6 ms·

Teaching Ethics in Appalachia Taught Me About Bridging America’s Partisan Divide

63 points by nkurz 7y ago

gnicholas 7y ago
> The philosophy department of a community college in rural Tennessee was interested until the administration balked at my qualifications. They’d have accepted a degree in religion, but not one in law. The author has a Juris Doctor, not a PhD. Presumably the issue was not with the subject of study, but with the level of the degree. No offense to JDs (I have one also), but it's not the same thing as a PhD. IMO, the author tells this anecdote in a way that could be read as stereotyping Southern/rural colleges: "they love their religion, but not lawyers". In reality, it was probably just a PhD requirement. But that doesn't make for a seemingly-counterintuitive anecdote.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  Surely the two demonstrate an equal ability to understand entry level philosophy, which (in my experience) is about constructing philosophical arguments in a sound way? I remember doing a lot of proofs, boolean logic, exploring fallacies, etc.
  - gnicholas 7y ago
    Actually, I would say that one could easily make it through a Religion PhD program without touching on any of those subjects. It would be harder to navigate law school without dealing with logic and fallacies, on the other hand. (Source: I went to law school, and my wife is a Religion professor.) But my point was more that it's very reasonable for a college to require that all instructors have PhDs, and JDs (3 yrs) are not PhDs (5 yrs). I have always found it odd that one can graduate from a law school and then immediately turn around and begin teaching law students. This is true also for PhDs and PhD students, but there is more temporal separation between first-year students and just-graduated professors because the degree typically takes 5+ years.
    - nkurz 7y ago
      I didn't assume that "a degree in religion" meant a PhD in religion. I thought the more likely parallel was that the school would have considered him if he had a ThD (Doctor of Theology) or a DMin (Doctor of Ministry), or possibly even a DD (Doctor of Divinity, usually honorary in the US but academic in the UK). I wonder though --- why do you think it's reasonable that a college would require a PhD from all instructors? Why not simply consider the degree to be a plus, but not a requirement? Do you restrict this to "all" instructors in fields where a PhD is common? Would you eliminate artists or authors from teaching creative courses with (or without) an MFA?
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > Presumably the issue was not with the subject of study, but with the level of the degree. No offense to JDs (I have one also), but it's not the same thing as a PhD. The level? Sure, a JD isn't the same thing as a PhD, but it explicitly is at exactly the same level -- they're both doctoral degrees. The letters stand for Juris Doctor ("doctor of law") and Philosophiae Doctor ("doctor of philosophy").
  - RHSeeger 7y ago
    I was under the impression that a JD is at the same level as a professional degree, which places it at (or slightly below, depending on who you ask) the level of a master's degree. There is a Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree, but it's more academic.
  - chadash 7y ago
    A medical degree also gets you the title doctor. The difference between a PhD and a JD or MD is that you generally write a dissertation to get the former, which means you have advanced academic research under your belt. You likely also have at least some teaching experience. As far as I can tell, The only place where a JD can teach in most universities is in the law school.
    - jdkee 7y ago
      With a JD you can likely teach in the political science department as well.
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      > As far as I can tell, the only place where a JD can teach in most universities is in the law school. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Assuming JD was universally acknowledged as a higher degree than PhD, this would still be true -- it's a subject matter restriction. if you have a PhD in history, you're probably stuck teaching in a history department -- it will not qualify you to teach in the math department, or in the law school.
- MikeTheGreat 7y ago
  In at least two states (Washington and Massachusetts) I know first hand that _community_ colleges only require a Master's. As far as I know this is normal across the US - I don't know of any community colleges anywhere that ask for PhDs (since community colleges focus on teaching, not research)
  - gnicholas 7y ago
    Completely agree that 4-year institutions are more likely to have a PhD requirement than 2-year institutions. But given the current oversupply of PhDs, many community colleges can impose requirements like this and still have plenty of applicants. Also, they may be measured on metrics like "percent of classes taught by instructors with PhDs".
Jgrubb 7y ago
App State is a cool liberal arts college renowned for being a party school back in the 90s, it's not Liberty University. I'm not sure this is much of a test for the partisan divide. (Boone is a great little town.)
