A Rant on CCAs

I'm agreeing with the generally negative student opinion concerning the "Center for Constructive Alternatives." Admittedly, I've only attended two lectures -- but at the rate they're going, I really don't care to give them the benefit of the doubt anymore.

Non CCA lectures have only disappointed me once or twice (ala the "Deconstructionism" talk given a week or so ago, which was a mile wide and an inch deep). But CCAs seem to be a consistent intellectual disgrace. No sense of nuance, no sense of subtlety, and no depth. Just people getting on their soapboxes, and repeating their nice sound-bite arguments for the 103rd time.

Sound bites, however much I dislike them, have a semi-acceptable place in political positioning and posturing. But for God's sake PLEASE don't bring them into what is supposed to be an institution of higher learning.

I'm willing to tolerate the existence of the CCAs. We apparently need them to keep the donors happy. And I'm glad for my scholarship, given, evidently, by such a donor. But I'd appreciate it if they kept the political part of this college somewhat separate from the educational part of it. Most students, I would think, come here for a liberal arts education. That's what a college -- at least this one -- is for. But as CCAs are mostly shallowly political, not liberally educational, I do not understand why students are required to attend them. Sure. We have a good number of adamant College Republicans here. Let them attend if they want to. But don't make the rest of us sit through these second-rate speeches.

People wonder why students look so zoned out and bored and uninterested? I've several theories.

1. A number of students are like this about any lecture.
   
2. CCAs are somewhat compulsory, and we intoxicated-with-freedom college kids do not like having our choices limited, regardless of whether the compulsory thing is good or not.
   
3. For me personally, it's because I've heard 1000 times better stuff in CLASSROOM lectures. Dr. Birzer's talk on prudential vs. ideological politics, Dr. Kalthoff's presentation of the definition of "liberty" as understood in various American colonies, Dr. Westblade's lesson on "Why the God-man." All with great depth, breadth, and an underlying understanding of multiple positions. And an openness to discussion about the topics brought up.

So when Medved goes and says, "People oppose the war in Iraq because they hate Bush," or the CCA essay topic is something like, "Is gay marriage harmful to the family? How can the traditional idea of the family be preserved?" is it any wonder students zone out, grimace, and bang their heads against the walls? This isn't the college we've come to expect.