Jump to content

Talk:Leon Kass

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quotes

[edit]

All of the quotes, except for the last one, have no citation. Where do they come from? Provide sources or they will be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.89.17 (talk) 04:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Strauss

[edit]

I think it's inappropriate to refer to Kass as a Straussian. In an interview with The American Enterprise magazine, he said that he never met Strauss during his studies at Chicago and has only read "a couple of his books."--Denysmonroe81 (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unsigned comment

[edit]

I suppose that this is fair, but Leon Kass probably should be more thoroughly written on than this. I believe he is one of the most evil men currently alive in America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.211.231.145 (talk) 16:34, April 9, 2005. Why do you think this? What at all is evil about the man? He is one of the most upright people I have ever met. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.4.92 (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

[edit]

Pastricide is correct on Kass's position both on stem cell lines and IVF. While it is fair to say that Kass generally falls into a conservative (or neo-conservative) position, he does not do so in knee-jerk fashion, nor does he do it without argument. Ironic that the writer below offered a link to "the wisdom of repugnance" article, which gives an extended argument against cloning, and then derides Kass for not giving arguments for his position.--Noesis 02:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that Kass supported President Bush's 2001 compromise permitting research on existing stem cell lines, so he is not opposed to embryonic research outright. One can argue that the compromise is too restrictive, but Kass does not have an absolutist stance on this issue. Also, while it is true that he once wrote arguments against IVF, since 1979 he has generally been supportive of it since the procedure has not proven to be dangerous to the mothers who have used it. Someone more technologically savvy than me may want to verify this and cite sources so that we have the facts straight. --Pastricide 01:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Offer links to his articles "the wisdom of repugnance" [[1]] and "the end of courtship" [[2]]. He is still highly intolerant of any technological "interference" with the "natural" human reproductive proccess and its clear from the articles above that he would be happy to get rid of all the technologies introduced over the last 30 years. The man wears his conservatism as a red badge of courage and insists on not having to give actual arguments for his positions. And its innane.

So, can we remove the warning now? Let's hear an opinion from someone who doesn't hate Kass. Dan 04:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put back the ice cream quote, the full sentence this time, after Noesis deleted it...It is sufficiently out of the mainstream, and Leon Kass is a sufficiently highly regarded person, to warrant it being in this article.--Zaorish 20:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other deletion? I think my last version of the Babel lecture expresses his view fairly, and he literally keeps giving that lecture word for word -- seems like he considers it important. Dan 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that deletion, I don't think there's much controversial about this article. I do, however, think it needs some added material. So, I replaced the NPOV tag with a Stub tag.
I (Cheesusfreak (talk) 10:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)) have rejigged the icecream section. I had 2 small objections. 1st Pinker isn't 'of the New Republic'. That's just where the article was published. 2nd. the phrase 'The implication was that..', which I cut, is (was) another editor's interpretation of the thrust of the article. The argument Pinker developed wasn't (imho) predicated on Kass's view of ice cream eating: it was about human autonomy. Hope it's OK.[reply]


Needed items:

  • Kass' views on "being my brother's keeper" and "being my (foolish) brother's keeper"
  • Kass' definition of and thoughts on compassion (ie, that demanding compassion kills it)
  • Views on feminine virtue/modesty/courtship
  • Views on abortion
  • Views on marriage

Dan mentioned articles relevant to these topics, I will add them. --Zaorish 22:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think someone else did that. But yes, that sounds appropriate. Dan 18:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote on not eating ice cream in public is not representative of any important elements in Kass's overall philosophic or political philosophies. It is also out of context. Hence my removal. --Noesis 01:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Score-

Keep ice cream quote: 1
Lose ice cream quote: 1
Though I don't totally agree with you, Noesis, I see your point, and I propose a compromise:
Let's put the qutoe into a "Trivia" section.

Also, Noesis, since you seem to know about Kass' overall philosophy, please add that knowledge to the article. It's ok if you dont have sources now, you can add them later when you get the chance.

