Disability and the Politics of Cure

Disability awareness has increased in recent decades, along with a growing academic field dedicated to it. Partly this is due to the concerns of a large aging baby boomer population. Disability advocacy groups are becoming increasingly vocal. Yet despite incremental advancements in affordances and civil also rights, the specter of normalcy persists. In many areas of life –– from employment and housing to education and medical care –– bias, discrimination, and uneasiness can negatively impact people with disabilities.

Even though no longer uniformly cast as outsiders, many with disabilities entering “ableist” society do so at a price. Social awkwardness or a reluctance to engage someone with a disability remain commonplace. This type of misunderstanding can lead to stereotyping, with the assumption that a person in a wheelchair wants or needs assistance. There can be a lot of confusion when it comes to certain conditions, such as when a speech difference is construed as a cognitive deficit. Furthermore, people with disabilities are sometimes accused of exploiting their disabilities for unfair advantages.

Let’s face it. Majorities tend to view the world from their own perspective, expecting others to conform. This impulse is particularly strong in the U.S., where citizens cling to their rugged individualism. In one of the most competitive countries in the world, failures are more likely to be attributed to individual shortcomings than to any systematic problem. The result has been a distorted view of variances of many types, physical and mental abilities prominent among them. In what often is termed the “medical model” of disability, impairments are seen as illnesses in need of treatment or “cure.” Because the model only focuses on functional differences, it can reduce the person to a diagnosis, while “constructing disability” as a problem.

In the disability community, activists and scholars argue that a condition only becomes a disability when it is conceptualized as one. In its place, they advocate a “social model” of disability, focusing on accommodations, universal design, and inclusive attitudes. People with disabilities can, with the appropriate affordances, found a company like Apple Computer (Steve Jobs), conduct an orchestra (Itzhak Perlman), become poet laureate (Maya Angelou), or President of the United States (Franklin Roosevelt). Continue reading “Disability and the Politics of Cure”

Updating the Self

Neuroscientists call the brain an “anticipation machine” because it spends so much time predicting the future.[i] It does this by piecing together past experiences to build scenarios of expected outcomes, in a process that reinforces itself as predictions come true. But of course things don’t always come true,  creating uncertainty and wreaking havoc on the anticipation machine. In mild cases this expresses itself in a sense of worry that things might go wrong. But pile up a lot of bad experiences and you end up expecting the worst, in what psychologists call “anticipatory dread.”[ii] While this can be a healthy process in buffering the shock of negative events, it also can spiral into a harmful sensation of crisis.

Recent research has a lot to say about the anticipation machine’s relationship to the update impulse. Visions of the future don’t spring from a vacuum, but link to objects, expected outcomes, or something we think we want. This desiring process applies to just about everything, whether it’s a slice of pizza or the admiration of others. But here’s the fascinating part: Getting things is less powerful than wanting them. That new pair of jeans might bring a thrill. But soon comes the yearning for another purchase. Neuroimaging reveals that “wanting” and “liking” occur in different parts of the brain, with the former more strongly active than the latter. Contrary to common wisdom, motivation isn’t influenced by animalistic hungers and drives. What gets people going is the imagination, which is why advertising favors feelings over facts. Continue reading “Updating the Self”

Beyond the Slogans: Evidence-Driven DEI in Higher Education

The past year has witnessed unprecedented assaults on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in universities. Often disguised as support for “traditional” values or academic freedom, these criticisms mask a deeper debate about the role and direction of higher education in a diverse society. To navigate this turbulent discussion, it’s important to move beyond slogans and delve into the evidence-based benefits of DEI, not just for educational institutions, but for the very fabric of a democratic society.

Historically, American academia has been marked by exclusion. Access to knowledge, the cornerstone of a thriving democracy, was largely reserved for privileged white students. This reality underscores the dynamic nature of tradition in higher education. True progress lies not in clinging to past practices, but in expanding access to reflect the rich tapestry of American life. DEI serves as a crucial tool in this expansion. Far from a political tool or mere slogan, it represents a data-driven approach to dismantling barriers that impede access and success for historically marginalized communities. Research paints a clear picture:

  • Improved Student Outcomes: Studies by the National Bureau of Economic Research show that diverse learning environments significantly enhance academic performance and critical thinking skills.
  • Higher Graduation Rates: The American Association of Colleges and Universities reports that campuses with robust DEI programs boast higher graduation rates, particularly for socially marginalized students.
  • Stronger Civic Engagement: Research by the National Center for Education Statistics reveals that universities with strong inclusivity practices foster greater student satisfaction and civic engagement.

