Call me naïve.
I thought academia was about knowledge.
I thought academic research was about the quest for knowledge.
I thought academic publishing was about the dissemination of knowledge.
I thought academics cared about teaching.
I thought students cared about learning.
I thought lifelong-learning was more than a buzzphrase.
I thought ideas had value beyond finance.
I thought ideas could be challenged.
I thought ideas could surmount prestige differentials.
I thought knowledge could benefit all human beings equally.
I thought honesty was the best policy.
I thought respect was a matter of common sense.
I thought open-mindedness was a true ideal.
I thought wisdom could come from different sources.
I thought knowledge was more than information.
I thought communication was more than the transmission of information.
Call me “naïve.” Please do.
But what would why should you call me “Professor?”[edited Feb 25, 2k7 13:04, typo] [edited Sep 5, 2k9 11:21, typo]
14 thoughts on “Confessions of a Naïve Professor”
@Carl Not me. I’m not saying that it’s exclusive.
If you see my follow-up, you’ll probably understand more about how I feel.
You’re not naive, you’re a freaking tyrant. Who says the academy has to be ONLY about these things? Step back, Robespierre. ;-p
You don’t have to. But others might call you that.
Do I have to call myself “naive” too? I do think the same about blogosphere…
As one of my favourite quote goes:
“Compulsively naive, he was living more than others were.”
«Doué d’une naïveté maladive, il vivait plus que les autres»
Thanks for your comment!!!
The meek shall inherit. … We hope!
Keep thinking, Prof!