4 ms·

In Australia, indigenous land acknowledgements are commonplace, and I cannot think of a single instance where they have caused any inconvenience. I see absolut

by hug 7y ago

In Australia, indigenous land acknowledgements are commonplace, and I cannot think of a single instance where they have caused any inconvenience. I see absolutely no reason why the addition of a sentence to the header of the syllabus would be onerous.

zozbot234 7y ago
It's not about having them on the header of a syllabus, it's why have them on a CS 101 syllabus, of all things - and just about every other syllabus in the curriculum, apparently. Do people care that much about reading: "This course is taking place on traditional X!tribe land." or whatever? How does this make any sense?
- hug 7y ago
  > Do people care that much about reading: "This course is taking place on traditional X!tribe land." or whatever? Demonstrably: Yes, or they wouldn't be asking for it. > How does this make any sense? It costs you nothing, or so close to nothing that there's no effective difference, and a whole heap of people appreciate it. And, in this instance, it also allows you to keep your job. It's a net positive for all involved. Do you have a particularly good argument for anyone not doing it? (Slippery slopes need not apply.)
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    > Demonstrably: Yes, or they wouldn't be asking for it. Obviously, people never ask for things they don't actually care about. IMO this is intended as something that is both unreasonable to include AND hard to object to on any grounds but reasonableness and practicality. "Don't you care about indigenous peoples, or are you some kind of racist?" And so it provides the ability to continue objecting to someone's behavior even if they make all the other requested changes.
    - hug 7y ago
      While it's evident that some people are spiteful and ask for things they don't actually want just to be an inconvenience, I find it hard to believe that you actually think this is why every single indigenous person is asking for the acknowledgement. If you do believe that's the case, the only response I can make is that your belief runs counter to everything I've heard from indigenous people myself. If we operate under the assumption that not every single person asking for a statement of acknowledgement is acting under bad faith, it's important to note that you haven't actually presented any reason about why it would be unreasonable to include. Without a cogent argument against the inclusion of the statement, it's very sensible to point to the refusal to include the acknowledgement, and say "this person is refusing to do this simple kindness we have asked for, which makes him a bit of a jerk".
      - DuskStar 7y ago
        > I find it hard to believe that you actually think this is why every single indigenous person is asking for the acknowledgement. A large part of it is that in the US (which is where this professor is located), the preferred nomenclature is "American Indian" or "Native American". (According to CGP Grey [0], the closer you get to a reservation, the more likely it is that "American Indian" or just "Indian" is the preferred term) Either way, "Indigenous Peoples" seems to be more of a Canadian or Australian thing, and I've never seen it used to refer to people in the states. This would imply that the request isn't actually coming from the tribes in question. And IMO it would be unreasonable to include for the same reason that a discussion of set theory would be inappropriate in a history course covering the "New World" in the 1400s, even ignoring the fact that the term is wrong. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh88fVP2FWQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh88fVP2FWQ
        hug 7y ago
        "Indigenous people" is the superset of earliest known inhabitants. "American Indians" or "Native Americans" are the indigenous people the United States. My area of Australia, we'd be as specific as saying "Wurundjeri People". There is a matching level of specificity for the United States. Indigenous people is still the catch-all term. > And IMO it would be unreasonable to include for the same reason that a discussion of set theory would be inappropriate in a history course covering the "New World" in the 1400s, even ignoring the fact that the term is wrong. "Set Theory" has no overlap with "New World history", I agree. The Paul G. Allen Center for Computer Science & Engineering has a very real-world overlap with the land on which it is built.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    I guarantee far more people care about not wasting time with such trivial matters. Nothing is ever 0 cost. These demands are already causing chaos and decreasing the time spent on actual learning by paying students. Where's the accounting for that?
    - hug 7y ago
      To waste time on objecting to something that is trivial to do and then complaining about all the time that has been wasted by your own complaining is the height of cognitive dissonance.
      - manigandham 7y ago
        It's already wasting time, as I stated, for something that has absolutely nothing to do with the class. If it's so trivial then it's just as trivial to ignore it. What difference does it make to your education to have this?
apostacy 7y ago
If an indigenous land acknowledgement is so commonplace, then the institution should simply make the decision for its teachers and require its inclusion in their documents. Being compelled to include something you may not actually agree with is onerous. And it opens the door for other things to included as well. What if two different groups of student activists demand that you include contradictory statements? I can understand why an instructor would opt to not include ANY political statements.