- dralley 7y ago
  Exactly my thoughts. The fact that this guy seems like he thought it would be full of conservatives just because "the south", or because "founded by confederate guy" or "district voted Republican" is kind of hilarious, as an NC native. The districts are gerrymandered to hell, most college towns anywhere are pretty liberal, and many if not most colleges were founded by terrible people. If you want to actually bridge a meaningful divide of any kind, you're better off talking to native rural citizens that aren't getting liberal arts degrees.
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    I know so many people like this: they practically tour the south hoping to see an insensitive comment or outright bigotry as if they’re in a zoo. My experience with this country: the south tries to do better. The non-south-eastern US has never checked itself and just assumes the south is worse on all social norms and subjects.
    - Jgrubb 7y ago
      Yes! Born and raised in Georgia, never knew so much racism existed in the world until I moved to the northeast 15 years ago. Could go on a long rant about confederate flags up here but this isn't Reddit. I'll still upvote your username.
  - sudosteph 7y ago
    Hell, even my native-born, non-educated granddad, from Mitchell county was registered Democrat his whole life. My grandma voted for Obama. Even natives in Western NC are not the monolith this guy is painting. The history of mining, unions, and the new deal were not forgotten for many.
gnicholas 7y ago
The portion with the trolley problem doesn't make sense as described. > “A trolley is barreling down the tracks to which five people have been tied,” I explain during our second meeting. “You can flip a switch and divert the trolley, but you’d kill someone else who’s been tied to the sidetrack.” I ask a young woman named Kierstin Davis what she would do. (It’s her real name—all of the students quoted here consented to participate in this article.) “I probably would flip the switch because I know less people would be killed,” she says. Almost all of her fellow students concur, albeit reluctantly. The notable exception is Jackson. “You kill the one person,” he says without hesitation. I don't understand — aren't the students all saying the same thing? Kierstin would flip the switch (which means divert the trolley and kill the one person), and Jackson would kill the one person. Am I missing something?
- nkurz 7y ago
  I took the author to mean that that Jackson was an exception because he was not reluctant, and instead spoke without hesitation. All reached the same conclusion, but only one seemed confident in the answer.
  - shantly 7y ago
    Probably just more used to those sorts of discussions. May've been in certain clubs earlier in life, or just had the kind of friends who debate ethical hypotheticals when chilling.
- stickfigure 7y ago
  I probably would flip the switch because I know less people would be killed Fewer.
- Pfhreak 7y ago
  It's interesting also that Jackson takes the active voice and Kierstin takes the passive voice. The people are killed vs I kill the person. Difference in perspective? Maybe nothing?
  - 7y ago
war1025 7y ago
I thought this was really interesting, but also sort of hollow. Had the potential to have a lot of substance behind it, but somehow it felt like it failed to deliver. Maybe the main take-away was a quote hidden toward the end related to listening to people with differing opinions: > People don’t change their minds, they just change their opinion about the other side
- nkurz 7y ago
  It's understated article, but I submitted it because I thought there were some strong points. It's hard to find the right pull-quote for it, but I thought the paragraphs about Libertarians being ignored are true: "I can’t help but think that efforts to unpack what separates red states from blue states haven’t been careful to differentiate between conservatives and libertarians. Venn diagrams of voters generally categorize voters as Republicans and Democrats or liberals and conservatives. But as is becoming increasingly apparent, the cool-headed libertarian in my classroom who’s willing to sacrifice his mother for the greater good doesn’t fit neatly into any of these circles." I thought the comment about the framing of the gun control argument was good: "Imagine a gun control debate that avoided an argument over the value and necessity of guns, but instead was framed around how to protect civil liberties and limit gun violence without excessive governmental involvement. Imagine if care were taken to frame the discussion not as outsiders trying to impose their will on people whose culture they did not understand, but rather as one among people with a shared interest in protecting the safety of their children. My suspicion is a conversation like that would reveal useful common ground." And I thought the comment on the abortion debate was apt: "I’ve also come to believe that if liberals started from the premise that the pro-life position is a legitimate argument that comes from love not hate, the tenor of the conversation