Yesterday, I was thinking about a curious trend in higher education. I'm a college instructor, but I also help chair our school's assessment committee, so I had to attend an assessment conference this past fall. I only had time for 5 or so sessions, but in at least 3 of them (maybe it was even 4!) the idea of either "a…
Yesterday, I was thinking about a curious trend in higher education. I'm a college instructor, but I also help chair our school's assessment committee, so I had to attend an assessment conference this past fall. I only had time for 5 or so sessions, but in at least 3 of them (maybe it was even 4!) the idea of either "assessing spiritual wellness" or "promoting loving action" to our students came up, sometimes just as an off-hand comment, sometimes as a more developed theme. This seemed absolutely bizarre to me and I couldn't make sense of it.
Since then, I've seen this idea of "love" in higher ed come up a few times. A couple weeks ago, I was in a meeting and a participant mentioned the idea of "loving students across the finish line" (in a conversation about student success and graduation rates). Just yesterday I was watching a Youtube conversation with two major figures in my field talking about the idea of "love as praxis" in course design. The concept of "love" is becoming the trendy new higher ed thing, and it's weird! And it jives pretty well with what you're discussing here--the transcendent being co-opted by the worldly institutions. College as the new church, where you don't just learn an academic discipline but also learn to "love" (and are maybe even asked to self-assess spiritual wellness???) Perhaps the culture of higher ed wants to replace religion with itself. I don't want to jump to conclusions, and I imagine the intentions of the people espousing this are good (i.e. they want the best for students), but...there is something sinister behind it, it seems to me.
This hits home for me because I also work in education and am trying to discover ways to bring more story, poetry, and imagination into schools. The problem with this, is that most schools—being essentially products of this 'machine-minded' phenomenon that Paul has been outlining so carefully over the past few years—is that the school, or institution, tends to either absorb and trivialize attempts to incorporate into it anything resembling a grass-roots community based culture of care, or is actively hostile toward such methods. I've had conversations with friends, sharing accounts that were similar from other contexts, i.e. everywhere from corporations to national healthcare workers, all of whom seemed equally exhausted by the prospect of reform. I agree with Paul that the answer to the machine is essentially one rooted in the transcendent. However, I've begun to grow more and more skeptical of my own inclination to try and bring something of that experience back into institutions that are clearly eating their own tails and getting into all sorts of strange contortions like the ones you've described above and which I've also witnessed. My sense is that the truly resilient communities of the coming years, acting as forces of gentle resistance to this corrosive trend.. will by necessity be grounded in the tried and true; the pathways to the divine that are well walked and well marked. Vague pronouncements of 'love' and 'growth mindset', etc.. work in the corporate sphere precisely because they are so vague, not rooted in a real tradition and strike me as yet more examples of shapeshifting 'liquid' modernity. Isn't it ironic that the origin of the University system was originally grounded in the Church—Universities adorned with Latin mottos and maxims, few today can even read? It's no wonder that University campuses are ground-zero today for the push and pull of the so-called culture war. It brings me back to the old question of whether or not to work for reform within the system, or start over once again small and humble beyond the pale.
Really insightful comment, thank you! Your observation about the origin of universities coming "full circle" to some extent is so interesting. It seems there are new school systems in development that are trying to "start over once again," and those would be the sort of "classical academy" model that I see popping up everywhere. I understand the impulse, but I'm skeptical of these, too, as they often seem to be run by/promote a sort of reactionary "cultural warrior" ethos which is also a significant problem, IMO. But it's no accident that they are teaching their students Latin, Greek, logic, rhetoric, etc, because those formed the foundations of western education, as you indicate above. And I guess I don't necessarily have a problem with teaching those things in that manner--but I wonder to what extent the appeal to this education system is "my kid is so smart and exclusive--he knows LATIN!"
"Love" is to modern academia what water is to bottled water--a free-flowing gift to all of us that existed for eternity without any need for a sales pitch turned into a packaged product that quickly makes its user forget all about the real thing.
Really interesting. I wonder also if the claim of “loving” students acts as cover for standards to be lowered: if you (are pretending to) “love” your students, it’s hard to fail them - especially if the “love” is in fact mere sentimentality, which it is. Real love will raise standards and encourage students to stretch themselves. After all, how much interest do these teachers show in the kids once they leave?
