Professor in "stomp on Jesus" controversy shares his side of the story

[LittleWyvern]

First off, Poole wants people to know that he never told anyone to "stomp on Jesus," to quote the headline widely used in articles criticizing him. He said he asked people to step on the piece of paper.

Poole said that, as best he could tell, only one student in the course had an objection. That student -- whom Poole did not name in the interview, but who has come forward in local news reports saying he was suspended for objecting to the exercise -- refused to participate and then said repeatedly, Poole said, "How dare you disrespect someone's religion?"

After class, the student came up to him, and made that statement again, this time hitting his balled fist into his other hand and saying that "he wanted to hit me." While the student did not do so, Poole said he was alarmed and notified campus security and filed a report on the student.

That action, he said, not the student's objection to the exercise, is why the student briefly faced disciplinary action.

...

He had used the classroom activity before, and wasn't particularly worried about it. "I followed the directions from the instructor's guide," he said. The course at Florida Atlantic University was in intercultural communications, and the exercise involves having students write "Jesus" on a piece of paper, and then asking them to step on it. When they hesitate, the instructor has an opening to discuss symbols and their meaning.

...

Much of the critical commentary about Poole has suggested that he is anti-Christian. In fact, he said, he has been connected to churches all of his life, has served as a Sunday school teacher, and understands the power of the word "Jesus" on a piece of paper because he cares deeply about Jesus.

“I am very religious,” he said. "I see how the name Jesus is symbolic. For people like myself, Jesus is my lord and savior. It's how I identify myself as a Christian."

He noted that the idea behind the exercise isn't that students will actually step on Jesus, but that most will pause and that their discomfort sets off the discussion. He said he saw at least one student who did step on the paper, and talked about not feeling much of a connection to Jesus. But he said most didn't, and that was fine with him. No students, he said, were forced to do anything.

Source

Well, I figured this issue was blown way out of proportion, and this kinda confirms it. It's nice to finally see this perspective, but interestingly FAU hasn't decided if they want to fire Poole or not. At least most of story makes more sense now.

[EarlJibbs]

The one that refused and made the fuss.... was a Mormon, according to the National news. What to beleive?

[Maureen]

There are two sides to every story.

M.

[RipplecutBuddha]

It's still a rather poorly designed exercise that immediately runs the risk of offending Christians. I know that being offended is a choice, however we are also instructed to avoid anything that could lead to offending others whenever possible.

The lesson itself should have sent up red flags as soon as the school learned of it, however long ago that was. There are countless other ways to begin the discussion this exercise was intended to initiate.

[Windseeker]

Poole said that, as best he could tell, only one student in the course had an objection. That student -- whom Poole did not name in the interview, but who has come forward in local news reports saying he was suspended for objecting to the exercise -- refused to participate and then said repeatedly, Poole said, "How dare you disrespect someone's religion?"

So my question is while this student sat at his desk watching this unfold how many of his courageous open-minded fellow students enthusiastically stomped on the name of Jesus if he was the only one that objected? Sounds like all of them. If I was in his shoes I think I would be more than a little irritated as well.

Regardless of either side of this story, I think the Govenor is right to look into this. It's a stupid excercise brought to you by the same hypocritical bloody hearts who enforce political correctness and like to jam their cherry-picked cultural sensistivity down your throat. They have no reservations about singling out and offending Christians and seem to enjoy doing so any chance they get.

I'm saddened that some feel it necessary to threaten this teacher though. If it's true it's not exactly very "Christian" in my opinion.

I'm grateful that the school shows concern for all it's students.

Since FAU is in my backyard I thought I might ad some interesting tidbits. The athletic director of FAU was LDS and he was recenlty let go and was a member of the Stake Presidency until he accepted a position at University of South Florida. Meanwhile they are building a medical school at FAU, the Doctor hired to direct the entire project and head the medical school is LDS and goes to my ward.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Windseeker

[LittleWyvern]

The lesson itself should have sent up red flags as soon as the school learned of it, however long ago that was. There are countless other ways to begin the discussion this exercise was intended to initiate.

Yeah, I think a better idea would be to ask the students to write the name of someone who inspires them or someone they respect/look up to, etc. Using "Jesus" assumes a purely Christian class, which isn't a good assumption to make at a university.

The article does state that FAU has banned the exercise from being done again in any class, for what it's worth.

