May be of interest...
David
Today's commentary:
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2005-05/19olson.cfm
==================================
ZNet Commentary
Radical Teaching June 01, 2005
By Gary Olson
The issue of objectivity in the college classroom is widely misunderstood outside and
even within colleges and universities. Frankly, many of us in academia contribute to
this confusion by failing to adequately explain our larger mission.
On the one hand, this dereliction deprives the defense of academic freedom of
potential allies. On the other, it makes higher education more vulnerable to external
partisan groups intent on stifling open educational discourse and imposing their own
narrow agendas. In what follows, I'll sketch what I believe to be the essential
responsibilities of college teachers.
First, any attempt by a teacher to slant discussion by knowingly misrepresenting,
shading, or distorting information is unacceptable by any standard. Beyond that I
doubt if one can be anything but subjective in most teaching situations. In fact
"objectivity" is an inappropriate term.
Inevitably a teacher's perspective will accompany any course. In my opinion there an
element of dishonesty involved if this "bias" is camouflaged behind so-called detached
scholarly neutrality. Given this fact, I try to be as up front as possible about my
subjectivity. Presumably, faculty have spent considerable time and study mastering
their subject. Their primary responsibility to that subject "is to seek and to state the
truth as they see it." (AAUP Statement of Professional Ethics) But no teacher has the
"objective truth."
Second, I readily plead guilty to not being neutral about the topics addressed in my
own courses, from sexism, racism and homophobia to what I view as the the
destructive nature of globalizing corporate capitalism, virulent nationalism and the
misuses of religion. As a student I was invariably put off by teachers who feigned
neutrality about the grievous state of our world: "Okay, Native Americans (or
holocaust survivors, domestic abuse victims, starving children in Africa, etc.) we've
heard your story, now let's be fair and give equal moral weight to the other side! "
Third, I've always found much to admire in the European tradition where professors
are expected to "profess" something. As long as I don't penalize students for
disagreeing it's imperative that students know what I think. So far, anonymous
evaluations have never accused me of belittling a student's right to disagree or
lowering their grades for it.
Fourth, students are evaluated by appropriate scholarly standards for materials in a
given course. And here a crucial distinction must be made. While I always respect
students, I don't always respect the content of their opinions. Why? Because all
opinions aren't equally valid. For example, a "student has no 'right' to be rewarded for
an opinion of Moby Dick that is independent of these scholarly standards. If students
possessed such rights, all knowledge would be rendered superfluous." (AAUP)
Fifth, what students personally subscribe to at the end of a course is entirely their free
choice. For example, in a biology course you would be expected to understand the
theory of evolution but you could still "believe" in creationism in your personal life.
Or in astronomy you might retain the belief in a flat earth, but just don't put that on the
final exam. In other courses you'd be expected to demonstrate thorough familiarity
with critiques of capitalist economics -- receive an "A" -- and then be free to go on to
become a wildly successful Wall Street ruler of the universe.
Finally, in my ideal college, as students move from course to course they're exposed
to differing interpretations of the world from teachers who defend those positions with
evidence, skill, and conviction. Am I confident that exposure to my radical version of
"truth" will measure up well against these contending views and more importantly,
against a student's life experiences? (e.g. ZNet authors will offer a more convincing
case to students for how the world works than any alternative perspective). Well, I
suppose I am. Why else would I have devoted my life to this pursuit.
Again, I hope all teachers feel as strongly as I do about what they're doing in the
classroom so as to provide a worthy contest in the marketplace of ideas. Again, the
only way truth can emerge and falsehoods be exposed (as Chomsky's famous charge
to intellectuals put it)is if, in the larger curriculum, we value tolerance and are open to
hearing all points of view. Democracy depends on free expression and independent
voices.
That mission is jeopardized when powerful voices outside the academy attempt to
dictate not only how subjects are taught but by whom. Some of these folks believe
that any independent, critical thinking by students is inherently subversive. They
prefer a certain conformity of perspective even at the cost of faculty authority,
academic freedom and democracy itself.
Beyond all the reasons cited earlier, I would argue that this last chilling threat is the
clinching argument for protecting the autonomy of colleges and universities, yet
another reason to provide students an environment where they can emerge from the
shadows of Plato's Cave and view the world for themselves. At least that's my
subjective opinion.
Gary Olson, Ph.D. is Chair of the Political Science Department at Moravian College in
Bethlehem,PA. Contact: [log in to unmask]
--
Whatever you Wanadoo:
http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/time/
This email has been checked for most known viruses - find out more at: http://www.wanadoo.co.uk/help/id/7098.htm
|
