10 opinion
4/8/22
Chintada: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s hearing was all too relatable Latavya Chintada Staff Writer I’m sure most of us saw viral snippets of US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings on social media. From Ted Cruz asking if baby’s were racist to Marsha Blackburn asking how to define the word “woman,” most of us can agree that this was a ridiculous line of questioning for anyone—let alone someone as qualified as Ketanji Brown Jackson—to sit through. As strange as it seems, some of us felt an all too familiar feeling when watching the hearings. You may ask, what could an average person even have in common with Judge Jackson, and what the committee made her endure? Well there are many shared experiences that stem from systematic oppression. How Judge Jackson handled these aggressive questions thrown at her is something all too familiar for many Black, Indigenous and Women of Color (BIWOC) seeking higher societal positions. We saw our experiences in how she
adeptly deflected irrelevant questions asked by predominantly old, white men and eloquently answered ones that did matter. But most importantly, we saw our experiences in the long pause she took, followed by an extremely heavy sigh when Senator Ted Cruz asked her, “Do you agree that babies… are racist?” In that moment, I could see the internal calculation behind her eyes as she pondered whether to speak strategically or give Cruz a piece of her mind for such a bizarre, disrespectful question. After a long pause, Jackson understandably decided against speaking out and instead answered with, “I do not believe that any child should be made to feel as though they are racist….” Although I cannot speak on Jackson’s behalf, it is highly probable that years of experience in predominantly white settings as a Black woman have given her the skills to deal with these situations appropriately. Unfortunately, BIWOC are discouraged from speaking up or
showing any type of emotional outburst for fear of being labeled as “emotionally unstable,” being taken less seriously or even having their words used against them. Our male counterparts can afford to make a scene and have it labeled as “standing up for himself.” If Jackson decided to let Cruz know how she really felt about his questioning, you could expect out-of-context video cuts on Fox News at 8 p.m. with Tucker Carlson. Perhaps the fact that Republicans had to resort to such a comical line of questioning is an attestation to Judge Jackson’s clean record and impressive qualifications. With nothing to question about her character or intelligence, GOP senators instead demeaned her with irrelevant questions that simply do not pertain to her role as a judge. This is something high-achieving women underrepresented in their fields commonly face. They are constantly questioned, looked down upon and snubbed simply because of their gender or race.
It’s unfair for women of color to have to dance around the egos of fragile white men in order to make it to the top. Ultimately, Judge Jackson’s hearing speaks to a long history of racism and sexism that many women of color have endured to get ahead in their fields. Despite all the obstacles, such as being confined in a room with multiple ridiculous white senators, Jackson has proved that it is possible to overcome them. After a Senate deadlock on her nomination, more Republicans began to back her, advancing her nomination and setting her on a clear track to be confirmed as Supreme Court justice. Judge Jackson would be the first Black woman to grace the seats of the Supreme Court—a historical event. Her nomination and imminent confirmation demonstrate the resilience and qualifications that her and many other women of color possess. Judge Jackson has shown all of us that it is possible to achieve our goals, no matter what others may have to say.
Owsley: The problem with the modern research university Finn Owsley Contributing Writer Aristotle once wrote, “Those that know do, those that understand teach.” While it is certainly true that understanding is necessary for teaching, it can be argued that far more is required. One can possess an incredibly deep understanding of a subject without having the slightest ability to teach it to others. Teaching is a skill to be appreciated in and of itself. Yet the modern system of research universities seems to be entirely unaware of this. Research universities are defined by the fact that they combine teaching and research under one institution. This is a productive arrangement; students gain exposure to research that helps further their education, and researchers are able to draw from a body of students to aid them in their pursuits. The problem arises from how research universities, such as Case Western Reserve University, tend to manage this relationship. Institutions often hire and promote professors based on their research and publishing accomplishments. However, one of the largest parts of many professors’ jobs is teaching undergraduates. The problem with research universities is that they com-
bine the roles of teacher and researcher without taking into account the differences in qualification. There is no reason why the person who teaches calculus or linear algebra needs to be the same person researching new topics at the forefront of modern mathematics. The person best suited to do research is seldom the best suited to teach because they are two very different skills. Too many professors are mediocre educators because they are forced to teach as part of their position when they would rather be conducting research. And too many teachers are relegated to less-stable, lower-paid positions—such as adjunct professors and full-time lecturers—simply because they prioritize instruction over research. The irony is that those adjunct professors are often better teachers than the higher-status tenured professors for that exact reason—that their main focus is on educating students. This system hurts both students and professors; students receive less passionate (or even unclear) instruction from professors who may not even want to be teaching them. The professors who are genuinely interested in teaching are underpaid and underap-
preciated. And the research-minded professors are split between research and teaching, making them distracted from the area they are passionate about and less attentive toward students. Of course, you can’t blame the researchminded professors for this. How can you expect them to be eager to teach undergraduates when the university hires them for their research accomplishments? The fault lies in the system that research universities enable. There is often a divide between the ambitions of the research university and the needs of the students, where the school focuses on status rather than the actual student experience—leading them to fight over highly accomplished researchers and undervalue passionate teachers. This is especially likely at schools like CWRU. The administration is eager to expand its reputation and budget, so it makes sense that they hire professors with impressive research backgrounds to bring in not only status, but also more funding in the form of research grants. These benefits are flashy and appealing, but they shouldn’t outweigh the goal of providing undergraduate students with a quality education.
Ultimately, we need to change the way we view professorship. The truth is that a teacher who knows more isn’t always better. Of course, a teacher should have an in-depth understanding of the subject at hand. But when it comes to the classroom experience, being able to make a course engaging and connect with students is more important than publishing thousands of papers. Practically speaking, there ought to be more of a divide between researchers and teachers in universities. Institutions should treat these two positions as distinct from one another, with some overlap. There is nothing wrong with having professors who genuinely want to do both, and those professors should be free to do so. But for the most part, research universities need to understand that being knowledgeable in a subject and teaching that subject well are very different things—so they should hire for research and education separately. That way, the only people who need to teach would be those who are truly passionate about teaching, and researchers would be able to focus on their research.
Picture of the week
@Shreyas Banerjee