Search News


Browse Archives

News

Not So OpenCourseWare

May 1, 2006

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

One of the many classes that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology shares with the world through its pioneering OpenCourseWare initiative is "Visualizing Cultures," an esteemed, interdisciplinary look at "how images have been used to shape the identity of peoples and cultures," notably Japan. Among the hundreds of images displayed on the site are wood-block prints that Japan used as propaganda during the 1894-95 Sino-Japanese war, which captions and other text on the site criticize for their "derision of the Chinese" and the "shocking" contempt they reveal for Japan's Asian counterpart.

The three-year-old course and its Web site, creations of John W. Dower, a Pulitzer Prize winning historian, and Shigeru Miyagawa, a professor of linguistics and of foreign languages and literature, do just what good scholarship is supposed to do: They present, explain and analyze sometimes difficult and even occasionally offensive material.

But while MIT's OpenCourseWare project has been lauded for sharing course materials freely in an effort to inform and educate the world, a controversy that exploded at the university last week suggests that the institution has a ways to go in educating and informing some of its own students about the purpose of history, scholarship and higher education.

Last Sunday, April 20, MIT featured the "Visualizing Cultures" course on the home page of its central Web site, and seemingly as a result of that increased attention, some of the wood-block images -- particularly one entitled “Illustration of the Decapitation of Violent Chinese Soldiers,” which depicted just such a scene -- circulated on the Internet, without the captions and other material explaining their meaning (and criticizing them as dangerous Japanese propaganda) that accompanied them on the MIT site.

Within a day, screeds criticizing the prints, Dower and Miyagawa, and MIT appeared on Chinese Web sites, and the university and the professors received e-mail messages (from people outside the institution, reportedly including some MIT alumni) that accused them of cultural insensitivity, called them racist, and urged their firing.

The Chinese Students and Scholars Association, a group made up mostly of MIT graduate students from mainland China, wrote a letter to President Susan Hockfield in which they reportedly asked the university post warnings that the images were graphic and racist. "We do understand the historical significance of these woodprints and respect the authors' academic freedom to pursue this study," they wrote. "However, we are appalled at the lack of accessible explanations and the proper historical context that ought to accompany these images."

As the complaints mounted, the professors and MIT officials met with the Chinese students, who described the images as "hurtful," said Pamela Dumas Serfes, interim director of MIT's news service. On Thursday, she said, Dower and Miyagawa decided that the "best thing to do to bridge this misunderstanding was to take down that unit" from the MIT site, while the scholars worked with the Chinese students to figure out "how we fix this." Among the options, she said, were including captions in several languages, posting a disclaimer about the graphic nature of some of the images, and placing on the site an 88-page study guide that the scholars have been preparing.

"They felt it was responsible to take it down temporarily so they could hear these concerns," Dumas Serfes said.

Dower and Miyagawa were not available for comment. But in a statement posted on MIT's Web site (to which all links to the original course site now point), the two scholars expressed their "deep regret over the emotional distress caused by some of the imagery" and said they were "genuinely sorry that the Web site has caused pain within the Chinese community. This was completely contrary to our intention. Our purpose is to look at history in the broadest possible manner and to try to learn from this."

Of the images on the site, they said: "These historical images do not reflect our beliefs. To the contrary, our intent was to illuminate aspects of the human experience -- including imperialism, racism, violence and war -- that we must confront squarely if we are to create a better world."

"Many people who have seen the Web site, however, have indicated that the purpose of the project is not sufficiently clear to counteract the negative messages contained in the historical images portrayed on the site," they added. "We have temporarily taken down this Web site while these community concerns are being addressed."

In further explaining the reasons behind the site being taken down, MIT's chancellor, Philip L. Clay, criticized those who attacked the scholars, saying the reaction "has been inappropriate and antithetical to the mission and spirit of MIT and of any university." "This is not only unfair to our colleagues, but contrary to the very essence of the university as a place for the free exploration of ideas and the embrace of intellectual and cultural diversity," he said. "In the spirit of collaboration, MIT encourages an open and constructive dialogue."

