Warning: Postings are only opinions. (See Terms of Service) Note: Although the postings appear to be anonymous, NoIndoctrination.org knows the posters' names. We communicate with the posters before putting their comments online. We also research each posting and ask for corroborating material when appropriate. Record for NoIndoctrination.org entry #485.
| Palomar College |
Dec. 14, 2005 |
|
|
|
| Course: SOC 100: Introduction to Sociology |
|
| Course Catalog Description: A study of the principles and problems pertaining to group behavior, the relationships among human beings, the development and nature of institutions, and the structure of society. |
|
| Professor: R. Anthony Guerra |
|
| Required? Met a General Ed./diversity/other requirement with a few course options. |
|
| Lecture Bias: Objectionable |
|
| Comments: I will first state that Mr. Guerra is an exceptionally likeable man. Great sense of humor, and he's probably got one of the easiest classes on campus: show up, maybe read the book, and you'll pass the class. On the other hand, his lectures are constantly filled with rabbit trails - most of which lead to his (liberal) rantings against the anti-illegal-immigration laws. I sometimes wondered if he forgot he was teaching a sociology class; I could have sworn I was in Chicano Studies. As to the frequency of his "rants," it seemed as though he had something to be ticked about nearly every class. He never lost his temper exactly, but one could tell he was hot under the collar. For example: He was talking about discrimination. According to him, whenever he drives north and passes through the security check-point on the freeway, the patrol officer would eye him suspiciously for a moment, then wave him through. Mr. Guerra gets angry about that, because apparently, just the color of his skin suggests to the officer that he may be breaking the law. I can understand the anger; but, considering the influx of illegal immigrants into our state, and considering that the vast majority of these illegals are Hispanic - how else could an officer know whether or not he should pull over that man? The fact of the matter is that people with that ancestry have a particular physical appearance. One cannot tell by simply looking at him that he is or is not here legally. Can he think of a better method of determining possible suspects? A few times his statements lingered on the edge of mis-information: He was upset about hearing illegals called "aliens" and told us to not refer to them as "illegal aliens" because the word "alien" means something from outer space. The first definition in the dictionary classifies an "alien" as "Owing allegiance to another country or government." That fits these immigrants quite well. Out of the six definitions given, none of them refer to extra-terrestrials. Whenever he talked about the injustices done against illegal immigrants in this country, I seriously considered raising my hand and reminding him that the reason they are called "illegals" is because they are breaking the law. A just law, designed to protect our nation from invasion and attack. Most illegals are not criminals in the sense of being terrorists, but they are criminals nonetheless. He seemed to forget that fact quite often. For a field-trip, he took us down to Chicano Park in Barrio Logan. There, he explained the meanings behind many of the murals: one of which depicted a GOP elephant being shot (by Hispanics), Uncle Sam as death (to Hispanics), and the Statue of Liberty as being torn down (by "Americans"). He equated Ellis Island to the Mexico/America border, apparently claiming that there was no major difference between the two, save the fact that those who enter from down here (Mexico) undergo unfair treatment. Apparently he forgot the small fact that those coming in through Ellis were entering the country LEGALLY, seeking citizenship to this nation, while the majority of the "immigrants" coming across our border have no intention of becoming citizens - yet they expect all rights and privileges of said citizens. The class I was in had a number of African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and Asian-Americans, along with the token number of Caucasians. Rather than giving equal time to the social injustices done to all minority-groups, he spent most of his - our - classtime on how terrible Mexicans have been treated. Yes, he gave a couple class-periods to the Africans' plight, but mentioned nothing done to the Asians. Then there was the whole point that this was a SOCIOLOGY class, not a "rant-and-rave-against-white-supremacist-racist-sexist-Americans" class. What irked me the most was how little he spent on the text. Before each exam, he went through it and told us what he wanted us to know for the test - this proved most helpful. And yet, I would have gained so much more from this experience if he had focused on the issues in the text, rather than, say, teach us how to write Grafitti like Mexican gangs (and not clarify all the horrific atrocities committed by said gangs). |
|
|
|
