teaching very religious students who like acronyms

[serenade]

For those of you who teach at religiously affiliated institutions or who have very religious students, have you ever encountered them writing self-identifiying religious acronyms on their work? For example, I've seen Catholic students write "+JMJ+" (Jesus, Mary, and Joseph) and heard about Muslim students writing "PBUH" (peace be upon him) when referring to Muhammad. Do you think it's best to just ignore or instead to tell students that this isn't really appropriate for academic writing? 

[Sigaba]

It may be late to change the game for this term/semester. Before addressing it, I recommend talking to your boss and the DGS. Students may feel picked on if you offer the correction. If that happens, the push back will be an unwelcome distraction/shitshow.

Going forward, when you hand out a section syllabus make it clear that writing assignments are to be fulfilled in standard American English. Provide examples of no go words and phrases. Re-enforce the point when you're talking about a pending assignment. Make sure that you have an educationally sustainable teaching point. (Every word you write should serve the purpose of advancing your core argument. If any word doesn't serve that purpose, it must be removed.) This tactic will allow you to ask "How does '+JMJ+' support your argument? You will need to be ready to refute (gently) almost every conceivable answer and provide a better way.

HTH.

[rheya19]

This might be too late, but I teach religious studies courses and would like to throw my two cents in.

I have never seen "+JMJ+" from Catholic students, but I do emphasize the importance of formal English writing in the classes, which means no unnecessary abbreviations, etc. The issue with Muslim students and PBUH is a little different though; Muslims are culturally obligated to say "peace be upon him" after the Prophet Muhammad's name. They also don't normally call him by his name ("Muhammad") with out his title ("Prophet.") It's not a religious requirement, but often a cultural one done out of respect. Likewise, some Jews are more comfortable writing "God" as "G-d."

The difference between these two examples and "+JMJ+" is that the former are cultural expressions of respect or piety, and the latter is an informal abbreviation for something that can be written out in full. So I think it's ok for students to use familiar forms of respect for the figures we study as long as 1) it's not incorrect, informal English and 2) it doesn't create bias in their argument.

[cowgirlsdontcry]

This is a twist on the same theme. I grew up and live in the deep South. Many students have deep commitments of faith and want to turn every piece of literature into a liturgical device or sermon. As part of writing a paper, I have my students talk to me about their topic and argument. In the process, I discuss with them the real meanings and foundation of the prose or poem(s) they want to write upon. Hopefully, they will see that most of the time what they are doing is not an analysis. I tell them unless they provide support to their argument, their ideas are simply conjecture and their own opinion, which is what I tell any student who fails to provide support of their argument. I don't want to discourage their ideas as writers, but want them to understand what analysis is and that they must support every bit of their argument.

[JKL]

Ignore it for now, but include it next time in the "writing expectations" portion of your syllabus. Not only should students apply standard American English, but as a matter of prose, +JMJ+ and PBUH are needless words that students should omit. But if +JMJ+ and PBUH somehow contribute to the argument (perhaps a paper on the evolution of religious acronyms?), then it shouldn't be a problem.

As @Sigaba mentioned, if you address it now, students will feel that you're picking on them. You'll inventively get called a bigot for discriminating against them. Then you'll get a call from HR, and you'll be suspended for two weeks without pay, and reporters will be on your front step at 6AM the next morning.

[Concordia]

Give them some readings published by the Cambridge University New Testament Society.

Edited October 9, 2017 by Concordia

[serenade]

Totally forgot I started this thread! (That seems to be a recurring theme for me...I often see a post title and think "Wow, I have that same problem," only to realize I started the thread several months back. I need to work on checking gradcafe more regularly, but I digress). 

Interesting to hear everyone's perspectives. As it turns out, I corrected the student in question, who had a really teachable attitude about the whole situation and wasn't defensive at all. She started meeting with me more frequently at the latter half of the semester to talk about her paper topic. After that, I better understood where she was coming from (SUPER Catholic family/upbringing) and really enjoyed getting to know her as a person. (Would my reaction have been different had I known her as an individual before midterm when she first wrote "JMJ" and might I have been less harsh in my reaction? Maybe. In some ways I fault myself for reacting so strongly when she was really just a nice person who was clueless on this issue). 

