All posts by Richard Klaus

Write6x6

AI: The Hype and the Challenge of Critical Thinking

Leave a comment

Generative AI is here to stay.  In light of this, there are all sorts of voices telling us to use and adapt to this new intellectual terrain.  My goal is this post is to not add to the discussion in regards to how to use the various AI tools.  Rather, my modest goal is to express reservations about the alleged unending glories of the seemingly unalterable “singularity” which is the eschatological dream of some.

My thinking was recently stimulated in this direction by reading Robert J. Marks’ book, Non-Computable You: What You Do That Artificial Intelligence Never Will.  Dr. Marks is Distinguished Professor of Engineering in the Depart of Engineering and Computer Science at Baylor University.  Furthermore, he was the founding Editor-in-Chief of IEEE Transaction on Neural Networks, one of the most prestigious technical journals for peer-reviewed AI research.  In other words, he is well-qualified to offer an assessment of the current state of AI research. 

Marks argues that, though AI is powerful in computing power and does offer some surprises, there is a fundamental gap in terms of true creativity.  In place of the well-known Turing Test, Marks draws attention to the “Lovelace Test” as more effective test for software creativity.  Named after Ada Lovelace (1815-1852), who is considered by many to be the first computer programmer, the Lovelace Test defines software creativity as the ability of a program to do something “that cannot be explained by the programmer or an expert in computer code.”[1]  Marks claims, along with others, that the Lovelace Test has not been met by current AI systems.

In spite of the failure of AI systems to generate true creativity there are all sorts of claims regarding the future of an AI-enhanced humanity.  As Marks notes, “Many worship at the feet of the exciting new technology and without foundation predict all sorts of new miraculous applications; others preach unavoidable doom and gloom.”[2]  In light of this, chapters five and six of Non-Computable You (which by themselves are worth the price of the book!) are taken up with mitigating the “hype.”  Chapter five is entitled, “The Hype Curve” and Marks graphs the dynamic in the following manner:

Marks explains the details:

  • The launch phase.  In the beginning of the hype curve, newly introduced technology spurs expectations above and beyond reality.  Poorly thought-out forecasts are made.
  • The peak-of-hype phase.  The sky’s the limit.  Imagination runs amok.  Whether negative or positive, hype is born from unbridled speculation.
  • The overreaction-to-immature-technology phase.  As the new technology is vetted and further explored, the realization sets in that some of its early promises can’t be kept.  Rather than calmly adjusting expectations and realizing that immature technology must be given time to ripen, many people become overly disillusioned.
  • The depth-of-cynicism phase. Once the shine is off the apple, limitations are recognized.  Some initial supporters jump ship.  They sell their stock and go looking for a new hype to criticize, believe in, or profit from.
  • The true-user-benefits phase. The faithful—often those whose initial expectations included the realistic possibility of failed promise—carry on and find ways to turn the new technology to useful practice.
  • The asymptote-of-reality phase. The technology lives on in accordance with its true contributions.

A number of examples of the hype curve are given by Marks, including the Segway, cold fusion, and String Theory.  Even in the realm of artificial intelligence it seems as those the hype curve begins to resurface again and again.  What to do?

This is where chapter six, “Twelve Filters for AI Hype Detection,” is so instructive and helpful.  This chapter contains a brief, but masterful, demonstration of the teaching of critical thinking.  And it is precisely this virtue of critical thinking that ought to the mainstay of higher education instruction.  This chapter, although devoted to the topic of AI, has a much broader application.  I cannot reproduce Marks’ entire presentation so I will simply quote his summation provided at the end of the chapter.

The Hype List

In a nutshell, here is the list of twelve things to consider when reading AI news:

