A brief teaching manifesto, and the difference between methods and goals

It's pouring outside, and I'm going to make a dash across the street soon for some much needed coffee.

Both here and at Cliopatria, where I cross-post occasionally, folks have raised questions about my teaching in response to this morning's post.  I make it clear that my goal is to raise up young feminists, but I also make it clear that I don't use the podium to proselytize.  Stanton writes:

Hugo, how can you say that you don't proselytize when you have explicitly stated your goal to be "raising up young feminists"? If other professors taught courses with the stated goal of producing more MRAs (Men's Rights Advocates) would that go over well with you? Have you not crossed over the line between educating and indoctrinating, with such a goal?

In answering Stanton's question (and similar one's from others) let me draw a clear and bright line between methods and goals.   In teaching my women's history class, my goal is indeed to raise up young feminists.  But my methods are designed to be inclusive of a wide variety of viewpoints that are at odds with my own.  The readings, the lectures, the discussions and the assignments are not ideologically monolithic.  They invite reflection and demand critical thinking.  The exam questions I ask and the journal assignments I give ask students to think hard about their own beliefs in light of the material.   I do not ask them to adopt my views, and indeed go out of my way to encourage those who do not share those views to challenge me in class.  I want civil, irenic dialogue. 

But good teaching doesn't mean a false pretense of objectivity.  I believe that I have an obligation to be objective in my grading, and it is vital that no student be punished or rewarded simply because their beliefs either contradict or dovetail with my own.  But while my methods of assessment are clear from bias, that doesn't mean that I don't see good teaching as polemical in nature.

All of us teach ideologically.    As every bloody deconstructionist has pointed out, dispassionate objectivity is itself an ideology, one with a relatively recent -- and somewhat checkered history!  It's also an ideal that's almost impossible to achieve.  The best teachers, I contend, are invariably those who are passionate about a given subject -- and passion, by definition, is never objective!  Good teachers have many tools in their chest:  they encourage mature reflection, they challenge assumptions, and they push their students towards a certain goal.  The only line that ought not be crossed is when students are rewarded for adopting the teacher's views and punished for failing to do so.  It's perfectly possible -- and I can give you lists of former students who will attest to this -- to do very well in my classes, learn a hell of a lot that can be applied in upper-division courses, and disagree openly and frankly with the most basic of my ideological, pedagogical, and theological premises!

What would I like for my students?  What do I want for the young people with whom I work?  Here's the short list:

I want them to be feminists.  I want them to see men and women as radically equal. I also want them to be committed to justice -- in thought, word and deed; I want them thinking and acting globally and locally. I want them to achieve for themselves, their families, and their broader communities more than they thought possible. I want them to achieve a deep and abiding sense of spiritual and emotional contentment; sexual fulfillment; social usefulness; profound happiness. I want them to lead lives free from shame and self-doubt.  I want them to be voices for the voiceless. I want them to be kind.  I want them to know shalom.

And I want them to be in a loving, intense, personal relationship with the God who made them.  I want them to know that He delights in them, and has something very special in mind for them, something that only they can do.

Do I tell them all this?  No.  (Of course, many read this blog.  Now you kids know!)  Do I grade them on whether or not they fulfill my hopes, share my faith and my ideological commitments?  No.  But am I going to pretend that I don't have goals for them?  Am I going to avoid teaching in such a way that those goals become apparent?  No.

I want very badly to be a good teacher.  In my heart, most of the time, I think that's what I am.   And I think that the dreams and hopes i have for my students are at the very core of what drew me to teaching in the first place.

Comments

[Christopher Newman]

Hugo,

It's obvious that you've thought deeply about these issues, and that you don't allow the passion you bring to your teaching to absolve you of your responsibility to foster an environment of free inquiry. It sounds like your students are privileged to have you as a teacher.

[Hugo]

Chris, you're very kind. Thank you!

[stanton]

I give you credit for having honorable intentions, and for your willingness to look at yourself and examine your own motivations - and re-examine them again and again. I admire this in you, and I am hoping to learn from your example.