Regardless of either side of this story, I think the Govenor is right to look into this. It's a stupid excercise brought to you by the same hypocritical bloody hearts who enforce political correctness and like to jam their cherry-picked cultural sensistivity down your throat. They have no reservations about singling out and offending Christians and seem to enjoy doing so any chance they get.

Like I said in the last thread about this: sure, it's not the greatest exercise, but I still don't think it's right to assume some anti-Christian conspiracy behind the book/state of Florida/teacher/exercise. Other teachers who have done this lesson have defended it as faith-promoting:

At St. Norbert, Neuliep said he has been doing the exercise for 30 years -- without any complaints. He said that the discussion that follows tends to involve students "talking about how important Jesus is to them, and they defend why they won't step on it. It reaffirms their faith." And at the same time, he said, they learn about symbols.

In other words, it has different effects on different people, so assuming this exercise is just for "singling out and offending Christians" and "jam[ming] their cherry-picked cultural sensitivity down [their] throat." is attributing malice where there is none.

[Wingnut]

So my question is while this student sat at his desk watching this unfold how many of his courageous open-minded fellow students enthusiastically stomped on the name of Jesus if he was the only one that objected? Sounds like all of them. If I was in his shoes I think I would be more than a little irritated as well.

Regardless of either side of this story, I think the Govenor is right to look into this. It's a stupid excercise brought to you by the same hypocritical bloody hearts who enforce political correctness and like to jam their cherry-picked cultural sensistivity down your throat. They have no reservations about singling out and offending Christians and seem to enjoy doing so any chance they get.

I'm saddened that some feel it necessary to threaten this teacher though. If it's true it's not exactly very "Christian" in my opinion.

I'm grateful that the school shows concern for all it's students.

Since FAU is in my backyard I thought I might ad some interesting tidbits. The athletic director of FAU was LDS and he was recenlty let go and was a member of the Stake Presidency until he accepted a position at University of South Florida. Meanwhile they are building a medical school at FAU, the Doctor hired to direct the entire project and head the medical school is LDS and goes to my ward.

Did you read the article?

There was no stomping involved, and the professor himself is a Christian.

[Windseeker]

In other words, it has different effects on different people, so assuming this exercise is just for "singling out and offending Christians" and "jam[ming] their cherry-picked cultural sensitivity down [their] throat." is attributing malice where there is none.

Yeah it might promote faith at BYU but how about at Berkley? Or somewhere that a faithful Christian is in the minority and forced to stand out?

Malice where there is none? From what I understand the manual does not say write "Allah" or "Obama" and stomp on it, now does it.

Having lived in Japan I find requesting anyone to stomp on any religious symbol offensive.

In the Tokugawa shogunate practice of “Fumi-e”: anyone suspected of secretly practicing the forbidden religion of Christianity was asked to stomp on an image of Jesus or Mary. Those who refused were tortured until they renounced their faith. If they held strong, they were executed.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Windseeker

[Windseeker]

Did you read the article?

There was no stomping involved, and the professor himself is a Christian.

How do you know that no one stomped on it when asked? How does he being Christian make it appropriate?

The manual states. “Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper. Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment.”

“After a brief period of silence, instruct them to step on the paper,” it continues. “Most will hesitate. Ask why they can’t step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture.”

[Wingnut]

How do you know that no one stomped on it when asked?

I don't. But the exercise was not about stomping. So if the student has reported that the professor instructed the class to "stomp on Jesus," that's inaccurate.

How does he being Christian make it appropriate?

I didn't say it was appropriate. I'm saying that the professor isn't anti-Christian, and isn't sneering at those who are.

The manual states. “Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper. Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment.”

“After a brief period of silence, instruct them to step on the paper,” it continues. “Most will hesitate. Ask why they can’t step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture.”

I think this is a fantastic exercise, actually, and I have a hard time understanding why anyone doesn't. The whole point of it is that some people will refuse to participate! That's what generates the discussion, which is the goal! The purpose is to discuss why these symbols are important, not to desecrate them.

[Gwen]

It sounds like the student didn't conduct himself in the calm articulate way he did in interviews later. I wondered about that.

Often in the heat of the moment we can act in ways that we are less than proud. It's easier to calmly articulate things days later. However, I would have been more impressed if he admitted that and said "I was really upset at that moment. It really hurt and offended me. I said things I shouldn't have in a way I shouldn't have. For that I apologize. However, I feel my objections are still valid and here is what they are and why......"

