Dan Miller is the coordinator of Nature and Human Values in the Liberal Arts and International Studies department.
In "Why NHV contradicts principles" (The Oredigger 90.14), Kevin Barry charges that Nature and Human Values delivers such messages as "MONEY IS MORALITY" and "The moral thing to do is proceed [with resource depletion], business as usual." The online version of his editorial has this title: "Why NHV contradicts everything Mines stands for." Nothing could be further from the truth.
Like other students in NHV, Mr. Barry learned about difficult situations in which, for example, engineers' judgments are overridden by superiors, sometimes for economic reasons. From that he somehow concludes that NHV preaches that economics should trump ethics. Obviously, pointing out a reality is not the same as endorsing that reality. If I observe that traffic on I-70 is heavy, I am hardly saying that traffic on I-70 should be heavy.
Mr. Barry's account of what NHV taught him about resource use is equally puzzling. We certainly discuss cases that demonstrate how unrestrained individual use of commonly owned resources can lead to destruction of those resources (the infamous "commons problem"). Pointing out this problem in no way endorses it or implies this is what should happen. It actually suggests the opposite: this is a problem that requires solutions.
NHV is in the business of delivering some messages, but not the sort that Mr. Barry imagines. We teach that good writing is important at CSM and in professional life. We tell future engineers that they should be prepared to make intelligent ethical choices in complex situations and be able to rationally justify them. And we share our belief that engineers increasingly need the intellectual tools to work in a world where global social, economic, ethical, and environmental factors all impact applied science.
Beyond that, NHV does not deliver messages, proselytize, or preach. NHV lectures present issues that do not admit easy answers. We explore controversial cases in which there are strong arguments on both sides, problems that elude simple solutions. When we ask students to confront both sides of an issue, our aim is to develop a critical skill for participating in a democratic society-that of understanding the complex justifications and values behind positions opposed to our own.
As NHV presents controversial cases, we ask students to examine the strengths and weaknesses of competing arguments and then to create their own arguments-logically and persuasively, in speech and in writing-within the context of rational debate. For some assignments, that may mean arguing for a position that mediates between two sides; for others, it may mean criticizing an opposing argument after first understanding it fully.
Perhaps it is just the complexity of the issues raised in NHV that bothers Mr. Barry. For a firmly settled worldview, debate itself can be unsettling. And if these debates disturb fixed understandings, whether environmentalist or anti-environmentalist, that may be a sign we in NHV are doing exactly the job we should be doing.
See the PDF version
All Oredigger Articles Via RSS
Comments
I agree that his article was overly scathing (likely the result of the poor grade he received), however I feel you have missed the mark as well.
When conveying information, perception is more important than intention. The way that students perceive the class is far more important than how you intended the class to be perceived.
For example, if I taught a math class and one student learned that PI was equal to 4, then the problem is the student. If I taught a math class and every student learned that PI was equal to 4, then the problem is my class and how I delivered the content. Whether I intended to teach the students that PI is equal to 4 is irrelevant--tha t is what the students learned.
Perhaps the lesson is that you need to work on content delivery for the course, so that more students see the course in the same light as you.
Next time someone criticizes your course, address their concerns. If all you do is deny all allegations in the face of criticism, then you are as close-minded as the student who wrote the original article.