Exploring Ways To Deal With Sexual Assaults on Campus

I read an article on Twitter by Jake New on Virgina's new proposal to create a regional center for the investigation of sexual assaults on campus. The purpose was to inform readers of the pros and cons of having a regional center for such investigations and to explain how the center would operate. The article also relayed the program's details thus far. Furthermore, the article summarized the opinions of some of the people present at the panel discussion regarding the program.

A section of the article I found particularly interesting was the one in which the opposing views voiced their opinions on whether the investigations should take place on campus or off campus:

"Since the U.S. Department of Education began urging colleges to more rigorously investigate cases of campus sexual assault in 2011, some politicians and advocates have questioned the wisdom of allowing college disciplinary proceedings to tackle offenses as serious as sexual violence. Victims' advocacy groups and the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights argue that colleges have an obligation to do so under the gender discrimination law Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and that campus processes can be more victim focused than formal criminal proceedings."

 This passage mentions some of the points made on the matter, that is, that a college may not be suitable for such serious offenses versus the fact that regional centers would not be as victim-centered as university center would be. These arguments are significant because they are part of the collective arguments that will determine whether or not this regional center will come into being. The center for investigation of sexual assault is also significant since sexual assault is becoming increasingly prevalent on college campuses.

I agree with both sides of the argument. I believe in a balance and everything in moderation so either argument is too extreme. Thus, the best solution would be to have some sort of combination of the two sides. One solution could be to have a regional center where university staff also work or visit. An alternate solution could be the reverse, that is, to have a center at the university with regional staff present/visiting.

The Troublesome "Q Question"

This week, we read an article about The "Q" Question that summarized how various authors went about answering the "Q" question in their respective books. The article explains that the Q Question has been perplexing those in the humanities field for years and how the Strong Defense and Weak Defense are two different camps people often fall under when attempting to answer the question. Rhetorical education and how that related to morals and being a good citizen. The two methods of teaching, that is, "the Great Books" and "the course in method" are also explained. Overall, the Q Question seems to remain unanswered, controversial, and complex and it is one we should stop trying to evade.

The passage I wanted to discuss was the one involving one's university years, that is, the non-"primal slime" part of one's life:

"In this short time [four years in college] he [or she] must learn that there is a great world beyond the little one he [or she] knows, experience the exhilaration of it and digest enough of it to sustain himself [or herself] in the intellectual deserts he [or she] is destined to traverse. He [or she] must do this, that is, if he [or she] is to have any hope of a higher life... They [the years in college] are civilization's only chance to get to him [or her]."

This passage is explaining the university's crucial role in a person's life in terms of socialization and in achieving happiness via a "higher life." It is during one's college years that one often discovers the bigger, "real" world outside of their own and learns to work with others and their different worlds. This is significant because, at the end of the day, everyone wants to be happy. If university plays such a huge role in happiness a lot of people financially unable to attend college miss out.

I agree with the fact that one's university years can be very impactful and eye-opening but I am hesitant about the final statement from the above passage. University is not the only socialization structure that exists. Even if one did not go to university, they would still be socialized and exposed to civilization via their job, errands, and the like. Thus, although college may be the most effective way for civilization to reach people, one does not necessarily need to go to college in order for civilization to reach them.

To Standardize or Not To Standardize

In the readings for class today on The Education of Statesmen in Cicero's De Republica by J. Jackson Barlow and The Faulty Foundation of American Colleges by Todd Rose and Ogi Ogas, I found an underlying theme of whether or not standardization is ideal or not. Barlow's piece demonstrates this theme in its exploration of what constitutes the best regime, that is, one that is "the most nearly changeless" and, most especially, in its exploration of true law, that is, law that is "of universal application, unchanging and everlasting". In both of these concepts, standardization, then, is the sameness of something over time. Rose and Ogas' piece's main discussion is on standardization, and they argue that individualized education is superior to assembly line, Taylorist education.

