ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
Casual student of continental philosophy and psychoanalysis. My views aren't real. I'm almost certainly on my lunch break.
User ID: 4030
I respect your logic but have to disagree with the reading of the rubric. As someone who has completed plenty of similar reflection paper assignments during my time in college, the rubrics are boilerplate and vague but imply some pretty specific meanings. I want to hone in on the second point:
Does the paper provide a reaction/reflection/discussion of some aspect of the article, rather than the summary.
In my experience, the key word here is "some aspect." This usually implies a citation or reference to a specific point made by the article, usually in the form of a quoted argument. Really, this is just to prove you internalized some point from the paper. A reading check. As far as I can tell, Fulnecky didn't do this and instead discusses the concept of "gender" in its entirety, whereas the article was very narrow in its scope. Her essay wasn't a summary, but it was hardly specific, nor did it reference findings from the article. Should a citation have been specified in the rubric as a requirement? Sure. But, personally, it goes without saying. I have received a zero or two on reflection assignments for similarly bureaucratic concerns. Live and learn.
Ultimately we are both going to have to fill in the blanks as to what the "proper" interpretation of the rubric is. I suppose it comes down to who you trust to interpret the rubric properly - the instructor or Fulnecky. In this case, I have to give a little deference to the professor, because she created the rubric and I've experienced similar grading standards in the past. I suppose this sort of thing is what the University is interested in finding out.
Just the opposite. This is a red-tribe student within the university attempting to obtain change from within.
Perhaps those are Fulnecky's motivations, though the greater media response has been more aggressive from what I've seen. I am suspicious that she took it to the media for such a small and inconsequential assignment. The more conventional action would be appealing your grade to the dean.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
1mo ago
I can't imagine what a similarly-constructed paper from a progressive view would even look like. The only half-decent analogue I can think of is if the progressive response contained poorly cited infographic statistics, in which case it would at least gesture toward empiricism and the ways of knowing endorsed by the psychological sciences. I think Fulnecky has a greater intellectual burden than a similarly-abled progressive student to justify her choice to appeal to the Bible, which defies the conventions of the field. She did not meet that burden.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
1mo ago
I think it's not that COVID itself is still an issue, but that it carved paths in the sand that still have relevance today. Anecdotally, I don't know a single person who was partisan during COVID who didn't get much more partisan. Those changes in attitude didn't disappear once mask mandates were lifted.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
1mo ago
I think it doesn't help that the industries dominated by Democrats have far worse career prognoses as the American economy is consumed more and more by financial services and information technology. I recently read a book called What Design Can't Do, wherein the author, a graphic designer, basically says the wheels have completely fallen off the graphic design profession with the proliferation of easy design tools and AI and shares polls to show that morale has absolutely cratered. I'd imagine the same is true for many filmmakers, visual artists, authors, and even teachers. I'm speculating a bit, but many Democrat-majority careers have low wage ceilings, but are compensated instead with social prestige, artistry, and feelings of ownership. Economic metrics may be up, but the well of status that many careers once offered seems to be running dry, particularly for Democrats. The partisan media effect is definitely paying a role in the discrepancy, but I think there is genuine reason to believe Democrats will fare much worse, at least in social capital, after the economic transformations currently looming overhead.
It's yesterday's news at this point, but the recent University of Oklahoma essay controversy has continued to fester in my brain for the sheer incongruence of reactions. In case you haven't heard, Samantha Fulnecky, a junior studying Psychology, received a 0 for submitting an essay whose central argument was essentially a blunt appeal to Biblical inerrancy. While I find this a suspect choice in even most religious studies courses, the assignment tasked her with reviewing a journal article about the effects of social pressures on adolescent gender presentation and identification - hardly something the Bible addresses directly. In response, the graduate student instructor, who is trans, gave her a zero. Fulnecky, in her (apparent) indignance, complained to the local chapter of TPUSA that this is an act of religious discrimination, and sparks flew. And they've kept flying. Fulnecky received an honorary award from the Oklahoma state Congress and has been speaking about her situation on Fox News. The university has sided with Fulnecky, placing the instructor on indefinite administrative leave until...the situation blows over? It's unclear how much "investigation" this really requires, but it is clear that Fulnecky has won the battle.
I am more interested in the war. Conservative scuffles at universities seem dime-a-dozen at this point, which makes it all the more surprising that this one has climbed out of the Twitter pit to receive national attention. For one, the essay is not particularly high-quality. This is not a case where a student submitted a carefully argued theological analysis, but instead appealed to the most straightforward of scriptural arguments and didn't even cite the verses in question! While the resulting grade of 0 seems slightly punitive and I don't doubt it was motivated by some level of personal offense, the professor's response hardly could be considered discriminatory. I've heard some grumblings that the instructor gave this grade specifically because she is trans - so it hurt more, or something - but I think most cis psychology profs these days would have a similar reaction. I think Fulnecky deserved some points, but not many. She lacks one of the most foundational skills a college-level writer needs: adapting your ideas to your audience.
Speculation on Twitter is running wild, suggesting that Fulnecky intentionally submitted a poor essay to gain some conservative street-cred, that her lawyer mother is involved, and plenty of other mental gymnastics. I don't blame the gymnasts - this case has been elevated to levels that are suspiciously unjustified, in my view. The banal reason is that it's easy pickings for conservative commentators who are salivating for any story they can nut-pick to put on the evening news block. But is that really all it takes? Can a religious person do any wrong in the eyes of the New Right? I realize writing this that I sound completely incredulous that the media could blow up a story, but seeing it happen in real-time has been pretty mind boggling. Read the essay and let me know what you think. I don't want to be mistaken for consensus-building here, and I would welcome any and all steelmans for the pro-Fulnecky position. Maybe I've been cut by yet another scissor statement (in this case, essay).