--Zaorish 01:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came here precisely because I was puzzled by the inclusion of the Steven Pinker material. Undoubtedly there are a number of positions on which one might wish to take issue with Kass or with any other subject of an article, but this criticism appears to be inserted for no particularly good reason save that Kass has taken a position against the grain of contemporary mores. But clearly Pinker, and now Wikipedia, has seized on this quote precisely in order to hold Kass up to ridicule. On that ground alone I'd edit the section out. In addition, though, the section sticks out as basically a condemnation and literally a "last word" on the subject, as there is no attempt to assess Pinker's argument (unlike the pro/con discussions earlier in the article). And finally, the section title, "Reception," suggests that Pinker represents the entire intellectual or critical reaction to Kass's work. So, the section ought to be, in my opinion, either much enlarged or, pending that work, removed.Italtrav (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fleshing out Kass' worldview

[edit]

Dan, if you believe that his tower of babel essay is an important part of his philosophy, go ahead and summarize it in the article.--Zaorish 23:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TO ALL: I have added a bunch of basic social views of Kass from the "End of Courtship" essay that some Anonymous-san so nicely provided. TO NOESIS: Don't delete it without making an argument and listening to responses first.

Noesis, because you have made it clear to me twice that you are very well versed in Kass' ideas and philosophy, I encourage you again to add your knowledge to the article. --Zaorish 01:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the "Wisdom of Repugnance"

[edit]

I can see how George Bush and many in his administration use this argument, but it is Not proven in the existing state of the article that Kass does. In fact, he seems to base arguments like his abotu the destiny of women on what is "natural," not on what is evil or disturbing.

I will delete the reference unless some people defend it well. --Zaorish 02:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I follow you. Kass invented the term, didn't he? Seems like if anything, you'd want to edit the Wisdom of repugnance article to reflect the man's views as you see them. Dan 05:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that he invented the term. I want the truth. If he did, call me a monkey's uncle, I'm wrong. I'm checking the other article now.--Zaorish 01:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

..Came back, and you are right, apparently he invented the term. Thanks for this small bit of enlightenment. ; )--Zaorish 01:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtship, Birth Control, and Eating

[edit]

Zoarish fails to understand that Kass frequently fleshes out what are the apparent sacrifices modern society makes with regard to new technologies, such as birth control. But this doesn't mean essays like "The End of Courtship" are necessarily "attacking" said technologies. Kass's general technique, both in writing and on the Council for Bioethics, is to question the consequences of modern assumptions, especially with regard to technology. For example, even though he regards public funding of stem-cell technology questionable, he never called for an outright ban.

In true philosophic and phenomenological spirit, Kass tries to get to the bottom of our assumptions about eating in "The Hungry Soul." This means that all assertions he makes need to be taken in the context of a larger philosophic examination, not simply as statements out of context, no matter how "trivial."

Zoarish needs to relax and read Kass in context. Hence I am deleting all references out of context and attempts to "summarize" his position without understanding Kass's attempts to describe instead of attack and mediate instead of deny by righteous indignation. Let's be fair to Dr. Kass, please. If this requires us to stamp the article disputed, so be it. --Noesis 03:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have more of a controversy section, please? I think this luddite is basically the devil for atheists. He represents to me everything that is cowardly and weak about the fear and "revulsion" humans feel toward the big, scary unknown. The fact that someone like this has any power is a tragedy for science and progress. -Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.133.157 (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't dispute the article until I see what's not neutral. I encourage you to make the edit yourself.
Noesis, you too have the power to go into the history and bring back certain things. Just click the "history" tab, go find an older version with my (or someone else's) name on it, and replace it.
--Zaorish 03:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you still find the context inadequate, please explain why here. Dan 04:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The "ice-cream" quote is worth keeping, but it is worth getting right. The version currently on the page has two errors when compared to the version in his book:

error 1) "...those who know eating in public is offensive" should read "those who know why eating in public is offensive," i.e. add "why" after "know". error 2) "It beckons enslavement..." should read "It betokens enslavement...". "Beckons" never made any sense there, and makes Kass look illiterate.

The trouble with the second error (i.e. "beckons" for "betokens") is that Pinker created it and propagated it through his New Republic article. So quoting Kass correctly requires quoting Pinker incorrectly, or vice versa. Perhaps put a note to this effect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.161.164 (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not advocacy journalism.

