There are many examples in the reading, and I can link to others. You could say, "what does this have to do with systems analysis and design?" Sometimes it's worth talking about things that will affect you as you become an MIS professional. If you think this only occurs on college campuses, think again. The real question to ask is if you are "coddled" in college, what kind of professional will you become? Better yet, what kind of person will you be after you leave college and have to live among people who don't care about your trigger warnings?
This is about learning how to be resilient and smart, aware and mindful, as well as tech-savvy, and comfortable in the tech world. This is world where the playing field is certainly not even, where pay is not stable, where some get ahead and others don't.
With that said, after you read the article, have any of experienced the new PC environment on campus, or anywhere? Do you wish people were more sensitive about who you are, where you came from, what you believe?
This is an example of speaking up when the evidence of offense is so compelling. According to actor David Oyelowo, the actions by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have a problem for for again failing to nominate black performers. "I am an academy member and it doesn't reflect me," Speaking at a Martin Luther King Jr. Legacy Award Gala in Los Angeles, Oyelowo asked those present to pray for the academy's president, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, saying she needs their support.
ReplyDeleteBoone was elected the academy's first black president in 2013, was present for Oyelowo's speech — she was being presented with the Rosa Parks Humanitarian Award when Oyelowo diverted from his prepared text. Others are boycotting. Read more...
The diverse polarity that we are experiencing now with our political parties is extremely similar to our educational climate. With the increasing degree of censorship about controversial issues, it has made it extremely difficult to converse about topics which have the potential to cause social disruption. Now, it is still uncertain as to whether this shift if because of a generation gap. All one can say with some certainty is that the amount of students voicing their displeasure with controversial topics has been increasing.
ReplyDeleteI would assert that it is more attributable to the shifts in technology than it does with the students’ mindsets. Regardless of the period in which one was a student, the only difference is the amplitude of one’s voice—something that technology has drastically altered. In our present age the media is no longer controlled by the hands of the select few. Current network technologies enable anyone the ability to disseminate their viewpoint to a massive online audience--regardless of the viewpoint’s popularity. This ubiquitous dissemination with but a single click and being able to find like-minded individuals is the illusion that has propagated thanks to the degree of power given to the average individual.
I think it is ironic how this article talks about the need to avoid cognitive biases and implicitly asserts that it is the fault of the students when the faculty and governmental entities have much more influence with the current landscape. It is the faculty that generalizes the minority viewpoint who make the most noise, and generalize the group to being a greater proportion of the population than they actually are; this almost sort of sampling bias has led academia and the federal government to appease the minority—believing that they act for the interest of a vast crowd. A prime example is the firing of Jung at the University of Florida. While only one student voiced his/her aversion of Jung’s harmless statement, the university still acted to assuage Jung’s opponent even though the vast majority, over twenty students, voiced in favor of their professor.
I do, however, agree that there is a growing sensitivity within the college student population. While this sensitivity is because more people have converted their thinking or because it is more acceptable to voice these opinions is debatable. Nonetheless it does pose a barrier to the institution of higher-learning. Higher education, in part, is a place to expand, be challenged, and question one’s own beliefs and evolve. The dogmatic environment that has started to expand and propagate will make it much more difficult, especially with regulation oversight being a constant factor in the minds of the faculty and higher-education management personnel.
Good points, Jordan. It's a climate of being over-sensitive in some contexts, excluding the mean-spirited climate of the Republican party. It's like some people get away with it, and the rhetoric gets nasty. No one seems to stop it, either. Here is another point. Fact Checker at Republican Debate Hospitalized for Exhaustion.
DeleteMy point is that some bad speech is allowed, whereas other speech is unforgiven. Some get away it, whereas comedians, academics, and others who try hard to make their points heard are cajoled, reported, and tweeted out of existence. It is a dogmatic environment (called PC in some places). Reputation is not based on free speech anymore. It happens on campus, but elsewhere too. Responses to speech can be just as mean-sprited online as off, if not more so.