Professors Indoctrinating Students and How It Affects Our Generation.
* Students don’t express how they feel about politics because they are afraid of teachers failing them.
* Why there are so many Liberal teachers in American Universities?
* How teachers indoctrinating students leaves them unprepared for the real world.
Practice Opening 1:
72 percent of professors teaching at an American university are liberals while only 15 percent are conservatives. Consequently, there is a high likelihood that teachers will bring liberal beliefs into the classroom. But why are most college professors liberals? Ryan Borek’s article,”Why are Professors Liberal,” answers this question with 6 different reasons. Along with that statement, more professors will persuade liberalism which leads to how college professors are indoctrinating students. This affects our generation because teachers fail to adequately challenge undergraduates, which often leaves many of them unprepared for the real world.
Practice Opening 2:
With the greater advantage of having a liberal teacher in an American university poses many problems for students. For starters, Students hide their political views in the classroom with the fear that their professors will penalize them for having a different belief. Leading teachers to indoctrinating students. Many different beliefs are brought into the classroom other than just liberalism. For example teachers could be feminist, Marxism, atheism, anti-Christian and so much more.
- Students don’t express how they feel about politics because they are afraid of teachers failing them. Many students hide their political views with the fear that their professor will disagree with them and penalize them. This leads to how teachers are indoctrinating students with their beliefs of what’s right and wrong.
2. Grace Lewis is a student at Polk State College where her teacher gave her 4 consecutive 0’s on assignments for not conforming to his beliefs. Grace took a chance on this online humanities class and went against what Professor Russums’ beliefs were. He had an anti-Christian perspective with his lectures and homework assignments that Grace didn’t agree with. When Grace confronted the professor on the phone about how she felt, Professor Russum called her “angry because he took his personal time away from his family to speak with her, only to be disrespected by her disagreement with him.” When Grace and her mother tried to seek help from the dean of college, Donald Painter, after Professor Russum wanted Grace to drop the class, they got no help from Painter. Painter reviewed the class and saw nothing wrong with the way Professor Russum was teaching the course but instead blamed Grace for possibly not being mature enough to take the class. “I have reviewed the materials in Professor Russum’s HUM 2020 – 57094 course and believe them to be appropriate based on the course description and learning outcomes. Further, I found nothing derogatory or defamatory toward any group of people.” With nowhere else to go, Grace and her mother contacted Liberty Counsel, an international nonprofit litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life and family. The Liberty Counsel captured screenshots of Professor Russum’s now deleted Facebook page showing inappropriate pictures and sayings. As Matthew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel stated, “Russum’s behavior amounts to “abuse of students. This has nothing to do with teaching, the professor is using his position of superiority to abuse students and this has no place in a college.” Grace was punished because she refused to agree with Russum’s anti-Christian perspective and worldviews of Marxism, atheism, feminism, and homosexuality. Liberty Counsel demanded that Professor Russum’s course context and his behavior’s be evaluated, Grace’s papers be graded by another professor, an apology letter to Grace, and assurance that Professor Russum’s future classes be “free from such unlawful discrimination.”
3. why there are so many Liberal teachers in American Universities? Ryan Borek goes into detail about the 6 different reasons to why there are more liberal teachers. The first one being job descriptor characteristics. Being a professor is something that people with certain general traits strive towards. It just happens to be mostly liberal traits. Second, because being different is wrong. As stated before, liberal people just happened to already be Professors due to the simple fact that it calls to the same likes and wants. Also because “liberals were willing to accept, hide, tolerate, etc. socially unacceptable conditions.” Third, professors are biased because their professors were biased. Basically people who were liberals wanted to be around other liberals. This lead to two very distinct issues arising. First, “I am a Liberal, and I see my teacher saying Liberal things. Now, I want to be a teacher too.” Or, “I am not a Liberal. My teacher says Liberal things. Now I am a Liberal, and want to be a teacher too.” Fourth, the job of “professor” is politically typecast as a liberal position. “When you think of a Professor, do you think of them as Liberals? If so, and you are a Liberal, do you want to go be taught by them? Do you want to be them?” Fifth, “Viet NAM.” Students who were not fighting in the war were wearing flowers around the campuses and the teachers began preaching to the choir. Liberalism became popular among students as well as professors which encouraged teachers to teach more liberally. And finally, it’s only humanities anyway. Most liberals are teaching humanities and only in humanities do you see outrageous amounts of liberals.