Having said that, I have to say that I don't believe that you can totally divorce methods from goals. Merriam-Webster defines method as a procedure or process for attaining an object. So the methods you employ, as inclusive as you try to make them, are nevertheless designed with ojects - goals - in mind, one of which is to make your students into feminists (or more active feminists). You noted the words of your predecessor to "remember that you aren't just teaching a course -- you're raising up young feminists. That's the vital part of the job."

The vital part of the job. There are other parts, but this is the vital part; not any of those other fine things that you wish for your students. You wish all of these other things for them, of course, but they are NOT the vital part of the job. Information, history, persons, theories, etc. may be useful (and even important for their grades), but they also are not the vital part.

Hugo, I only ask that you be up front with your students, prospective students, and parents who may be involved with the education of their children at this level, by letting them know in the course descriptions that you consider the most vital part of what you are doing in that classroom is to raise feminists. If you hesitate to do this, then I suggest that there is something seriously off in your approach, and your students are being done a disservice.

[Mr. Bad]

Once again I agree with stanton, and have only a one other point to make at this time.

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a university classroom being used as vehicle for "social justice" because "social justice" is definitely in the eye of the beholder. For example, social justice for you might include maintaining affirmative action while in my mind it would include eliminating it in the name of eliminating discrimination. However, in practice, the idea of "social justice" tends to fall within fairly narrow and predicatable definitions and thus many times excludes the values of conservative, non-feminist, etc., students. One sees this quite a bit in the area of community service practica for the social sciences, where as part of the course requirements students are sent into the community to aid in local programs promoting "social justice," and for most of those required practica there are definitive lists of approved projects that students must chose from that reflect the values of the professor vis-a-vis "social justice." So in practice, many times conservative, non-feminist, etc., students are compelled to work toward ends that do not fit their values vis-a-vis "social justice" and resources of the school are utilized for partisan purposes. Further, I believe that this discourages conservative, non-feminist, etc., students from going into social sciences because of the perceived (or not)environment that is at best ambivalent and many times hostile to their values. And this hostility might not just come from the professors and instructors, it could come from their fellow students and administrators as well. I've encountered the philosophy in some high-echelon adminstrators that colleges and universities should be "agents os social change," and have always been very uncomfortable with this, especially for publically-funded schools.

Like stanton, I feel that you (and all women's studies professors and departments) should make a clear, unambiguous disclaimer in the descriptions of courses and degree requirements for women's studies majors that the goal of this line of study is to create and nurture feminists. This only seems fair and IMO is tantamount to priciples re truth in advertising and intellectual honesty.

[stanton]

I have a question which may (or may not, I guess) give some perspective on this. If I were a qualified and tenured Sociology professor, how would you feel about me taking over the teaching of your WS classes with the stated goal of raising young MRAs (along with all of the rest of your goals - changing only the "most vital" one)?

[Hugo]

Stanton and Mr. Bad, the women's studies field was FOUNDED on feminist principles. You can no more teach women's studies without a feminist agenda than you can teach an intro to science course without the scientific method, or teach geometry without proofs.

Stanton, if you wanted to teach a course on men and masculinity, with the express goal of "raising up young MRAs", and you were civil to your students and fair in your grading, I would support you wholeheartedly.

[Mr. Bad]

Hugo, has the women's studies community ever - let alone recently - taken the time to seriously re-evaluate the reality of our world and therefore the foundation upon which women's studies is based? This is something that is constantly done in the hard sciences (e.g., it would be amusing if parthenogenesis was still taught in biology, that the earth is flat still taught in geography, or that the earth is the center of the universe in astronomy), so I think it's appropriate for all legitimate academic units. To be sure, it's important to remember where we come from, but it's also important not to ignore new realities and stagnate for the sake of outmoded priciples. Perhaps this is why women's studies and feminism in general is waning in popularity, because the realities upon which your priciples were (and still are) founded have either 1) changed, or 2) been shown to be incorrect; yet all the while feminists and WS faculty desperately hold on to those values.

I've said this before, but it bears repeating: Because of the blind faith, unquestioning adherence to priciples (outmoded, proven false or not), and vigorous resistance to honest and candid examination of the basic underlying foundation upon which the principles and philosophies are founded, I think that feminism is most accurately categorized as a secular religion. And I think that indoctrination into any religion should not be the mission of an academic course, department or unit.

