Let the people decide

Interpreting Ali Boyd's Nov 13 column, "Speak truth, not facts," proved to be a daunting task. Still confused after reading the article through a couple of times, I got a second opinion and a third and a fourth. No one could decipher the cryptic message of the enlightened illuminate, but what we think Ms. Boyd was trying to say is that Furman faculty should teach their own version of the "truth" rather than presenting both sides of the arguments and allowing students to formulate our own opinions. I think that I speak for many students when I say that I came to Furman to develop my own identity through exposure to many different ideas, not to be told what to believe. One would think that the outlandish argument that Ms. Boyd tries to make would cause quite a stir, but she masterfully disguises it behind irrelevant social causes and disjointed ramblings. Her closing statement that, "Ideally, a teacher's vocation should saturate every part of his or her life, not simply burden students with the regurgitation of facts," presents, from what I can tell, the clearest representation of her argument.

What Ali fails to realize in her article is that everyone comes from different backgrounds and is entitled to his or her own set of opinions. If a professor exclusively taught what he or she felt to be true, then that professor would fail at his or her job, and the students in the class who dared to engage in independent thought would feel persecuted, if not explicitly penalized. Professors teach what they are passionate about, but they should do it in such a way that we as students are free to formulate our own opinions, whether in line with or contrary to the ideas of the professor. The "facts" that Ali rages against are vital for us to learn in order to strengthen our identities.

Boyd even has the audacity to suggest that Furman professors are not encouraging and stimulating critical discussion about significant societal problems. Anyone who has taken a class here knows that this is certainly not the case. Each of my classes has involved discussions of societal issues, and most of them have given me ways to get involved if I felt so inclined.
Even my Biology 111 course - one of the most lecture-based courses offered - discussed the dwindling bighorn sheep populations, and my professor offered the students in the course the opportunity to accompany him to New Mexico to learn more about this issue. One of the beliefs that this professor firmly held was that the bighorn sheep should be saved, and I, after learning that bighorn sheep don't affect me at all, decided not to care about them. Our relationship was not affected by the fact that I don't care about bighorn sheep - we just have differing opinions. Should I have been forced to go on the trip to New Mexico to try and save the sheep? I don't think so: I am capable of deciding things for myself.

Another example of professors encouraging discussion is the political science department's willingness to subsidize Boyd's trip to the School of the Americas. The department is helping those with strongly-held opinions about this issue attend the protest but, to the dismay of people like Boyd, is not forcing students to attend. The department wants those who feel passionately about the issue to be able to learn more about it, but at the same time realizes that most people don't care - or even disagree. In doing so, the department recognizes that it is not its role to "harness" students into bleeding heart activism.