press-citizen.com | Guest Editorials -
[Cached Version]
Published on: 11/17/2005
Last Visited: 11/18/2005
As a second-year medical student at the Carver College of Medicine, I am dismayed by a number of the ideas put forth by Chad Kent in his Nov. 9 column, "Being Open-minded a Good Thing."Although Kent is certainly a gifted writer and seems to have spoken with many members of the medical community, I wonder if he has perhaps missed his own point.
Throughout his article, he applauds the teaching of diverse points of view, yet he immediately limits the ability of physicians to respond to his ideas.He says, "I guarantee that somewhere there already is a UI doctor or medical student with pen in hand, ready to defame me in a letter to the editor that will prove my point."
By including that statement, Kent has eliminated nearly all room for dialogue.Although I have no intention of defaming Kent in this response, I have already been accused of doing so by at least one classmate, simply because Kent predicted that someone would.Thus, I wonder if Kent is not guilty of the exact same crime he speaks against: limiting dialogue.
On that note, I think the issue of dialogue does need to be addressed.At several points in his article, Kent cites dramatic examples of politics in the classroom.He tells of professors who display political cartoons, attending physicians who vilify religion, and a multiple-choice question that referred to ideology.Although no one can dispute that those events might have occurred, I am troubled by Kent's analysis of the situation.
In the first paragraph of his article, he blames everything on liberal ideology.
...
In every incident Kent cited, the professor in question abused the power of academia and his or her position.
...
At the end of the article, Kent even resorts to making threats on their behalf.
7 online sources [ view sources ]
Profile is not claimed [ claim profile ]