Another gut punch.
Yesterday, I was thinking about a curious trend in higher education. I'm a college instructor, but I also help chair our school's assessment committee, so I had to attend an assessment conference this past fall. I only had time for 5 or so sessions, but in at least 3 of them (maybe it was even 4!) the idea of either "assessing spiritual wellness" or "promoting loving action" to our students came up, sometimes just as an off-hand comment, sometimes as a more developed theme. This seemed absolutely bizarre to me and I couldn't make sense of it.
Since then, I've seen this idea of "love" in higher ed come up a few times. A couple weeks ago, I was in a meeting and a participant mentioned the idea of "loving students across the finish line" (in a conversation about student success and graduation rates). Just yesterday I was watching a Youtube conversation with two major figures in my field talking about the idea of "love as praxis" in course design. The concept of "love" is becoming the trendy new higher ed thing, and it's weird! And it jives pretty well with what you're discussing here--the transcendent being co-opted by the worldly institutions. College as the new church, where you don't just learn an academic discipline but also learn to "love" (and are maybe even asked to self-assess spiritual wellness???) Perhaps the culture of higher ed wants to replace religion with itself. I don't want to jump to conclusions, and I imagine the intentions of the people espousing this are good (i.e. they want the best for students), but...there is something sinister behind it, it seems to me.
This hits home for me because I also work in education and am trying to discover ways to bring more story, poetry, and imagination into schools. The problem with this, is that most schools—being essentially products of this 'machine-minded' phenomenon that Paul has been outlining so carefully over the past few years—is that the school, or institution, tends to either absorb and trivialize attempts to incorporate into it anything resembling a grass-roots community based culture of care, or is actively hostile toward such methods. I've had conversations with friends, sharing accounts that were similar from other contexts, i.e. everywhere from corporations to national healthcare workers, all of whom seemed equally exhausted by the prospect of reform. I agree with Paul that the answer to the machine is essentially one rooted in the transcendent. However, I've begun to grow more and more skeptical of my own inclination to try and bring something of that experience back into institutions that are clearly eating their own tails and getting into all sorts of strange contortions like the ones you've described above and which I've also witnessed. My sense is that the truly resilient communities of the coming years, acting as forces of gentle resistance to this corrosive trend.. will by necessity be grounded in the tried and true; the pathways to the divine that are well walked and well marked. Vague pronouncements of 'love' and 'growth mindset', etc.. work in the corporate sphere precisely because they are so vague, not rooted in a real tradition and strike me as yet more examples of shapeshifting 'liquid' modernity. Isn't it ironic that the origin of the University system was originally grounded in the Church—Universities adorned with Latin mottos and maxims, few today can even read? It's no wonder that University campuses are ground-zero today for the push and pull of the so-called culture war. It brings me back to the old question of whether or not to work for reform within the system, or start over once again small and humble beyond the pale.
Really insightful comment, thank you! Your observation about the origin of universities coming "full circle" to some extent is so interesting. It seems there are new school systems in development that are trying to "start over once again," and those would be the sort of "classical academy" model that I see popping up everywhere. I understand the impulse, but I'm skeptical of these, too, as they often seem to be run by/promote a sort of reactionary "cultural warrior" ethos which is also a significant problem, IMO. But it's no accident that they are teaching their students Latin, Greek, logic, rhetoric, etc, because those formed the foundations of western education, as you indicate above. And I guess I don't necessarily have a problem with teaching those things in that manner--but I wonder to what extent the appeal to this education system is "my kid is so smart and exclusive--he knows LATIN!"
Read the Benedict Option by Rod Dreher…regarding precisely your question of small community vs . The current system…
"Love" is to modern academia what water is to bottled water--a free-flowing gift to all of us that existed for eternity without any need for a sales pitch turned into a packaged product that quickly makes its user forget all about the real thing.
Really interesting. I wonder also if the claim of “loving” students acts as cover for standards to be lowered: if you (are pretending to) “love” your students, it’s hard to fail them - especially if the “love” is in fact mere sentimentality, which it is. Real love will raise standards and encourage students to stretch themselves. After all, how much interest do these teachers show in the kids once they leave?