[rheya19]

18 hours ago, JKL said:

Ignore it for now, but include it next time in the "writing expectations" portion of your syllabus. Not only should students apply standard American English, but as a matter of prose, +JMJ+ and PBUH are needless words that students should omit. But if +JMJ+ and PBUH somehow contribute to the argument (perhaps a paper on the evolution of religious acronyms?), then it shouldn't be a problem.

As @Sigaba mentioned, if you address it now, students will feel that you're picking on them. You'll inventively get called a bigot for discriminating against them. Then you'll get a call from HR, and you'll be suspended for two weeks without pay, and reporters will be on your front step at 6AM the next morning.

I agree that +JMJ+ is an unnecessary abbreviation for Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, but putting "PBUH" in parenthesis is less cumbersome in a paper than spelling out "Peace Be upon Him" multiple times. 

[James D.]

Hello,

 

     I'm happy you reconciled this and made a new friendly pupil it seems. I would advise you to be cautious though. You have set a precedent against expressing ones faith in their daily lives. Will this precedent extend to all faiths and their specific religious beliefs? I generally write G-d, as I'm a Messianic Jew and have come to the conclusion that saying the highest name in our universe should be kept to writings that will stand the span of time (Writing a book for example, or acting as a scribe). I can tell you, this belief is sincere because as I grow in my faith, I have come to understand G-d as being the highest, even higher than the Church and Synagogue places him. He is involved in my everyday life, and I sense his presence. That said, you could not force me to write the "o". While I would happily take the "F" knowing I still won, others would report you as being an antisemite. If you did the same for PBUH, you could be labeled a "Islamaphobe".

 

     I obviously don't know the extent this could travel but the teacher who called a bombsquad in for a legitimate scary looking device has had a bad run of luck. In my opinion, you're not teaching them how to write properly when correcting them on an acronym, you are forcing your belief on them (I don't mean religiously). Perhaps in the future it would be prudent to simply have them write it out. And without the ++... that is definitely a reason to dock points.

 

     Thank you for sharing this!  G-d bless!

[dr. t]

This is just silly.

On 11/14/2017 at 6:53 PM, James D. said:

That said, you could not force me to write the "o". While I would happily take the "F" knowing I still won, others would report you as being an antisemite. If you did the same for PBUH, you could be labeled a "Islamaphobe".

Sure. People could accuse you of secretly being a Deep One, a servant and harbinger of the dread lord Cthulhu (Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn!) because you had squid for lunch. It doesn't mean that such accusations are true, that anyone will care that they're made, or that you should let the possibility of such accusations dictate your actions.

On 11/14/2017 at 6:53 PM, James D. said:

you are forcing your belief on them (I don't mean religiously)

Yep. Your belief that they need to adhere to academic writing styles in academic texts.There is no religious obligation for believers to add +JMJ+ or PBUH to their texts, which immediately differentiates it from the Jewish proscription against writing out the name of god, and in any case it's the subtraction of a letter instead of the addition of a verbal refrain. That's why you find plenty of journals which will use "G-D" vel sim. If you can find an example where you regularly (or ever) find PBUH or JMJ, let me know; as far as I know the answer is there isn't one.

[James D.]

21 hours ago, telkanuru said:

This is just silly.

Sure. People could accuse you of secretly being a Deep One, a servant and harbinger of the dread lord Cthulhu (Iä! Iä! Cthulhu fhtagn!) because you had squid for lunch. It doesn't mean that such accusations are true, that anyone will care that they're made, or that you should let the possibility of such accusations dictate your actions.

Yep. Your belief that they need to adhere to academic writing styles in academic texts.There is no religious obligation for believers to add +JMJ+ or PBUH to their texts, which immediately differentiates it from the Jewish proscription against writing out the name of god, and in any case it's the subtraction of a letter instead of the addition of a verbal refrain. That's why you find plenty of journals which will use "G-D" vel sim. If you can find an example where you regularly (or ever) find PBUH or JMJ, let me know; as far as I know the answer is there isn't one.

You're first paragraph assumes that society looks at all the facts, when in fact it doesn't. I already stated that I would simply move on, so this doesn't pertain to me. I'm referring to people who would get offended, and possibly report the teacher on grounds of some sort of bigotry. Founded or unfounded is not the point, the belief of someone being a bigot can ruin someones career in this political climate. Hence why I said you must maintain the precedent, as I was pointing out my first paragraph. You must be "fair and impartial" as we say in the military. This of course extends to all walks of life.

