Another alienating factor is that often our students assume that we think there is a right and a wrong answer on a topic, that we are right, and that their job is to intuit the “correct” answer. Obviously Professor Snider helped his students over this hurdle by proclaiming the right answers. But I think that most of us want to expand the students’ horizons, not control them. We want to challenge their worldview even when they don’t yet know what that means. To do this we must avoid making our opinions the boundary of our students’ exercise of their brains. “23% felt they had to agree with a professor to get a good grade, though the majority of these felt this had only happened once.” (Jaschik)

From my TYCA controversial paper

Another alienating factor in the classroom (especially when dealing with controversial issues) is that often our students assume that we think there is a right and a wrong answer on a topic, that we are right, and that their job is to intuit the “correct” answer.

Professor Snider helped his students over this hurdle by proclaiming the right answers.

But I think that most of us want to expand the students’ horizons, not control them. We want to challenge their worldview even when they don’t yet know what that means. To do this we must avoid making our opinions the boundary of our students’ exercise of their brains.

“23% [of students surveyed] felt they had to agree with a professor to get a good grade, though the majority of these felt this had only happened once.” (Jaschik)

I always tell my students that I have an opinion, but that they don’t have to agree with me—even though I am right.

I also make it clear that I will not grade their paper based on whether I agree with their argument, but will grade it based on content and mechanics.

This contract, if you like, of willingness on my part to pet the elephant goes a long way towards alleviating the problems. It sets out a clear parameter for looking at dissenting views and it establishes my neutrality on the topics as they relate to the course. This positioned neutrality is a boon to our students because it takes away the need to guess which position we support and encourages them to develop their own position.

Even though I am looking for neutrality in this controversial discussion, I still limit my students’ choices. If there were topics that I felt I could not deal with objectively, I would inform them of that. I haven’t ever had anyone suggest working on such a topic, but I know it could happen. Any other disallowed topics are acknowledged and explained.

When I present the controversial issues research paper, I tell the students they may not write on religion. I explain that I will not count off for a reasonably presented argument based on faith, but I don’t want the whole paper to be on whether or not one religion is the best. The reason for this is that it is hard for the writer who believes in this position to see where her arguments fall short and reasonable discussion on the paper’s merits is often impossible.

Lee says we need to have a pedagogical reason for whatever things like this, that can be seen as encroaching on free speech. (I may need to work on this more carefully.)

I also limit to one the number of faith-based arguments that are allowed in any single paper. I let them know the rationale behind this; they have no guarantee their audience will have the same religious view as they do. If their audience does not, then the more religious arguments there are, the less persuasive the argument they are making in their paper will be.

In addition I tell the students that I don’t want anything on sexual assault, child abuse, or domestic violence. In these cases the reason is I don’t want nightmares.

I think the students appreciate my upfront approach and it also makes me more approachable, by acknowledging that I do have personal limitations and making it clear that these do not have to be intuited. With such clear guidelines, the students feel more comfortable. And I know students will follow the teacher’s guidelines because my students have followed mine.

From my TYCA paper on controversial issues.

Obviously, teachers have the right to freedom of speech, but we also have a need to educate our students within the parameters of our subject. If we don’t, we may have to deal with legal issues.

“A Long Beach student has filed a complaint against ,,,[a teacher] for using an hour and a half of his English class instructional time to talk about his disapproval of George W. Bush and the war in Iraq” (Brown).

That is not just this teacher.

13% felt their professors had presented their own political views in an inappropriate way(Jaschik)

Educators should not introduce issues for discussion while simultaneously shutting down opposition. A blogosphere-wide upheaval came about when a student sent the URL to his English teacher’s website to popular bloggers. Many of them were unimpressed with what Professor Snider did in 2004 when he limited his classes from covering either side of a controversial issue in their argument papers:

Topics on which there is, in my opinion, no other side apart from chauvinistic, religious, or bigoted opinions and pseudo-science (for example, female circumcision, prayer in public schools, same-sex marriage, the so-called faith-based initiative, abortion, hate crime laws, the existence of the Holocaust, and so-called creationism). (Volokh)

He then went on to suggest topics with comments like “Even the usually conservative” newspaper in the area agrees with medicinal use of recreational drugs. His suggestion for the topic of energy includes a quote about four generations of the Bush dynasty chasing oil profits and questions Dick Cheney’s secrets. Another topic suggestion is the question of whether Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor should be impeached for her role in the Bush v. Gore case of 2000. “In each and every case, when there is a political nature to a suggested topic, he presents one and only one possible perspective as the basis for a paper” (Cramer).

Would you feel free to express a dissenting view in his classroom? I wouldn’t. Such a paper wouldn’t get a passing grade because he has already removed that from the assignment possibilities. While Dr. Snider is a particularly egregious example, there are enough others to show that this is not a moot point that recognized, acknowledged, and properly dealt with by all.

One of the schools I have taught at had, as recently as three years ago, a political science professor who required that the students bring in current event clippings. But if there were anything remotely positive toward the right, this teacher would lambast it.

One of my friends was in the class with her son. While her son agreed with my friend’s political position, in class he would only argue the teacher’s side, because to do otherwise brought ridicule. My friend, however, said she was taking the course for enrichment and she could afford a low grade from the teacher. She brought in controversial clippings and always argued the conservative side.

My friend received a reasonable grade in the course, so it is possible the teacher was simply trying to spark discussion. Her approach, however, did not encourage the students to dissent.

This kind of approach simply entrenches the students’ alienation from us and from the learning process. If they disagree with us, they perceive that they are unaccepted and unacceptable. They feel it, even if we don’t mean it.

This is from my TYCA-SW talk on controversial issues in the classroom.

This is from the introduction to my TYCA-SW talk on controversial issues in the classroom:

In our classrooms, we as teachers have the political power. We are the ones who decide “who gets what when.” We are the gatekeepers for information (Luehmann). That is our job and if we regulate education through passing and failing students, thus enabling or limiting their pursuit of further class work, most see it as good.

But sometimes our students, the less powerful or the powerless, feel alienated in college. They thought they would have more power as they moved out of high school and into our classrooms and to some extent they do. They are now held responsible for their grades; if they fail, it is usually considered a fair consequence of their choices. They are responsible but in our classrooms, they aren’t the arbiters of truth.

Because of this dichotomy of responsibility and powerlessness sometimes students gain the impression that no one understands their position and everyone is against them. This can be exacerbated when the class deals with controversial issues. Often the students feel like it is us versus them or them versus me.

When we ignore this, it causes damage, just like having an elephant in your living room causes damage. Even if the furniture isn’t broken, the pounds of elephant scat will ruin the carpet. The alienation of the students and our positions of power can be mitigated by literally looking at both sides of the question and bringing balance, not just to the classroom, but also to the students’ understanding of an issue.

31% of students surveyed said the instructors should NOT challenge the students’ personal beliefs
52% said they needed to be exposed to new ieas and challenged about their beliefs (Jaschik)

The first step in dealing with the elephant in the room is to acknowledge our part in its care and feeding.