[Wingnut]

It sounds like the student didn't conduct himself in the calm articulate way he did in interviews later. I wondered about that.

Often in the heat of the moment we can act in ways that we are less than proud. It's easier to calmly articulate things days later. However, I would have been more impressed if he admitted that and said "I was really upset at that moment. It really hurt and offended me. I said things I shouldn't have in a way I shouldn't have. For that I apologize. However, I feel my objections are still valid and here is what they are and why......"

Isn't the student the one who went to the press in the first place? He'd have no incentive to admit his part in the story -- it wouldn't make for such a sensational news piece that way. I've been skeptical of this story from the beginning, for this very reason.

[LittleWyvern]

Yeah it might promote faith at BYU but how about at Berkley? Or somewhere that a faithful Christian is in the minority and forced to stand out?

Well, that's exactly why I said choosing "Jesus" is what made this exercise less effective.

Malice where there is none? From what I understand the manual does not say write "Allah" or "Obama" and stomp on it, now does it.

What point are you trying to make? Do you think it would be a better exercise if it had included these words? I just said that including any specific person isn't a good idea.

Having lived in Japan I find requesting anyone to stomp on any religious symbol offensive.

In the Tokugawa shogunate practice of “Fumi-e”: anyone suspected of secretly practicing the forbidden religion of Christianity was asked to stomp on an image of Jesus or Mary. Those who refused were tortured until they renounced their faith. If they held strong, they were executed.

Well, if this is the model you are using to understand this incident, I can understand at least how you're deriving some anti-Christian conspiracy out of this. I doubt, however, that FAU is doing this kind of thing.

[Guest Godless]

I think this is a fantastic exercise, actually, and I have a hard time understanding why anyone doesn't. The whole point of it is that some people will refuse to participate! That's what generates the discussion, which is the goal! The purpose is to discuss why these symbols are important, not to desecrate them.

That is exactly what I got out of it as well. The point isn't to stomp on the paper, but to react in some way to the request to do so, and then discuss the reactions. Yes, the professor could've used Obama instead, or Mohammed, or Glenn Beck, or Santa Clause. Instead he used one of the most influential and polarizing figures in all of human history. I see nothing wrong with that. Some of the best learning experiences are had when we're taken outside of our comfort zone.

[Gwen]

I liked this from the comments on the article

Robert Schenck • 2 days ago −

Before my retirement from teaching college writing at the local community college two years ago, I often used similar methods for similar reasons. I always had a few students who were wary about reading books with supposedly bad reputations, like "The Communist Manifesto," "On the Origin of Species," "The Koran," and "The Little Red Book" of Mao, so I would bring my personal copies of these books to the classroom along with my personal copies of the Bible, "Book of Mormon," "Bhagavad Gita," "The Apocrypha," "The Upanishads," "The Diamond Sutra," and so on. Then I would explain to my students that because of my education in literature, history, and philosophy no book could hurt me if I read it, that I was absolutely fearless on the cosmic ocean of mind. Sometimes I would perform, feigning fear and saying "ooo" as I slowly brought the Bible and "Origin of Species," for example, together until they touched. It was all great fun. One day I dropped "The Communist Manifesto" on the floor and stomped on it. Students laughed. Then I dropped "On the Origin of Species" on the floor and stomped on it. Likewise "The Upanishads" and "The Apocrypha." By this time students saw where this demonstration was headed. I asked, "How would you feel if I dropped 'The Koran' on the floor and stomped on it?" Discussion ensued. I asked, "How would you feel if I dropped 'The Book of Mormon' on the floor and stomped on it?" More discussion. And then of course I asked, "How would you feel if I dropped the Bible on the floor and stomped on it?" Discussion ensued. It was a wonderful class experience for everyone. But that afternoon I got a call from my supervisor. "Bob, one of your students called me to complain that you asked her how she would feel if you threw the Bible on the floor and stomped on it." "Yes?" I replied. "Well, did you?" my supervisor asked. "Yes," I said. A wonderful discussion ensued.

I'm sure it was a different class so couldn't be done exactly the same way but similar lesson plan..... more tastefully done. Sounds like a great class.

[Windseeker]

That is exactly what I got out of it as well. The point isn't to stomp on the paper, but to react in some way to the request to do so, and then discuss the reactions. Yes, the professor could've used Obama instead, or Mohammed, or Glenn Beck, or Santa Clause. Instead he used one of the most influential and polarizing figures in all of human history. I see nothing wrong with that. Some of the best learning experiences are had when we're taken outside of our comfort zone.

