The classic example took place at Wm & Mary during the 500th  
anniversary of the 1st voyage of Cristobal Colon. Two of us were  
assigned as TAs for an undergraduate survey course on North American  
Indians. We were tasked to do a debate on the impact of Europeans in  
general and Colon specifically. The other student, a Berkeley grad,  
was relieved that I volunteered to handle the pro-Colon side of the  
debate, admitting that she could not have defended Colon.

  It was a debate, there is no requirement to agree with the person  
or action for which you are the proponent. I stated that as much as I  
disagreed with just about everything about him I could defend Adolph  
Hitler in a debate.

I was a bit shocked that the majority of the books available in the  
Swem Library that were anti-Colon lacked footnotes and had "selected  
bibliographies". In other words while purporting to be "scholarly",  
they were unwilling to reveal their sources. I want to check sources  
to make sure that what I am reading is factually based an not totally  
the author's opinion. I won the debate.

Also at Wm and Mary we had a spirited triangular physical  
anthropology seminar. While The two old guys and the teacher had a  
great time skewering everything in sight and often making totally  
outrageous statements, the rest of the class sat there like so many  
sheep. There is not question in my mind that this was due to the  
stultifying effect of "PC". It was not that they had nothing to say.  
It was clear that they found many of our pronouncements off the wall  
and very provocative (they were meant to be). It was equally clear  
that they were unwilling to say anything that might possibly, even  
tangentially be deemed offensive by anyone under any circumstances.  
As in your class the professor was willing to challenge "PC" and  
"TC", but the students were unwilling, or unable, to comment.

I teach middle school now and try to get my students to think.  
Sometimes it works. I also try and make my classes more than what is  
in the text book. the text books are generic, bland, and inoffensive.  
They are also a bit boring. I like to think that my classes go beyond  
that. I also make it a point to cover the good and the bad of US  
history. We've got our share of warts. But having lived in a number  
of other countries, and travelled to a lot more, I live here because  
I haven't found a better place.

James Brothers, RPA
[log in to unmask]



On May 24, 2007, at 9:37, Gregg Kimball wrote:

> Maybe they just had nothing worthwhile to say.  I have been a  
> perpetual
> "older" student, or at least older then most of my classmates.  I took
> classes at night while in the military and after my hitch finished the
> B.A. and Master's in the early 80s.  I went back to UVA for grad  
> school
> in the early 1990s.  My experience at UVA was similar to yours.  I was
> one of three older students among many fresh-faced folks right out of
> undergraduate programs.  We all took a two-part reading seminar in
> historiography together.  The professors aggressively challenged
> political platitudes expressed by students, be they ideologically  
> on the
> right or left. (I heard plenty of liberal "talking points" skewered.)
> Most couldn't defend these fact-free sentiments in any coherent  
> way, and
> perhaps became intimidated. Others seemed to simply take a passive
> approach to the whole experience.  I pondered whether this was a  
> result
> of our consumerist, sound-byte driven media and culture, but I  
> certainly
> don't think it was due to so-called "PC."  The professors challenged
> both "PC" and "TC" remarks, as they should.  I recall two of my best
> professors being on diametrically opposite sides of the political
> spectrum and yet they were very close personally and
> intellectually--both fine scholars who truly believed in a vigorous
> exchange of ideas.
>
> Gregg Kimball
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of James Brothers
> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 10:36 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Should we regret "PC" history?
>
> I would like to add something from my own experience as a student at
> Penn, Duke and a grad student at Penn and Wm & Mary. There was a major
> shift from the free wheeling debates I experienced as a student at the
> University of Pennsylvania in the 70s and Duke University in the  
> 80s to
> what I saw more recently at Wm & Mary. If there was discussion in  
> class
> it tended to involve three people- the professor and the two old  
> guys in
> class (I was one). All of my fellow students had degrees from good
> universities, but apparently had little or nothing to say on a wide
> range of subjects, and they did very little but take notes. This made
> seminars a bit triangular, and not nearly as satisfying as they might
> have been. One day the two old guys agreed before one class that we
> would not make any comments. The professor stormed out of class  
> after 15
> minutes of deafening silence saying "If none of you did the reading  
> you
> could have told me!".
> After he left the rest of the class looked accusingly at we two, as if
> it was all our fault. There are many possible interpretations as to  
> why
> this occured. With what I have seen in other venues, I'm convinced  
> it is
> "PC". A free and open debate is virtually impossible when most of the
> potential participants are unwilling to say anything that might  
> possibly
> be interpreted in way that might offend.
>
> James Brothers, RPA
> [log in to unmask]