Image provided by: Clackamas Community College; Oregon City, OR
About The Clackamas print. (Oregon City, Oregon) 1989-2019 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 16, 2000)
2_________ WEÓNEsdAy, FebRUARy 16, 2000 Opinion TI he CI ac I camas PRiNT Note to instructors: Letter to the Editor... Don't tone it down Class is an arranged marriage As the Epstein controversy began to unfold many issues came to light, but my biggest concern was that instructors would tone down their teaching to avoid unnecessary problems. Editor-in-Chief: John Thorbum (x2447) Managing Editor: Megan Oldenstadt Design Editor: Timothy A. Bell Feature Editor: Shelbi Wescott A & E Editor: Angie Daschel News Editor: Sandy Lupo Associate News Editor: Diana Scrivner Sports Editor: Mandy Good Opinion Editor: Salena De La Cruz Business Manager: Karl Katzke (x2578) Photo Editor: Sarah Welch Cartoonist: Joel Gunderson Chris Lundgren Staff: Kristen Wiser Toni McMichael Jason Lingel Maggie Jirasek Matt Shempert Secretary: JoAnne Gale Advisor: Linda Vogt (x2310) Goals: The Clackamas Print aims to report the news in an honest, unbiased, professional manner. The opinions expressed in The Clackamas Print do not neces sarily reflect those of the stu dent body, college administra tion, its faculty, or The Clacka mas Print advertisers. Products and services advertised in The Clackamas Print are not neces sarily endorsed by anyone as sociated with The Clackamas Print. The Clackamas Print is a weekly publication and is dis tributed every Wednesday ex cept during Finals week. The Clackamas Print Copyright 2000. Advertising: The advertising rate is $4.75 per column inch. Letters to the Editor: All signed letters to the editor should be 500 words or less and will be considered for publica tion if submitted by 1 pm the Friday prior to publication. Let ters to the Editor are subject to editing. 19600 S.M o L a U a A ve . O reqon CiTy, O regon 97045 (505) 657-6958 ext 2509 CC C p R i N T@ c I AC k AM AS . C C . O R . U S you for your hard work and dedi cation in giving us what we want—a more diverse education. I am inspired by Jeff Knorr; for his energy in Drama, “To be or not to be.” I am amazed By Loren Ford’s ability to pull us out of our behav ioral slump. Salena De La Cruz I admire Opinion Editor Kelly Brennan for his ability to This is a note to instructors, grab attention in class. Linda Don’t Do It! I know things may Vogt, I hold you in high regard seem a little strained and stressed for putting up with the Print on campus, but really there are staff during our most conflicting thousands of us here who enjoy discussions. But most of all I your techniques, your skills, and have the utmost respect for Dr. even your offensiveness. I have Donald Epstein for keeping me been at this school for a little enthralled during History of over a year and I have never been Western Civilization class. He more challenged. may be retiring, but he will never Though I commend Joshua be FORGOTTEN. Alexander for his ability to step So, what I’m trying to tell in forward because he felt offended structors is that I appreciate ev by the material in class, I want erything you’ve done in teaching people to know his opinion and me that there is a more varied way concerns are not those of every to learn; that Cleopatra was a bitch; body on campus. He felt the ma that 'I have no feelings' is bullshit; terial was offensive and he had that my delivery of speech is as every right as a student to come important as the speech. forward with those concerns be I am leaving you with a note, cause as a student he has a right Don’t tone it down! By doing that to feel comfortable in class. you will be toning down our abil However, there is also the right ity to learn. Challenge the cam of the instructors; the right to pus, enthrall us, and immerse us teach, the right to be opinion in learning—that’s what you are ated, and the right to make learn great at. I commend you, I thank ing fun. Instructors, I applaud you, and I appreciate you. Make a statement, be heard... A class is an arranged marriage. Someone with a degree (more or less) and thirty someones without (more or less) are stuck in a relationship for at least a quarter. If teacher and student are lucky, their styles will fit, and the marriage is compatible. If they’re not, you hear something like the following: Student (among his peers): That Ms. Whozit is an arrogant jerk. Teacher (among her peers): I’ve got this one student who refuses to respond. In other words, each judges the other harshly because the styles of each are not compatible. The stu dent feels he loses because his goals won’t allow him to get a divorce; the teacher feels she loses because she knows how just a few unrespon sive students can muck up an entire class. And they’re both right; they do both lose. Don Epstein’s style clearly of fends a great many. Just as clearly, many students admire him. People like Angie Daschel and Jeremy VanKeuran were, it seems, the lucky ones—compatible. People like Joshua Alexander weren’t. But in her defense of Epstein, Daschel fails to realize that a teaching style that’s compatible with her learning style, that makes her think, is precisely what keeps many others from being able to think. Do teachers have to be contro versial and outspoken in order to do their jobs—to make students think? Of course not; there are other methods. Epstein has created for himself a teaching style that works—for