If the intent of this lesson is to bring students out of their comfort zone and question why they hesitate then it only seems effective to those who revere Jesus right?

We don't know for sure, but I think it's safe to assume that some students were completely in their comfort zone grinding the paper into the floor with their foot.

What did those students who are ambivalent or antagonistic to Jesus get out of this fantastic lesson?

[MarginOfError]

If the intent of this lesson is to bring students out of their comfort zone and question why they hesitate then it only seems effective to those who revere Jesus right?

We don't know for sure, but I think it's safe to assume that some students were completely in their comfort zone grinding the paper into the floor with their foot.

What did those students who are ambivalent or antagonistic to Jesus get out of this fantastic lesson?

I recently participated in a discussion with several boy scout leaders about the proposed changes to membership policies. I was the only person in the room that came out and said that I believe that living a homosexual lifestyle violates God's will. No one else in the room shared that opinion. Yet we had a very productive and encouraging discussion.

You can read more detail on my blog, but my point is that not everyone has to share the same set of morals or beliefs in order to get something out of the discussion. In fact, there's a case to be made that everyone gets more out of the discussion when there are diverse beliefs and attitudes. If you can get people to articulate not just how they feel but why they feel what they do, it's very good for all involved.

[Guest Godless]

If the intent of this lesson is to bring students out of their comfort zone and question why they hesitate then it only seems effective to those who revere Jesus right?

We don't know for sure, but I think it's safe to assume that some students were completely in their comfort zone grinding the paper into the floor with their foot.

What did those students who are ambivalent or antagonistic to Jesus get out of this fantastic lesson?

One doesn't have to revere a religious figure in order to recognize the significance of that person and what he represents. If I had been in the class, I would have stomped on the paper, but not without some degree of discomfort. I may not worship Jesus, but I recognize the fact that he is a beacon of light for millions (including several of my family members) and a universal symbol of good even among many of those who don't acknowledge his divinity.

As I said, he is the most influential and polarizing figure who has ever lived. He is simultaneously a symbol of all that is good and all that is evil in this world, depending on your worldview. Those who don't worship him are nonetheless impacted by what he represents to some extent.

And who's to say that negative emotions towards the symbol of Christ aren't part of the lesson as well? The reasons why someone would defile the symbol of Christ without reservation is just as good a topic of intellectual discussion as the reasons why someone would refuse to do so. As I said, the lesson is about emotional reactions, not the actual action.

[Windseeker]

I recently participated in a discussion with several boy scout leaders about the proposed changes to membership policies. I was the only person in the room that came out and said that I believe that living a homosexual lifestyle violates God's will. No one else in the room shared that opinion. Yet we had a very productive and encouraging discussion.

You can read more detail on my blog, but my point is that not everyone has to share the same set of morals or beliefs in order to get something out of the discussion. In fact, there's a case to be made that everyone gets more out of the discussion when there are diverse beliefs and attitudes. If you can get people to articulate not just how they feel but why they feel what they do, it's very good for all involved.

If people want to step on a Nazi swastika I'm not going to care. It's not going to have the impact on me that stepping on a picture of a temple would.

So I think the example of the professor using different symbols, books etc was a better way of conveying the lesson.

But people choose to ignore Jesus is singled out here, but that's no surprise people are insisting there was no steping, stomping involved either.

I can't really respond to blind allegiance to intent.

How about this lesson:

1. Turn to the person to your left

2. "Call him/her a Ni@@er"

Why did you hesitate?

What a fantastic lesson on our cultural values and inhibitions. Don't get your panties in a wad folks the lesson is not about the "n" word.

....

[Wingnut]

...but that's no surprise people are insisting there was no steping, stomping involved either.

I can't really respond to blind allegiance to intent.

It seems that you also have "blind allegiance" to the idea that there was only stomping involved. Just sayin'...

[MarginOfError]

If people want to step on a Nazi swastika I'm not going to care. It's not going to have the impact on me that stepping on a picture of a temple would.

So I think the example of the professor using different symbols, books etc was a better way of conveying the lesson.

But people choose to ignore Jesus is singled out here, but that's no surprise people are insisting there was no steping, stomping involved either.