about choice would be quite different. For if one were inclined to search for consensus rather than difference—to listen with curiosity rather than judgment—it’s possible to see far broader agreement on abortion in America than is commonly allowed." To the extent that there is a conclusion, I think it's an argument that philosophy (and a liberal arts education) can be a useful in promoting understanding and resolving conflict: "We teach people that it’s impolite to discuss religion and politics in public. It’s wrong. We need to teach people how to discuss religion and politics. ... Instead of concerning ourselves with ensuring safe spaces for students, we need to create more spaces in which constructive conflict can occur. Trust me, no one will get hurt. Even in a classroom with divergent points of view on hot-button political issues, no one at App said anything racist or bullying. ... We can teach people to distinguish unreasonable arguments from reasonable arguments with which they disagree and, where differences are unresolvable, how to disagree reasonably."
alexfromapex 7y ago
America really does need to stop with bigotry and seek common ground, especially when Russia is trying to sow divisiveness.
- alexfromapex 7y ago
  Apparently this warranted multiple downvotes?
  - Mountain_Skies 7y ago
    It wasn't me who downvoted you but your statement contains quite a bit of irony which might not have been your intent.
    - angry_octet 7y ago
      I guess it's ironic that a call for unity gets downvoted, which in itself is sufficient reason to do it, but do you mean the malapropism (sowing divisiveness in common ground)? Personally I enjoy those, people should use more.
      - alexfromapex 7y ago
        Haha wow no I hadn’t even realized that connection could be made and it wasn’t intended but I do like the idea of malapropisms as well
      - whiddershins 7y ago
        How is that a malapropism
        angry_octet 7y ago
        Okay okay it's a mixed metaphor. It could have been written something something about the Russians sewing divisiveness in the common ground. We need to counsel the common factors that divide us before we can multiply the ties that bind.
sudosteph 7y ago
I'm going to come off as cynical in this comment, but I'm a little qualified on this topic - my parents met while attending App State, my mom was raised in Watauga county, I still have family there. I'm from Charlotte myself, but still have some defensiveness on this subject (thanks no doubt to the frequent experience ofbeing "corrected" on the pronounciation of my family's home region by random transplants) But this article, and others like it, make me cringe like nothing else. A well-off academic type from the north reads "Hillbilly Elegy", decides to take a temp job / vacation in Boone and then writes about how much he learned about "America's divide" from a bunch of 18 year olds at a school for teachers and liberal arts students. Spare me please. It's a tired trope. A well-heeled, educated outsider who comes down to teach the poor, ignorant working-class mountain folks the ways of civilization , but leaves having learned something heartwarming that money just doesn't buy. Dudes like this need to stop using Appalachians as pawns for their narratives. The discussions he outlined could have happened anywhere. He just wants to get social credit for trying to "reach out", when all he really did was take a working vacation.
- skybrian 7y ago
  Well, sure, the point of view of a teacher of a college ethics class is fairly limited and he wasn't there for very long. But I'm decades out of college and have never been anywhere near App State, so it's still a point of view I wouldn't have had if he didn't write it up. Meanwhile, you were hoping for a better article written from a more original perspective, and were disappointed. Maybe the writer of that article is out there somewhere, but how do we find them?
  - sudosteph 7y ago
    It's fine to appreciate it from a general "teaching college kids ethics" perspective, but you didn't actually learn anything meaningful from or about Appalachia - and neither did the author. My point is that there is a whole genre of content that uses "Appalachia" and "Appalachians" as a stand in for the lower class other America. It's the one underprivileged group that white liberals can safely stereotype and exoticize without fear of repurcussions. And it's always outsiders with a pre-determined narrative who get to decide what Appalachia is like in the minds of non-appalachians, through books, movies, articles like this. My point is more for anyone who thinks spending a few months in Appalachia gives them something worth writing about. It doesn't.
gigama 7y ago
"Curious things start to happen to people when they listen generously. At the most superficial level, one hears things that he or she might not like. But one also hears the sincerity of people’s convictions, the authenticity of their experiences, and the nuance of their narratives. Being open is transformative because, almost inevitably, one finds that the stories they’ve been told about what people believe oversimplify reality." Well said.

