I'm really excited to tell you that everyone who wrote the exam passed. In fact, all but one paper was passed by both examiners and that one passed on a third reading.
I hope you feel that you've benefited from the class. If I can be of help to you in the future, please feel free to ask.
Best,
Brett
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Final Exam Eligibility
I have now mailed the people who will NOT be eligible to write the final exam. If you have not received such an e-mail from me, you are eligible. Congratulations!
If you're not sure, please feel free to send me an e-mail and ask.
If you're not sure, please feel free to send me an e-mail and ask.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Evidence for a Dot Com This essay
Geoff Pullum is co-author of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. He knows a thing or two about language and he says don't believe the hype.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Is Anger Reasonable
Topic: It is/isn’t reasonable for racial minorities to feel angry about the discrimination and economic inequity they face.
(I wrote this in one hour and ten minutes. It took 20 minutes to edit it.)
“God damn America!” That was the angry cry that recently shocked America. Potential Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s black pastor was the man who uttered those words, and it was his experiences of racism, and those of the other blacks, that prompted him to denounce his country. The result of this was Obama’s speech a few weeks ago in which he claimed it is understandable for blacks to be angry. Indeed, it is both understandable and eminently reasonable for minorities to feel angry about the discrimination and economic inequity they face.
Remarkably, there are people who deny that minorities are discriminated against. Everyone has the same opportunity, they say. It says so right there in the US Constitution, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” It says so in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” Yet we also have laws against speeding, theft, assault, and many other activities that we deem offensive. But nobody would argue that therefore these activities don’t take place.
Racism is old, the deniers claim. That was then and this is now. But the research cited in the article (Time to talk about race, 2008) clearly shows that even though people may be better at concealing racism, it’s still there. The average income for visible minorities continues to be well below that of WASPs here in Canada. Courts have recently found that police in Canada systematically engage in racial profiling. The number of visible minorities in the legislature is not representative of their numbers in society. Theses are but a sample of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that racism remains a daily event for visible minorities in Canada today.
So, if we can dispense with the denials and accept that racism is prevalent, we can now move on to the question of how to react to it. There are many possible reactions, and no doubt most of them have been tried out. But three of the most obvious are extremism, apathy, and anger. Anger was the feeling that Rev. Jeremiah Wright gave voice to when he damned America. Anger is the reaction we saw during the Rodney King riots in the states. This is one we saw at York University recently when racist slogans were posted on the door of the Black Students’ Alliance. It is one response of the Asian fishermen who were attacked on the shores of Lake Simcoe. It is the response of almost any person who feels unfairly persecuted. It is a common response, and as Obama says, it is completely understandable.
The question is: is anger a reasonable response? What would make it reasonable would be an ability to reduce the amount of injustice being suffered by the afflicted minorities. If anger simply maintained the status quo, or worse, caused the situation to deteriorate, it would be unreasonable. This is true of extremism. An example of an unreasonable extremist response is the destruction of the World Trade Centre by Al Qaeda terrorists. The situation for Muslims all around the world has undeniably worsened as a result of that criminal reaction. They are more discriminated against than ever here in North America, and they are being attacked, imprisoned, and killed in wars, both legal and illegal most notably in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We can conclude, then that extreme acts of criminal violence are an unreasonable response to racism. But the other extreme is passive acceptance, even facilitation. Although anger is such a natural reaction that it’s almost impossible to find discriminated peoples lacking anger, we can recall the blind eye and tacit encouragement with which much of Europe and North America reacted to the Nazi’s treatment of Jews. When we consider this facilitation, it’s clear that the result is a wound in the body humanity that still aches today. Hurting ourselves, whether it be through fanaticism or facilitation, is completely unreasonable.
A reasonable reaction is one that causes positive change. Change can only comes through hard work, which itself is a child of curiosity and the thirst to learn, of love and a wish to help, of greed and the desire for power, and of anger and the dream of equality. Anger is clearly not the only reasonable response to discrimination, but it is surely reasonable. When Rosa Parks refused to get off that bus, she was angry. She made life better for all Americans. When blacks in South Africa fought to overthrow Apartheid, they were angry, and they made life better for all South Africans. When Chinese Canadians rallied to demand an apology for the head tax, they were angry, and they made Canada better for all Canadians. When anger moves us to action; when it wakes the hearts of the masses and forces them to see the injustice around them; when it shames the oppressors and the facilitators of discrimination; when anger is focused, controlled, and directed, it opens the door onto possibilities of change.
Is anger a reasonable response? What could be more reasonable than anger, a natural emotion that helps us overcome racism, which another natural emotion. Anger is the enemy of racism—no more reason is needed.
(I wrote this in one hour and ten minutes. It took 20 minutes to edit it.)
