Banning Queer Theory in Colleges
Crumbling schools and lack of adequate enrollment in science and technology courses apparently is not at the top of some of the Georgia legislators list for reforming education. They rather harp on certain misguided notions that ‘moral principles’ of their constituents needs protecting. House Republicans in Georgia are pushing to oust professors with expertise in certain societal behaviors. These professors study subjects like male prostitution, oral sex and “queer theory [emphasis mine]”
Hill and Byrd were incensed to learn a University of Georgia professor teaches a graduate course on “queer theory.” They also took aim at Georgia State University, where an annual guide to its faculty experts lists a sociology lecturer as an expert in oral sex and faculty member Kirk Elifson as an expert in male prostitution.Georgia State spokeswoman Andrea Jones called the critics’ argument “flawed.”
“Teaching courses in criminal justice, for example, does not mean that our students are being prepared to become criminals. Quite the opposite,” said Jones. “Legitimate research and teaching are central to the development of relevant and effective policy [source].”
It is sad to see that people with absolutely no understanding of higher education are in a power to determine what we should or should not study. So much for living in an age of intellectualism and engaging in pursuit of knowledge, eh? As the spokesperson from Georgia State nicely explains why their arguments let alone their desire to indulge in moral policing is fundamentally wrong. From the perspective of these legislators, using examples from his research in GLBT studies by one of my professors at Georgia State for our research methods and statistics classes was a heinous act. Mind you that this isn’t even high school but college-level courses where students are free to choose what courses they want to take. Why should some guy in a budget-writing House Appropriations Committee tell me what courses I should or should not take in understanding the society around me?
On a related rant, isn’t the title of the article cited as the source misleading? After all, I’m sure those professors are not teaching students how to give mind-blowing blowjobs; such courses are theoretical and discussion-oriented and can hardly be described as “steamy sex courses”. As Jessica at Feministing says, “they don’t quite get the notion that one can be experts in a field – you know, like study it – without participating in said area of study.”
“Banning Queer Theory in Colleges” [Short URL: http://www.ipatrix.com/?p=2858] was published Wednesday, February 11th, 2009 at 11:30 am by Patrix, filed under 9rules, Education, Governance, Society Culture, and tagged as Education, Georgia, homosexuality, moral police, research, social science. Both comments and linkbacks are closed.
Related Posts
- Queer Meeting
- Indians are treated like children over alcohol
- Futility of banning pro-Tibet protests in India
I am so proud of Georgia State! I can imagine one of those Republicans getting a legislative hard-on just thinking about these courses. I am sure they want to discontinue these classes out of sheer jealousy. They couldn’t take them as college-goers, so nobody else can!!
Having taken literary theory classes at Georgia State and having discussed everything from oral sex to incest, I can appease these guys by letting them know that instead of titillating the students, these classes break down the sexual act and make it seem downright boring. Besides, what average college student needs a graduate level course to learn this stuff? You can’t learn to swim unless you’re in the pool, if you get my drift.
1 year ago replySampada, so true. The way to kill any joy is to take a graduate seminar on the subject :) I’m sure GSU will rename the courses and continue as before and the legislators can go to their constituents and claim that they killed ‘the gay’ among the elites.
1 year ago replyYou know, I completely agree with you about these idiots in the House deciding what courses should (not) be offered. But I often have my own reservations about some courses offered in the universities – not so much for their controversiality as their extreme vacuousness and waste of students’ time. Queer theory, Male prostitution etc. could well come under anthropology or sociology – and yes, it’s a broad enough subject to study behavior patterns and its dynamics in society. But oral sex?! C’mon! The most it deserves is a paragraph – alright, a chapter in a textbook of a course for a broader subject, not a course in itself (no pun intended).
This is precisely what encourages Masters and PhD students to get away with some under-researched fluff as dissertation. Infuriates me. Do you know what one of my classmates wrote for a dissertation? And yes *defended* it? “The practicality of sending a message in a bottle”! I kid you not. Yes, if you dig up enough Blackbeards and Black Pearls, there is a lot you can talk about, technically. But basic question – *why*?