63 points by nkurz 7y ago

> The philosophy department of a community college in rural Tennessee was interested until the administration balked at my qualifications. They’d have accepted a degree in religion, but not one in law. The author has a Juris Doctor, not a PhD. Presumably the issue was not with the subject of study, but with the level of the degree. No offense to JDs (I have one also), but it's not the same thing as a PhD. IMO, the author tells this anecdote in a way that could be read as stereotyping Southern/rural colleges: "they love their religion, but not lawyers". In reality, it was probably just a PhD requirement. But that doesn't make for a seemingly-counterintuitive anecdote.

Pfhreak 7y ago
Surely the two demonstrate an equal ability to understand entry level philosophy, which (in my experience) is about constructing philosophical arguments in a sound way? I remember doing a lot of proofs, boolean logic, exploring fallacies, etc.
- gnicholas 7y ago
  Actually, I would say that one could easily make it through a Religion PhD program without touching on any of those subjects. It would be harder to navigate law school without dealing with logic and fallacies, on the other hand. (Source: I went to law school, and my wife is a Religion professor.) But my point was more that it's very reasonable for a college to require that all instructors have PhDs, and JDs (3 yrs) are not PhDs (5 yrs). I have always found it odd that one can graduate from a law school and then immediately turn around and begin teaching law students. This is true also for PhDs and PhD students, but there is more temporal separation between first-year students and just-graduated professors because the degree typically takes 5+ years.
  - nkurz 7y ago
    I didn't assume that "a degree in religion" meant a PhD in religion. I thought the more likely parallel was that the school would have considered him if he had a ThD (Doctor of Theology) or a DMin (Doctor of Ministry), or possibly even a DD (Doctor of Divinity, usually honorary in the US but academic in the UK). I wonder though --- why do you think it's reasonable that a college would require a PhD from all instructors? Why not simply consider the degree to be a plus, but not a requirement? Do you restrict this to "all" instructors in fields where a PhD is common? Would you eliminate artists or authors from teaching creative courses with (or without) an MFA?
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> Presumably the issue was not with the subject of study, but with the level of the degree. No offense to JDs (I have one also), but it's not the same thing as a PhD. The level? Sure, a JD isn't the same thing as a PhD, but it explicitly is at exactly the same level -- they're both doctoral degrees. The letters stand for Juris Doctor ("doctor of law") and Philosophiae Doctor ("doctor of philosophy").
- RHSeeger 7y ago
  I was under the impression that a JD is at the same level as a professional degree, which places it at (or slightly below, depending on who you ask) the level of a master's degree. There is a Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree, but it's more academic.
- chadash 7y ago
  A medical degree also gets you the title doctor. The difference between a PhD and a JD or MD is that you generally write a dissertation to get the former, which means you have advanced academic research under your belt. You likely also have at least some teaching experience. As far as I can tell, The only place where a JD can teach in most universities is in the law school.
  - jdkee 7y ago
    With a JD you can likely teach in the political science department as well.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > As far as I can tell, the only place where a JD can teach in most universities is in the law school. I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Assuming JD was universally acknowledged as a higher degree than PhD, this would still be true -- it's a subject matter restriction. if you have a PhD in history, you're probably stuck teaching in a history department -- it will not qualify you to teach in the math department, or in the law school.
MikeTheGreat 7y ago
In at least two states (Washington and Massachusetts) I know first hand that _community_ colleges only require a Master's. As far as I know this is normal across the US - I don't know of any community colleges anywhere that ask for PhDs (since community colleges focus on teaching, not research)
- gnicholas 7y ago
  Completely agree that 4-year institutions are more likely to have a PhD requirement than 2-year institutions. But given the current oversupply of PhDs, many community colleges can impose requirements like this and still have plenty of applicants. Also, they may be measured on metrics like "percent of classes taught by instructors with PhDs".

