NoIndoctrination.org - View Listing

[Help NoIndoctrination.org - Donate Now Through Network For Good]

Warning: Postings are only opinions. (See Terms of Service)

Note: Although the postings appear to be anonymous, NoIndoctrination.org knows the posters' names. We communicate with the posters before putting their comments online. We also research each posting and ask for corroborating material when appropriate.

Record for NoIndoctrination.org entry #132.

Northern Illinois University (NIU)

Jan. 10, 2003

http://www.niu.edu

Course: PSPA 510: Public Budgeting

Course Catalog Description: Examination of the public budgeting process and related financial management techniques. [This is a graduate course in the Public Administration program and is required for your degree in that field.]

Professor: Irene Rubin

Required? Yes, for my major or minor

Lecture Bias: Excessive

Comments: The professor routinely expressed views off topic strongly critical of the president that had nothing to do with the course. One example of a moderate deviation was during our session on unions and collective bargaining. Professor Rubin spent the entire class preaching to us about how great unions are. She spent no time addressing the real issue: how collective bargaining and unions affect public budgeting or financial planning by government. A lecture/discussion on that would have been useful and on-topic. Furthermore her lectures routinely were completely biased, based on her complete failure to present other viewpoints or opinions. For example, the professor suggested that convicted felons are treated so poorly by society that they have "no choice" but to commit more crimes once they are released from prison. There were virtually no alternative views presented or other meaningful views.

Discussion Bias: Objectionable

Comments: The professor routinely tore into those who disagreed with her or expressed alternative views and failed to, in any instance, suggest that the person expressing an alternative viewpoint may have a point to any degree. I felt intimidated into muting myself on a number of occasions, and in speaking with classmates during breaks and after class, there were several other students who expressed similar disdain for her teaching and their awareness of her extreme left wing politics being taken up. Several students commented that they could see what was happening to the people disagreeing with her or raising questions and did not want to get rolled over next. The other students were intimidated, I'm sure of it - they admitted as much a couple of times.

Readings Bias: Noticeable

Comments: The reading was at times biased but was overall not too bad - in some cases the professor was very critical of the reading she had assigned. I would say 70% unbiased and 30% biased.

General Comments: The NIU website has a webpage "STATEMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS FOR FACULTY AT NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY" (http://www3.niu.edu/u_council/ethicstate.htm): "They [faculty] accept the obligation to exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge." - It was clear that the professor failed to follow this precept because she showed no ability to exercise critical self-discipline or judgment when she went off on tangents on unrelated topics or when she failed to present the opposing viewpoint on any subject. "As teachers, faculty encourage the free pursuit of learning in their students. They hold before them the best scholarly and ethical standards of their discipline. Faculty demonstrate respect for student as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors." - It was clear she did not follow the best ethical standards of her discipline as she refused to present alternative viewpoints or evidence and chose instead to attempt to convince people she was right about every viewpoint she held on subjects from tax incentives for business, unions, contracting out of services, and many others. The professor also showed no respect for the students by failing to recognize that calling student comments "ignorant" does not show respect but rather contempt for the students. She roundly criticized every student who dared question the gospel as presented by her.

Rebuttal

Submitted: Jan. 11, 2003

My response to the charges laid in post 132 on my budgeting and financial management class are that they are incredibly biased, bordering on unethical. Moreover, they often show lack of attention to what was in fact being argued and its relevance to the class. The comments also show that the student didn't understand the nature of debate and argument or that teaching is about showing students things they haven't thought about, not necessarily agreeing with their opinions. Most importantly, the charge that students could see what happened to those who disagreed suggests that students were punished in some way, rather than engaged. I have always treated students with respect, which is to say argued with their opinions, engaged them, treated them as thinking individuals, rather than assuming they had to be treated with kid gloves and were too stupid to argue back. I make explicit in the class that students are expected to argue back, that they will never be judged on their opinions or points of view, and that we may differ on those from time to time. How could it be otherwise? there is no way I could discuss public policy and not disagree with some in the class. I do not and have never laid down an orthodox line that students have to toe. NEVER. I have, however, exposed some of them to points of view they would prefer not to be exposed to, apparently. I don't consider that protecting yourself from hearing someone else's opinions is an education.

To raise the level of debate, to force students to justify their opinions with evidence, is part of what the class and what education is about. Not every student comes to class with those expectations, but I do tell them that class discussion is important. If they have talked to other students, as the poster claims to have done, they know that students of every political stripe have never been penalized in grading for expressing those views in my class, or rewarded for expressing opinions similar to those I express in class. I hope this student learns to grant other people the right to express their views, especially when they are stated as political opinions with which they do not have to agree.

A teacher has a right, as does a student, to criticize the president and his or her policies, to comment on those policies, and be familiar with them. That is what it means to live in a democracy. I hope that student recognizes the importance of that freedom and grants it to others in the future, even if he or she would deny that right to me. I have denied him or her nothing, not the right to offer an opinion or to disagree with mine, but he or she, in the name of no indoctrination, is perfectly willing to deny me a democratic right.

Moreover, my comments on the president's policy were not off the subject. I try to draw in my teaching on current events in the news to make what can seem like dry material come alive. What I reported to them was the president's policy on reducing the rights of labor in trying to form a new department of homeland security, and the fact that he was so determined to reduce labor's power that he risked sufficient opposition to delay what was considered a high priority security matter. I was discussing the antipathy of management toward labor, and this was an example. I was doing the same thing in class, because so many of my students come in with anti labor attitudes they have not explored. I wanted them to see the other side, and said as much in class. They get one side at work, I was trying to give them the other side. That is what balance means. This student didn't want balance in class, he or she wanted to hear only his or her own points of view echoed back.

yes, I argue back with students. I don't do it roughly or with intimidation, but I do argue with information, I do threaten beliefs that are often taken for granted. that can make students angry. But in their anger, they should do several things. One, recognize that arguing with someone is a mark of respect. Only those you treat as too ill educated or too simple minded to listen or unworthy of trying to convince do you not argue with. Argument is way of engaging a student, making them either think more about the evidence, the arguments, or justify their positions more clearly. I expect the same respect back that I give the students. Give me as good as you have. Two, grant others the same freedom to express their opinions that you want for yourself.

The readings I assign are standard books in the field. I disagree with particular readings when the logic is unclear, not substantiated, or out of date. I provided evidence to argue with a reading. The student who posted this seemed to have preferred an out of date argument that agreed with his or her predispositions to the update that I worked to present to them which changed the interpretation.

I am offended by those who would so readily deny others the right to express an opinion different from theirs. You should be too. All opinions are welcome in my class. I am glad you care enough to have an opinion at all. My job is to make students examine those opinions, to see where they have come from, what information is behind them, and if they are justified. To move them from just opinion and emotion and political point of view, to examined and thoughtful positions. I have to challenge students to do that. Some don't wish to be challenged or exposed to anyone else's point of view. I am sorry for that but not for my teaching style.

Prof. Irene S. Rubin
Public Administration Division
Northern Illinois University