  1. Outrageous Claims: If it sounds outrageous, maybe it is.  Recognize that AI is riding high on the hype curve and that exaggerated reporting will be more hyperbolic than for more established technologies.
  2. Hedgings: Look for hedge words like “promising,” “developing,” and “potentially,” which implicitly avoid saying anything definite.
  3. Scrutiny Avoidance: Any claim that such-and-such an AI advancement is a few years away may be made with sincerity but avoids immediate scrutiny.  Short attention spans mean that when the sell date on the promise rolls around, few people are likely to notice.  Remember the old proverb often attributed to quantum physicist Niels Bohr: “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.”
  4. Consensus: Beware of claims of consensus.  Remember Michael Crichton’s claim that consensus regarding new technology and science is the “first refuge of scoundrels.”
  5. Entrenched Ideology: Many AI claims conform to the writer’s ideology.  AI claims from those adherents to materialism are constrained to exclude a wide range of rational reasoning that is external to their materialistic silos.
  6. Seductive Silos: Claiming AI is conscious or self-aware without term definition can paint the AI as being more than it is.  Seductive semantics is the stuff of marketing.  In the extreme, it can misrepresent.
  7. Seductive Optics and the Frankenstein Complex: AI can be wrapped in a package that tries to increase the perception of its significance.  Unrecognized, the psychological impact of the Frankenstein Complex and the Uncanny Valley Hypothesis can amplify perception far beyond technical reality.  The human-appearing body in which a chatbot resides is secondary to its driving AI.
  8. True-ish: Beware of those tricky headlines and claims that are almost true but intended to deceive.
  9. Citation Bluffing: Web articles and even scholarly journal papers can exaggerate or blatantly misrepresent the findings of others they cite.  Checking primary sources can ferret out this form of deception.
  10. Small-Silo Ignorance: The source of news and opinion always requires consideration, but those speaking outside of their silo of expertise need to be scrutinized with particular care, especially when the speakers are widely admired for their success in their silo.  Don’t be dazzled by celebrity.  This caution applies to famous actors speaking about politics but also to celebrated physicists speaking about computer science.
  11. Assess the Source: I trust content more from the Wall Street Journal than from politically motivated sites like the Huffington Post or yellow journalism sites like the National Enquirer.  But even if the article appears at a site or periodical that has earned a measure of trust, it’s wise to assess the writer of the article.
  12. Who Benefits?: Remember financial greed, relational desires, and the pursuit of power.  These are the three factors used by police detectives in their investigation of crimes.  They are also good points to remember when considering whether a report on AI is true or hype.  Is there a hidden agenda or emotional blind spot?

As mentioned, this hype-detection list is applicable to a wide range of claims and our students can only be strengthened by inculcating these elements of critical thinking.

AI technologies are here to stay and we must navigate this techno-terrain with wisdom.  Educating students about the hype curve as well as the principles of hype detection will equip them to responsibly interact with the new and emerging technologies.

     [1] Robert J. Marks, Non-Computable You: What You Do That Artificial Intelligence Never Will (Seattle: Discovery Institute Press, 2022), 42.  A more rigorous formulation of the Lovelace Test (LT) is found on page 359 in the endnotes: “Artificial agent A, designed by H, passes LT if and only if (1) A outputs o; (2) A’s outputting o is not the result of a fluke hardware error, but rather the result of processes A can repeat; (3) H (or someone who knows what H knows, and has H’s resources) cannot explain how A produced o.”

     [2] Marks, 102.

 
Write6x6

Office Space as Reflective Space: Who Am I?

1 Comment

When setting up my office space I wrestled with what to put on the walls–what do I want people to see when they come in my office? I meet with numerous students and I wanted the space to be a warm and inviting space that would provide a sense of who I am for those meeting me for the first time. The pictures and items on my walls reveal the diverse sides of who I am.

First, there is a picture of my family taken at my son’s wedding a few years ago. I love my family and this is a reminder that the most important things in life are not found in my office but in the relationships outside of it.

The next set of pictures revolve around Francis Schaeffer–a philosophical thinker. (I am in the Philosophy & Religious Studies Department, after all!)

Schaeffer was a philosopher and public intellectual whose writings I read in high school. He was the motivating factor for me to pursue philosophy and the life of the mind. I keep this quotation from him right above my desk as an inspirational reminder to me….

Next, people will see an art project my daughter and I worked on a few years ago. It’s based on the famous Shroud of Turin and we sought to recreate the image in a unique manner.

I read an article by literature professor, Nathan Wilson, about how he created a replication of the image by painting on a piece of glass and letting the sun bleach out the negative space. In other words, the dark parts of the image are not a result of being put on a light cloth but, rather, the result of a dark cloth being bleached out except for the areas of the image. My daughter and I tried it in our backyard and it worked!

No GCC office would be complete without a Gauchos flag!

The next two pictures reflect a bit of the fun side of who I am. These are also some of the first items students see when they come into my office. The first is a quotation from the movie “Nacho Libre”–a truly great movie!

And, finally, for the superhero enthusiast there is Batman. My friend drew this for me back in 1989. Michael Keaton’s Batman had recently come out and I was a fanatic. I saw the movie twice on the opening day–one time was at 3 am!

Yes, there are the miscellaneous philosophy books and scattered files that accompany any office in our department but the pictures give a picture of who I am in my diversity of personality. They remind me of who I am and I hope give a glimpse of my manifold character to the students who enter.