Jgrubb 7y ago

App State is a cool liberal arts college renowned for being a party school back in the 90s, it's not Liberty University. I'm not sure this is much of a test for the partisan divide. (Boone is a great little town.)

dralley 7y ago
Exactly my thoughts. The fact that this guy seems like he thought it would be full of conservatives just because "the south", or because "founded by confederate guy" or "district voted Republican" is kind of hilarious, as an NC native. The districts are gerrymandered to hell, most college towns anywhere are pretty liberal, and many if not most colleges were founded by terrible people. If you want to actually bridge a meaningful divide of any kind, you're better off talking to native rural citizens that aren't getting liberal arts degrees.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  I know so many people like this: they practically tour the south hoping to see an insensitive comment or outright bigotry as if they’re in a zoo. My experience with this country: the south tries to do better. The non-south-eastern US has never checked itself and just assumes the south is worse on all social norms and subjects.
  - Jgrubb 7y ago
    Yes! Born and raised in Georgia, never knew so much racism existed in the world until I moved to the northeast 15 years ago. Could go on a long rant about confederate flags up here but this isn't Reddit. I'll still upvote your username.
- sudosteph 7y ago
  Hell, even my native-born, non-educated granddad, from Mitchell county was registered Democrat his whole life. My grandma voted for Obama. Even natives in Western NC are not the monolith this guy is painting. The history of mining, unions, and the new deal were not forgotten for many.

gnicholas 7y ago

The portion with the trolley problem doesn't make sense as described. > “A trolley is barreling down the tracks to which five people have been tied,” I explain during our second meeting. “You can flip a switch and divert the trolley, but you’d kill someone else who’s been tied to the sidetrack.” I ask a young woman named Kierstin Davis what she would do. (It’s her real name—all of the students quoted here consented to participate in this article.) “I probably would flip the switch because I know less people would be killed,” she says. Almost all of her fellow students concur, albeit reluctantly. The notable exception is Jackson. “You kill the one person,” he says without hesitation. I don't understand — aren't the students all saying the same thing? Kierstin would flip the switch (which means divert the trolley and kill the one person), and Jackson would kill the one person. Am I missing something?

nkurz 7y ago
I took the author to mean that that Jackson was an exception because he was not reluctant, and instead spoke without hesitation. All reached the same conclusion, but only one seemed confident in the answer.
- shantly 7y ago
  Probably just more used to those sorts of discussions. May've been in certain clubs earlier in life, or just had the kind of friends who debate ethical hypotheticals when chilling.
stickfigure 7y ago
I probably would flip the switch because I know less people would be killed Fewer.
Pfhreak 7y ago
It's interesting also that Jackson takes the active voice and Kierstin takes the passive voice. The people are killed vs I kill the person. Difference in perspective? Maybe nothing?
- 7y ago

war1025 7y ago

I thought this was really interesting, but also sort of hollow. Had the potential to have a lot of substance behind it, but somehow it felt like it failed to deliver. Maybe the main take-away was a quote hidden toward the end related to listening to people with differing opinions: > People don’t change their minds, they just change their opinion about the other side

nkurz 7y ago
It's understated article, but I submitted it because I thought there were some strong points. It's hard to find the right pull-quote for it, but I thought the paragraphs about Libertarians being ignored are true: "I can’t help but think that efforts to unpack what separates red states from blue states haven’t been careful to differentiate between conservatives and libertarians. Venn diagrams of voters generally categorize voters as Republicans and Democrats or liberals and conservatives. But as is becoming increasingly apparent, the cool-headed libertarian in my classroom who’s willing to sacrifice his mother for the greater good doesn’t fit neatly into any of these circles." I thought the comment about the framing of the gun control argument was good: "Imagine a gun control debate that avoided an argument over the value and necessity of guns, but instead was framed around how to protect civil liberties and limit gun violence without excessive governmental involvement. Imagine if care were taken to frame the discussion not as outsiders trying to impose their will on people whose culture they did not understand, but rather as one among people with a shared interest in protecting the safety of their children. My suspicion is a conversation like that would reveal useful common ground." And I thought the comment on the abortion debate was apt: "I’ve also come to believe that if liberals started from the premise that the pro-life position is a legitimate argument that comes from love not hate, the tenor of the conversation about choice would be quite different. For if one were inclined to search for consensus rather than difference—to listen with curiosity rather than judgment—it’s possible to see far broader agreement on abortion in America than is commonly allowed." To the extent that there is a conclusion, I think it's an argument that philosophy (and a liberal arts education) can be a useful in promoting understanding and resolving conflict: "We teach people that it’s impolite to discuss religion and politics in public. It’s wrong. We need to teach people how to discuss religion and politics. ... Instead of concerning ourselves with ensuring safe spaces for students, we need to create more spaces in which constructive conflict can occur. Trust me, no one will get hurt. Even in a classroom with divergent points of view on hot-button political issues, no one at App said anything racist or bullying. ... We can teach people to distinguish unreasonable arguments from reasonable arguments with which they disagree and, where differences are unresolvable, how to disagree reasonably."

