Values and Teaching in General Education Program; Dr. Gerald Paske

This is University in Your Community. My name is Louis Foster and today we are continuing our series of values in teaching with different professors at the WSU campus and today my guest is Dr. Gerald Paske, associate professor in the Philosophy Department here Wichita State and we're going to be talking about teaching and how values interact within the teaching field. First of all, thank you very much for coming by and being on the show. You're more than welcome. First of all, when we talk about teaching values and how values--what type of role values play in the art of teaching--what what you would you think that means? I think that two different and quite distinct things are meant by the teaching of values. First of all, some people mean inculcating their own values into students and young people into the next generation; whereas the second meaning is primarily getting students to take value issues, moral issues, religious issues, seriously. So in other words there's a-- it seems like it's a very fine line there as far as teaching is concerned.

I'm not-- OK, the fine line of a teacher putting his values or a student learning his or her own value system. Well, OK, I think that teachers should not in any sense be imposing their values on the students and consequently I reject the first meaning of the teaching of values. I think rather the primary responsibility of an educational institution is to get the students to take values seriously and to give rational thought and careful thought--careful consideration--to their own value orientation. How do you deal with with this as a teacher, especially in the Philosophy Department as far as your values becoming intertwined with what you're teaching the students? In courses in philosophy, at least in many of them, especially the ones I teach, which for example have a good deal of medical ethics involved in them; the professor's values are bound to play a role in his teaching simply because they're so deeply

ingrained. I think, therefore, that it's only fair to the students that the professor make known his own values, not so that the students can accept those values, but so the students can be on their guard to make certain that the professor is not biasing the material. This requires encouraging the students to question and encouraging the students to disagree and this is fairly difficult; many of our students at WSU and at many universities are are used to being told what to think and what to believe and what to accept and find it difficult to question and challenge their teachers. Yeah, I think because the fact they really haven't had the opportunity to think for themselves a lot of times. The university recently adopted a set of objectives for its new General Education program that suggests that students should have a conscious commitment to a set of values. How do you interpret this to your students? Is this what you've talked about thinking on your own or . . .

I guess I do not take--my colleagues will forgive me at the university-- I don't take that requirement seriously in the sense that I think universities and the educational process has always been concerned with a conscious commitment to a set of values. There's no need to persuade people to have value commitments; they automatically have that. We all have that; for all of us there are certain things that we get excited about that we object to and that we support, so that the value commitment is there; especially in a university--well before the students ever get to the university. What we need to do, I believe is not to worry about a conscious commitment to values, but rather worry about whether or not the students are going to examine their values to decide whether or not they are rationally justifiable or appropriate. In a university, are some some values seen as better than others? Oh university

is by its very nature inherently value oriented. Obviously it's committed to the notion that some things are better than other things. Our Department of Art, for example certainly recognizes some art some works of art superior to others. The Music Department recognizes superiority of certain types of performances--quality of performances. Literature picks out good literature rather than poor literature, and basic to all aspects of the university, of course, is a commitment to rationality, examination, openness, honesty, personal integrity, and I suppose decency between human beings. The university's is ideally a community of persons rather than rigidly individual. You talked about the

students developing, I guess, his or her our own set of values or learning to examine these things, how how can you measure the degree to which students have done this; is there any way of really telling when a when a student has as developed this ability? We need to distinguish between a student being able to discuss, analyze, defend values and the student actually holding and being personally committed. I think we can measure whether or not and how well the student analyzes and can discuss values through written work, through discussion and so forth. The student needs to display an awareness of the best arguments in favor of his own values and an awareness of the best arguments and considerations in favor of opposing values. But with respect to commitment, it's extremely difficult to know not only whether another person is committed to values; it's extremely difficult to know whether or not one's self is committed to values. One may believe thoroughly

that one is committed to values, but this becomes an issue only when the value--the maintenance of the value--is going to cost a person something. Only when they're in a tense, turmoil situation where, in order to maintain the value, they have to give up other things that they value. Then we find out not only about others but about ourself--whether we really hold the values. I don't see that a university can possibly examine students to find out whether or not they are, in their hearts, committed to their values. That we find out when they get into the world and have to--in slang terminology-- put their money or their values--where their mouth--is. How much of a role should a university even have in students' values? Hopefully, the university will have a great deal of a role--a very significant role--in a student's values, on the assumption that rational and objective considerations of values are likely to

