The Honors Society at Franklin invites to a Learned Conversation (with a small reception to follow):
As student advocacy groups rise across US campuses, US-based universities are institutionalizing ‘Neutrality Policies” that prevent school authorities from taking any stance in controversies. It also prohibits professors from educating students on value and emphasizes the importance of impartiality and neutrality. This resonates with the scientific principle in research that dictates researchers to eliminate potential bias, thus being neutral, to get an objective outcome. Yet, is the objectivity our ultimate goal? Since it cannot be denied that our personal value systems and convictions continue to be entangled with matters of education and research. Therefore we put forward an important question to ask oneself: What is the meaning of receiving higher education? Do we study for scientific truth produced by research, or are we looking up to it for ethical guidance? If education and research inherently serve as ethical guidance, is it not a contradiction to the very scientific principle - neutrality policy, upheld by universities? Or, if we buy into Max Weber’s claim that “science can give us facts , but it can not explain the value of those facts”, is the aim of education merely to learn about scientific truth?
Everyone is welcome!