Rose and Ogas' claim is mainly supported by the metaphor used throughout the article on the diversely "jagged" pilots and the attempt to fit these pilots into standardized cockpits. They referenced the real life metaphor multiple times as evidence that their claim is valid. They also touched upon theories and beliefs of famous individualists that were mostly not accepted because the idealists didn't have a practical science or efficient method to apply the theories.

I found it interesting that both pieces provide information on arguments made by critics and then proceeds to debunk, or at least add some food for thought on, the critics' argument. Rose and Ogas, specifically, anticipated critics' arguments by using the cockpit metaphor to address the possibility of

"the idea of redesigning higher education around the principles of individuality might seem hopelessly quixotic. That's how aircraft manufacturers reacted when the Air Force abruptly commanded them to redesign cockpits. They insisted it would be prohibitively expensive. A few suggested that the presumed complexity of an individualized cockpit would impair pilot performance, not improve it. But then, to everyone's surprise, the engineers came up with solutions that were both cheap and easy."

In essence, the above passage is Rose and Ogas offering a possible problem that critics might bring up, that is, that the solution to higher education might be too expensive, complex, or even detrimental to performance, and negating it, by detailing how those critics/skeptics ended up coming up with cheap and easy solutions.

When it comes down to it, I agree with Rose and Ogas' claim that individualized education is superior to standardized education because we are all unique beings and, thus, we should have an education tailored to our unique and individual needs, aptitudes, and shortcomings. I also believe that we should not be penalized for these certain needs, aptitudes, and shortcomings, that we are born with and, thus, have no control over, if they do not conform to the standardized educational system. I found the key principles for individualistic education interesting and especially true and the methodology of "analyze, then aggregate" and "tests of competency" to be helpfully practical.

Plato vs. Aristotle: Battle of the Ancient Greeks

In both readings by Benoit and Haskins, comparisons are made between ancient Greek figures' teachings and writings, specifically that of Plato and Isocrates and that of Aristotle and Isocrates.

The purpose of Haskin's piece is to call for more diverse readings, other than the go-to ancient Greek figures such as Aristotle and Plato, to be added into education so as to compensate for the voices that were silenced or overlooked as not worthy of the "canon." Haskin's piece also serves to explain Aristotle's central position about rhetoric in his kairos. Haskins goes into detail on good rheotric versus bad rhetoric, and how rhetoric came to be associated with persuasion thanks to Aristotle. He also touches base on performative models and politics, explaining Aristotle's performative approach and his mindset that imitative training should only be used at the start of one's education, as well as the importance of "culturally significant speech" when it comes to getting involved in politics.

In Benoit's piece, Isocrates and Plato are compared through the lens of their sophist criticisms, their beliefs and teachings on rhetoric's function and definition, as well as their contributions to the teaching of rhetoric. Isocrates and Plato had three main similarities when it came to their criticism of sophists: the hypocrasy and irony of sophists apparently failed lessons on virtue as demonstrated by their distrust of their pupils, the apathetic attitude of sophists towards truth, and the prioritization of sophists' personal gain over society's general well-being. These three arguments are all sub-similarities, however, when one considers the fact that all of these similar arguments were all used for the similar purpose of attracting students to their school while simultaneously debunking other teachers. It should also be noted that although these figures are similar in their concern with truth that their definitions of truth are different, partially due to their mentors' influence. That is, Isocrates views truth as abstract and not preferable to practical knowledge. He believes certain knowledge does not exist and Plato views truth as an all powerful, inarguable and abstract concept. When it comes to Isocrates and Plato's teachings and beliefs on rhetoric, both figures believed rhetoric was mostly for the purpose of persuasion. Furthermore, Isocrates and Plato view rhetoric differently in the sense that Isocrates views rhetoric as a concept that comes before knowledge whilst Plato views rhetoric as happening after and being dependent on knowledge.  Both figures believe morals is part of rhetoric's function. More specifically, Isocrates believes rhetoric's function to demonstrate the author/speakers' talent, to improve, not flatter or deceive, the audience, and to discuss serious topics. Plato believed rhetoric's function is mainly to save the audiences' souls as demonstrated by his call for "true orators" to focus on justice, control, and virtue. Both Plato and Isocrates' schools gave pupils an opportunity to be educated in one area for a more permanent stay than they could with traveling sophists.