Continue reading “Beyond the Slogans: Evidence-Driven DEI in Higher Education”

Racism and Sexism in Teaching Evaluations

In the world of academia, where the pursuit of knowledge and excellence in teaching are paramount, one might assume that evaluation methods would be impartial and objective. However, a thought-provoking article by David Delgado Shorter, a UCLA Professor of World Arts and Cultures, sheds light on the problematic nature of student evaluations. In his article titled “Teaching Evaluations Are Racist, Sexist, And Often Useless: It’s Time To Put These Flawed Measures In Their Place,” Shorter questions the validity and fairness of using student evaluations as a basis for academic merit and promotion decisions.

Shorter’s journey into this subject began when he reviewed his own teaching evaluations from the previous years, aiming to compile them for promotion purposes. What he found was a mixture of bizarre comments and personal narratives that had little to do with the actual course content. He realized that this was not an isolated incident; many of his Black and Asian colleagues, especially women, faced even more problematic evaluations.

These concerns prompted Shorter to delve into the research surrounding teaching evaluations. He discovered a wealth of peer-reviewed papers spanning decades, all pointing to the same disturbing trend: gender and racial biases in student evaluations. Women consistently received lower ratings than men, and younger women were often judged less professionally than their older counterparts. Women of color faced additional challenges, being rated as less effective than white women. These biases, based on gender, race, and even seemingly unrelated factors like the time of day a course was taught, raised serious questions about the validity of using student evaluations as a sole measure of teaching effectiveness.

The American Sociological Association (ASA) recognized these issues and recommended in 2019 that student evaluations should not be used as the sole basis for merit and promotion decisions unless part of a broader, more holistic assessment. Some universities, such as the University of Southern California, the University of Oregon, and the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, have already taken steps to combine student evaluations with other forms of assessment in personnel decisions. The ASA’s stance has garnered support from nearly two dozen professional organizations.

The legal implications of relying solely on student evaluations are also a cause for concern. In a case at Ryerson University (now Toronto Metropolitan University) in 2009, an arbitrator, William Kaplan, acknowledged “serious and inherent limitations” of student evaluations, describing them as “imperfect at best and downright biased and unreliable at worst.” This raises the possibility of legal challenges if colleges continue to use these evaluations as the primary criterion for decision-making.

In response to these issues, Shorter’s own department at UCLA decided to prioritize fairness and reliability. They chose not to rely on student evaluations for job security and instead implemented a system that allowed faculty members to use peer-assessment and self-evaluation, with documented revisions to pedagogical statements. This approach aligns with the principle that academics should be assessed by their peers and experts in their respective fields rather than relying solely on student evaluations.

Losing Confidence in Higher Education

In recent times, America has been witnessing a seismic shift in the perception and value of higher education. Historically, a college degree had been regarded as a quintessential stepping stone to financial stability and a prosperous future. The early 2010s saw a high rate of affirmation from college graduates, with 86 percent considering their investment in college education to be worthwhile.[i]Additionally, 70 percent of high school graduates chose to pursue higher education directly after their graduation in 2009, showcasing the predominant belief in the benefits of a college education. The economic data around this time period significantly favored those with a bachelor’s degree, who were found to earn about two-thirds more than individuals with just a high school diploma. This earnings gap suggested that higher education could be a reliable pathway to greater financial security and prosperity.

Unfortunately, a stark contrast can be observed in recent years, as public sentiment regarding higher education has experienced a monumental shift. As of 2021, undergraduate enrollment figures plummeted to below 15.5 million, compared to over 18 million a decade earlier.[ii]Surveys conducted during this time reveal a staggering decline in the value attached to a college degree, with only 41 percent of young adults considering it very important, a dramatic decrease from the 74 percent recorded previously.[iii]  This waning confidence is mirrored in the diminishing trust towards higher education institutions, with only a third of the American populace expressing a high degree of faith in them.[iv] Continue reading “Losing Confidence in Higher Education”

The New Face of College

As the new academic year begins, the shifting demographics of undergraduates bear acknowledgment. Today’s students are navigating a profoundly altered landscape when it comes to higher education. Coming of age amidst shifting sands, they no longer view
college as a mere rite of passage into adulthood, a perception held by many in previous generations. Instead, higher education has emerged as a perceived bulwark against an unstable future, a necessary tool to secure a foothold in an increasingly competitive market. Armed with a critical eye and a deep-seated desire for value in their educational investment, these students are willing to devote the time and effort necessary to achieve grades that promise to pave a promising pathway into the workforce or further studies, viewing each step as a vital cog in the machinery of their future success.

