kimilseung

I dont keep up on social science writers, though I am of course familiar with the rise of such terms and concepts as micro-aggression, white privilege, and racism defined as prejudice+power. While I partly knew and partly guessed that these terms had their origins in University classes, it was with interest that I found myself in one such class today at a rather well respected University. The class was called "Oppression and Privilege".

I think my surprise was at the didactic nature of the class. It was all presented as knowledge to be disseminated to the students, all as fact, not ideas or thoughts. It did bring back memories of Korea, were you could tell who had just had a Womans Studies class the week before by what they were talking about. Maybe I am a bit of a snob here, in that I suppose I must look down on those that learn these things via a didactic delivery, but I am always suspicious of such people as they are as likely to believe fish are trees if a figure in authority tells them it.

Anyway, I can see where all these millennials are getting their ideas and vocabulary. There is so much good discussion points possible that it breaks my heart to see all the good educational opportunities lost, if a less didactic approach was taken.

I view the world through a Marxist lens, history made by conflict between economic groups and that was completely lacking. Class and poverty were mentioned, but more as add ons or after thoughts.

Those that go on about the Frankfurt School bringing Marxism in to society via all this couldn't be more off the mark.

scrubbedexpat099

This is nothing new, come enough when I was that age.

Bernie Bros is my new favourite.

Hiro11

It's 'shocking' to me that an American university class on "Oppression and Privilege" would be didactic and one note. If a Marxist is feeling left out, imagine trying to be a big "L" classic Liberal on campus these days. Haven't you heard? Debate is dead, all questions have already been settled. Opposing viewpoints are "offensive" and should be shouted down. Orthodox purity must be maintained.

Anian

Isn't it usually that lectures present the stuff, then you have separate classes to discuss it, with back-and-forth between the students and lecturer? Even my math and science classes worked that way, were there is only one correct answer and everything is facts, so I'd be surprised if something like politics and psychology didn't.

RoadWarriorFromLP

The majority of the population does not attend university, and I seriously doubt that the vast majority of university students take that class.

As an undergrad, I took Marxism as an elective. The class was even taught by an actual Marxist. But ultimately, only a tiny percentage of the student body took this course, the course was taught evenhandedly (great professor), and I doubt that he converted anyone who didn't want to be converted.

Incidentally, I got an A in the class even though I wasn't a Marxist before, during or after the course. Just because I respected the prof did not mean that I was inclined to agree with him.

The most dogmatic education that I ever had was in my MBA program. Professors don't really care much about undergrads, but some of them really crave the sense of validation that they receive from having grad students brown-nose them.