Students and Ethics
At a time when the dominant tone is pessimism, the dominant theme is distrust, and the dominant response is attack, it is not surprising that anxiety and uncertainty have settled over the academic community like a dark mist. If, to this, are added the frustrations wrought by the perverse and unsettled mood of a large segment of the student body-much of which is obsessed with hedonism and convinced that learning should he no more difficult than getting to class-it is understandable that both faculty memhers and institutions of higher education are likely to he confused about the nature and value of their enterprise. Just about the easiest thing we could do these days is to give in to student demands that they he taught according to their own standards, needs, and perceptions, and in ways that will least interfere with their life style. Doing this would make many students happy; the great majority of administrators would sigh in relief, and legislators and trustees would say that faculty members finally have seen the light. While such approbation would certainly provide psychic relief from the depression that accompanies all of the self analysis and douht, the net result of yielding in this way to student demands would accomplish nothing more than adding another major increment to the pervasive ethical decline that is crushing the will and viability of our society. If experience-our own and that of the ages-has any meaning, it tells us we shall need as many bright minds, sensible heads, and enlightened persons of good will as we can find or develop, just to keep us from destroying ourselves and the good *e have created. The maintenance of even a minimally acceptable quality of life, for each and for all, requires a basic competence, a practiced precision of thought, and disciplined standards of performance for all who would he contributors. What little we know about teaching and learning tells us that most learning for most people-and especially that required for the great contributions-comes the hard way. Our successes in training specialists have shown that the capacity of individuals of normal intelligence to learn, perform, think and create is so far beyond the level a t which many of our young people seem content to achieve today, that we would he remiss if we let this continue unchallenged. No douht a good many students are caught up in the cynicism of the times-a cynicism that tends to look upon traditional good as disguised evil and traditional had as goodness ravaged by injustice. Higher education, as part of traditional good, poses a threat even greater than evil itself to some students-the threat of heing made a captive and powerless dupe of what well might he an evil and inhuman system. Of course, many more students are content simply to go along with the game of getting by with as little effort as possible, raising the specter of poor teaching or insensitivity to student needs when intimidation might help their cause. A sizeable body of students remains dedicated, well-motivated and, in many cases, annoyed by the diminishing challenge.
editorially speaking Rehabilitation of a large segment of students will require a therapy that also will benefit higher education itself: a curriculum in which there is confidence. Such a curriculum would have to provide: a) Sufficient knowledge and skills to give the student confidence that he can find a d a c e for himself worthy of h ~ tultmrs s and rfforts. br Suft~rwntknowl~drcand understnndlnr of the uatterns of nature toknahle him to workVin harmony with the world and with his colleaaues. c) Sufficient precision and range in knowledge and understandina and in ability to interact so that he can become something more than a specialist. It would he reassuring to know that genuine progress is heing made toward development of curricula such as this. Until confidence is restored in the curriculum, instructors may have to take time to. explain to students why they are being asked to work so hard, and how the skills and habits they learn in college can help them in later life. For those students who cannot accept this, hut who insist on standards and effort levels inadequate to prepare them to function as college graduates in the real world, kind, hut uncompromising resistance, as early as possible, would appear to he the most just and intelligent response. Hopefully, this policy is consistent with the thinking of faculties in all academic areas. Making certain that students d e v e l o ~~ e r c e ~ t i oand n range in'their intellectual abilities doe; not imply that thev should be suhiected to unreasonable requirements or preisures. Courses and instructors should takk the student where he is and help him move forward. However, the rate of skill development and the time period needed to master material should he monitored carefully to he certain that genuine progress is being made. The notion that all, or even most, students can develop effectively if allowed to set their own pace and standards, is suspect at best. There may he a great deal wrong with our colleges and universities, and much we need to learn about how and why we learn. There may he an even greater void in our understanding of how to educate the "whole person," or how to develop creativity. But one thing is certain: our society, largely through the effectiveness and productivity of its college graduates, has consistently created more opportunities for its citizens than any other. Every faculty member with anv knows that the factor com. exoerience . mon to virtually all productive graduates is their willingness to struade with difficult problems. Faculty members also know that one does not learn to handle such problems without knowledge, discipline, and practice. Human nature is such that the young, with very few exceptions, must he introduced to intellectual discipline before they can appreciate its power. We can and should help students realize some of the great potential they possess. Making courses unethically easy is not the way to do this.
WTL Volume 52. Number 2, February
1975
/
69
