Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
So the liberal ideal - that people look past one another's gender, race, and religion and regard one another as unique individuals - is pretty much dead? Because judging by the dogma coming from the progressive left these days, it sure looks like it.
And what about the elephant in the room when it comes to society and identity - class. In order to ensure that students from poor families have properly empathetic teachers, should be put quotas in place to increase the number of teachers who were raised in families with < 40K family income? Or raised by families with single-parents, or parents suffering from addictions? Which of the dozens of identities and social influences a person is subject to in their life do we enshrine with 'diversity' status?
|
Are you referring to dogma in my position supporting this? I don't even see how I'm supporting this from a progressive left position. My support for this kind of change is on three points: support for labour market needs, creating an improved learning experience for students in the university and differentiation of the program in the market. None of those are based on progressive left dogma.
Teaching is a practical activity. Empathy is a practical skill involved in this. A teacher education program which creates an environment to build that practical ability is providing value to their students and their future employers by doing so while also making their program stand out in the market. I would see value in hiring someone who came out of a program that differentiates itself in this way over an equivalent applicant from a program without that differentiation.
As long as no group is being ruled out regardless of merit, which students the university chooses to focus on in recruitment should be up to them based upon what they believe is going to address market needs, improve program quality and attract students to their university.