-g
1 year ago replyGauri, I would never diss someone else’s field of study simply because I don’t know enough about it. As long as there are students interesting in studying it and there are professors interesting in teaching it, there will be some courses. For a pure rational individual focused merely on earning a livelihood, any liberal arts or humanities course would seem like a waste of time but man has invested time and effort in art, literature, and social studies. Isn’t the pursuit of knowledge and the spirit of curiosity that makes man different from other species on this planet? So as long as some people want to know ‘why’ other people will be involved in trying to find out.
1 year ago replyI’m surprised you see it as dissing. Didn’t mean for it to come across that way. Let me ask you this – would you write off criticism from someone who has studied in that particular field – and talks about it *because* it’s something they know about? Surely there’s a difference in value of an opinion between a person who has lived through extremely useless courses versus a casual observer who wouldn’t know much, right?
The rational bread-earner notwithstanding – I’ve spent 9 years in the “useless” field of liberal arts and humanities. As you know, there are various studies there, right from mythology to theater to history which could be construed as useless from the industry / economy generating point of view, much as they most certainly aren’t. I’m not talking about those. What I’m talking about is generating newer courses with fancy names to attract students and compete with other universities.
Yes, there will be takers, always. You create any BS, there will be at least one
suckertaker for it. This is no different from the toy industry coming up with “added features” on Barbie or iPhone one-upping others with features to increase sales. Only, in this case there’s more at stake. It’s the pliable minds of youth at the most impressionable age. And it often ends in them resorting to vague thesis topics only to wriggle out of the pain of research (I say this as someone who has seen it happen, rather than extrapolate out of nowhere).Education is as much a responsibility, as it is a privilege. If you invest that much time – your own and others’ – learning something, you’re obliged to give something to society in return. Not necessarily to its economy, it could be as entertainment, wisdom, solace, an opinion…anything. Pay it forward in some way.
I could go on. (Look like I already have been). I apologize for taking up your space, but I need to clear the dissing impression that I left – won’t be able live with that :)
-g
1 year ago replyGauri, apologies if I came across as confrontational but I feel very strongly about this. But I still have to disagree with you about the alleged frivolity of courses offered. If they are as frivolous as you think then they will not attract any takers either due to lack of interest, dashed expectations, or lack of practical application post-completion. But as you say, there will always be takers. So what? Perhaps those people who take such courses find them optimal to their course of study. Rigor of research needs to be adhered too and will be as long as custodians of those fields enforce them. If they do not, it is to the detriment of their field that will lose reputation and credibility.
I’m sure Van Gogh dad must have thought he was not ‘paying it forward’ when he painted those masterpieces so you can never judge someone else’s education by your expectations.
Don’t worry about taking up space. That’s what comments are for.
1 year ago replyIt just hit me that we’re talking on two different planes. Your point seems to be (or so I interpret) “There is more to education than just doctor/engineer”, “Do not underestimate the arts however useless they may seem” or “Everyone should have the freedom in the choice of education”. To me that’s a very basic, obvious given.
I’m talking beyond that. It’s one thing to be a bigot/intolerant of something (I’m quite disappointed if that’s all you see in my comment); another thing to be so openly accepting of everything without evaluating it to out of political correctness.
Yes, these courses definitely dash expectations. Only, we find out the hard way, once we have signed up for it and are in the middle of it – or worse, if it’s a core course. “Practical application” is a very gray concept in humanities, but yes, the ones I’m talking about are often irrelevant to the study in the broader scheme. Take this from someone who has taken relatively irrelevant electives like Film Appreciation (just Fassbinder, at that), and some socio-linguistic studies. So no, when I say ‘irrelevant’, I’m not talking about the electives that people take out of personal interest.
Anyway, let me just leave it here. I’d say we could agree to disagree, but strangely I do happen to agree with what you say, on your page. I just happen to be on a different one. Thanks for humoring me, though :)
-g
1 year ago reply