|
As he enters his final semester as occupant of the Walter
E. Russell Chair in Philosophy and Education, LAC Associate
Professor of Arts and Humanities Robert Schaible took a few
moments to reflect on his work. This distinction carries with
it the responsibility of presenting at least one public lecture
on issues of importance in education and/or philosophy. Schaible
presented a lecture, and series of faculty forums, examing
the university's larger role in society.
Following, are excerpts from an interview Schaible gave
with Currents' editorial staff.
What has been your central focus as Russell Chair?
Schaible: It has been my hope to use this experience
to try to focus faculty attention more directly on political
and social issues and on the role that education might play
in addressing those issues. For the first semester, I dealt
primarily with issues of social and economic justice. I have
been particularly concerned about the ever-widening gap between
the rich and the poor and I'm interested in whether or not
the core curriculum at the university really does introduce
students to the problems we face and ways that we might set
about solving them.
How well do you think the University is addressing those
issues?
Schaible: It's pretty much my conviction that the
university hasn't done a good job. Our students can take from
a wide core of courses, but I think a huge percentage of them
get through our university without once confronting their
own sense of privilege and the seriousness of the problems
we face, both here and globally. How many students don't have
to deal seriously with the history and presence of racism
in this country, or with the predations of the rich on the
resources and general productive capacity of the planet? I
think of what E.O. Wilson, a biologist at Harvard, wrote in
his book, The Future of Life. He says that on average, an
inhabitant of this Earth uses something between three and
five acres in order to sustain him or herself. In America,
the average is 24 acres per person. Given this, for the rest
of the world to live at the same level of our consumption
and comfort, it would require four additional planet Earths!
How many of our graduates learn this? How many make a connection
between this startling information and our being the strongest
military power? Yes, our military protects democracy, but
frequently, it's there because it's the only way we could
sustain our greedy and wasteful lifestyle.
Why do you think there is a disconnect between the curriculum
and a more profound level of social and political critique?
Schaible: There are many complex reasons. But part
of the blame lies, I think, with the cultural left -- a term
that refers to the academic left since the late Sixties. The
cultural left tends to be much more concerned with theory
than with political activism. This may be the result of cynicism
borne of the activist movements of the 1960s, a feeling that
not enough changed, that the political left sold out and com-promised
too much with The Establishment. There's a kind of disdain
about what active political behavior can accomplish. Also,
while much of the theory is brilliant and useful, it's often
expressed in a dense jargon that is off-putting to other academics
and inaccessible to many students. So the very group, the
Left, to which we have traditionally looked for leadership
has failed to lead in an effective manner.
Do you think that sense of detachment, or wariness, about
political action trickles down to the student body?
Schaible: Well, it's not enough to give students just
the critique because that can merely make them cynical. You
have to also be modeling for them and teaching the possibilities
of change. We saw the possibilities in the late '60s when
a mass of college students tramped around New Hampshire supporting
Eugene McCarthy, whose stance helped bring an end to the Vietnam
War. We also had Freedom Summer, when thousands of students
went to Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, to help register black
voters. I'm of the persuasion that our professional schools
probably have more opportunity to actually affect change in
our culture, than do those coming out of English and history
and philosophy departments. Primarily because there are more
of those students graduating. Faculty in these schools have
an opportunity to work with people who will be managers and
CEOs of the future and direct their attention to the social
and economic injustices and environmental problems that must
be addressed. We have a smattering of this consciousness at
the university; some faculty are doing a wonderful job, but
the professional schools need to be more aggressive in this
regard.
Where do you see positive, practical examples of social
activism at USM?
Schaible: Well, to use one very concrete example,
in the men's room of USM's Woodbury Campus Center is a wonderful
sign at a latrine, which says, "This latrine is sanitary
and operates without water. It saves 40,000 gallons of water
per year." One latrine! The next big environmental crisis
we will probably face is a water shortage, so it's very encouraging
that the university is starting to take concrete steps like
this. But much more needs to be done. I am impressed with
a course several USM faculty put together called "Power,
Privilege and Profit." This kind of education is indeed
happening at USM, but it's fragmented. We don't have a systematic,
broad scheme for educating students about these matters. I
think the university is too focused on a utilitarian education,
educating people to fit into the economic system. We've got
to do that, but we also need to work much harder on issues
pertaining to the environment and economic and social justice,
what one might call the moral health of the nation.
>back to currents
|