 
Write6x6

Free Speech & Difficult Ideas: The Way Forward

Leave a comment

Over the past few years in writing for the 6 x 6 writing project I have often written on the themes of free speech and the need for critical, civil, and constructive dialogue—see “Celebrating the Value of Free Speech” and “The Other DEI… Diversity in Examining Ideas.”  This focus has been reinforced recently by the Faculty Senate’s adoption of a GCC-version of the “Chicago Principles.”  Here are some relevant sections of the GCC statement:

Of course, the ideas of different members of the GCC community will often and quite naturally conflict. But it is not the proper role of GCC to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although GCC greatly values civility, and although all members of the GCC community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.

In a word, GCC’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the GCC community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the GCC community, not for GCC as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the GCC community to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of GCC’s educational mission.

The GCC Philosophy and Religious Studies Department continues to manifest this commitment to the free expression of ideas in a rational and civil manner.  By its sponsorship of its annual panel discussions—“God & Truth” and “Critical Dialogues”—our campus and community have the opportunity to witness and participate in the ongoing interaction of ideas.

Free Speech on the Campus

Last October our “Critical Dialogues” panel discussion was devoted to one of the most enduring and controversial topics in our culture—Abortion.  And, again, we witnessed a rational, civil interchange which should be envy of any institution of higher learning.  We chose the title, “Abortion: Beyond the Slogans, Beyond the Rage,” which communicated our desire for a deeper analysis of the debate in a context devoid of acrimony—you can watch the event and see if we accomplished our goals!

In the Classroom…

n my introduction to philosophy classes, I wanted to bring this quest for rational and civil dialogue to my students.  Early in the semester we go over logic and logical fallacies.  Then every week we review a particular logical fallacy.  This served as a good foundation from which to work as we approached the topic of abortion after the Critical Dialogues panel discussion.  So often the debate on this topic is dominated by slogans and fallacious reasons and helping students see through the irrational slogans would serve them well in their logical development.  Over the past fifty years the philosophical literature is replete with sophisticated defenses of both the pro-choice and pro-life perspectives.  I had my students read a classic pro-choice piece—Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion” and the pro-life philosopher, Francis Beckwith’s response, “Personal Bodily Rights, Abortion, and Unplugging the Violinist.”  Then, in class, I went over the philosophical terrain of the arguments and where the key philosophical issues came to expression.  I utilized Dr. Angela Knobel’s outline of the various arguments and this allowed for a rich discussion on the topic.  Later, in their philosophy journals, several students mentioned that, although they had not necessarily changed their minds on the topic of abortion, they did have a greater appreciation for the other side of the debate.  Serious interaction on a controversial cultural topic with a renewed appreciation for other points of view—that’s educational success!

 
6x62022

Living with VIM and Vigor: The Vision, Intention, and Means to the Good Life

Leave a comment

In my role as Student Engagement Staff in the Philosophy and Religious Studies Department I often get to interact with students in need of direction and guidance.  With one recent encounter I used a method of personal analysis based on the work of the late USC philosopher, Dallas Willard.  He called it the VIM method.  I outline some of what I shared with the student below.  What I particularly like about this approach is that recognizes the critical importance of “vision.”  This is to acknowledge that people cannot be forced into human flourishing or that which is good for them.  What we can do is to paint a vision of the good life that they might find alluring and motivating.  As I interacted with this student I tried to guide the discussion with questions that would bring this student face-to-face with their ultimate goals and their understanding of the “good life.”  I think “vision” is the key component and the other two (intention and means) can fall into fall rather nicely under the guidance of a wise counselor.

VISION

  • What is your vision for the “good life”?
    • Physically, emotionally, spiritually
    • Relationships
    • Vocation, life-work
  • If the desires of my heart came true, what would it look like? (Try to be specific)
  • What do you want to be doing/experiencing in …
  • One year?
    • Two years?
    • Five years?
    • Ten years?

INTENTION

  • Vision is not enough.  We need to intend by an act of the will (actually, repeated acts of the will) to move toward the Vision set before us.
  • We cannot merely dream—we must act!
  • Clarifying vision can help motivate intention.  As I see clearly the good life, my desires for it increase and I’m more and more willing to move my will toward it.
  • Have I really intended to pursue the Vision before me?
  • Am I willing to begin to make the changes necessary to begin to see the Vision fulfilled?
    • If not, why?  What is holding me up?

MEANS

  • What are the tools, resources, people, and practices that I will need to see Vision fulfilled?
    • Tools, resources: Technologies, Services (counseling, professional organizations)
    • People: Counselors (professional, wise family and friends), family, friends
    • Practices: Study habits, time management, focused “free-time,”

Question: What one thing do I need to do today to pursue VIM?

