Students and faculty reflect on the benefits of the GG&S book project

Following are a sampling of comments from students and faculty members who facilitated small group discussions during freshman orientation on the book, Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond. The book was assigned reading for all first-year students.

·I just wanted to let you know that my small discussion group was awesome! All 15 kids showed up and everyone except for one person had read the book. (She never received the book!) It was a diverse group of students from France, Singapore, England and all throughout the United States. John Bishop and I had prepared many questions to probe their minds, but we only had to refer to these questions a couple of times. I was definitely impressed with the freshman class and I think they gained from the small group discussion.
--Tanvee Mehra, junior

Among panelists joining freshmen in the community discussion on the book Guns, Germs, and Steel in Barton Hall Aug. 26 are Nelson Hairston, left, the Frank H.T. Rhodes Professor of Environmental Science, and Michele Moody-Adams, professor of philosophy and director of the Ethics and Public Life program. Richard Killen/University Photography

·I thought the discussion session was very beneficial. We also had a group of boys, all of whom lived together, most of whom were engineers. I thought it would have been better if the groups had been mixed up a little, so that the freshmen could meet new people and not spend two hours discussing the book with roommates, with whom they could discuss the book any other time. And it would have been nice to get some non-scientific views as well! People had a lot of opinions and everyone had something to say. Before long we branched off into topics like genetic superiority and affirmative action. As most of the students were Caucasian, that tended to be a little one-sided, but it was nice to bring it all out into the open. Several students realized that they harbored various preconceived notions about certain races, and hopefully the book and the discussion helped them to change their views. In the end I felt that we elaborated on what was discussed at the panel in a constructive, if often spirited, way. I don't think that this is something the freshmen will forget, even if their memory of it is something less than positive.
--Keelah Rose Calloway, sophomore

·My small group session was a success in that everyone participated and had read GG&S at a very intelligent level. People had gone out of their way to check Diamond's facts and learn more about specific facts and references. One girl had researched Yali and brought up the point that Diamond was arrogant to refer to a person of such high rank and notoriety on a first-name basis. We were able to get into discussions about history as science and whether Diamond ultimately succeeded in discrediting racism or his arguments were inadvertently racist. My facilitating professor (Kathryn March) was enthusiastic and interesting. I was lucky to meet her and to get to discuss with the freshmen ... thanks!
--Hilary Smith, sophomore

·I was actually disappointed with the small group discussion -- especially as it came on the heels of, what I felt to be, a stimulating panel session. Despite the seeming ethnic diversity of my group, the group was extremely homogeneous. It seemed as if most members were treating the discussion as if it were a chore, which they wanted to be done with as quickly as possible. The comments made were mainly disparaging, consisting of mostly unsubstantiated complaints. The students seemed less sophisticated than I'd expected (especially after hearing some of the new-student questions posed at the panel). Perhaps, though, I expected too much.

The most interesting part of the discussion was a short explanation of the transition made by early man from the Bronze to Iron age, presented by Professor David Owen. Working with the professor was one of the highlights of the experience. In short, though, I don't feel that the discussion was worth the amount of time I put into preparing for it. I believe the program has tremendous amounts of potential for sparking intellectual discourse among new students (and returning ones as well), and it seems to have worked, at least at the panel discussion.

The only suggestion I can offer you is to have small group discussions meet more than once (each meeting for shorter periods of time). Students might become more involved and might also develop better intellectual relationships with each other and the facilitating professors.
--Ashley Rindsberg, junior

·The GG&S discussion that Rachel Ruggirello and I co-led went very well. Nearly everyone seemed to have read the book and some students had strong opinions about it, which made for lively interactions that lasted a bit longer than the allotted two hours. Two students said they wished the book had been shorter and the discussion longer. I think the whole group, including the facilitators, found it to be a valuable and memorable experience.
--Paul Sherman, professor of neurobiology and behavior

·Just wanted to let you know that my discussion group was excellent. The students, most of them, had read the book more carefully than I had anticipated, several of them had read it really well, and they were quite ready to talk about it. Of the 15, all men, which I thought was a bit strange, only two or three of them were at all reticent. We covered a lot of ground and used the full two hours. My co-leader, Sara Bufurd, was also very good. So I thought it well worthwhile and an interesting experience. I think they will remember it.
--Jerry Ziegler, professor emeritus, policy analysis and management

·I also had a lively and in depth discussion group (attended by all but two on my list). But I think it would have been better to have a more random group. My group seemed to be all from the same floor of the same dorm and were all men. This meant that they knew each other and had already done some discussion of the book informally in the dorm. I would have preferred a more random group that included women and students who did not all know each other.
--David Henderson, professor of mathematics