November 03, 2004
Professional Ethics
I again today am bedeviled by an ethical question that has bothered me my entire professional life: to what extent should I reveal my own personal political convictions in class? For about 15 years I have adopted the rule to keep my undergraduate students guessing about my beliefs while being quite open in my graduate classes. The only belief I regularly discuss openly is my First Amendment absolutism. I decided on this policy for two reasons: 1) Too many students adapt to professorial prejudice and thus fail to think for themselves; 2) My reluctance to use my "power" to persuade(such as it is--I can't get them to do the assigned reading 2/3 of the time, much less brainwash them). Since moving to Texas and teaching at what the Princeton Review ranks as the number one conservative campus in the U.S. (above both Brigham Young and Liberty University), I have also done so for reasons of prudence. There are crazy groups out there, like the Young Conservatives of Texas, that target faculty who take controversial views.
But what do I do today if students ask me for my take on the election?
A related question has to do with Blogora itself. I have been waiting for someone to raise the accusation of "liberal bias" about the postings thus far. To which I respond: it is not hard to create unanimity in a professional group when you consistently attack the values they stand for: freedom of speech, science and the Enlightenment, reasoned argument. There are plenty of intelligent British-style conservatives and libertarians out there in rhetoric-land. I am pretty sure that Tri-Delt, Rhosa, and I differ significantly amongst ourselves with respect to politics and pedagogy--not to mention rhetorical theory. So we hope to hear from opposing views across the political and cultural spectrum. Really.
Posted by jim at November 3, 2004 07:41 AM
Comments
But what do I do today if students ask me for my take on the election?
First you ask them for their thoughts. Then you tell them yours. Repeat until people begin to repeat themselves. Don't always have the last word.
Then you ask how the conversation--any and all parts or dimensions of it--might be framed, analyzed, explained, and criticized from various points of view. These points of view might provided by their, and your, reading in rhetoric, philosphy, ideology critique, etc. There will have been much food for thought, e.g., about democratic politics, political speech, etc., if you will but set the table.
As for the conflict between professional role and advocacy: yes, there is one, at least to the extent that you should not abuse power. But you can not avoid power, so give up that pretense. Furthermore, the study of public address is sterile if it lacks a vital relationship with political thought, and teaching it well requires voicing one's considered opinion. Indeed, you have a professional responsibility to model engaged and responsibile citizenship. Keeping quiet, even to preclude violence, is no virtue in that context.
That's how it looks on paper--well, on the screen,actually. How any progressive can teach without cracking today, I do not know.
Posted by: Robert Hariman at November 3, 2004 08:43 AM
The question is a vexing one that I have to contend with at LSU, another "conservative" university (the commencement addy last year was given by "W" himself). For most of my students, it is so obvious where I'm leaning that I usually don't have to say anything: they know.
On election day, I ditched the prepared lecture and asked the class to separate: on the left side of the class Kerry supporters sat, on the right, Bush's, and in the back, the "undecided." I then framed a "discussion" by saying that all of this "division" rhetoric coming from the mass media is a subtle pedagogy of silence, and that if there is anywhere in the U.S. that we might have a good, civil, and respectful discussion, it was the classroom. You may not be able to talk religion and politics at the dinner table, but the classroom should be a place where that can happen.
They loved it. They spoke their minds but remained respectful. They seemed geniunelly thrilled to have the opportunity. No one tried to persuade the "other side"--people simply chatted about who they were voting for and why (the undecideds, it turned out, were really Bush supporters).
At the end of the discussion I asked rhetorically, "is anyone unsure about where I stand on the candidates?" They giggled.
I guess I would agree stumping for Kerry in the classroom is an abuse of power. But I also think--given my cultural studies training--that educators should be free to admit their subjective views on the world. Of course, we've long moved past the classroom as a space of "objective knowledge"--but many of my students haven't come to terms with that fact. As a rhetorican commited to contingency, I think being honest but not dogmatic about one's politics is one of many ways the ethics of contingiency gets taught.
Posted by: Josh Gunn at November 4, 2004 08:30 AM
This semester has proven to be exciting for me as I become more and more ambiguous about my political persuasion. Of the utmost importance is that I NOT persuade, nor express, in any explicit way, what position my students should take. Sometimes a waffle; sometimes I skate around the issue, but whatever I do, it is to provoke discussion. This sounds simplistic to some, but I want my students to think through the issues; I try my best to problematized issues, and even if "it ain't" broke I feel it incumbent to seriously listen to other sides.
Posted by: Rick at November 4, 2004 01:51 PM
But what do I do today if students ask me for my take on the election?
First you ask them for their thoughts. Then you tell them yours. Repeat until people begin to repeat themselves. Don't always have the last word.
Then you ask how the conversation--any and all parts or dimensions of it--might be framed, analyzed, explained, and criticized from various points of view. These points of view might provided by their, and your, reading in rhetoric, philosphy, ideology critique, etc. There will have been much food for thought, e.g., about democratic politics, political speech, etc., if you will but set the table.
As for the conflict between professional role and advocacy: yes, there is one, at least to the extent that you should not abuse power. But you can not avoid power, so give up that pretense. Furthermore, the study of public address is sterile if it lacks a vital relationship with political thought, and teaching it well requires voicing one's considered opinion. Indeed, you have a professional responsibility to model engaged and responsibile citizenship. Keeping quiet, even to preclude violence, is no virtue in that context.
That's how it looks on paper--well, on the screen,actually. How any progressive can teach without cracking today, I do not know.
The question is a vexing one that I have to contend with at LSU, another "conservative" university (the commencement addy last year was given by "W" himself). For most of my students, it is so obvious where I'm leaning that I usually don't have to say anything: they know.
On election day, I ditched the prepared lecture and asked the class to separate: on the left side of the class Kerry supporters sat, on the right, Bush's, and in the back, the "undecided." I then framed a "discussion" by saying that all of this "division" rhetoric coming from the mass media is a subtle pedagogy of silence, and that if there is anywhere in the U.S. that we might have a good, civil, and respectful discussion, it was the classroom. You may not be able to talk religion and politics at the dinner table, but the classroom should be a place where that can happen.
They loved it. They spoke their minds but remained respectful. They seemed geniunelly thrilled to have the opportunity. No one tried to persuade the "other side"--people simply chatted about who they were voting for and why (the undecideds, it turned out, were really Bush supporters).
At the end of the discussion I asked rhetorically, "is anyone unsure about where I stand on the candidates?" They giggled.
I guess I would agree stumping for Kerry in the classroom is an abuse of power. But I also think--given my cultural studies training--that educators should be free to admit their subjective views on the world. Of course, we've long moved past the classroom as a space of "objective knowledge"--but many of my students haven't come to terms with that fact. As a rhetorican commited to contingency, I think being honest but not dogmatic about one's politics is one of many ways the ethics of contingiency gets taught.
This semester has proven to be exciting for me as I become more and more ambiguous about my political persuasion. Of the utmost importance is that I NOT persuade, nor express, in any explicit way, what position my students should take. Sometimes a waffle; sometimes I skate around the issue, but whatever I do, it is to provoke discussion. This sounds simplistic to some, but I want my students to think through the issues; I try my best to problematized issues, and even if "it ain't" broke I feel it incumbent to seriously listen to other sides.
No comments:
Post a Comment