 

You're second paragraph is flat out wrong. Perhaps you misinterpreted what I said or perhaps I wrote it in a poor manner, but you lapsed in understanding what I attempted to convey. I did however directly state to dock for using ++ in an academic paper. The point of this was you cannot be biased against someone for their religious stance, them writing JMJ or PBUH is not the point of the post. Rather they use an acronym or spell it out would bring about the same level of confusion. "Peace be upon him, Muhammad went to the river." doesn't form a great looking sentence in academia, but should it be allowed. The point I'm making is either yes or no, pertaining to everything. So ban PBUH, JMJ or allow it. Ban saying these things or allow it. But if you banned peace be upon him, or PBUH, yet allowed G-d written in your classroom; I could see a media backlash.

 

It is obvious from the OP posting here, that she cares for her student. She wants the best for him or her, lest she wouldn't be asking the question. I see that and acknowledge it. I guarantee a local media reporting on this wouldn't care if she truly cared about the student however. They would do a hit piece in a heart beat. It's the nature of modern day society. Do you believe allowing G-d yet disallowing PBUH would produce a positive outcome if reported to the media? Do you want to be the test subject for this? I certainly don't want to be. Impartial is the safety net that will save the OP. Whichever she decides.

[rheya19]

21 hours ago, James D. said:

You're first paragraph assumes that society looks at all the facts, when in fact it doesn't. I already stated that I would simply move on, so this doesn't pertain to me. I'm referring to people who would get offended, and possibly report the teacher on grounds of some sort of bigotry. Founded or unfounded is not the point, the belief of someone being a bigot can ruin someones career in this political climate. Hence why I said you must maintain the precedent, as I was pointing out my first paragraph. You must be "fair and impartial" as we say in the military. This of course extends to all walks of life.

 

You're second paragraph is flat out wrong. Perhaps you misinterpreted what I said or perhaps I wrote it in a poor manner, but you lapsed in understanding what I attempted to convey. I did however directly state to dock for using ++ in an academic paper. The point of this was you cannot be biased against someone for their religious stance, them writing JMJ or PBUH is not the point of the post. Rather they use an acronym or spell it out would bring about the same level of confusion. "Peace be upon him, Muhammad went to the river." doesn't form a great looking sentence in academia, but should it be allowed. The point I'm making is either yes or no, pertaining to everything. So ban PBUH, JMJ or allow it. Ban saying these things or allow it. But if you banned peace be upon him, or PBUH, yet allowed G-d written in your classroom; I could see a media backlash.

 

It is obvious from the OP posting here, that she cares for her student. She wants the best for him or her, lest she wouldn't be asking the question. I see that and acknowledge it. I guarantee a local media reporting on this wouldn't care if she truly cared about the student however. They would do a hit piece in a heart beat. It's the nature of modern day society. Do you believe allowing G-d yet disallowing PBUH would produce a positive outcome if reported to the media? Do you want to be the test subject for this? I certainly don't want to be. Impartial is the safety net that will save the OP. Whichever she decides.

I feel like we need to keep in mind that PBUH, G-d, and +JMJ+ are actually different examples, which is important to the OP's issue. "+JMJ+" is more of just a cutesy abbreviation, and thus has no place in formal academic writing. On the other hand, "PBUH," while religious in nature, is sometimes culturally obligated (either the abbreviation or the full phrase "peace be upon him") more than religiously. The use of "G-d" is theological in nature, but it is ultimately a personal choice and not an obligation by any Jewish community or institution. 

As someone in religious studies who also teaches English composition 101 at a major university, I can't see either of the latter two being frowned upon. They are not informal, incorrect grammatically, or otherwise poor English. Ultimately it's up to the discretion of the instructor, but I can't imagine a situation where it would bother a professor that much. Christ Jesus, I'm usually more distracted by my students' lack of proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation. 

However, I'm really confused about this talk of "banning" certain language, ruining people's careers. and the "local media" getting involved. It feels a little hyperbolic. I don't think the OP's question needs to be spun into a political issue. It's just a pedagogical question and really only needs to be framed as such.

[E-P]

Old post, new cents!

 

Your individual school may have already addressed this or have best practices.  If it were my school (state university, not private), I would consult the diversity center and ask them for best practices.  Whatever you do, develop a consistent approach that applies to everyone, regardless of their religion, and put it in your syllabus.  If your department frequently covers religion (if you're a religious studies scholar, for example), then your department head might consider putting the same blurb in all syllabi.