余命511 東京大学の入試問題

March 13 [Sun], 2016, 20:39
余命三年時事日記 連動記事

511 TSUTAYA図書館(2)へのコメント
-------------------------------------------------------------

大学入試問題も左翼思想の刷り込みに利用されています。
朝日新聞の天声人語が有名ですが、
今年の東京大学の入試問題は、国語が内田樹の反知性主義の話、
英語が米国ボストングローブ紙の記事を改ざんしたものだったそうです。


受験生の必需品みたいになっている通称赤本。
これに収録されたら25年間過去問題に掲載され、受験生は刷り込まれるのです。


詳しくは東京大学入試問題英語を解説したツイートがあります。
新家博/Niinomi Hiroshi さんのTwitterより

https://twitter.com/ashikabiyobikou/status/705580221899022336
https://twitter.com/ashikabiyobikou/status/705583591971926016
https://twitter.com/ashikabiyobikou/status/705633532572381184

https://twitter.com/ashikabiyobikou/status/707103842618355712
https://twitter.com/ashikabiyobikou/status/707104054074155008
https://twitter.com/ashikabiyobikou/status/707104278087766016
https://twitter.com/ashikabiyobikou/status/707104468442095617
https://twitter.com/ashikabiyobikou/status/707104797514567680
https://twitter.com/ashikabiyobikou/status/707105040352223232
https://twitter.com/ashikabiyobikou/status/707105217481809920
https://twitter.com/ashikabiyobikou/status/707105491353075712
https://twitter.com/ashikabiyobikou/status/707105757733322752
https://twitter.com/ashikabiyobikou/status/707106258843664384


東大の入試英語、酷いなあ。「安倍政権」と「文科省」という名前こそ出していないが、英作文、リスニングを除いてほぼ全出題文が安倍政権批判、文科省政策批判と受け取れるものばかり並べている。。特に大問Tの(B)は酷い。これは入試政策過程を検証する必要があるのではないか。あまりにも政治的。

問題のネタ元はたぶんこれか。安倍批判用に酷い書き換えをやった感じだ。あとでこちらも読んでみるか。


Why free speech is fundamental (ボストングローブ紙 2015年1月27日 Steven Pinker )
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/01/26/why-free-speech-fundamental/aaAWVYFscrhFCC4ye9FVjN/story.html

More than two centuries after freedom of speech was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution, that right is very much in the news. Campus speech codes, disinvited commencement speakers, jailed performance artists, exiled leakers, a blogger condemned to a thousand lashes by one of our closest allies, and the massacre of French cartoonists have forced the democratic world to examine the roots of its commitment to free speech.

Is free speech merely a symbolic talisman, like a national flag or motto? Is it just one of many values that we trade off against each other? Was Pope Francis right when he said that “you cannot make fun of the faith of others”? May universities muzzle some students to protect the sensibilities of others? Did the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists “cross a line that separates free speech from toxic talk,” as the dean of a school of journalism recently opined? Or is free speech fundamental ― a right which, if not absolute, should be abrogated only in carefully circumscribed cases?

The answer is that free speech is indeed fundamental. It’s important to remind ourselves why, and to have the reasons at our fingertips when that right is called into question.

The first reason is that the very thing we’re doing when we ask whether free speech is fundamental ― exchanging and evaluating ideas ― presupposes that we have the right to exchange and evaluate ideas. In talking about free speech (or anything else) we’re talking. We’re not settling our disagreement by arm-wrestling or a beauty contest or a pistol duel. Unless you’re willing to discredit yourself by declaring, in the words of Nat Hentoff, “free speech for me but not for thee,” then as soon as you show up to a debate to argue against free speech, you’ve lost it.

Those who are unimpressed by this logical argument can turn to one based on human experience. One can imagine a world in which oracles, soothsayers, prophets, popes, visionaries, imams, or gurus have been vouchsafed with the truth which only they possess and which the rest of us would be foolish, indeed, criminal, to question. History tells us that this is not the world we live in. Self-proclaimed truthers have repeatedly been shown to be mistaken ― often comically so ― by history, science, and common sense.

Perhaps the greatest discovery in human history ― one that is prior to every other discovery ― is that our traditional sources of belief are in fact generators of error and should be dismissed as grounds for knowledge. These include faith, revelation, dogma, authority, charisma, augury, prophesy, intuition, clairvoyance, conventional wisdom, and subjective certainty.