I find it curious that you say this. You're complaining that people who don't believe in Jesus are singled out, but also state a preference to for an experiment that singles you out.

I can't really respond to blind allegiance to intent.

How about this lesson:

1. Turn to the person to your left

2. "Call him/her a Ni@@er"

Why did you hesitate?

What a fantastic lesson on our cultural values and inhibitions. Don't get your panties in a wad folks the lesson is not about the "n" word.

....

That's a fantastic approach, but I actually would suggest that having a topic that is universally recognized as offensive is not as effective as having a topic that is only offensive to some (or revered, take your pick). Having varying viewpoints on the item being stepped on is what makes the exercise so effective.

Case in point--the discussion in your example could center around, "why is it okay with you to step on a swastika, but not on a temple? What would you think of someone who was hesitant to step on a swastika, but had no problem stepping on the temple?" One of the discussion points becomes, "why is it okay to step on someone else's symbol, but not on your own?"

Ironically, in trying to argue the inappropriateness of the approach, you've given a stellar of example of its necessity.

[Wingnut]

I talked earlier today with a friend of mine who teaches religious history at a nearby university. This friend is active LDS and an academic. Our conversation:

Me: So, I'm curious about what your take is on the whole "stomp on Jesus" thing at FAU.

Him: I think everything about it is stupid. It was an ill-conceived pedagogical exercise (stupid) followed by a self-serving and ridiculously overblown reaction (stupid).

Me: I agree with the self-serving and ridiculously overblown part. From what I've read of what the exercise was supposed to be (as opposed to what the student reported it as), it sounds like a good idea, in concept. Just wondered what your thoughts were, with your experience. Thanks!

Him: Whatever the concept was, one must be conscious of the cultural context in which one's students are existing. She could have communicated the same concept in a way that wasn't so inflammatory as to completely distract the students

Me: The professor recently finally spoke out (having previously kept out of the press per the request of the university). He said that the end goal was to discuss the importance of symbols, and that it was fully expected that some students wouldn't stand on the paper, and that many would be made uncomfortable. (inserted link here)

Him: My point is that he could have achieved exactly the same result, without the outrage, if they had written "mom" on the paper

Edited April 4, 2013 by Wingnut

[Traveler]

My brother once began a talk by stating that he felt inclined to accomplish two things in his talk; in order of their importance. Then explained his two goals:

First: To comfort those afflicted.

Second: To afflict the comfortable.

Another favorite quote comes from Brigham Young and goes along the line: “Only a fool would be offended when no offence was intended but an even greater fool would be offended when offence was intended.”

Finely one point from myself. I have often been involved in situations where others could be offended but as near as I could tell, were either not offended or chose not to express their offence. I do want to point out that for myself I take no part in any way, in the possible offense but when asked why I did not say anything (knowing that I do not support many such things); I responded that if those targeted were not offended in that they did not take action- then neither would I. Regardless of how offensive something may be to G-d -- I tend to follow his example; if G-d is not going to do anything about it and seems content to let it pass - then so do I.

The Traveler

[Windseeker]

Tonight, I had a seriously enlightening conversation with a TA associate professor at FAU who attends my ward. We were both attending a birthday party for a friend we surf with. He knows Professor Deandre Poole personally and works in the same department. I won’t list everything we discussed but it’s amazing how these stories take a life of their own. It confirmed many of my initial thoughts on this and opened my eyes to others.

All the fellow professors my friend has discussed this with agree that the lesson is insensitive and controversial. A TA my friend works with did this same lesson and substituted “Jesus” with “Mom”. But they all are supporting Poole because they don’t like the administrations reaction of limiting academic freedom.

Deandre Poole is very religious and very well liked. The student disrupted his class to the point that he had to cancel it early half way thru. When he tried to discuss it with the student when everyone was dismissed, he received threats. After reporting the incident the student was banned initially. According to my friend the student is definitely NOT LDS (the student never claimed he was and according to my friend the press is way off on that and has no idea how that’s part of the story) and from what he understands is not even very religious. The student contacted a very aggressive conservative legal agency in Texas within hours of the confrontation. Now the teacher is on administrative leave and most likely won’t have his contract renewed. He is under 24 hour police protection.

The death threats are real and it’s not just him but administrators getting death threats as well. A march is being planned on the school by some religious organizations and my friend is very concerned for his own safety.

Anyway, the media is out of control. Despite my views of the lesson, my sympathies are with the professor in this case.