 
Write6x6

The Other DEI… Diversity in Examining Ideas

2 Comments

The Other DEI… Diversity in Examining Ideas

There is the need for civil dialogue on the complex and controversial issues of our time.  It should be one of the tasks of higher education to illuminate the path toward such a goal.  This quest, however, is fraught with danger in that there are some who would rather shut down dialogue and debate rather than engage in rational intellectual interchange.  The examination of ideas and perspectives different from one’s own can be disorienting.  I often remind students to embrace the cognitive dissonance they may at times experience as they learn new philosophical ideas, rather than simply run from it.  Even if one does not change their views on a given topic, the challenge of working through the intellectual discomfort of foreign ideas can lead to a deeper understanding and appreciation of the views which they hold.  I hope all would resonate with the words found in the Arizona Revised Statutes when they state:

“It is not the proper role of an institution of higher education to shield individuals from speech protected by the first amendment, including, without limitation, ideas and opinions that may be unwelcome, disagreeable or deeply offensive.”

Toward this end of promoting free exchange in the marketplace of ideas, the GCC Philosophy and Religious Studies Department along with the GCC Philosophy Club continues to sponsor its bi-annual panel discussions—God & Truth; Critical Dialogues.  These events allow a spectrum of speakers to engage significant and, sometimes, controversial topics in an atmosphere of mutual respect and reasoned engagement.  The issues discussed run the gamut from religious issues such as the meaning of life and God and morality to the political and cultural issues of transgenderism and religious rights and civil rights.

Our recent Critical Dialogues panel was titled “Religion and the Public Square: Scope and Limits of the First Amendment” and, as the title indicates, dealt with the extent of religious speech and expression in light of other recognized rights. 

We are already planning our next Critical Dialogues panel discussion set for October and we are planning to tackle one of the most contentious issues in our culture—Abortion.  Dealing with a topic which is prone to sloganeering and emotion is challenging and we are hopeful of examining the philosophical and legal aspects of this debate from different perspectives.  And, as always, we will be seeking to model to our students, staff, and community how to have a serious and substantive conversation in an engaging and civil manner. 

I wrote a piece for the 6×6 blog series back in February 2020 (before Covid!)—Celebrating the Value of Free Speech!—and I ended that piece with the following words which still seem apropos:

The Need for Vigilance

The culture of free expression and civil disagreement is healthy at Glendale Community College. This is partly a function of the laws enshrined in the Arizona statutes as well as the legal precedents handed down in defense of the Maricopa County Community College District.  For example, in a 2010 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—Rodriquez v. Maricopa County Community College District—these powerful words are found:

“Without the right to stand against society’s most strongly-held convictions, the marketplace of ideas would decline into a boutique of the banal, as the urge to censor is greatest where debate is most disquieting and orthodoxy most entrenched.  The right to provoke, offend and shock lies at the core of the First Amendment. This is particularly so on college campuses.”  

Laws and legal precedent are necessary but not sufficient.  There is always the need for vigilance.  There must continue to be a firm commitment to freedom on the part of individuals who inhabit our institutions of higher learning.  As Alan Charles Kors and Harvey A. Silverglate remind us, “Freedom dies in the heart and will before it dies in the law.”  It is for this reason that institutions like Glendale Community College with their commitment to the free exchange of ideas ought to be celebrated and emulated.

 
6x62022

Community… where everybody knows your name

1 Comment

Why is it I find myself humming the theme song from the 1980s sitcom “Cheers?”

 Sometimes you want to go

Where everybody knows your name

And they’re always glad you came

You want to be where you can see

Our troubles are all the same

You want to be where everybody knows your name

Ah… the hunger and quest for community.  To be known by name by those who are glad you came—finding such a place is a great human good!

Here at GCC, there are two communities that I am a part of that have allowed me to participate in this “great human good.”  The one is relatively new, and the other is a longer-term community that is producing deep and lasting relational effects.

The first, and newer, community is a Christian Professors Group.  As the name would imply, this group is a community of like-minded individuals that gather regularly for discussion on how our mutual faith-commitment can stimulate us in our role as educators.  This is a shared comradery that seeks to inculcate and sustain serious reflection on how the Christian knowledge tradition can influence us as participants in our various disciplines as well as move us to “love our neighbor” inside and outside the classroom.  It is exciting to be challenged to think about the intellectual virtues needed in the academic context and how these might be modeled in our GCC context.  One such intellectual virtue is that of being “fair-minded.”  In his book The Outrageous Idea of the Missional Professor, Paul Gould helpful notes:

“The virtue of intellectual fair-mindedness requires that we willingly listen in an even-handed way to those with whom we disagree.  It is to strive to understand another’s position and to resist erecting simplistic straw man arguments against our opponents which in turn are quickly (and often smugly) refuted.  Perhaps the worry is that being open to another’s viewpoint in a fair-minded way leads to relativism.  Alternatively, perhaps the worry is that such fair-mindedness is not possible given our psychological biases.  Neither worry is legitimate.  Being fair-minded is consistent with the belief that there is an objective truth to be found.  Further, one can be psychologically biased and maintain rational objectivity.  Our biases don’t stand as an insurmountable wall between our minds and the objective world.  Being fair-minded is one application of the golden rule: we would want others to treat us and the views we hold with fairness and charity, and we should do likewise in return.”