by hug 7y ago

zozbot234 7y ago

It's not about having them on the header of a syllabus, it's why have them on a CS 101 syllabus, of all things - and just about every other syllabus in the curriculum, apparently. Do people care that much about reading: "This course is taking place on traditional X!tribe land." or whatever? How does this make any sense?

hug 7y ago
> Do people care that much about reading: "This course is taking place on traditional X!tribe land." or whatever? Demonstrably: Yes, or they wouldn't be asking for it. > How does this make any sense? It costs you nothing, or so close to nothing that there's no effective difference, and a whole heap of people appreciate it. And, in this instance, it also allows you to keep your job. It's a net positive for all involved. Do you have a particularly good argument for anyone not doing it? (Slippery slopes need not apply.)
- DuskStar 7y ago
  > Demonstrably: Yes, or they wouldn't be asking for it. Obviously, people never ask for things they don't actually care about. IMO this is intended as something that is both unreasonable to include AND hard to object to on any grounds but reasonableness and practicality. "Don't you care about indigenous peoples, or are you some kind of racist?" And so it provides the ability to continue objecting to someone's behavior even if they make all the other requested changes.
  - hug 7y ago
    While it's evident that some people are spiteful and ask for things they don't actually want just to be an inconvenience, I find it hard to believe that you actually think this is why every single indigenous person is asking for the acknowledgement. If you do believe that's the case, the only response I can make is that your belief runs counter to everything I've heard from indigenous people myself. If we operate under the assumption that not every single person asking for a statement of acknowledgement is acting under bad faith, it's important to note that you haven't actually presented any reason about why it would be unreasonable to include. Without a cogent argument against the inclusion of the statement, it's very sensible to point to the refusal to include the acknowledgement, and say "this person is refusing to do this simple kindness we have asked for, which makes him a bit of a jerk".
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      > I find it hard to believe that you actually think this is why every single indigenous person is asking for the acknowledgement. A large part of it is that in the US (which is where this professor is located), the preferred nomenclature is "American Indian" or "Native American". (According to CGP Grey [0], the closer you get to a reservation, the more likely it is that "American Indian" or just "Indian" is the preferred term) Either way, "Indigenous Peoples" seems to be more of a Canadian or Australian thing, and I've never seen it used to refer to people in the states. This would imply that the request isn't actually coming from the tribes in question. And IMO it would be unreasonable to include for the same reason that a discussion of set theory would be inappropriate in a history course covering the "New World" in the 1400s, even ignoring the fact that the term is wrong. 0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh88fVP2FWQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh88fVP2FWQ
      - hug 7y ago
        "Indigenous people" is the superset of earliest known inhabitants. "American Indians" or "Native Americans" are the indigenous people the United States. My area of Australia, we'd be as specific as saying "Wurundjeri People". There is a matching level of specificity for the United States. Indigenous people is still the catch-all term. > And IMO it would be unreasonable to include for the same reason that a discussion of set theory would be inappropriate in a history course covering the "New World" in the 1400s, even ignoring the fact that the term is wrong. "Set Theory" has no overlap with "New World history", I agree. The Paul G. Allen Center for Computer Science & Engineering has a very real-world overlap with the land on which it is built.
- manigandham 7y ago
  I guarantee far more people care about not wasting time with such trivial matters. Nothing is ever 0 cost. These demands are already causing chaos and decreasing the time spent on actual learning by paying students. Where's the accounting for that?
  - hug 7y ago
    To waste time on objecting to something that is trivial to do and then complaining about all the time that has been wasted by your own complaining is the height of cognitive dissonance.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      It's already wasting time, as I stated, for something that has absolutely nothing to do with the class. If it's so trivial then it's just as trivial to ignore it. What difference does it make to your education to have this?

apostacy 7y ago

If an indigenous land acknowledgement is so commonplace, then the institution should simply make the decision for its teachers and require its inclusion in their documents. Being compelled to include something you may not actually agree with is onerous. And it opens the door for other things to included as well. What if two different groups of student activists demand that you include contradictory statements? I can understand why an instructor would opt to not include ANY political statements.