“God damn America!” That was the angry cry that recently shocked America. Potential Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s black pastor was the man who uttered those words, and it was his experiences of racism, and those of the other blacks, that prompted him to denounce his country. The result of this was Obama’s speech a few weeks ago in which he claimed it is understandable for blacks to be angry. Indeed, it is both understandable and eminently reasonable for minorities to feel angry about the discrimination and economic inequity they face.
Remarkably, there are people who deny that minorities are discriminated against. Everyone has the same opportunity, they say. It says so right there in the US Constitution, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” It says so in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” Yet we also have laws against speeding, theft, assault, and many other activities that we deem offensive. But nobody would argue that therefore these activities don’t take place.
Racism is old, the deniers claim. That was then and this is now. But the research cited in the article (Time to talk about race, 2008) clearly shows that even though people may be better at concealing racism, it’s still there. The average income for visible minorities continues to be well below that of WASPs here in Canada. Courts have recently found that police in Canada systematically engage in racial profiling. The number of visible minorities in the legislature is not representative of their numbers in society. Theses are but a sample of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that racism remains a daily event for visible minorities in Canada today.
So, if we can dispense with the denials and accept that racism is prevalent, we can now move on to the question of how to react to it. There are many possible reactions, and no doubt most of them have been tried out. But three of the most obvious are extremism, apathy, and anger. Anger was the feeling that Rev. Jeremiah Wright gave voice to when he damned America. Anger is the reaction we saw during the Rodney King riots in the states. This is one we saw at York University recently when racist slogans were posted on the door of the Black Students’ Alliance. It is one response of the Asian fishermen who were attacked on the shores of Lake Simcoe. It is the response of almost any person who feels unfairly persecuted. It is a common response, and as Obama says, it is completely understandable.
The question is: is anger a reasonable response? What would make it reasonable would be an ability to reduce the amount of injustice being suffered by the afflicted minorities. If anger simply maintained the status quo, or worse, caused the situation to deteriorate, it would be unreasonable. This is true of extremism. An example of an unreasonable extremist response is the destruction of the World Trade Centre by Al Qaeda terrorists. The situation for Muslims all around the world has undeniably worsened as a result of that criminal reaction. They are more discriminated against than ever here in North America, and they are being attacked, imprisoned, and killed in wars, both legal and illegal most notably in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We can conclude, then that extreme acts of criminal violence are an unreasonable response to racism. But the other extreme is passive acceptance, even facilitation. Although anger is such a natural reaction that it’s almost impossible to find discriminated peoples lacking anger, we can recall the blind eye and tacit encouragement with which much of Europe and North America reacted to the Nazi’s treatment of Jews. When we consider this facilitation, it’s clear that the result is a wound in the body humanity that still aches today. Hurting ourselves, whether it be through fanaticism or facilitation, is completely unreasonable.
A reasonable reaction is one that causes positive change. Change can only comes through hard work, which itself is a child of curiosity and the thirst to learn, of love and a wish to help, of greed and the desire for power, and of anger and the dream of equality. Anger is clearly not the only reasonable response to discrimination, but it is surely reasonable. When Rosa Parks refused to get off that bus, she was angry. She made life better for all Americans. When blacks in South Africa fought to overthrow Apartheid, they were angry, and they made life better for all South Africans. When Chinese Canadians rallied to demand an apology for the head tax, they were angry, and they made Canada better for all Canadians. When anger moves us to action; when it wakes the hearts of the masses and forces them to see the injustice around them; when it shames the oppressors and the facilitators of discrimination; when anger is focused, controlled, and directed, it opens the door onto possibilities of change.
Is anger a reasonable response? What could be more reasonable than anger, a natural emotion that helps us overcome racism, which another natural emotion. Anger is the enemy of racism—no more reason is needed.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Last chance
I'll pull all the incomplete essays out of the test centre on Tuesday, April 15th so that I can get the list of passing students to the course coordinator. Any essay that is not completed by that date will receive a zero.
Environment Debate
http://www.greenhousenet.org/20_steps.htm
http://www।time.com/time/specials/2007/environment/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/14/MNFHTBKMA.DTL
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2005/10/can_global_warm.html
http://canadaonline.about.com/od/environment/i/kyotoprotocol.htm?p=1
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Final exam schedule
The final exam will be on Monday, April 21 in the Gym from 9:00 - 11:30. Please, let me know if you have a conflict with another exam.
The course coordinator has told me that you may take the exam at any of the times listed on the sheet I gave you today, just make sure you bring the sheet with you.
The course coordinator has told me that you may take the exam at any of the times listed on the sheet I gave you today, just make sure you bring the sheet with you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)