4. How teachers indoctrinating students leaves them unprepared for the real world. The Common Constitutionalist wrote the article, “Kids Need to be Taught Reality” where kids who are indoctrinated with liberalism are not prepared for the real world. They mention how sports now-a-day give out trophies and ribbons for just showing up instead of honoring top achieving students because it promotes unhealthy competition. This affects us in the long run because students don’t learn from it. If you’re given a trophy for showing up to an event, you’re not learning what you maybe did wrong but instead it’s like you’re being rewarded for not doing anything. If you gave a trophy to only the top achieving students, it would teach others to strive to be better so they can get a trophy next time. If students don’t have competition they are going to think they are the best and that there’s no need to improve themselves. Bronson states in the article “Why competition can be healthy for kids” “If kids don’t learn to lose they’re going to feel entitled to win, they’re also going to make a connection that fear of losing is going to prevent them from taking the risk in the first place. And what kids do need to learn is losing is not that big a deal. They need to learn to lose and go ‘Oh, whatever,’ and move on and keep playing.” Not everything is going to be handed to us in life and we’re not always going to win. Take the loss and work on being better for next time. Kids grow up to not being able to cope with real world situations and essentially look for a scapegoat for everything. For example, if something goes wrong it’s someone else’s fault. This is leaving people unprepared for real world challenges.
Current State of the Research Paper:
I feel as though the white paper defiantly helped me get started. I found more facts to use in my paper and so far to me it seems as though it’s going good. There’s a few facts I still question if there good enough to use in the paper. For example, Graces story. It talks about how she tried to differ from her teacher by going against his beliefs. I used this as an example for how people hide their political views with the fear of teachers failing them which is what happened to Grace when she tried to go against her teacher. I wasn’t sure if it was too long and had not a lot of meaning for the paper. All of the information I have provided in my white paper I still need to figure out an order and how I will make them flow into each other. I like the facts I have but I know I need more. I have 10 different sources as of right now but I need to figure out how to incorporate them all so that this makes sense. I chose the main facts for my white paper as I still figure out how to add in the rest of my proposal +5 sources and facts. I didn’t want to be confusing in this so I opted to not add them yet until I figure out what I’m doing. Another thing I noticed is I have a lot of quotes. I don’t know if that’s a good thing or a bad thing. I feel I have so many because the author’s have a better way of explaining things than I do. Overall as stated before, I feel as though I’m doing well.
Feedback was requested.
This is a fascinating premise, but I want you to be very clear about what exactly you’re claiming, belldere. The number of courses in which students’ politics might affect their grades is limited. Are we agreed on that, or am I mistaken? Math and science courses would seem to be immune. Plenty of general curriculum courses might involve discussions about politics, but even in them, it’s hard to imagine personal positions affecting grades. Or am I wrong? Psychology courses? Philosophy courses? Education courses?
Whatever you decide, the burden is yours to claim specifically what students in what courses would be intimidated or indoctrinated.
72 percent of what category of professors? All? Including maths and sciences? Is it proven that “having beliefs” means “indoctrination”? You can’t simply determine that claim to have been proven. What does it mean to “persuade liberalism”? Hmmm . . . for one group, I guess you could claim professors don’t “challenge” them, but if you truly mean that professors argue in favor of one point of view (and that this fails to challenge students who generally agree with that point of view), then you must agree they are challenging those who don’t generally agree. You can’t have it both ways.
You don’t seem to have much interest in this Opening. It gets its logic backwards. It uses fragments instead of actual sentences. Its arguments are quite unclear. If you’re willing to clarify its content, I’ll be entirely willing to offer further assistance, but the first move on this one will be yours.
For example, I would have thought that you might include feminism and atheism as part of liberalism, so I’m surprised to see them listed here as “different beliefs.” This is part of the broader challenge you’ll need to meet: defining the term liberalism before you base your entire argument on the term.
Topics 1 seems to be a complete repetition of what you’ve already said.
Topics 2 could be a very instructive article and an extremely useful illustration, but this summary isn’t persuasive yet. Readers simply can’t decide based on what you’ve shared whether Grace was abused or not. If there’s any way to provide what Grace wrote and how Russum reacted in print, this could be really effective. Otherwise, we have: He failed me for expressing my Christian perspective versus Silence from the other side. Russum doesn’t express a position in your summary at all. If this example is central to your argument, you’ll want it to be airtight.
Topics 3 could use some clarification too. Was the article written in the 1970s? Is “liberalism” for the purposes of this article defined as opposition to the Vietnam War? In the 70s, that was a fairly common generalization. If so, how well does this explanation apply to current politics? Are we still affected by the political atmosphere of campuses from 40 years ago?
Topics 4 introduces an entirely non-political definition of liberalism, further confusing what your working definition will be. Does liberalism mean congratulating students for mere participation? If so, your topic may be MUCH too broad for a single 3000-word argument. Either one of the “liberal” definitions would be huge, but the two together are massively huge. Or is it your position that liberalism is the opposite of competition? That would be interesting (and also really massive for a short argument).
Regarding how to incorporate all your sources, keep in mind you’re not obligated to quote everything. For that reason, you prepare both a Bibliography of consulted sources and a Works Cited to identify those you cite.
Regarding quotes, I want to urge you to challenge your claim that the authors “have a better way of explaining things.” That may be true if your goal is to PRESENT their arguments to your readers. But that’s a very limited ambition. Your goal should be to absorb their arguments, blend them with your own experience, and SYNTHESIZE them into your own original arguments. When you’ve done that, your “way of explaining things” will be the superior way.
Was this helpful, Belldere?