Others at MIT and elsewhere had harsh words for the Chinese students who complained, and some said they were perplexed that MIT had responded by taking the site down.

George Wei, professor and chairman of the history department at Susquehanna University and president of Chinese Historians in the United States, an affiliate of the American Historical Association, said he was particularly distressed by the lack of understanding that the Chinese graduate students displayed about the role of history and the value of scholarly exploration.

"I don’t understand what’s going on in the minds of these Chinese students -- they're looking at things in a simplistic way," said Wei. "In general, students from China, especially those who've been trained in technology and science, lack proper training in humanities and social sciences; and they don't how to look at historical events, to see things in context."

In his own courses, Wei said, he often posts images "without saying anything," and asks students "to think about what's behind the images without trying to influence them by my explanation first." Images like the ones to which the students objected show that "the Japanese did some terrible things to the Chinese in the past," he said. "We wish to remember this, not forget it."

In an open letter to the Chinese students, Peter C. Perdue, the T.T. and Wei Fong Chao Professor of Asian Civilizations and a professor of history at MIT, encourged them to take a broader view of their education and of the importance of scholarly inquiry.

"The American university is based on the fundamental principle of academic freedom," Perdue wrote. "Scholars must be allowed to engage in whatever research activities they find most challenging in their professional fields. Their work is subject to the judgment of their peers in their discipline, and they must respond to careful, reasoned criticism from professional colleagues. Scholars also engage in open dialogue with students and the general public in order to promote public awareness of their research. But ultimately, no one can tell them what to study, or demand that their work be suppressed."

As future leaders of China, Perdue said, MIT's Chinese students had an obligation to study not just technology but "the crucial questions of social and historical change that will determine China’s future. He added: "Please open your minds to critical awareness of these most difficult questions in a spirit of reasoned, open intellectual discourse, not one of narrow, self-centered indignation."

It is not clear when MIT will again make the Visualizing Cultures available, and with what changes to it.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Not So OpenCourseWare

  • Troubling on Many Levels
  • Posted by Jonathan Dresner , Assistant Professor at University of Hawai'i at Hilo on May 1, 2006 at 5:45am EDT
  • As an Asianist, obviously, this raises serious questions about our ability to teach -- without interference, vigorously and in depth -- what has been, at times, a difficult and conflicted history. Doing Asian history in the Anglophone academy is hard enough, without having high quality teaching resources under attack.

    As a teacher who uses the web extensively for course materials (and wants to get into using blogs in courses), it raises difficult issues about our ability to put resources on the web, to share them, without them being taken out of context. Because that is what has happened here: the materials, which I and other colleagues did view before they were removed, were well curated and contextualized. (see my comments at
    http://www.froginawell.net/china/2006/04/japans-war-guilt/ and Alan Baumler's at
    http://www.froginawell.net/japan/2006/04/china-japan-historical-struggle-reaches-mit/)

    Cases like this could make it impossible to share historical materials -- pedagogical materials in any field, really -- of any real depth or value.

  • Posted by Sarah Diamond on May 1, 2006 at 9:05am EDT
  • I am disappointed to see a historian as famous as John Dower caving so easily and withdrawing his work because reactionaries have not taken the time to understand his project. Actually, as a junior scholar engaged is contraversial historial research I'm not so much disappointed as angry at Dower for taking actions that show those who want to stop open historical discourse and critical work that historians will withdraw their work if critics make loud and ill-informed noises. If a famous tenured historian like Dower will fold so easily he is encouraging younger scholars like me to engage in self-censorship.

  • MIT courseware causes warfare...almost.
  • Posted by katalina pataki on May 1, 2006 at 9:05am EDT
  • This reminds me of the uproar from the Danish cartoonist's depiction of middle eastern politics...or was it...and that is the problem: literalists. One expects it from religious fundamentalists, from supreme court justics who are known for their strick interpretations of the constitution, but liberal, western, secular institutions of higher education called on the carpet for being subjective, not objective?
    Oh the horror of it all.

