Teaching Critically

On another blog, a friend of mine expresses her displeasure with professors and graduate students who use their classrooms as platforms for their political activism. Her displeasure has, in fact, influenced the field of study she plans to pursue and probably the types of institutions where she will seek employment. Here is a link to her blog. On the comments section to this post, I wrote that professing ideology or what one assumes to be the truth is part of the ethos of a professor in higher education. Professors and graduate students, for all their acquired knowledge, do assume their ideologies and beliefs are more informed, more researched and, therefore, better than those views expressed by others - especially those people who hold contrary or opposing views. I think this is why those are considered highly educated are often characterized as elitist, snobby, pretentious, etc. For those of us in the liberal arts, whose practice is not something really tangible or easily applicable, but whose practice is grounded in analysis of text, critical and creative thinking, it is our job to teach students how to think critically and creatively; how to enter into the discourse of the profession; how to be academics. And what it means to be an academic is to present arguments or ideas for analysis, critique, and discussion.

As a teacher at a high school prep school, we try to introduce our students to the thinking skills they will need to succeed in college. As an English or Liberal Arts teacher, it is my goal to teach students how to think critically and creatively and have struggled with the question of how to go about doing this. Teaching literature, I have stuck to the safe, comfortable literature. Literature whose message is not too difficult to figure out and whose message is not too new or controversial for high school students. I have often wondered if this is the coward's way out. But, in order to teach critically, I do find it necessary to play "devil's advocate" with these students. What I mean is I do ask the questions that challenge their comfort zone. I do present the argument that they may not have considered. And while I refrain from giving my own personal view on the issue or question, most of which I, myself, have not quite figured out, I have been termed a "liberal" teacher by some of my more conservative students. Because of this characterization, I am constantly questioning my methods, least I exclude a certain segment of my student population.

But, there is an unfortunate truth that when you try to encourage and include under-represented voices into the discussion, other voices may feel slighted or excluded. After all, they have never really had to defend their views or their privilege. I do feel it is absolutely necessary to raise those issues, to include those voices, but what about those other students? I have tried the "common ground" approach where I ask students to identify with the ideas and principles being presented on some level. Sometimes that has worked, but there is still some resistance. I remember reading a journal article about conflict in what has been termed the "contact zone" and I think there is valuable contribution there. The idea that when different voices are brought into contact, there is bound to be conflict. So how do you justify the inclusion of some and the unfortunate exclusion of others?

Well, first I think that a teacher has to come to terms with the fact that some students, for whatever reason, will choose to exclude themselves from the conversation. Perhaps there is anger there; perhaps something else. But I don't think this means we should back down from the necessary inclusion and discussion of difficult texts and topics. And, finally, why do conservatives feel so threatened in the academic environment? This is a question I have grappled with for awhile, and I do think there is an answer.

The reason that some conservatives feel their voices are unwelcome in academia is that conservative ideology - for better or worse - is grounded in the notion that there is one truth, one set of proper or correct values. Those who do not believe or follow said truth or values are somehow deficient or lacking. Now, as a Catholic, there is a conservative side of me who believes that Catholicism is the truth and the way to God. However, as a Catholic academic, I recognize that this belief is grounded, personally, and I recognize that this set of beliefs is likely to influence my judgement of other issues outside of the faith. This realization is crucial for the successful academic. The successful academic must recognize what his/her prejudices are, figure out where they come from, what might be viewed as the logical flaws regarding those prejudices, and work to allay those beliefs or at least reconcile them in their work. Why? Because in good academic work, there has to be the inclusion of multiple voices. Whereas conservatives tend to limit or exclude (not with a hateful purpose by the way), the ideologies guiding the beliefs does not make for good academic work. Hence, conservatives tend to shy away from academia or become frustrated and exit stage left. I don't think this is a good thing. I would like to see more conservative voices in academia but successful conservative voices also need to abide by the rules of good argument, fair play, and willingness to change. Liberals do too. But I think there's a tendency to believe that liberals, by nature, are more open to change...in fact, they rally for change and progress. But, I do understand that liberals sometimes have their issues to, especially in regards to looking down on those who do not readily rally for such change and progress. That is why there is the need for the conservative voice. Ah, checks and balances.

In conclusion, I do feel that the lack of conservative voices in academia is a result of pressure and self-exclusion. And while I would like for more voices to be included in the conversation, if one ideology has to be exchanged for another, I prefer to err on the side of progress, exposure to different ideas, and the inclusion of those voices who have not been represented and who have been denied privilege and voice in the past.