HNR 94-001
Nudity in
Art: Creativity or Obscenity?
Della Davidson
Recently, an exhibit of "fine art" nudes was shut down in Nevada City due to public protest. Why in these contemporary times when we are so accepting of graphic violence in movies does nudity in the arts still evoke such public outrage? Does the medium used (photography, film, painting, live) impact our answer to this question? What is the distinction between using nudity for a metaphorical statement and nudity as pornography? Is the nude body "obscene" or is it a matter of context? How is nudity viewed in various cultures? Is the nude body always sexualized? Does gender play a role? Who decides whether nudity is obscenity or creativity - the government, religious institutions, artists, the public? These are a few of the questions we will raise as we explore the social, political, artistic, and ethical issues behind the charged issue of the nude body and how it is portrayed in art.
HNR 94-002
Games academic
institutions play: How should they?
Mary Delany
Myles Brand,
head of the NCAA, argues that college athletics is at a crossroads resulting
from the harmful consequences of big money in college sports.
NPR interview
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/segment.php?wfId=1457278
UCD is moving
to NCAA Division I athletics with full eligibility to begin 2007-08. The move
was controversial: campus administration was for it, the students voted to
fund the move by raising student fees, the faculty voted against it (2:1).
Will the Division I status take us to the envisioned higher tier of academia /scholarship /athletics? Think a minute: Ohio State, University of Minnesota, University of Washington, Baylor, Michigan State, just to name a few. Wow: what happened? What are the positives (improved sense of community, values of teamwork /citizenship, more money for other sports programs, greater campus visibility, etc.) and what are the negatives (booster fraud, financial mismanagement, gambling, violence, poor graduate rates, etc.) for the individual student-athletes and the campus body? Is our athletic program engaged in developing the collegiate model or the professional model of student athleticism or not preparing at all? Can we develop useful guidelines for implementation for our campus? (And will the Aggie Band-Uh be changed forever by network TV contracts?) Come prepared to explore the issues - the good, the bad, the ugly - and to contribute your insight.
Gerald Dworkin
The state of
Oregon recently enacted the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, which allows doctors
to prescribe a lethal drug to terminally ill, competent patients. Patients
may take this drug when, and if, they wish. Many believe that this legalization
of assisted-suicide is bad public policy and morally wrong.
What is the difference
between physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia? Do terminally ill patients
have the right to determine when and how they will die? Under what conditions
should a physician administer lethal drugs? How is euthanasia different from
allowing a patient to have herself taken off life-support? Doctors commonly
administer increasing doses of morphine for pain relief even though at some
point this will kill a patient. Does this differ ethically from giving the
patient a lethal injection? What, if anything, do we know from the study of
legalized euthanasia in the Netherlands?
The aim of this seminar is to improve your ability to think critically and examine the implications of this issue from medical, legal, and ethical perspectives.
HNR 04-004
Politicians promise us universal access to quality health care in the USA,
but the reality for many of our citizens, including potentially some of the
students who will take this class, is that access to adequate healthcare is
limited and expensive. Why is this true? What limits access to health care
for the poor and working classes? Are private insurance companies (HMOs) the
solution or the problem with regards to healthcare distribution? Why is the
USA the only first-world country in the world without universal access to
health care? Why is health care treated as a privilege rather than a basic
right in the USA? How big of an issue should maintenance of high physician
(and hospital administrator) income and the alleged benefits of the "free
market" be in this debate?
How does socialized
medicine work in other countries? Could it work for us? If you break your
leg in England you can get it fixed "for free," but a student from
England studying here in the US cannot afford to break a leg without insurance
from an HMO or private insurer. A wealthy, or a very poor, patient in the
US usually can get bypass surgery at age 80, but in a country with socialized
medicine, the system may determine that a person is too old for the surgery,
and it's not worth spending the money. My mother, who is nearly 92 years old,
is getting very expensive drugs to treat her chronic leukemia and congestive
heart failure and receives treatment from medical specialists, all of this
paid for (at least in large part) by Medicare. Does this mean we already have
socialized medicine for the elderly in the USA?
Would socialized medicine for all, supported by the same taxes we are already paying for Medicare, solve these problems, or just create bigger ones? This class will try to find answers to these complex questions. Who knows? You might be able to change the world you will be living in!
Recent reports indicate that there is a growing gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" in our society. Does this mean that we now live in a society defined by socioeconomic classes? If so, then upward mobility, the cornerstone of the "American Dream," requires a leap from one class to another. Occasionally someone is lucky enough to acquire the wherewithal "money" that should allow entree to the upper echelons of society. In some cases the change is sudden as with lottery winners, professional athletes, and rap or pop stars. But does money provide access to the upper class or are other qualities required? Are unforeseen difficulties encountered with acquisition of wealth? Are people changed by wealth? Do their family and friends change? Are new demands placed on them? What new obligations or responsibilities, if any, do they have? What new pitfalls lie in their path?
HNR
94-006
How
did this guy get to be a professor, or how do we evaluate teaching?
Ann
Orel
Professors
at the University of California are evaluated in three areas: teaching, research
and service. Their performance in these areas determines their progress up
the academic ladder and eventually translates into their salary level. Most
professors and administrators (such as Deans) feel that in the area of research,
a good assessment of productivity can be made. Other professors can be evaluated
based upon papers published, dances choreographed, books writte, etc. The
area of service is also readily evaluated in terms of community work, community
service, service in the broader professional community, etc. The lone exception
to good assessment is the area of teaching. The current method is to rely
on student evaluations and occasionally peer-review of a class. The evaluation
forms vary widely across campus, they have been shown to be related to student
grades in the class (you feel better about a professor if you get an A), and
the true worth of teaching, that is educating, may not be appreciated until
long after the class ends. In this seminar, we will attempt to decide how
teaching should be evaluated and how we could implement this in the UC Davis
community.
Dan Potter
The question of whether or not same-sex marriages should be recognized by
the government has attracted a lot of attention over the last few years and
promises to be an important issue in the 2004 presidential election. Currently,
same-sex marriages are legal in three countries: The Netherlands, Belgium,
and Canada. In the U.S., same sex unions (not called marriages) are legal
in the state of Vermont, but these unions are not recognized federally. In
California, Gov. Gray Davis recently signed the Domestic Partner Rights and
Responsibilities Act, but this and other domestic partner legislation is being
challenged in court as a violation of the Defense of Marriage Act passed by
voters in 2000. Proponents of gay marriage argue that same-sex couples in
committed relationships should be allowed access to the same rights and privileges
as those in heterosexual marriages and that denying people access to those
benefits is a form of discrimination. Opponents argue that marriage has always
been defined as between a man and a woman and that broadening that definition
devalues marriage. Would allowing gay marriage open the door to legal recognition
of all kinds of non-traditional relationships? Should we restrict the name
marriage to unions between a man and woman, but legalize same-sex unions equivalent
to marriage under a different name, or is this an unacceptable compromise?
Do religious arguments that defend marriage as between a man and a woman represent
a violation of the separation between church and state? In this seminar, we
will examine these and other arguments and questions surrounding this controversial
issue.
Back to Convocation