  • Posted by Bob Kaffer on May 1, 2006 at 11:15am EDT
  • PC running amok (again and still).

  • backbones needed
  • Posted by Larry on May 1, 2006 at 3:10pm EDT
  • Is this really “PC Running amok ” or just a typical example of people not understanding what real scholars are up to?

    For instance, people that pride themselves on being “conservative” often declare that things that mention Marx or are critical of the administration (even if in a quote) have no place in a curriculum. And so it goes. Unfortunately, no ideological persuasion has clean hands in this regard.

    As the above posters point out: scholars need to have a backbone. If someone tells you to eliminate something from a class, your only response, if any, should be to provide some context as to why something is being taught.

    Strangely, most of this stuff seems to go away by graduate school, where people are more serious about learning a body of thought or learning to think like professionals, and don’t seem to enjoy demeaning professors.

  • Caving In
  • Posted by Ira Socol at Michigan State University on May 1, 2006 at 6:30pm EDT
  • I believe that every time one of these ridiculous smear campaigns begins we must fight ignorance and willful stupidity aggressively. A simple email response, from the university, should explain that education often involves the uncomfortable, the unknown, even the unimaginable. And that if you are not willing to stop, pause, listen, discuss rationally, and learn, you are not capable of attending a college, nor, perhaps, should you be visiting university web sites.

    As one prior commenter pointed out, some students think nothing should be uttered in classrooms that challenge their beliefs or sensibilities. If they belief this it means that their primary and secondary educations have failed completely. It also means they really cannot benefit from college.

    Every time a university even slightly "caves" on these issues it emboldens the "Know Nothing" side of American thought, and diminishes our culture as a whole.

  • Who's to blame?
  • Posted by Jonathan Dresner on May 1, 2006 at 6:50pm EDT
  • I have been thinking about Sarah Diamond's reaction -- anger towards the faculty involved for "caving to pressure".... I had a similar thought initially, but didn't say anything because I have immense respect for John Dower as a scholar, teacher and individual. I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, and there are really good reasons to do so aside from his own character. At the very least, we should reserve judgement about individual responsibility until we learn a bit more about the inner history of this process.

    First and foremost, though the course materials are Dower and Miyagawa's work, they are presented/hosted/published by MIT; although Dower's position as tenured faculty is secure, MIT as an institution is vulnerable to all sorts of pressures (all institutions are, of course; this isn't an attack on MIT. Yet) and capable of putting pressures on even tenured faculty (resources, students, etc.). From the involvement of the MIT president's office, for example, I assume that the complaints, etc., were not directed solely toward the faculty in question....

    As disturbed as I am about this case, perhaps one undiscussed aspect of it is the fact that the first I heard of it -- and I'm a pretty well-connected, wide-reading Japanese historian and blogger -- was a CNN article forwarded by a South Asianist friend. Clearly there was a wide-ranging mobilization of forces against Dower/Miyagawa; there doesn't seem to have been any attempt to mobilize the scholarly community in their support. I STILL haven't seen this mentioned on H-Japan or H-Asia, for example....

  • H-Asia
  • Posted by Doug Lederman on May 1, 2006 at 8:15pm EDT
  • Jonathan:

    Thanks for your comments, and those of others. For the record, there was at least a mention of this on H-Asia today, posted by Frank Conlon, found at the link below. But your overall point is taken...
    http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=H-Asia&month=0605&week=a&msg=2pbmiZe52zrfxRvo/oX/bg&user=&pw=

    Doug Lederman

  • Posted by Jonathan Dresner on May 1, 2006 at 10:35pm EDT
  • Doug,

    I should have prefaced that by noting that I get the H-Net lists as digests, so I haven't seen any new messages since last night. Still, I really would have like to have seen some kind of discussion, petition, whatever, starting a lot closer to when the attacks started, preferably before MIT made the decision to censor the site.

