Let’s not forget that students need proper tools for thinking about problems and issues. My experience leads me to believe high school graduates receive no such instruction, most likely because their teachers are unable to provide it or even understand the importance of a sound foundation for inquiry. I’m thinking specifically of the inductive method and what constitutes a fact and how one determines the quality of evidence. In the absence of such an understanding, real communication cannot happen.
Isn’t there a more meaningful or precise term to describe this issue than “woke”? If there is a kind of allegiance to group think that is concerning in higher ed, does it really have anything to do with politics per se? Woke to me ultimately comes back to developments in African-American historiography that may have political implications but are, in my mind, a common sense correction. An expansion of the archive, a greater level of attention to something like a blueprint of a slave ship or a more routine assignment of Equiano in undergraduate classes is not group think. Reading both with and against Columbus is not group think, but the opposite. I left the academy in response to real criticisms of the way it operated but not because it was “woke.” If possible, the world of supposedly literate and educated people outside of the ivory tower just gets stupider and lazier by the decade. And inside-I just don’t know what to think. This seems to suggest that the academy is not only infected with identity politics group think but ordinary racist obliviousness as well.
Let’s not forget that students need proper tools for thinking about problems and issues. My experience leads me to believe high school graduates receive no such instruction, most likely because their teachers are unable to provide it or even understand the importance of a sound foundation for inquiry. I’m thinking specifically of the inductive method and what constitutes a fact and how one determines the quality of evidence. In the absence of such an understanding, real communication cannot happen.
Isn’t there a more meaningful or precise term to describe this issue than “woke”? If there is a kind of allegiance to group think that is concerning in higher ed, does it really have anything to do with politics per se? Woke to me ultimately comes back to developments in African-American historiography that may have political implications but are, in my mind, a common sense correction. An expansion of the archive, a greater level of attention to something like a blueprint of a slave ship or a more routine assignment of Equiano in undergraduate classes is not group think. Reading both with and against Columbus is not group think, but the opposite. I left the academy in response to real criticisms of the way it operated but not because it was “woke.” If possible, the world of supposedly literate and educated people outside of the ivory tower just gets stupider and lazier by the decade. And inside-I just don’t know what to think. This seems to suggest that the academy is not only infected with identity politics group think but ordinary racist obliviousness as well.
What the heck do they mean by "woke"?
That s a good question: they mean by it "sleepy minds", how s that?