some. It also turns off plenty. That’s the gamble he takes. I prefer this course of action: main tain “fervor and enthusiasm,” as Daschel put it, without alienating any of the people I want to reach with my fervor and enthusiasm. That’s hard work. Occasionally I’m tempted to say something like, “If you don’t see the importance of William Blake’s condemnation of Lockeian epistemology, you’ve got the brains of a toad!” But I don’t say that. I censor myself, I deny myself my own freedom of speech because my goal is not merely to express my fervor and enthusiasm, but also to communicate. Merely spouting my opinions does not en hance communication, especially when I have a certain amount of in stitutionalized power (i.e., I give out the grades). If a student proposes an unjustifiable interpretation of Blake, I could flip her off, but I’d be far more effective if I pointed to the passages in Blake’s works which contradict the student’s view. Epstein’s defenders are focusing on freedom of speech and his en thusiasm for his subject. Those are important points, but there are other issues. Enthusiasm for one’s sub ject and enthusiasm for teaching— for reaching people, for being as ef fective as one possibly can—are two different things. And wise people know when spouting off is appropriate and when self-censor- ship is appropriate, as measured by the goal they’re after—or by the goal other people are paying them to achieve. James Bryant-Trerise English Instructor The death of meaning: the power of the word The “Epstein Controversy” has been, for lack of a better word, resolved, and a look at the issues this dispute encompassed is in order. I believe one key ele ment in all this clamor is consis- Altar of an Unknown God tently overlooked: the impor tance of the meaning of words. Words are central to this de bate. As St. James states, “If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man.” I have witnessed, during my five years and counting at Clackamas, a frequent glossing over of word meaning in what I can only regard as an avoidance of thought. Many readers do not think, do not analyze, do not ponder—rather, they react. And this pattern holds predictably true in the conflict between Joshua Alexander and Donald Epstein. Now, on the face of it, it may seem Dr. Epstein is the one who should take care with words; af ter all, his ill-advised and impoli tic words led to his downfall, did they not? A closer look reveals a differ ent condition. Dr. Epstein is a master of words, and whether his expressed views are “accept able” or not, they are at least clear. Epstein has not been forced to retract, change, or excuse his statements. Even his vaunted “letter of apology” to Mr. Alexander simply states that his comments were misunderstood. French theologian Jaques Ellul charges in his book The Humili ation of the Word that “if a per son is not behind his word, it is mere noise. In the Bible the word is an integral part of a person. It is true if the person is true.” By separation—the word from the person, meaning from the word— we have, argues Ellul, lost the ability to proclaim and recognize truth. Some examples from the recent debate may be edifying. Clackamas instructor Kate Gray affirmed in an Oregonian article, “I think there is a whole level of awareness that’s been raised, and I think that communication lines are open now.” A bitter for a dissenting voice! irony, since Epstein’s retirement An understanding of Dr. Epstein’s represents the closing of a com initial statement may be facilitated munication line. The speaker and through analogy. If an instructor were the word are sundered, creating to tell me, “You’re better off dead than a dichotomy between statement to be a Christian,” I would be amiss to and action. react in outrage. The statement could Salena De La Cruz, opinion mean, “Christians are better off dead,” editor, has cast this issue in her which the Apostle Paul himself would column as a conflict of “aca affirm: “absent from the body, present demic freedom vs. prejudiced with the Lord.” Or in a historical con opinion.” However, as I have of- text, i.e. that in certain historical peri- ten pointed put, ods Christians these are not were subject to diametric oppo torture and death, sites in any could be implied. Words sense. In fact, Even if it meant academic free let us not “Christianity is a dom encom fate worse than weapons passes the right death,” my re rashly. Joe] P. to give a preju sponse would be diced opinion. Shempert to challenge such The question is Contributing an assertion— rather like ask Writer not to silence toe ing, “is it black or speaker. I would is it wet?” The W! rather open a de word is now sev bate than close it. ered from meaning. The kernel of this position is amoral How unfortunate, then, that one: words matter—so use them care these careless words have come fully, use them wisely, and, when there to represent this controversy! is no other just course, don’t use them How tragic that through the saw at all. The word is a primal force in ing of empty verbiage and re human existence, and by its use, men peated phrases, we have broken rise and men fall. Thus, James warns, the spirit of a brilliant and pas “see how a great a forest a little fire sionate man! And how woeful kindles!” Words can hurt—so let us that through the fostering of tol not wield our weapons so rashly. / erance we have closed the door show you a more excellent way. so our can hurt— wield so