  • after reading the original student letter...
  • Posted by Ira Socol at Michigan State University on May 2, 2006 at 4:35am EDT
  • I'm more disappointed than before. I would have expected better from MIT. The students claim a lack of sensibility to other cultures while presuming that this is the same as showing "holocaust images." Of course those images are available all over the web (and other media), as are pictures of Japanese soldiers beheading American POWs in WWII, as are depictions of British brutality in Ireland, as are pictures of atrocities on all sides of the Middle East conflicts.

    Their argument was unreasoned and displayed that essential lack of understanding of the purpose of education that I mentioned above.

    It is odd that this surfaces as China struggles to get Japan to admit that these acts occured, and as Turkish writers go to jail to expose atrocities committed against Armenians.

    There is something very wrong, and very disappointing, in this whole affair.

  • Posted by Bernardo O'Boyle on May 2, 2006 at 4:35am EDT
  • Who can be surprised? For decades now, we've been rewarding students to indulge the "little censor" within each of them (and us). Insteading of practicing a little tough love ("go get busy speaking back with your own speech") we've created the expection that crying victim is always a victorious strategy. It's not a case of "we have met the enemy and it is us," it's a case of "we have created the enemy and it's us."

  • not so open courseware
  • Posted by w lee hansen on May 2, 2006 at 11:25am EDT
  • How sad it is to see everyone caving in to outside pressures. Soon we can expect that Dower's book on World War II will have to be purged of distasteful images. Where is the AAUP ? Where is FIRE? Here are their opportunities to speak out in defense of academic freedom and on the rights of students not to have course material censored because of "cultural incorrectness." W. Lee Hansen

  • Enabling Neo-McCarthyism
  • Posted by Gene Underhill on May 2, 2006 at 11:30am EDT
  • Sarah Diamond's comments reflect my reaction to this ridiculous situation. My views are amplified by my recent reading of David Price's book Threatening Anthropology, a meticulous study of how the FBI and McCarthyism transformed and silenced critical anthropology. Price documents how scholars coming under attack for progressive views or race and for racial activism withdrew their work in ways reminiscent of Dower and Miyagawa. Such timidity harms us all. I don't buy the argument that MIT can't take such heat--if they can't no one can.

  • Posted by winnie on May 2, 2006 at 11:35am EDT
  • As a grad student myself, I'm disappointed by the response of some "teachers" on this forum who have resorted to demonizing students for their "ignorance". It seems to me that this misunderstanding was at least partially caused by a failure on the part of teachers who initially failed to explain the critical force of their work to students, their community, and the wider public. Anyone who uses the MIT homepage regularly will know that images on it operate as daily interchangeable advertising graphics for MIT's events, subsuming any room for critical information under MIT's virtual branding. I applaud the students for their fair-minded request for a historical framing of the images, and for their protest for the use of it as decontextualized advertising. I also applaud Profs. Dower and Miyagawa for their sensitive response and respect their decision to remove portions of their website temporarily. I think we should all wait until Profs. Dower and Miyagawa relaunch the site before we assess the impact of this disagreement, and, before we all jump to conclusions with charges of censorship, while buttressing such claims by orientalizing and infantalizing MIT's students.

  • THE IRONY IS INTENSE
  • Posted by David B. Gordon , Prof. at Shepherd University on May 5, 2006 at 11:30am EDT
  • I find it deeply ironic that the target of opprobrium here is Prof. Dower. If the students who criticized him had read any of his work, they would have realized that he is eager to critique racism--prominently including anti-Chinese racism in late nineteenth and early twentieth century Japan--in all its forms. Perhaps that's a reason that, as Ms. Diamond phrases it, he "caved" under pressure: he is probably concerned that his activities never lend any support, however unwitting, to the racist mindsets he continually strives to dismantle.

  • Posted by David W. Hamblin, Ph.D. on May 6, 2006 at 5:25am EDT
  • I hope that the site is restored immediately, in the interest of free speech and open historical investigation and discourse.

  • Posted by Conservative Reader on May 6, 2006 at 5:30am EDT
  • I doubted people here, while making comments, really had got a chance to read the original text, besides some of the most bloody pictures, which states the Japanese soliders are heroic, while on the hand the Chinese are violent. Is this spirit of research of historian scholar?