[Jeff]

Hugo, has the women's studies community ever - let alone recently - taken the time to seriously re-evaluate the reality of our world and therefore the foundation upon which women's studies is based?

Wouldn't that be the difference between first-wave/second-wave/third-wave feminisms? Or are we just begging the question and saying that since they haven't rejected those notions you disagree with, they must not have ever re-evaluated their positions?

[stanton]

Hugo, I'm sorry but I believe you are dodging this one. Your examples of science and math courses do not apply here. Let's take a professor of religious history, who happens to be Jewish. Is it okay if he has the express goal of raising young Zionists? I would say not. And I would say that his field is founded upon religion, but that teachers thereof have no business entering a classroom carrying a semi-hidden (never mentioned in any course materials) agenda of bringing students around to any religious view.

Is it your view that an institution of higher learning is true to its mission when it funds major fields of study in promotion of any controversial political view? Or - and I mean no disrespect by this - only select political views? Is it a stretch for you to imagine a university without built-in agendas to form thought in its students, but to facilitate thinking? Finally, do you have it in you to drop that agenda while you are in the classroom? If not, then the students have the right to know that you are carrying it.

One last point. If what you say is true about WS being founded on feminist principles (and I believe it is true), then it should be called "Feminist Studies". There is a lot more to women than feminism.

[Vacula]

Stanton, how would you refute a professor who teaches religious history and is committed to supporting a historical religous movement?

Is it invalid for someone who teaches in a discipline to have a strong opinion about a controversial subject and try to recommend their views? Are you assuming that students will never receive a balanced treatment of the subject from a teacher with a personal bias? If so, should any controversial subjects be taught by people with opinions? How should they be taught?

[ms. b.]

Are students just blank slates that leech up views from lecturers?

If that's true I'm leaving my course, all my profs are conservative...

[stanton]

Vacula said: "Is it invalid for someone who teaches in a discipline to have a strong opinion about a controversial subject and try to recommend their views? Are you assuming that students will never receive a balanced treatment of the subject from a teacher with a personal bias? If so, should any controversial subjects be taught by people with opinions? How should they be taught?"

Of course it is not invalid to have a controversial view. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is impossible for it to be otherwise. To recommend their own views to their students is something else again. IMO, the best professors challenge all of their students to defend their opinions, by taking on adversarial positions. The students of truly successful professors may not even know where the professor personally stands on the issues at the end of the term, unless they took the trouble to seek out the information.

But whether or not the professor makes his views known, or even promotes those views, I believe it betrays the educational mission of a university when the professor's most vital mission is to inculcate in his students the "correct" opinion: his own. And this applies to social, political, and philosophical subjects - not to designing aircraft or performing advanced mathematics.

[Hugo]

Stanton, by your standard, Christian colleges and universities are failing in their mission, because profs there sign statements of faith and teach from a Christian perspective. So those who teach at Wheaton, Calvin, Westmont, Bethel, Goshen, Biola, and countless other colleges are betraying the educational mission of the university because they are clearly teaching a Christian worldview?

[Vacula]

stanton: Professors are allowed to have opinions, but they aren't allowed to reveal them in controversial topics because it will compromise their students' ability to respond freely to either or both sides of the issue. Is that a good summary of your thoughts? This is making a lot of assumptions about students.

You object to "women's studies" as a discipline has an inherent pro-feminist bias. If this a common perception - which seems to be the case, given the response Hugo got from the student in his first post on this subject - would a simple "disclaimer" make the teacher's bias obvious?

I'm a Wheaton grad. I knew going to the school that my teachers would share a certain number of core Christian beliefs with me. That didn't prevent the students and faculty from having a broad range of spiritual and political and philosophical beliefs. If I'd had a "disclaimer" about the profs being Christians in all the syllabi it would have indicated (to me at least) there was "one" Christian perspective and the prof was going to be teaching it. But I wouldn't have any idea what that perspective would be.