improve the quality of the values held by a student or by anybody, and that a university is committed to rational investigation. With the influx of foreign students coming into Wichita State University and other universities across the country, there obviously are a lot of different sets of values with different countries across the world; students in the United States, at least, have some sort of standard set of values that pretty much nationwide, but when you get into other countries, there are different sets of values because of the differing backgrounds. What types of problems does this cause for you, as an instructor, as far as trying to deal with these different sets of values? You put it in terms of problems; I prefer to put it in terms of opportunity. One of the items or issues in the person developing a set of values

is that one needs to be aware of the fact that there are a variety of value orientations, all of which are equally valid. I do not mean to suggest that all orientations are equally valid; some things are just flat wrong. Nazism, for example, is a value orientation that is simply mistaken. But, given that there is some mistaken, it's also true that there are a number of different value orientations that are equally valid and becoming acquainted with those is important in the development of one's own value. Now, students here in mid-America and Wichita, the center of the United States, are not effectively, usually, exposed to other values and other value systems that can in many respects be radically different from our own. Thus, the influx of foreign students, I think, is a great boon to the university and to the students--to the American students--in that they can come into contact with people who have, in most cases, very different but

equally valid value orientations. I'm sure you almost have some sort of a culture shock as far as some of the American students are concerned with the different value systems and the different overall culture. I think a good many of our students have had fairly severe cultural shock when they come in contact with the foreign students. Even so simple as a hearing them speak a different language and we find our students wondering why they can't speak English as though English were somehow inherent in the human species. So, I think, yes, there is a culture shock for our values, but that culture, for our students, rather--and that cultural shock is a positive contribution to their education. What courses at the university are most likely to help students in trying to analyze and adopt values? I think that the examination of the history--intellectual history--and a variety of values on a worldwide basis are extremely important.

Therefore, the sorts of courses that I would recommend would be the courses like anthropology, courses like sociology, and history courses, certainly--intellectual history, especially--courses in scientific methodology, perhaps philosophy of science, courses in literature and certainly I would say that today everybody has to be acquainted with the basic nature of scientific methodology and the natural sciences. Values are not independent sorts of things from the rest of life; they are part of life and all aspects of life are value-laden, so that simply learning what is there, what's true about life and what is possible is the basis for generating values. So how big a role do you think that philosophy has to play in values? You said--you mentioned--I'm curious because

of your connection and department. I would like to see the department absolutely essential to the development of values, but in my heart of hearts, I do not believe that is true. I think a person can develop quite an adequate set of values without any philosophy whatsoever, but on the other hand I think courses in philosophy may save the individual a good deal of spadework that can be done more effectively in philosophy classes. It's often said that the university is an institution that promotes objectivity or value-free inquiry. How would you respond to this? I think the statement is itself mistaken in that it's supposing that objectivity is value-free. Objectivity is itself a value. It's a value that's incompatible with a good many values held by many people in our society. For example, objectivity is incompatible with racism; it's incompatible with Nazism; again it's incompatible with some of the religious cults

and it's perhaps incompatible with a number of values that many people hold in our society. So that the university is objective, or values objectivity, but that simply means that universities will come into conflict, by their very nature, with significant segments of their own society. Universities always have been pounding down-- this has always been a problem with respect to universities. What are the key values that sustain the university? Obviously, rational consideration, scientific methodology, an appreciation of what can be called high culture, good art, good literature, good music. In that sense, a university is an elitist institutions since it thinks that some values are better the others. Also, of course, a university has to be concerned with honesty and it has to be concerned with

kindness and decency. Students, after all, are people and they ought to be treated as human beings. Professors are, too. [laughter] Do you feel that students really are aware of these values? Yes, I'm inclined to think of students are aware of these values. The question of whether or not they take them seriously and, frankly, whether or not they take them seriously is more a function of the culture in which they live than in their attendance at a university. And if we have a good deal of hypocrisy and cheating and so forth, throughout the society, students will not take moral values seriously. We are just about out of time, but would like to get one final question in. Do you think that Wichita State's ability to teach about values is adequate? To me, that's asking whether or not Wichita State is an adequate university and the answer is, of course, yes--it is an adequate university. Any university automatically and inherently teaches values.

I don't see that WSU has any particular problems or any particularly extensive needs in that area whatsoever which are not already met. OK, well, thank you very much. I appreciate your coming by and talking about values in teaching. My guest has been Dr. Gerald Paske, associate professor in the Philosophy Department here at Wichita State University. This has been University in Your Community. My name is Louis Foster. We've had technical assistance from Arlene Jones. And stay tuned; the Noon Edition will continue after this.