![\"\"](\"https:\/\/world.edu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/palmerwrite.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
My kind readers often give me \u201chints\u201d on what to write about, and I had several point me in the direction of a strange-looking course, via ZeroHedge.<\/p>\n
First let\u2019s address the course by dissecting the course description<\/a>:<\/p>\n QUEER ECOLOGIES<\/strong> The professor is Heather Davis, and section \u201cA\u201d means there\u2019s probably only going to be one section. The CRN is the important part:7681. The first digit of a college course generally says what year student should be taking the course. Your typical undergraduate will probably not take courses numbered higher than 4000 (or 400, for smaller campuses), because a typical bachelor\u2019s degree is a 4 year degree.<\/p>\n Once you past 4000, you\u2019re looking at graduate school. With a 7000 number, this is a very advanced course. If you walk into a 7000 level course in mathematics, physics, chemistry or engineering without a very firm background in the subject\u2026you\u2019re doomed. It takes years of preparation to understand the material in a 7000 level course\u2014I remind the gentle reader the whole point of education is always to prepare the student for more.<\/p>\n So what exactly is in this extremely advanced course?<\/p>\n This course will address the interdisciplinary constellation of practices that aim, in different ways, to disrupt prevailing heterosexist discursive and institutional articulations of sexuality and nature\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n The jargon a bit intense, but I\u2019ll give the professor some slack here\u2014advanced courses are like this. An easier way to express the above would be \u201cthis course is a look at all the ways we\u2019re disrupting the view of heterosexuality as the way the world works,\u201d at the risk of oversimplifying (small risk, I admit). There\u2019s more:<\/p>\n and also to reimagine evolutionary processes, ecological interactions, and environmental politics in light of queer theory.<\/em><\/p>\n Hmm. It\u2019s hard to view homosexual behavior as having much impact on evolutionary processes\u2014homosexual behavior isn\u2019t really conducive to pregnancy, after all (we\u2019re specifically addressing humans here), and our understanding of evolution requires propagation of the species in that manner. Similarly, I\u2019m hard pressed to understand what behavior homosexuality would have on the ecology of the world which would be different than heterosexuality (beyond dying off in a single generation, but I doubt that\u2019ll be the gist of the discussion).<\/p>\n Whatever benefits dying off would have on the ecology would be negated with environmental politics\u2014if you don\u2019t have children, destroying the environment would seem a more acceptable outcome, right? Somehow I suspect that point of view won\u2019t come up in the course.<\/p>\n There\u2019s more:<\/p>\n Drawing from traditions as diverse as evolutionary biology, LGBTQ+ movements, feminist science studies, and environmental justice,<\/em><\/p>\n One of these things is not like the others, big time. \u201cEvolutionary biology\u201d is something of a science, while the others are political movements\/ideologies more than anything else. Ok, I guess some would dispute evolutionary biology as being scientific\u2026but I sure can\u2019t call it a \u201ctradition.\u201d<\/p>\n There\u2019s more to the course description, but color me puzzled. Where exactly would all this ideology lead? What do you need to know to come into the course? These are real questions in legitimate graduate courses which always\u2014always!– need to be justified by providing very solid answers to those questions.<\/p>\n This course seems to be just a bunch of stuff. A bit more on the course:<\/p>\n College:<\/strong> Eugene Lang College Lib Arts (LC)<\/em> Again I\u2019m scratching my head. What is a \u201cculture and media\u201d department? I sure don\u2019t remember any of that in my academic studies, and I\u2019m a little puzzled how \u201cLCST\u201d is a fair abbreviation for \u201cCulture and Media.\u201d<\/p>\n More worrisome than the puzzling acronym is the enrollment of 18 is full, as near as I can tell. There are truly 18 people studying this incredibly advanced concept? I can\u2019t recall ever seeing a 7000 level course in my discipline with 18 serious students. Again the question of \u201cwhere are they going with this?