The metamorphosis in the racial and ethnic composition of American higher education institutions is indeed noteworthy. According to data from the National Center for Education Statistics, there has been a discernible increase in the enrollment rates of several minority groups. In the fall of 2019, it was noted that the proportion of white students enrolled in colleges was around 55.9%, while Hispanic and Asian/Pacific Islander students represented 20.1% and 7.4% of enrollments, respectively.[1] Furthermore, the number of African American students enrolling has also seen an incremental rise, accounting for 13.2% in the same year. These developments illustrate a promising trajectory towards fostering a more inclusive and diverse educational environment. The progressive shift not only indicates a break from a predominantly white majority but also hints at an enriching academic milieu where perspectives from various backgrounds can converge. This diversification is a cornerstone in preparing students to navigate a globally interconnected world, where understanding and appreciation for diverse cultures and narratives is a critical asset. Continue reading “The New Face of College”

“The Instruction Myth” Revisited

In the vast landscape academia, one constant lingers. The venerated lecture is an historical artifact that traces its origins to the very inception of higher learning. Such a tradition, efficient as it might be for transmitting facts, often falls short in sparking genuine engagement. A growing body of evidence-based research shows that this is arguably the least effective way to generate learning, especially in our digitally charged era where learning has undergone a dramatic metamorphosis.

Our digital age hasn’t just redefined how we retrieve information, but reshaped our very expectations of learning. The omnipresence of online tools and multifaceted communication avenues heralds a marked shift in pedagogy. Brick-and-mortar classrooms, once the sole sanctums of knowledge, are being complemented by, if not at times replaced by, vibrant alternative modalities.

As John Tagg insightfully noted in his now- classic The Instruction Myth: Why Higher Education is Hard to Change, And How to Change It (Rutgers, 2019), established education structures can unwittingly ensnare itself in a misguided “universal solution” mindset. They risk glossing over the rich potentials of diverse learners, their individualized backgrounds, and inclinations. In this milieu, learning that foregrounds students’ individual aptitudes emerges as a promising way forward. Such adaptive approaches beckon a richer, more encompassing educational horizon. Continue reading ““The Instruction Myth” Revisited”

The Fitness Paradox

In the American panorama, fitness culture has taken a front-row seat. Sculpted physiques have become the driving force in our self-image-fueled society. An aesthetic representation of health has hijacked the popular consciousness, becoming not only coveted but also expected. It’s a celebration of the human body, but with its glorification, the “healthy” standard morphs into an unreachable Everest for many.

Couched in the language of possibilities without borders, fitness campaigns shine a spotlight on personal responsibility, with Nike’s “Just Do It” mantra being the poster child for such efforts. It’s not about selling sneakers, it’s about selling the dream that we can all ascend to athletic greatness. Their website continues this narrative, stating, “Your daily motivation with the latest gear, most effective workouts and the inspiration you need to test your limits ––and unleash your potential.”

The push is persuasive, especially for young customers grappling with identity, schooling, or job hunting. Similar slogans resound from the likes of Equinox, LA Fitness, and Shadow Fitness, all tapping into the ethos of self-determination, willpower, and personal growth.

Contrast this landscape with the stark reality: many Americans remain outside this idealized circle of health and fitness, intensifying the quest for better bodies. The message to our ageing, overweight, and unwell population is unequivocal: “get in shape or get left behind.” And this pressure isn’t limited to one demographic; it’s an equal opportunity oppressor, driving men, women, and the non-binary to chase this epitome of health. Fitness obsession seeps into every corner of our lives, from diet plans to gym memberships, from yoga studios to the booming wellness industry. Even giants like Amazon have recognized this lucrative market, snapping up Whole Foods.