How, then, can we know? Other than by proving mathematical theorems, which are not about the material world, the answer is the process that the philosopher Karl Popper called conjecture and refutation. We come up with ideas about the nature of reality, and test them against that reality, allowing the world to falsify the mistaken ones. The “conjecture” part of this formula, of course, depends upon the exercise of free speech. We offer these conjectures without any prior assurance they are correct. It is only by bruiting ideas and seeing which ones withstand attempts to refute them that we acquire knowledge.

Once this realization sank in during the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment, the traditional understanding of the world was upended. Everyone knows that the discovery that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than vice-versa had to overcome fierce resistance from ecclesiastical authority. But the Copernican revolution was just the first event in a cataclysm that would make our current understanding of the world unrecognizable to our ancestors. Everything we know about the world ― the age of our civilization, species, planet, and universe; the stuff we’re made of; the laws that govern matter and energy; the workings of the body and brain ― came as insults to the sacred dogma of the day. We now know that the beloved convictions of every time and culture may be decisively falsified, doubtless including some we hold today.

A third reason that free speech is foundational to human flourishing is that it is essential to democracy and a bulwark against tyranny. How did the monstrous regimes of the 20th century gain and hold power? The answer is that groups of armed fanatics silenced their critics and adversaries. (The 1933 election that gave the Nazis a plurality was preceded by years of intimidation, murder, and violent mayhem.) And once in power, the totalitarians criminalized any criticism of the regime. This is also true of the less genocidal but still brutal regimes of today, such as those in China, Russia, African strongman states, and much of the Islamic world.

Why do dictators brook no dissent? One can imagine autocrats who feathered their nests and jailed or killed only those who directly attempted to usurp their privileges, while allowing their powerless subjects to complain all they want. There’s a good reason dictatorships don’t work that way. The immiserated subjects of a tyrannical regime are not deluded that they are happy, and if tens of millions of disaffected citizens act together, no regime has the brute force to resist them. The reason that citizens don’t resist their overlords en masse is that they lack common knowledge ― the awareness that everyone shares their knowledge and knows they share it. People will expose themselves to the risk of reprisal by a despotic regime only if they know that others are exposing themselves to that risk at the same time.

Common knowledge is created by public information, such as a broadcasted statement. The story of “The Emperor’s New Clothes’’ illustrates the logic. When the little boy shouted that the emperor was naked, he was not telling them anything they didn’t already know, anything they couldn’t see with their own eyes. But he was changing their knowledge nonetheless, because now everyone knew that everyone else knew that the emperor was naked. And that common knowledge emboldened them to challenge the emperor’s authority with their laughter.

The story reminds us why humor is no laughing matter ― why satire and ridicule, even when puerile and tasteless, are terrifying to autocrats and protected by democracies. Satire can stealthily challenge assumptions that are second nature to an audience by forcing them to see that those assumptions lead to consequences that everyone recognizes are absurd.

That’s why humor so often serves as an accelerant to social progress. Eighteenth-century wiseguys like Voltaire, Swift, and Johnson ridiculed the wars, oppressions, and cruel practices of their day. In the 1960s, comedians and artists portrayed racists as thick-witted Neanderthals and Vietnam hawks and nuclear cold warriors as amoral psychopaths. The Soviet Union and its satellites had a rich underground current of satire, as in the common definition of the two Cold War ideologies: “Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man; Communism is the exact opposite.”

We use barbed speech to undermine not just political dictators but the petty oppressors of everyday life: the tyrannical boss, the sanctimonious preacher, the blowhard at the bar, the neighborhood enforcer of stifling norms.

It’s true that free speech has limits. We carve out exceptions for fraud, libel, extortion, divulging military secrets, and incitement to imminent lawless action. But these exceptions must be strictly delineated and individually justified; they are not an excuse to treat speech as one fungible good among many. Despots in so-called “democratic republics” routinely jail their opponents on charges of treason, libel, and inciting lawlessness. Britain’s lax libel laws have been used to silence critics of political figures, business oligarchs, Holocaust deniers, and medical quacks. Even Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous exception to free speech ― falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater ― is easily abused, not least by Holmes himself. He coined the meme in a 1919 Supreme Court case that upheld the conviction of a man who distributed leaflets encouraging men to resist the draft during World War I, a clear expression of opinion in a democracy.

