduate career studying science, I can honestly say that what lured me away was not that humanities courses were "easier" (an obvious inference from Chad's comments), but rather that they put more emphasis on empowering me to be an independent and autonomous thinker. They did so, primarily, by pushing me to get the "big picture" first and then equipping me with resources and tools for resolving interesting questions and problems.

My science courses, on the contrary, spent most of the time equipping me with tools and lab techniques while deferring any relationship between these tools and techniques to big picture questions or hell even little picture, yet interesting problems. The material was totally disconnected from what Husserl would call the "life world," and so the exercise of learning all of these techniques and tools would start to wear on me as I could no longer remember why I had embarked on a career in Chemistry.

I think what bugs me more than anything else in the responses I read from scientists to SteveG's lab post was the implication that the only way to be rigorous is to teach in such a way that "weeds out" the students who aren't willing to stay up all night memorizing large swaths of information. Thank god not all science teachers proceed this way. Because if this was the only way to teach science--a sort of macho you-better-figure-out-what-you-should-know-on-your-own-or-sink--then we would see even fewer students entering the sciences.

They show up really interested, because hell, science is really interesting and exciting. But in the death match, demoralizing way that many profs teach--to "weed out"--they not only "weed out" the non-rigorous students, but they "weed out" the really engaged and interesting students who find themselves forced to jump through hoops to prove their worthiness to the sicence faculty, in order to finally get some big picture, exciting research opportunities.

If science faculty want to increase the science literacy, then you need to think long and hard about how you engage and lure students--students mind you who are quite naturally interested in your subject matter--into your departments. I am, frankly, sick of hearing science faculty whine about how students are too science phobic and that we are just pandering to their phobia.

Scientist, heal thyself.

UPDATE: I highly recommend reading Student A's blog entry on this subject for a student's perspective on the role of labs in science education.

UPDATE UPDATE: Another highly recommended read, by a Biochemistry Molecular Biology student, on this issue at A Stranger in a Strang(er) Land.

Poor Wolfie!

From NYTimes:

On Thursday, the World Bank’s 24-member executive board, the body that elected Mr. Wolfowitz to the job after he was nominated by President Bush in 2005, held hurried meetings amid mounting speculation that it might reprimand Mr. Wolfowitz or ask him to resign.

In a chaotic day of revelations and meetings at a normally staid institution on Thursday, Mr. Wolfowitz apologized for his role in the raise and transfer of Ms. Riza to the State Department, where she remained on the bank’s payroll.

He made the comments to a few hundred staff members assembled in the bank building atrium, only to be greeted by booing, catcalls and cries for his resignation.

I am a Pregnant Feminist

Today I stumbled across a student blog, wherein I was referred to, affectionately, as a "pregnant feminist." Mind you, I am not offended by this characterization; after all, it is quite accurate. But, in juxtaposition, to his description of my male colleagues, I am bemused. I am the pregnant feminist with heart, while my colleague SteveG is the smart and funny prof who talks about physics. Of course I am going to have to reflect on this. (Now I know the student is going to read this and perhaps be horribly embarrassed, but let me stress that I took your comments to be sincere, flattering and respectful).

I just can't help thinking about how easily it is to become the "pregnant feminist" professor. From one standpoint, it is almost an oxymoron, since rabid right wingers don't expect feminists to procreate. I recently got a flyer slipped under my door claiming that abortion was the worst genocide on the planet (and claimed more deaths than the Iraq war). So, from that point of view, it is good to be the pregnant feminist, if only to dispel the ridiculous stereotypes that feminists hate children.

But, then I am lead to muse on the emphasis that I am a feminist. While anyone who reads this blog and knows me personally is clear that I am a feminist, I have certainly never proclaimed my identity to be such in my Kant and the 19th Century course. Of course, the reason this student has correctly surmised that I am a feminist is most likely due to the fact that I included the writings of Mary Wollstonecraft, J.S. Mill and Elizabeth Cady Stanton on the course syllabus. I wanted to make clear that the 19th Century was not "owned" by male thinkers, and in fact what a century in which massive social and political shifts occurred, the abolition of slavery, the industrial revolution and worker's rights, and the beginning of the suffrage movement.

We have read: Immanuel Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, Jeremy Bentham, Mary Wollstonecraft, Auguste Comte, J.S. Mill, Soren Kierkegaard, Karl Marx, C.S Pierce, William James, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Friedrich Nietzsche: that is two women and 10 men. But the ratio is just enough to mark my identity as a feminist. (Although this isn't quite fair, since probably the student in question figured out my feminist identity via my blog).

I am, rather, taking off from his description of me to muse, out loud, about how the other students in the class see me precisely because I am have introduced them to 18th and 19th Century texts on the education of women, equality of the sexes and the evil of sexist oppression. When we enter into these discussions in class, I wonder if the students think this is somehow extraneous to what is important about 19th Century Philosophy? (Those of you in the class, what do you think?)

If they do, it is surely a product of the irresponsible ways in which the canon of Philosophy has been constructed (see Mary Ellen Waithe's "On Not Teaching the History of Philosophy"), since without doubt women philosophers have existed since the inception of Philosophy and philosophical discussions on the equality of the sexes and the nature of oppression have long existed as well (see Waithe's 4 vol. anthology, History of Women Philosophers. Martinus Nijhoff.) Unfortunately, these conversations have to be reinvented almost every decade/century, since women's voices get marginalized, lost, left out, and thereby forgotten.

Hence, when I do my small part to reclaim some of these women in my History of Philosophy courses, I am "pregnant feminist."

Give Senator Casey a Piece of Your Mind!

I wish I would have gotten this post up yesterday, when it was still possible to email or call Senator Casey and ask him to support the new Stem Cell Bill. But, it is too late. Senator Casey, the man we all held our nose and voted for to oust Santorum, voted against the bill.

I still think voters should give him a piece of their mind.
Senator_Casey@Casey.senate.gov