A passage that struck me as particularly interesting in Haskin's piece was:

"Whether or not I have dislodges Aristotle's Rhetoric from its position of dominance in the minds of contemporary students, I hope to have presented some good reasons for questioning Aristotle's Rhetoric as the pinnacle of evolution of rhetorical thought in Ancient Greece. Indeed, if I were to propose one adjustment to the ways we teach classical rhetoric, it would be a requirement to attend to the contestation among the various "schools of thought" within the "canon," alongside the recovery of "muted" voices of the politically and culturally disenfranchised." Because I agreed

This passage stuck out to me because I agreed with the argument that we should be educating students not only on the "canonical" works of the culturally and socially privileged of the time, that is, upper-class white males, but also on the works of the voices that were silenced due to their disadvantage social or political class. We should teach a variety of beliefs and opinions on concepts so as to expose students to as many different viewpoints as possible and to give them as unbiased ideas as possible. In essence, if such lessons were to be taught, students would be able to get a more whole and diverse view point of concepts. Such diversified lessons are vital to acceptance of other cultures and beliefs as well as well-rounded thoughts and views of concepts.

I agree with the arguments made in the passage I explained above because I believe it is essential to study various viewpoints for development of one's thinking and opinions. It would be comparatively more difficult to formulate one's unique beliefs on a matter if the only information and education they got on the matter came from one source, from one naturally biased point of view. What would leave me hesitant, however, would be what works and information to include in this diversified approach to teaching. Whose authority would be high enough to label the non-canonical authors as worthy enough to study and teach? 

Plato's Republic

Plato's Republic aimed to explain to us what it is like to live in the world when you are educated versus when you are uneducated through his metaphor involving the cave, fire, and shadows. He discusses how unfavorable it is for a newly educated person to go back to an environment with uneducated people as she/he would be ridiculed for their newfound educated beliefs. He encourages educated people to share their knowledge with the uneducated "prisoners in the cave". He advocates for a better world in which each class should share their skills, talents, and knowledge with each other so each class can improve and live in harmony. He also believes it is better for rulers of a society to not have the desire to rule than to have multiple people fighting over ruling the society.

Plato discusses understanding and empathy when it comes to people and their educational situation in the passage:

"But anyone with any understanding would remember that they eyes may be confused in two ways and from two causes, namely, when they've come from the light into the darkness and when they've come from the darkness into the light. Realizing that the same applies to the soul, when someone sees a soul disturbed and unable to see something, he won't laugh mindlessly, but he'll take into consideration whether it has come from a brighter life and is dimmed through not having yet become accustomed to the dark or whether it has come from greater ignorance into greater light and is dazzled by the increased brilliance. Then he'll declare the first soul happy in its experience and life, and he'll pity the latter -- but even if he chose to make fun of it, at least he'd be less ridiculous than if he laughed at a soul that has come from the light above."
In this passage, Plato attempts to ruminate on, and perhaps even empathize with, the lives of those who see things are they really are due to their education living in a world surrounded by uneducated people that would not understand and would most likely ridicule the educated person for being different and having alternate views. This portion of the passage is significant because it opens our eyes to the possibility that just because someone has alternate views, it does not automatically make them abnormal, nor does it give cause for the person to be made fun of. The second part of this passage is about how people's confusion may be a result of one's situation when it comes to their exposure to light and darkness and that it is worse to have come from darkness into light than to come from light into darkness. This is significant because it causes us to re-evaluate how we see educated people and uneducated people.

I agree with Plato's argument when it comes to educated people being ridiculed by uneducated people because more often than not when people have different viewpoints, they tend to scoff at the other's. I would argue, however, that the same can be said when an uneducated person come into a world surrounded by educated people. This ridicule experienced is a two way street, depending on what environment you are in and whether you are educated or uneducated. His argument about it being better to come from light into darkness leaves me hesitant because there are pros and cons to being in both the light and the darkness. In essence, everybody brings their own opinions and backgrounds to the table, providing us with a diverse population and this diversity makes us stronger.