And if you object to these arguments ― if you want to expose a flaw in my logic or a lapse in my accuracy ― it’s the right of free speech that allows you to do so.


今年の東大入試英語、かなり酷いので気になって国語の問題も見てみた。案の定と言うべきか。今年の出題文は内田樹の「反知性主義」批判である。私から見ればかなり浅薄な文である。英語といい、国語の問題といい、ここまでやると「陰謀」を感じる。 

http://nyushi.nikkei.co.jp/honshi/16/t01-31p.pdf
(日本経済新聞 大学入試速報 東京大学 国語)

1)数日前に東大入試英語が酷い、というツイートをした。批判だけではいけないので、どのような改竄が行われたか一部紹介しておこう。その前に今、安倍政権がどのような批判を受けているか、まずはツイートや写真を参考にしておこう。

Squelching bad news in Japan (ワシントンポスト)


2)政権批判はどんどんやればいい。言論弾圧も批判すればばよい。また、当然ながら朝日放送や毎日など大手メディアの偏向振りも当然批判されてよい。問題は、日本の大学のトップであり、日本のエリート養成機関である東大が入試においてまで安倍政権批判と思われて当然という入試問題を作るかである。

3)今年の入試は国語の現代文が内田樹の反知性主義批判の文。それと並行するように
英語の大問1(A)がナショナリズム問題と考えられる英文、
大問1(B)が言論の自由の重要性を訴えた英文、
大問4(A)が知を生み出す機関、つまり大学の重要性、知の多様性を訴える英文。

4)大問4(B)が唐突にアフガンの戦争のお話。そして
大問5がホームレスに優しくすべし、という問題。
入試問題の編集は大学の「自治」で自由だとは言え、これだけ並べられれば相当のアホでも安倍政権批判と
受け取るであろう。やることが陰湿である。

5)では、私が特にひどいと思った大問1(B)の改竄を見てみよう。これは受験生のためを思った英文書き換えとはとても思えない、たんなる自分たちの意図に合わせて書き換えただけの改竄英語。




6)言論の自由の重要性を訴えた原文では、言論弾圧や残虐な虐殺を行っている国をしっかりと書いてある。ところが書き換え文ではそれを全部省略している。これは字数上の問題ではない。なぜなら他の箇所では「書き足し」も行っているからだ。なぜこんなことをするのか。

7)考えられるのは、「全体主義者」を「独裁主義者」に書き換えていることからも分かるように言論弾圧の舞台を日本として受験生が読むように誘導しているのである。次の書き換えを見るとこのことはかなり明白である。



8)ここでは政治的独裁者がたんなる「権力を握っている人々」に書き換えられ、「抑圧者」が「いじめをする人間」に書き換えられ、「説教師」が「先生」に書き換えられ、というわけで受験生はどうしても「日本」のこととしてしか読めないように誘導している。

9)これは原文の英単語が難しいから書き換えたのではない。意識的に書き換えているとしか考えられない。今年の東大の入試は現代文作成者と英語作成者が共謀して入試問題を作ったと批判されてもしかたがない入試問題である。これは大きな問題ではないか。

10)東大の入試問題となれば、毎年毎年過去問研究ということで膨大な受験生がこの入試問題を読み、また予備校や高校で受験英語の教材として教えられる。「刷り込み」効果は抜群だ。どこかの3流私大ではない。東大の入試問題である。これで本当にいいのか、と思うのは私一人ではあるまい。(了)


  • URL:https://yaplog.jp/todays_afpbb/archive/686
Trackback
Trackback URL
Comment
小文字 太字 斜体 下線 取り消し線 左寄せ 中央揃え 右寄せ テキストカラー 絵文字 プレビューON/OFF

不正な自動コメント投稿を防ぐため、チェックボックスにチェックをしてください。

利用規約に同意
 X 
禁止事項とご注意
※本名・メールアドレス・住所・電話番号など、個人が特定できる情報の入力は行わないでください。
「ヤプログ!利用規約 第9条 禁止事項」に該当するコメントは禁止します。
「ヤプログ!利用規約」に同意の上、コメントを送信してください。