alexfromapex 7y ago

America really does need to stop with bigotry and seek common ground, especially when Russia is trying to sow divisiveness.

alexfromapex 7y ago
Apparently this warranted multiple downvotes?
- Mountain_Skies 7y ago
  It wasn't me who downvoted you but your statement contains quite a bit of irony which might not have been your intent.
  - angry_octet 7y ago
    I guess it's ironic that a call for unity gets downvoted, which in itself is sufficient reason to do it, but do you mean the malapropism (sowing divisiveness in common ground)? Personally I enjoy those, people should use more.
    - alexfromapex 7y ago
      Haha wow no I hadn’t even realized that connection could be made and it wasn’t intended but I do like the idea of malapropisms as well
    - whiddershins 7y ago
      How is that a malapropism
      - angry_octet 7y ago
        Okay okay it's a mixed metaphor. It could have been written something something about the Russians sewing divisiveness in the common ground. We need to counsel the common factors that divide us before we can multiply the ties that bind.

sudosteph 7y ago

I'm going to come off as cynical in this comment, but I'm a little qualified on this topic - my parents met while attending App State, my mom was raised in Watauga county, I still have family there. I'm from Charlotte myself, but still have some defensiveness on this subject (thanks no doubt to the frequent experience ofbeing "corrected" on the pronounciation of my family's home region by random transplants) But this article, and others like it, make me cringe like nothing else. A well-off academic type from the north reads "Hillbilly Elegy", decides to take a temp job / vacation in Boone and then writes about how much he learned about "America's divide" from a bunch of 18 year olds at a school for teachers and liberal arts students. Spare me please. It's a tired trope. A well-heeled, educated outsider who comes down to teach the poor, ignorant working-class mountain folks the ways of civilization , but leaves having learned something heartwarming that money just doesn't buy. Dudes like this need to stop using Appalachians as pawns for their narratives. The discussions he outlined could have happened anywhere. He just wants to get social credit for trying to "reach out", when all he really did was take a working vacation.

skybrian 7y ago
Well, sure, the point of view of a teacher of a college ethics class is fairly limited and he wasn't there for very long. But I'm decades out of college and have never been anywhere near App State, so it's still a point of view I wouldn't have had if he didn't write it up. Meanwhile, you were hoping for a better article written from a more original perspective, and were disappointed. Maybe the writer of that article is out there somewhere, but how do we find them?
- sudosteph 7y ago
  It's fine to appreciate it from a general "teaching college kids ethics" perspective, but you didn't actually learn anything meaningful from or about Appalachia - and neither did the author. My point is that there is a whole genre of content that uses "Appalachia" and "Appalachians" as a stand in for the lower class other America. It's the one underprivileged group that white liberals can safely stereotype and exoticize without fear of repurcussions. And it's always outsiders with a pre-determined narrative who get to decide what Appalachia is like in the minds of non-appalachians, through books, movies, articles like this. My point is more for anyone who thinks spending a few months in Appalachia gives them something worth writing about. It doesn't.

gigama 7y ago

"Curious things start to happen to people when they listen generously. At the most superficial level, one hears things that he or she might not like. But one also hears the sincerity of people’s convictions, the authenticity of their experiences, and the nuance of their narratives. Being open is transformative because, almost inevitably, one finds that the stories they’ve been told about what people believe oversimplify reality." Well said.