[edit]

This entire article past the introductory paragraph reads like advocacy journalism, which is specifically against Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Writing style. Specifically, reliable and neutral third party sources should be predominant; much of this article quotes the subject's own writings. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view. -- Trevyn 00:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Almost all of the text in the "Philosophical influences" section was deleted because it discussed the views of Strauss and Jonas, not Kass. I don't know if this text was WP:OR or not; if not, it could be placed in the articles on Strauss and Jonas, if it's not already there. Also, the only WP:Verifiable connection between Kass and The New Atlantis that I could find is that he wrote a few articles for them, hardly evidence of an "influence". The New Atlantis "about us" mentions Eric Cohen as the founder, and does not mention Kass at all. -- Trevyn 18:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworked "Bioethics views" section and added references. Kass' notability is primarily due to his career as a bioethicist. As such, encyclopedic coverage of his views should be restricted to this field. His views on marriage and the behavior and virtues of women have as much relevance as his views on pizza toppings. Reproductive issues are relevant, and have been merged into "Bioethics views". Cleanup complete, inappropriate tone template removed. -- Trevyn 04:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


If you saw the earlier version as advocacy journalism, please explain what point of view you think it advocated. Those "reproductive issues" and his views on marriage, women and sex appear to form a seamless whole in his writings. We tried (by request) to present a coherent picture of the man's worldview. By contrast, the current version basically contains a someone else move this to Wikiquote section; it gives quotations with no context and makes no attempt to tie them into his career. It says not one word about the attitude towards technology that informs his work according to his Babel lecture (where he decides to "step back from the urgency of contemporary issues to reflect on their deeper and enduring roots: the meaning of our devotion to technology, and especially its relation to the universal humanistic dream.") Dan 18:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(The "influences" text you removed does seem borderline irrelevant, and for all I know false.) Dan 22:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the relevant text. If you like, we could add that many liberals find these views of Kass notable and give examples like this one. Dan 00:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it advocates the point of view that Kass is not a loon, and that his views have encyclopedic merit. Seriously, it sounds amateurish, like one of his students writing a précis of one of Kass' lectures without a critical eye. I understand that Kass is a controversial man with controversial views, but this is exactly what we need to get across, not a paraphrasing of his writings. Again, from Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Writing style, "badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted. The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves." Note that the text in question is not Kass writing about himself. I may be open to the idea of including information from the "views on women" section, but we need reliable third parties writing about Kass. I don't think a blog post counts. —Trevyn 23:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't see the point of this supposed policy in a case where he clearly considers these views relevant to his own positions. And I don't know what made you think it "advocates the point of view that Kass is not a loon," unless you think writing about him gives the chair of the President's Council on Bioethics added credibility. He sounds like a fucking 9/11 hijacker. And it doesn't count as anti-Kass advocacy journalism because he apparently sees no problem with attacking the basic premise of America. (Nor does he consider it incidental to his work, according to the Babel quote, which of course explains why I included it in the first place.) Dan 01:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


- A "9/11 hijacker"? I don't know you, or this forum very well. But I know Dr. Kass. I do not agree with many of his views, but he is one of the most thoughtful and wise men I have known. I am proud to have called him a mentor, many years ago. His depth of thought and sincere dedication to his fellow human beings, so apparent to those of us who have struggled through Rousseau or Aristotle or Genesis with him, deserves more than this, especially in such a respected forum. Incidentally, say what you will about his thoughts on women and their "rightful" place, only one professor on the U of C campus routinely gets more accolades than he: his wife. 162.119.232.109 10:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)HB. Sacramento. 03:00 10/26/06[reply]


How nice for you. I wrote that in response to a curious charge relating to the article. If you have a comment relating to the article, please post it here. (Do you think the article shows favoritism towards Kass, or misrepresents his views?) If you want to discuss Kass himself or my language or anything except this article, you know where to find my talk page. Dan 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I am sorry to have commented inappropriately. Frankly, I have never done anything like this before, as should be obvious. I don't know if I should even be writing this here. Since you asked my opinion, I don't think that you intentionally misrepresent Kass, but you are just simplistic. (remainder cut by Dan on 3 Nov) 64.160.117.34 10:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)HB[reply]