This is further evidence to me that red-tribers have completely abandoned most institutes of higher education. It's no longer a question of "we must reform the universities and stop them from being ideologically possessed!" but "the universities are ideologically possessed and the only way out is avoidance/destruction." It doesn't help when college graduates seem to be fleeing the red tribe like it's got the plague - it's much easier to prop up a controversy when the remaining red tribers lack the personal experience to vet it properly. All this to say: I think universities are really going to have it rough under this administration. They've already been sued to hell and back. If the red tribe couldn't turn the university system around by playing nice, they're going to do it by force - social, legal, or otherwise.
To be fair, I think the Canadian economy is in a much different place than the United States. Off the top of my head you guys are dealing with much stronger demographic and labor issues, not to mention absolute housing insanity. At least in the U.S., I can still feel some semblence of economic growth even if much of it comes from tenuous/unsatisfying/rent-seeking pursuits and the areas that were hollowed out over the past 30 years (i.e. Rust Belt) seem to have at least stabilized in their decline. It feels much more like stagnation than outright collapse. The Canadian situation appears to be inching toward the latter.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
1mo ago
Too many no-no words meant the sub was at risk of deletion, iirc. Much easier to respect the spirit of the community off-site where we could set our own standards for what content needs moderated.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
1mo ago
Agreed, the Republicans I've seen who have political ambition either seem to be jockeying for Trump's favor or attempting to distinginguish themselves from him to try and steal the torch of party leader. Either way, Trump is still the locus of Republican energy and the lions share of political action these days seems to be done in reference to him, not just for its own sake.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
1mo ago
Those are definitely externalities that I considered, but even when taken together I don't think they encompass precisely what OP is objecting to. Nor do they illustrate the reasons behind OP's apparent discontent.
As a newer account with the fervor to post and fill my profile page, I initially was tempted to excise this post point-by-point, explaining where my thoughts differed. However, after starting to write, I realized I'm in the same camp as TitaniumButterfly - there is a notable lack of specificity here. I am not sure what ideological camp or viewpoint you're claiming to advocate, given your language avoids the usual COVID buzzwords. It seems you expect us to know what you're referring to by "enemy doctrines" and "grim smiles of doctrinaires," but they're blowing right over my head. I can sort of see what tea leaves you're gesturing to. I just don't know what you mean exactly. A good place to start might be explaining your conclusion so I can reason backward.
...the Vaccine Moment was a malevolent, planned, opportunistic structural attack on a segment of Western Society.
- Malevolent, how? Malevolent because of the direct medical consequences of using "genetic technology"? Malevolent because it showed that the technocratic establishment was able to shape public will given the right cause? I can tell you generally disapprove of the way that scientific authority was wielded during the pandemic, but what do you believe the negative consequences of the COVID reaction are, exactly?
- Planned, how? Information about COVID was very scare and contradictory at the beginning. The global population was incredibly scared and confused and looking toward authorities for some guidance. Those authorities did not want to find themselves without that guidance. They did not want to appear incompetent. I find it much more likely that the response to the pandemic was one that was necessarily imperfect due to the political and biological realities of pandemic life and the incredible demand for solutions. If it was planned, what aspects do you believe were coordinated and for what goal?
- Structural, how? The structures that led to the rollout of the vaccine were largely in place prior to the pandemic and I don't believe they've been dramatically changed since. Perhaps you mean structural in terms of our social relationship to science. What do you mean by structure - even in the Foucaltian sense?
- Which segment of Western society? Why that segment in particular, why Western society, rather than the world? The entire world experienced the pandemic, most countries had inconsistent and fraught COVID responses, and large portions of the world received exported American vaccines.
I'm not being intentionally glib here, I just haven't participated in COVID discourse in quite a long time so I'm failing at the word association game you're trying to play.
ratherblather
psychiatric help 5¢, the doctor is in
2mo ago
As another note on relative trust, I think it's worth acknowledging that the historical red tribe distrust of government lies, to some extent, in the lack of ownership felt toward said government. The idea that red tribers distrust government came to prominence in response to Obama and the establishment-type neocon Republicans that worked with him, further inflamed by the Biden admin's poor communication and media backsliding during COVID. Now that the government is presently controlled by the MAGA movement (whether or not it has been influenced or consumed by the establishment notwithstanding), most red tribers trust the parts of said government run by "their guy." One of Trump's major electoral talking points in 2016 was how he was going to topple the establishment and speak truth to power, and while that sentiment has waned somewhat on his second term, there is still enough of that energy in the MAGA base that official government narratives tend to be accepted.
To try and address as many of your pointed rhetorical questions as possible in one fell swoop, my view is that Fulnecky should have known better than to submit an assignment with this sort of argumentation, especially as a junior. The methods used in the field of academic psychology are specific and any deviation from them, especially a major one like this, requires some justification. Learning to work in a field involves learning to speak its language, to participate in the academic community. Perhaps other professors have let it slide but I do not fault this instructor for not doing so. The rubric, especially for such a small potatoes assignment like this, need not state every single possibility nor are there really objective criteria. Plenty of professors give out zeroes for less, and my quickly jotted belief that she deserves "some points" is just because I hate to see any student get a zero for an assignment they at least submitted. They hurt. But that doesn't mean a 0 wasn't deserved.
I am speaking of this event as suspicious because there are ways it could have been handled other than immediately rushing to a political advocacy group. Most universities have mechanisms for reporting or investigating grading issues. I find it questionable that Fulnecky didn't, say, send an email, offer to discuss it in office hours, or speak to the U of O's office of institutional standards, or whatever they call it there.
More options
Context Copy link