Engaging with fellow travelers in the Way as we seek to bring truth, value, and charity to our students and institution has been rewarding.

The second community is one which I have had a longer tenure with—six years—and in which I have found on-going friendship as well as intellectual challenge.  I’m speaking of the GCC Philosophy Club.  The wonderful community provided by this group of individuals is due, in large part, to the pioneering efforts and ongoing activity of the head of the Philosophy and Religious Studies Department, Peter Lupu.  He is the community-builder behind the community we enjoy.

Peter and I on a panel discussion in 2019

Over the years the GCC Philosophy Club has had many students participate in its activities.  Every Friday at 1 pm we can be found outside the LA building under the “Tree of Knowledge” discussing, debating, laughing, and, just in general, having a good time.  We even have doughnuts occasionally.  There is an exciting energy in having 6-12 students and faculty engaged in topics of keen importance (and some which are frivolous but fun).  Our end of the semester meals at a local restaurant are memorable.  There’s nothing like experiencing a student committed to communism have to courageously defend his views over a plate of gyros and fries!

One measure of the power of this community is how many students who have graduated from GCC continue to come back and join our discussions.  During the peak time of Covid when we were meeting virtually, we sometimes had more former students joining us for our Zoom calls than current students.  Personally, I have made friendships with students that have continued beyond their time at GCC.  I know students pursuing degrees in philosophy who are now at ASU and U of A, and we continue to stay in contact, trading articles back-and-forth and catching a lunch together when we can.  In fact, last summer I met with a group of former GCC students every Friday for lunch at our favorite pizza place—well, it was my favorite.  We would discuss philosophy articles and current events.  And, of course, all of this was punctuated by tons of laughter, Pepsi and pizza.

Community… the word speaks of the safety and the goodness of friendship.  To find it is to find something precious.  I’m thankful of the places where everybody knows my name (and I theirs) and they are glad to include me in their number.

 
Write6x6

Ideas Have Consequences! Teaching Philosophy in Light of the Concept of Worldviews

Leave a comment

It has been nearly thirty-five years since I took my first philosophy class here at GCC!  I was fresh out of high school (go Deer Valley Sky Hawks!) and was excited to pursue a path studying philosophy with the hopes of eventually teaching in the discipline.  (As an aside, my very first philosophy class was with longtime GCC professor Bob Hubbard who recently passed away.)  Now, being able to teach our students in the Introduction to Philosophy class (PHI 101) that I took so many years ago is amazing!  I find there are some direct continuities between the concepts I learned over three decades ago and the ones I teach today in my classes.

In my last year of high school, I was exposed to the thought of Francis Schaeffer.  As a thinker he taught me to consider the concept of an integrated worldview.  A picture of Schaeffer hangs in my office as a tribute to his role as a doorman to the larger world of ideas. 

Around this time, I also read James Sire’s book The Universe Next Door: A Basic Worldview Catalog which further encouraged my approach to philosophy in terms of comparing and contrasting various worldviews.  It is this worldview approach that has set the trajectory for my thinking and teaching.  I recently participated in the GCC library’s “suggest-a-book” promotion, and I suggested Sire’s The Universe Next Door (now in the sixth edition).

During the first week of class, I explain the concept of a worldview using a worldview triangle where each point is marked by the one of the key worldview elements: Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics.  I also have them consider the eight worldview questions utilized by Sire:

i. What is prime reality—the really real?

ii. What is the nature of external reality, that is, the world around us?

iii. What is a human being?

iv. What happens to a person at death?

v. Why is it possible to know anything at all?

vi. How do we know what is right and wrong?

vii. What is the meaning of human history?

viii. What personal, life-orienting core commitments are consistent with this worldview?

I want students to come away from my philosophy class seeing not only the depth and breadth of great thinkers and their ideas but also the very real practicality of how a worldview functions in their lives and our culture.  In order to reinforce this, I write two things on the board every class period.  One is the worldview triangle, and the other is the statement, “Ideas have consequences, some bad ideas have victims!”  This is to remind the students that the study of philosophy is not about the arcane or irrelevant (okay… some of it is!) but, rather, about ideas that move cultures and societies.  In order to show how this is the case I use the essay by Ashley Fernandes “Why Did So Many Doctors Become Nazis?”