I'd like to move this text to my talk page and respond there. But first: if you think some change would improve the article, please say so. You can suggest a change here or be bold and edit the article yourself. Dan 17:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not bold. I don't feel right in trying to edit or redact a forum in which I am not even a user. Plus, I am too influenced by K. to give him a fair shake on an online encyclopeia. Having said that, I do know something of his work, and would submit to you the following suggestions concerning the bioethics section (I'm a dabbler in that) to take or leave as you and the other writers see fit: You may want to start the section by establishing that K. is distrustful of many (not all) aspects, or sequelae, of enlightenment thought and modernity. These include the following notions: 1. That human beings are merely the sum total of biological processes. 2. That science and cartesian thought can get to the bottom of what is ultimately mysterious concerning humanity (hence the drive toward a more "NATURAL" science, that is a science more in tune with our "true" nature-as understood through a certain reading of the western cannon-see leo strauss, Jonas, Genesis, Roussuea's Discourse on the Origins of Inequality and on the Sciences and the Arts, and others-the babel lecture is a good example of that). This, to him, comes at the price of human dignity. 3. That unchecked technical and scientific manipulation of the world (and of ourselves) for our own "perceived" good should be strived for at all costs. I acknowledge that these are not the only things to be concluded from the enlightenment and modernity, but I think that these larger trends hold special sway for K. The text points to these notions in some way or another, but doesn't really state them outright and coherently. I think that much of his concptualization biomedical ethics revolves around tackling these issues, whether in the context of cloning, test tube babies, stem cell reseach, or issues concerning human longeity and death. Also, I think that K. stops short from making an arguement for the existence of God (I have not read the Genesis book, however)as the texts seems to imply with the Arguement from Morality reference. I could be wrong about this, but the writers needs to find where K. makes that arguement, and reference it. Finally, I think that there are far more representative and insight-providing quotations from The Hungry Soul than the ice cream reference (please don't make me find my copy of the book, long since lost). This is K. kind-of at his worst. Like him or not, he is a serious and sober thinker, and not just a (harumf!) crumudgeon. Thanks for listening, and I will follow any other conversation regarding this on Dan's talk page. 69.111.110.138 21:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)HB[reply]

The article says he makes another argument related to that theological claim -- he doesn't try to prove God's existence, but he does argue in the quoted sentence that reason cannot provide morality. Part of the argument from morality article addresses this claim. I'll have to think about the rest of this as it relates to K's entry. Your cut text will appear on my talk page in a bit, once I finish my response. Dan 22:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

skewed?

[edit]

-Please excuse if this is not proper usage of the talk pages, but i also believe the article has been slightly skewed. Granted, with people believing the man is inherently evil, objectivity is a bit hard to come by, but the views he presents are not so.. what's the word.. extremist? as the article makes it sound. My main concern in writing this is the quotes section and his views on women. Taken from his essay "The End of Courtship":

"The supreme virtue of the virtuous woman was modesty, a form of sexual self-control, manifested not only in chastity but in decorous dress and manner, speech and deed, and in reticence in the display of her well-banked affections. A virtue, as it were, made for courtship, it served simultaneously as a source of attraction and a spur to manly ardor, a guard against a woman's own desires, as well as a defense against unworthy suitors. A fine woman understood that giving her body (in earlier times, even her kiss) meant giving her heart, which was too precious to be bestowed on anyone who would not prove himself worthy, at the very least by pledging himself in marriage to be her defender and lover forever."

