
Teaching Ethics in Appalachia Taught Me About Bridging America’s Partisan Divide - nkurz
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/10/13/america-cultural-divide-red-state-blue-state-228111
======
gnicholas
> _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.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> 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").

~~~
chadash
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.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> 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.

------
war1025
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
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."

~~~
Pfhreak
> Instead of concerning ourselves with ensuring safe spaces for students, we
> need to create more spaces in which constructive conflict can occur.

This is incredibly naive, and misunderstands what a safe space is and what it
is for. Many humans suffer from, for example:

* PTSD from abuse, war, or other trauma

* Neuroatypical behaviors that are mocked/belittled/ignored in the wider public (e.g. Crowd anxiety, tics, nervous behaviors, misreading social cues, etc.)

* Being Queer in an environment that is actively hostile

* Being a minority in some other capacity (racial, gender, cultural, ableness, economic, political, etc.)

Just _existing_ in society can be high pressure and stressful -- a level of
background noise in your daily life that most people don't see or recognize. A
safe space is a place where you can let your guard down a bit, where you can
simply be who you are without being challenged about it constantly.

I genuinely believe that having these spaces is a healthy thing for everyone
who is in a stressful minority position. It doesn't matter if you are a trans
kid at some university or a conservative tech worker in silicon valley --
having a place where you can feel comfortable and not judged for who you are
is valuable. It does no one any good if we're all operating at maximum stress
all the time.

> Trust me, no one will get hurt.

Unfortunately, as a queer person myself, I don't believe you. Polite
conversation is a nice ideal, but things can escalate _quickly_ if two people
have fundamental disagreements. Despite the adage about sticks and stones,
words _can_ hurt people and lead to outcomes like self harm and suicide,
removal from a community, etc.

~~~
RHSeeger
Unfortunately, there is a strong push for the safe spaces to be the entire
space; like the entire college campus. If the entirety of where one spends
there time is a safe space and, as such, closed to debate, then growth is
impossible.

I totally get that there needs to be places where people can go to avoid
conflict, but that can't be everywhere. Conflict and debate are important
parts of life.

~~~
Pfhreak
I agree, and I think most folks who advocate for safe spaces also agree. But I
suspect we won't find much data to back either of our assertions.

~~~
AstralStorm
Given it is a subbranch of psychology and a more idealistic one that came up
with the concept, I bet there is less than zero data on efficacy of safe
spaces for anything. And what is out there is more than 80% likely to be wrong
or irreproducible.

If something is not effective, the only reason to do it is ideology and
politics. Nobody needs even more of those on campuses.

------
Jgrubb
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
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
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
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.

------
gnicholas
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
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
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.

------
sudosteph
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
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
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
"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.

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

~~~
alexfromapex
Apparently this warranted multiple downvotes?

~~~
angry_octet
It might have been a Russian :-)

But implicit in your statement is that some people (Appalachians/visiting
lawyers) are bigoted and maybe someone took offence at that, or from your
seeming too much "can't we all just get along?".

Really you can't take individual downvotes as anything except cosmic
background radiation emitted from twitter and people having a bad day. People
become annoyed (enraged even) because they hit 0 and go grey. With the steady
increase in HN commenters, the raw post should start at 3 at least, or votes
should be rationals (3 up/4 down) and only start to impact at n=3.

~~~
alexfromapex
The Russians was my first thought as well lol. I really like the cosmic
background explanation it makes a lot of sense and can relate to having days
like that where I’m grouchy and liable to downvote. I can see how some would
get irritated from the sentiment of “why can’t we all just get along?” but
that’s also super ironic and I think it’s what the article is trying to
highlight as a problem in the current political universe.