Fernandes notes how doctors and nurses joined the Nazi party in Germany in greater numbers than other professions.  She writes:

“It is worthy of emphasis that although many professions (including law) were “taken in” by Nazi philosophy, doctors and nurses had a peculiarly strong attraction to it. Robert N. Proctor (1988) notes that physicians joined the Nazi party in droves (nearly 50% by 1945), much higher than any other profession. Physicians were seven times more likely to join the SS than other employed German males. Nurses were also major collaborators. The Holocaust should be studied by every health care professional as a reminder of how sacred the substance of our craft is, and what the consequences may be if we forget the dignity of persons again.”

Fernandes shows how good people in a discipline committed to healthcare could become attracted to bad ideas and subsequently lend their hand to evil atrocities.  I read large sections of this essay to the students in my classes to show the very real-world effects that bad ideas can have when they take root in a culture. 

Throughout the semester I continue to stress this dynamic of philosophical ideas and how they come to expression in our own culture.  At times the students can think that studying Plato and Aristotle can seem out of touch with their lives.  One way I attempt to show the ongoing relevance is that these ancient thinkers’ ideas continue to pulsate through our culture—either as ideas to follow or to overthrow.  I try to demonstrate that beneath all the culture war battles that take place in our time there are underlying philosophical ideas at play.  Many times, we simply stay on the surface of cantankerous disagreement that often degenerates in shouting matches.  But beneath all these cultural hot spots there is first a philosophical disagreement.  Understanding the philosophical categories may help them navigate these cultural debates in a more reasoned manner. 

I love philosophy and teaching philosophy.  The ideas that ignited in me a passion to think and articulate an integrated worldview continue to motivate me to see others grasp the beauty and rationality of clear thinking.  If in some small way I can contribute to the opening of minds to larger vistas of thinking and reasoning, then I can count my endeavors a success.

 
Write6x6

celebrating the value of free speech!

1 Comment

*Note: The following was a piece I wrote to highlight the free speech atmosphere on the campus of GCC. After shopping it around for publication on various websites, no one picked it up–I think because it is too positive and in our time negativity sells. I believe it is relevant here in light of our quest for diversity and our desire to have difficult conversations with more light and less heat.

Celebrating the Value of Free Speech!

With the recent release of Dennis Prager and Adam Corrolla’s documentary No Safe Spaces, the American public has again been reminded of the dangers threatening free speech on college campuses.  Considering the examples of Berkeley, Middlebury College, and Evergreen State College, one might be forgiven for thinking that all college campuses are roiling with the desire to quench the free exchange of ideas that are deemed too controversial.  

There is, however, good news to be shared in that there are institutions that choose a different path from closing down free speech and, rather, pursue a path of reasoned discourse.  I participate at one such institution and wanted to share some of the events we sponsor which exemplify a free campus.  This exercise is useful for at least two reasons—celebration and emulation. The free exercise of speech and the open dialogue on complex cultural issues ought to be celebrated by those who long to see such things prevail.  Furthermore, by highlighting specific examples, this provides an opportunity for others to emulate and follow suit with similar types of events and opportunities.

Glendale Community College and Free Expression

Glendale Community College (AZ) in Glendale, Arizona has approximately 20,000 students and is part of the larger Maricopa County Community College District which comprises ten colleges in total. Being situated in Arizona is beneficial in that the laws of Arizona are very conducive and protective of free speech.  The Arizona Revised Statutes even have a bit of rhetorical flourish when they state:

“It is not the proper role of an institution of higher education to shield individuals from speech protected by the first amendment, including, without limitation, ideas and opinions that may be unwelcome, disagreeable or deeply offensive.”

GCC takes this admonition to heart and offers prime opportunities to engage in controversial topics in a civil manner.  Here a few examples from the past few years.

Glendale Community College broaches controversial topics every spring in their panel discussion series, “Critical Dialogues.”  In February 2018 this forum’s topic was entitled “Gender and Sexuality: Current Controversies and the Common Good” with a specific focus on the issue of Transgenderism. This was a controversial topic and it engendered (no pun intended!) a robust time of question and answer. However, at no time was there an attempt to shut down the discussion nor did the event devolve into the incivility of the “heckler’s veto.”  

Our last Critical Dialogues event examined the issue of religious freedom and civil rights in relation to the issue of gay marriage.  The 2019 Critical Dialogues panel was appropriately titled “Religious Freedom and Civil Rights: Balancing Competing Claims in the Courts and the Public Square”.  In light of the Supreme Court decision Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing same-sex marriage the issues surrounding religious freedom came to the fore in a number of cases around the country.  Glendale Community College invited participants from both sides of the divide on this controversial issue.  Alessandra Soler (the Arizona Executive Director for the American Civil Liberties Union) and  Jonathan Scruggs (Senior Counsel and Director of the Center for Conscience Initiatives with Alliance Defending Freedom) were our featured guests with other faculty and staff filling out the panel. The timeliness of this topic was seen in that just the previous month prior to the panel discussion, Jonathan Scruggs had argued on behalf of religious freedom and artistic free expression before the Arizona Supreme Court in the case Brush & Nib Studio v. City of Phoenix.  The relevant issues were, again, discussed in a civil manner with no one attempting to shut down the dialogue.