\u201d comes to mind.<\/p>\n Campus Reform had some questions<\/a> about the course but didn\u2019t really understand the answers provided by the professor, so I\u2019ll try to help, here.<\/p>\n Davis explained that queer ecologies is an \u201cinterdisciplinary field that examines the relationship between sexuality and nature, thinking beyond the boundaries of assuming that heterosexuality is the norm or standard.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Wait. When I look up the definition of \u201cnorm<\/a>,\u201d it\u2019s \u201cusual, typical, or standard.\u201d Gallup says around 4% of the population is homosexual<\/a>, so, yes, a human being heterosexual is indeed quite typical, even if our media grossly exaggerates the percentage of the population as gay.<\/p>\n So basically the professor is saying the course will be going beyond the boundaries of thinking \u201cwords have meaning.\u201d Hmm.<\/p>\n The professor continues trying to explain:<\/p>\n The field \u201cinquires into the sexual lives of animals, plants, and bacteria\u2014lives that are often much more strange, adaptable, and queer than anything humans do,\u201d she elaborated. \u201cIt also seeks to critique how heterosexuality is presumed as natural.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n I\u2019m not convinced that humans and bacteria could validly have their \u201csexual lives\u201d compared, but\u2026there\u2019s a question about heterosexuality being natural? Again, a cursory inspection of the definition of \u201cnatural\u201d is in order:<\/p>\n \/\u02c8naCH(\u0259)r\u0259l\/<\/p>\n As per the definition, yes, heterosexuality is natural, in that it is not caused by humanity. On the other hand, there\u2019s evidence that homosexuals are more common among those abused as children<\/a>, thus satisfying the definition of \u201cunnatural\u201d but I digress.<\/p>\n \u201cWe can see this in how queerness is often said to be \u2018unnatural\u2019…rather than thinking about how queer sex might actually be helpful to the survival of species,\u201d Davis noted.<\/em><\/p>\n As much as I have concerns about these types of courses, the above is certainly an interesting idea. Alas, she doesn\u2019t give an example of how that might be the case. Instead, she devolves into faulty logic and obfuscation in what passes as her explanation:<\/p>\n One example of this, Davis asserted, is how scientists often characterize plants using gender-specific language.<\/em> Homosexuality in humans refers to the same species, so discussion of how plants to some extent rely upon other species for their reproduction is a non-sequitur, not reinforcing her idea (it\u2019s kinda-sorta leading up to it in a way, I suppose).<\/p>\n I\u2019m particularly worried about her \u201cnot un-true\u201d line regarding understanding of plant reproduction in heterosexual terms. \u201cNot un-true\u201d is garble-speak for \u201ctrue\u201d\u2026I\u2019m don\u2019t know what confusion of ideas allows for acknowledging the fact that something is true as a means to argue it\u2019s not true.<\/p>\n Perhaps I\u2019m being hard on the course. I grant that someone could look at a description for a 7000 level mathematics course and criticize the strange terms and concepts being addressed there. But I still maintain that such a course would have real requirements for entry, unlike the above where simply being able to recite the ideological tenets would be sufficient.<\/p>\n And, where exactly would this course lead?<\/p>\n www.professorconfess.blogspot.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\nFALL 2018
\nTAUGHT BY: HEATHER DAVIS
\nSECTION:<\/strong> A
\nCRN<\/strong>: 7681
\nCredits:<\/strong> 4<\/p>\n
\nDepartment:<\/strong> Culture and Media (LCST)<\/em>
\nCampus:<\/strong> New York City (GV)<\/em>
\nCourse Format:<\/strong> Seminar (R)<\/em>
\nMax Enrollment:<\/strong> 18<\/em><\/p>\nnat\u00b7u\u00b7ral<\/strong><\/h3>\n
adjective
\n\u00b7 1.existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind:<\/h5>\n
\n\u201cWe still tend to characterize plants that reproduce sexually in heterosexual terms where a male and female plant need to transfer gametes. Although this understanding of plant reproduction is not un-true, it misses the point that in order for these plants to fertilize they also rely on other species, such as bees and wasps,\u201d she argued.<\/em><\/p>\n