Now, i know the first part of this quote is in the article, but taken out of context, the view presented is very different. i wouldn't be surprised if this is how most of the quotes appear. I do not have the experience to edit an encyclopedia entry myself, and though i do not personally agree with some of what he concludes, i do believe the whole argument should be present when any part of it is. For that reason, i think, the issue of advocacy was raised. I don't mean to offend anyone, i only wish for a more objective view of the man's presentation. nemuru :3 22:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think the rest of the quote contains an argument? It certainly doesn't change what he advocates, so I don't know what you mean by "very different". Looking to see what the second and third sentences add to his claim, I find an unsupported psychological assertion couched in vague language and attributed to "a fine woman" at some unspecified point in the past, so that he can disavow it when we present contrary evidence. The article cuts that bit in favor of another vague assertion that Kass at least seems to take responsibility for and applies to all women instead of just "fine" ones. Dan 06:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Slightly skewed would be a massive understatement, this reads more like a CV put out by Kass's own people. The article is so devoid of criticism of Kass and his close relationships to the Bush administration and Neo-Cons that it is worthless. I personally would love to add a bit more balance to this, but it is my guess that the entry is highly managed by his supporters and any criticism would be deleted, despite confirming to Wikipedia rules. Rober1236jua (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have more of a controversy section, please? I think this luddite is basically the devil for atheists. He represents to me everything that is cowardly and weak about the fear and "revulsion" humans feel toward the big, scary unknown. The fact that someone like this has any power is a tragedy for science and progress. -Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.133.157 (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC) Moving this here to directly address Kass' biggest fan. I fail to see how his worldview has any depth whatsoever... his biggest concern, dignity, is simply concern with appearances and emotions, and not with thinking. In any case, while I appreciate that the controversy section makes him seem like a total nutcase, could we have some serious issues addressed there? I certainly find his opposition to ice cream cones to be annoying, and perhaps even symbolic of his "ban first, ask questions later" attitude in general, but I think we can all agree that the "cone issue" is of no significance whatsoever. -Ryan The more I read about this guy, the more "grotesque" he seems to me. I am reading "The Wisdom of Revulsion" at this moment, and the lack of care with which he throws out his observation that words like "revolting" "grotesque" and "disgusting" are the most frequent words he hears to describe human cloning is offensive to me as a scientist. The fact that he surrounds himself with people who feel this way didn't even cross his mind. He goes on to cite several forms of "harm" that one can do to a child before their conception, including allowing them to be "a bastard." Do people still use that term with seriousness anymore?! I am not sure which would prompt me to have more loathing for Kass: being a clone, being "a bastard," or just being myself.

Uh...not sure what you meant by that Ryan. Are you a cloned bastard? Can't quite wrap my head around that one. Sounds like you find his arguement repugnant and are taking it a bit personally. But doesn't that fit with his worldview that "appearances and emotions" are as an essential part of human nature as reason? The devil for athiests. If there is no god than surely there can be no devil. Certainly this arguement must come from appearances and emotions and not thinking either. Im not a person who thinks that the dignity and wisdom of repugnance concepts offer a complete view of human moral and ethical decision making, but the responses on these pages suggest to me that those writing this article are by no means without extreme bias, and that their own repugnance is the source of this vindictive portal. He has worked and thought hard to make his contribution to the discussion. Right or wrong, he has been taken seriously enough to be part of policy formation. You may not agree with him, but you have chosen to publicly destroy him. The man has been called the devil, a luddite, the most evil man in america, a 9/11 hijacker. When will you people get over the fact that you are in no position to offer any formal opinion on the matter in any public forum without abandoning the rational positions you so self-righteously proport to claim? Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.79.152.15 (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quote section?

[edit]

Kass has some revealing, or at least provocative quotes

Kass wrote, “the finitude of human life is a blessing for every human individual, whether he knows it or not” (Kass 2004, p. 311) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.203.207 (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leon Kass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Leon Kass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lede edit

[edit]

Quick note, because I neglected to capture it in the edit summary, but I've removed[3] reference to his time as chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics as being "controversial," per WP:WORDS. His time there is thoroughly elaborated in the article body. TheBlueCanoe 23:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description of years teaching at St. John's College

[edit]

It is not accurate to say that he taught in the Great Books program as well as in-depth studies of Aristotle's De Anima and Nicomachean Ethics and Darwin's On the Origin of Species. The Aristotle and Darwin works cited are in the College's Great Books curriculum. I suspect the in-depth studies refer to the school's sole electives -- what are called preceptorials where more time is spent on a selected (by teacher and student) work. Not worth getting into the arcana of the College's curriculum, but sentence should be re-written so as not to misrepresent that curriculum. (Yes, I'm an alumna.) Bertandherb (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leon_Kass&oldid=1205824228"