It was ironic that the same month that GCC was holding its Critical Dialogue panel, the Yale Law School was experiencing controversy over a similar type of speaking event. The Yale Federalist Society had invited a lawyer from Alliance Defending Freedom to come and speak about the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights CommissionSupreme Court decision.  This caused a number of student groups to call for a boycott of the event.  This did not speak well for their commitment to free speech and the free exchange of ideas.  Glendale Community College has chosen a different path in approaching controversial cultural issues—a path of civil dialogue and freedom of expression.  

The promotion of free speech is found not only in what GCC promotes but also in what it allows on the campus from outside voices.  In October 2018 the Center for Bioethical Reform( CBR) came to GCC for two days sponsoring their Genocide Awareness Project.  This consisted of huge billboards of, at times, graphic photographs of the aftermath of abortions which are thematically linked to other acknowledged instances of genocide.  Although the display was controversial to many, the administration of GCC, under the leadership of the president of the college, Dr. Teresa Leyba Ruiz, upheld the right of CBR to be on the campus.  Nor was there any attempt to stipulate an artificial “free speech zone” like other campuses have done.  Rather, the most prominent place on the campus mall was used by CBR and there were two days of peaceful interaction and education.

The Need for Vigilance

The culture of free expression and civil disagreement is healthy at Glendale Community College. This is partly a function of the laws enshrined in the Arizona statutes as well as the legal precedents handed down in defense of the Maricopa County Community College District.  For example, in a 2010 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—Rodriquez v. Maricopa County Community College District—these powerful words are found:

“Without the right to stand against society’s most strongly-held convictions, the marketplace of ideas would decline into a boutique of the banal, as the urge to censor is greatest where debate is most disquieting and orthodoxy most entrenched.  The right to provoke, offend and shock lies at the core of the First Amendment. This is particularly so on college campuses.”  

Laws and legal precedent are necessary but not sufficient.  There is always the need for vigilance.  There must continue to be a firm commitment to freedom on the part of individuals who inhabit our institutions of higher learning.  As Alan Charles Kors and Harvey A. Silverglate remind us, “Freedom dies in the heart and will before it dies in the law.”  It is for this reason that institutions like Glendale Community College with their commitment to the free exchange of ideas ought to be celebrated and emulated.

 
Write6x6

reflections on student engagement–Part three

Leave a comment

In my previous two posts, I focused on the theory and structure of the Student Engagement Staff position created less than two years ago in the Philosophy and Religious Studies department.  In implementing the program we chose to take a two-pronged approach that focused on (1) Classroom presentations and (2) Individual student assistance.  In this post, I will focus on the classroom aspect and its impact.

Classroom

Recognizing that many students are unaware of the many resources for student success available on our campus, I put together a 15-presentation that would introduce students to some of these resources as well as acquaint them with my role as Student Engagement Staff.  I have been modifying the list of resources we highlight in these presentations each semester but the list of resources we used this semester was as follows:

  • Advisement:  I always ask how many of the students have ever seen an advisor and I am amazed at how many have never seen an advisor on our campus.  I stress the need to be connecting with an advisor every semester they are here.
  • Basis Needs Support Site: This is the relatively new link which highlights access to resources regarding food, housing, safety, transportation, and paying for college.  I stress the fact that, although there are all sorts of issues outside of the campus that can get in the way of your education, there are resources available on this campus and through this campus that can potentially help.
  • Disability Resources and Services (DRS): I make quick mention of DRS and the kinds of issues they can help with in students’ lives. 
  • Brainfuse Online Writing Lab: I provide a step-by-step tutorial on how to access this resource and how to use it to produce better papers.  By taking the time to go over this tool I’m attempting to do a number of different things—(1) Give the students an immediate takeaway resource they can begin to use, (2) create the potential for students to become better writers, and (3) help professors by making it easier on them when they have to grade the writing of their students!  I know of at least one professor outside of the Philosophy and Religious Studies department that invites me to his classes just so his students have access this to training on this resource.
  • Raise Me Micro-scholarships: I end with this resource and explain that they may qualify for some monies from four-year institutions simply based on the work they do here at GCC.  (If you are not familiar with Raise Me I would encourage you to check out this link and click the “Student Overview Tutorial.”)  I like to tell students about one student on our campus who has qualified for $32,000.00 from a participating institution in another state.  I, then, like to ask, “Based on what I told you about Raise Me, how many of you think you might create a profile?”  Usually, 80-90% of the hands are raised.