| Comments: The reason I have no reason to complain about sociopolitical bias in the discussion is because there was NO discussion. He never directly attacked any particular beliefs; he never said anything to the effect of "my way or the highway." For that, I was grateful. The atmosphere in the classroom was amicable, but just not question-friendly. It's not like he declared on the first day of class: "there will be no questions asked here," however he never invited questions, challenges, or clarifications. It's his classroom and he can do what he pleases, but I know he said things that others (my self included) did not agree with, and may have wished to discuss. And that wasn't going to happen. I cannot recall a single instance in which a student volunteered an idea. The only times he asked any of us for feedback was whenever he polled us about something - and generally that was in regards to facts (i.e. "How many of you have parents with a degree?"), not opinions. Our class was relatively small, with about 25 students, but we may as well have been in an auditorium of 250. It's not that he was intimidating, or fierce; he simply never gave an opportunity for questions to be asked. He did so in such a friendly, entertaining way, that I doubt many even thought about questioning his words. It could have partly been our fault: if someone had raised his hand, Mr. Guerra might have given him the chance to speak. I'll never know. |
|
| Readings Bias: Objectionable |
|
| Comments: The required text was "Society: The Basics" by John H. Macionis; 8th edition. I joked with some of my friends that the subtitle to our text could have been "In Liberal, Humanistic, Relativistic Perspective." That said, the text wasn't all that bad. It was our only assigned reading, and was an easy read, full of interesting statistics and information. It was also chock-full of liberally-slanted opinions. In the section on population, the text seemed to assume that everyone KNEW that birth-control was a good thing, and that the only reason people have large families is 1)the woman had no choice because she is un-educated and repressed, or 2)the family needed a lot of kids to work the farmland because they're dirt poor and need all the labor they can get. There's a bit of a hole in that reasoning, isn't there? That's just one example. To be fair, though, there were times when I was pleasantly surprised at the text's attempts to be balanced. If I were to give a ratio, I'd say 3/1, with 3 being the parts liberally biased to 1 part conservative. |
|
General Comments: There are policies endorsed by Palomar College that are listed in the Faculty Handbook (http://www.palomar.edu/Facman.pdf; page 95) that I believe were not honored:
"Academic freedom involves inherently the following rights and responsibilities:
* "To introduce within the assigned teaching area controversial concepts, issues, and systems, subjecting these ideas to the test of objective reasoning"
He certainly introduced controversial concepts, yet rarely did he allow us to test them with "objective reasoning."
* "To create an unhampered and clear intellectual atmosphere, ..."
Again, no challenges were ever given. We were simply silent listeners to either his views or the views put forth in documentaries/movies (views very similar to his own). He did little to inspire us to see things from multiple perspectives.
"The major role of education in America is to produce an individual who can contribute to society as a well-informed member of a democracy. Competence in critical thinking empowers the college student with the ability to distinguish opinions from fact and belief from knowledge. Evaluative skills learned through elementary inductive and deductive reasoning have applications in problem solving in all aspects of everyday existence. Therefore, all examinations, assignments, and activities at Palomar College should reflect academic rigor by requiring critical thinking on the part of the student."
He greatly neglected any practice of research and reasoning. In all his questions, and on all the tests, he simply required we spit back what we read in the book. When we were reading the chapter on "Deviance," he gave us info packets on the different graffiti scripts used by gangs. Our homework was to reproduce one of the styles (on paper, not a wall...) and bring it to class. He didn't have us research the history of gangs, the effects of gang-violence, how many casualties there have been, or measures taken to fight back against gang activity. He didn't challenge us to decide if gangs were a positive or negative facet to society. Nothing.
In Sociology, there are three models which are used to study the workings of society: 1) structural-functional, which focuses on how different aspects of society work together to create stability and prosperity. 2) social-conflict - this viewpoint deals with the concept that society is full of inequalities and conflict which bring about positive or negative change. 3) symbolic-interaction theory looks at society through the eyes of individuals, and how their interactions with each other form the base for societies. He focused almost entirely on #2; however he paid most attention to the "conflict" and rather neglected to discuss any resolutions that could result from such problems. I was greatly disappointed that he did not discuss more in-depth the text and the theories/examples/statistics set forth. This could have been a fascinating class, while still remaining on-topic. It was a fascinating class, but it was more concerned with keeping us awake through movies and activities than with directly relating those materials to the subject we were supposedly studying. |
|
|
|
| When a course posting goes online, NoIndoctrination.org sends a notice to the professor inviting him/her to contest any specifics. (See Rebuttals.) If we receive a rebuttal, it will be posted here. |
|
|