Yet, the resources needed to meet these standards often remain out of reach for many, leading to a disturbing dichotomy. Work pressures and financial constraints impede exercise routines and healthy eating for many. As a result, the U.S. is home to a growing population of overweight or obese individuals. The fallout is profound. Studies reveal startling figures: by age thirteen, over half of American girls feel “unhappy with their bodies,” and by seventeen, that number soars to 78%. Extreme measures take the stage with eating disorders affecting young women, with mortality rates 12 times higher than all other causes. The surgical route is also being considered by nearly half of all teens. Men aren’t exempt from this fitness craze either, with 85% yearning for a more muscular frame.

This pursuit of perfection can be traced back to the sense of powerlessness that has seeped into American society. Now more than ever, in the digital era of Twitter and Instagram, these sentiments find a resonance chamber. Fitness becomes a means to cope with insecurity, a way to exert control over one’s destiny.

The desire for self-improvement isn’t inherently bad, but when taken to extremes, it can breed harmful ideologies. This can be seen in our burgeoning fitness culture, where athleticism is becoming a societal norm, connoting virtue and psychological balance. Carl Cederström and André Spicer, in their book “The Wellness Syndrome”, argue that self-improvement culture is transforming optional behaviors into societal expectations. They warn of a looming stigma, where failure to conform to this ideology of good health equates to decreased personal value.

The Backlash Against Inclusive Teaching

Yet another backlash against student diversity was discussed this past week in the Chronicle of Higher Education. In this case the assault came against pandemic-era inclusive teaching measures designed to mitigate the risk of student disconnection and failure –– methods such as group work, deadline flexibility, enhanced faculty interaction, and Universal Design for Learning. However, critics argue that these measures have led to a lax academic environment and decreased student motivation. What is needed, the critics assert, are stricter and more difficult courses to force students back in line.

In an article, “Why ‘Calls for a ‘Return to Rigor’ Are Wrong,” Chronicle columnist Kevin Gannon counters this perspective, contending that a simple increase in workload, tougher grading, and heightened standards do not equate to academic rigor.

He argues that these conventional methods often serve as a veneer for practices that raise barriers to student success, rather than tearing them down.  Critics of the pandemic-era teaching efforts often focus on metrics such as the volume of reading per week, the number of writing assignments, or the duration to complete an academic program. According to them, these have fallen far too low. In essence, they attribute “rigor” to logistical challenges in course delivery. However, Gannon emphasizes that higher education needn’t be prohibitive, and introducing practices that stifle student motivation and engagement is counterproductive. Continue reading “The Backlash Against Inclusive Teaching”

The Good Life

How do you live a “good life”?  It’s a question philosophers have pondered and pollsters still pose. Answers vary a lot, given differences in opinion and the breadth of the issue. What often comes to mind is a definition of happiness or what makes a life satisfying. For most people, the question entails both “self-directed” aspects of personal experience and “other-directed” elements of one’s place among others.[i]  Definitions of the good life can refer to abundance (“luxury, pleasure, or comfort”) or insight (“simplicity, health and morality).”[ii]  Other qualities include freedom or the idea of life as a journey.  This chapter explores how people view and pursue the good life, and what obstacles may stand in their way.

Discussions of the good life date to the ancient Greek concept of eudaimonia, a word commonly translated as “happiness,” “flourishing,” or “well-being.”[iii] Aristotle cast eudaimonia as an aspirational state that individuals could achieve by demonstrating authenticity and virtue in the eyes of the divine. This differed somewhat from the more immediate state of pleasure and enjoyment known as hedonia. As later philosophers gave people more credit for self-determination, enlightenment era figures like René Descartes and Baruch Spinosa linked the good life to a reasoned control of human passions.[iv] Christian interpretations of the good life sometimes gave it a moral character in beliefs that humans were created in God’s image, which is “good” by definition. In this line of thinking, virtue and success in life go hand-in-hand.

Historical figures sometimes made lists to define the good life. Socrates said such a life should follow five principles: temperance, courage, piety, justice, and wisdom.[v] Gautama Buddha spoke of an eightfold path of understanding, thought, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, and concentration.[vi] Almost all traditional good life lists had people conforming to widely held doctrines or belief systems, with the “self” cast as an element in a larger plan. In today’s more secular times most people see the good life as a matter of perspective. Unfortunately, this relativization has brought with it a certain emptiness. A simple online search for good life will provide you with a list of “bucket lists” of activities such as traveling or skydiving. Continue reading “The Good Life”