I recognize that there are a myriad of other resources on our campus for the promotion of student success.  I have chosen these resources in consultation with others to respond to the twin issues of urgency and immediacy—some of the resources may be urgently needed at some point (e.g., food issues) and others can have an immediate pay-off (e.g., the online writing lab).

Presentation Impact

We have been excited to see the reach and impact of these presentations.  For the spring 2019 semester, I was able to present in 23 classes with a total of 353 students.  In the fall 2019 semester, I was in 34 classes with a total of 776 students.  This semester, spring 2020, I was able to present in 39 different classes to a total of 691 students. 

Semester Classes Students
Spring 2019 23 353
Fall 2019 34 776
Spring 2020 39 691

A further development has been the expansion of these presentations beyond the Philosophy and Religious Studies department.  I have also presented in classes in the Mathematics, Psychology, and the Public Safety Sciences departments.

We have also seen some good trends in those metrics we can track.  At the beginning of the fall 2019 semester (August), there were 280 Raise Me profiles.  After presenting in 34 classes to 776 students the number of Raise Me profiles on January 8, 2020, was 711!  As of this week, there are over 865 Raise Me profiles that have been created by students.  Of course, my presentations are not the sole cause of this increase in profile creation, but we do have confirmation that a number of students have created profiles in response to the presentations—I’ve even had students create a profile while I was presenting!

Another area we have seen an increase of activity concerns the online writing lab use through Brainfuse.  Going back to figures from the school-year 2017/2018 in which there was a pre-Brainfuse electronic writing lab, there were 320 uses—remember, that is for two semesters.  After the spring 2019 semester, there were 222 uses of the Brainfuse online writing lab.  After the fall 2019 semester, there were 327 uses—which is more than the entire school year of 2017/2018. 

As excited as we are to see the scope and impact of the classroom presentations, we are even more enthusiastic about the individual lives we have been able to help.  In my next post, I will detail some of these stories.

 
Student Engagement, Write6x6

Reflections on Student Engagement–Part Two

3 Comments

In my last post on Student Engagement, I laid out some distinctions in the term “student engagement” comprising techniques, practices, and modalities.  I ended by mentioning the modality of Student Engagement Staff that we implemented in the Philosophy and Religious Studies department.  In this post, I want to outline the nature of the Student Engagement Staff (SES) endeavor.

As an initial attempt at providing a working definition for this modality of Student Engagement Staff we came up with the following points:

  • Student Engagement Staff is dedicated to student advocacy; promoting students’ success and completion of their education at GCC.
  • Student Engagement Staff is dedicated to educating all instructors about the importance of early intervention when students begin to slacken in their attendance and/or coursework.
  • Student Engagement Staff is a coordinating link in the process of connecting faculty and students to resources that further their educational goals.
  • Student Engagement Staff is committed to enhancing the general awareness of Student Engagement across the campus through various events and programs.

A key component of student engagement is a focus on the triangulation of three key elements: students, professors, and resources. 

A reasonable set of questions to ask is: “What is unique about SES?  Aren’t there many people, departments, and staff devoted to the same agenda?”

In considering the nature of Student Engagement Staff we have come to recognize two distinctive elements.  The first element is that of being a generalist modality.  Most of the modalities on campus are specialist in nature.  Think of the following departments and the specialized help they offer:

  • Advising
  • Counseling
  • Disability Resources and Services
  • Center for Learning
  • Financial Aid
  • Enrollment

The desire and design was to have SES be more general in nature.  Student Engagement Staff would, thus, seek to accumulate information on a number of different resources available on campus.  What was given up in depth of specificity was compensated by a greater breadth of coverage.  SES was designed to be a sort of clearing-house of information regarding resource as well as a point of contact into the more specialized departments. 

This generalist modality was to work in tandem with the second key element—fluidity and flexibility.  Being situated in the Philosophy and Religious Studies department allows for increased response time in intervention as well as a closer connection to professors who are the frontline in seeing those students most in need of help.  We like to refer to this as “Bringing the institution to the student.”  A quick example may help illustrate this.  An adjunct professor came into the department office asking for help regarding a student in his class expressing suicidal ideation.  I was able to immediately come to his class, meet the student, and offer to walk this student over to the Counseling Center.  I am not trained as a specialist in counseling but as a generalist I knew enough about what resources we had on campus that could help.  Being able to respond immediately and personally helped the professor maintain his focus on his duties while also allowing the student to get personalized help.

In my next post, I will detail the specifics of what we are doing with Student Engagement at both the classroom level and the individual level as well as highlight some of our success stories.