Just as there is a range of Christian belief, there is a broad range of feminist beliefs. It seems to me that it's a lot easier for students to disagree with the professor's beliefs if they're demonstrated in specific details than if they're defined as a monolithic system that summarizes everything the professor says.

[Mr. Bad]

Hugo said: "Stanton, by your standard, Christian colleges and universities are failing in their mission, because profs there sign statements of faith and teach from a Christian perspective. So those who teach at Wheaton, Calvin, Westmont, Bethel, Goshen, Biola, and countless other colleges are betraying the educational mission of the university because they are clearly teaching a Christian worldview?"

Hugo, I think that you may be correct if you're referring to classes such as theology, philosophy, perhaps poly sci, etc. But even so, since those colleges are advertised as Christian colleges, there's no ethical issues re. to claims of neutrality.

On the other hand, as far as unambiguous classes such as math, physics, etc., while there might be Christian influences (e.g., intelligent design presented in a biology overview course), I don't think Christianity enters into the picture. If it did, I doubt those colleges would be accredited. After all, there really isn't much difference between "Christian math," "Jewish math," "Islamic math," etc., and secular math.

[Mr. Bad]

Vacula, I hear you re. your experience at Wheaton - thanks for sharing that. But the issue here seems to me to be more a matter of the core priciples and mission of women's studies courses, i.e., to foster and nurture new feminists. Was Wheaton's core mission to convert non-Christians to Christianity, and if so, did they say so up front? If the answer to the first question is "no," then it's not comparable to the situation for women's studies, and if the answer to the latter is "yes," then there's no problem because the goal of proselytizing and conversion is explcitly stated up-front.

[Vacula]

My point, really, was that both Christian schools and gender studies have "inherent bias" that students are aware of. You're right to distinguish between the consensual community of the schools and the ideologically driven environment of the discipline, but I think it's a bit naive to talk about disclaimers to "warn" students of bias when they're already aware of it. (Their perception of this bias may be very different from its actual manifestation- as Hugo believes was the case with the girl he encountered - but that doesn't change the fact that they're aware of it).

Some students will choose to enter a class that they believe will have assumptions they disagree with. Some will avoid these classes entirely (as Hugo recently encountered). But assuming most students will ignore the aspects of the teacher's presentations they disagree with and fake agreement in their assignments is making too much of a generalization. Those students will probably do this with every professor, whether the perspective is feminism or an obsession with some trivial topic or vocabulary word.

So the question is really how to get through to slacker students who think their goal is to get a good grade and get out. Hugo's said he enjoys controversy in his classroom and appreciates students who articulate disagreement with his perspective. You can either believe that or not, but talking about slacker students doesn't refute his pedagogy.

[Jendi]

If pro-feminist ideological bias is inherent in gender studies, where is there a safe place for anyone to study gender issues from a conservative/traditionalist/men's rights perspective? The analogy to Christian colleges is not exactly true, because there are many departments (history, literature, sociology) where you can study Christian ideas from a non-Christian perspective, whereas you can pretty much assume that a women's studies or gender studies class is designed to produce people with a specific point of view (or at least people who fall on the "liberal" end of the spectrum, for lack of a better word).

[Hugo]

Jendi, I don't think we're talking about the same kind of Christian colleges. My friends who go to conservative schools like Masters and Biola will assure you that in every subject, everything is filtered through an understanding of Christ and His sovereignty. History, at the Masters, is a revelation of God's plan for humanity over time. How is that any less biased than pro-feminism?

[Mr. Bad]

Hugo, your friends who go to the colleges you describe, if the conditions vis-a-vis "filtering" are true, are IMO getting a substandard education; certainly not as good as if they went to, say, Stanford, Caltech, MIT, etc. I think that potential employers or grad schools will look at their transcripts and probably consider the reputation of those schools when ranking them - perhaps to their detriment.

The same is said about women's studies majors in general. The HR people I've known and worked with will tell you in private that WS degrees are not held in very high regard because of the general lack of academic rigor in WS departments and classes. And in some cases, WS degrees are actually a negative when seeking employment, specifically because the degree carries with it an assurance of ideological indoctrination in the graduate. Of course, to be PC (and keep their jobs) the HR folks never say this stuff in public and on the record, but nonetheless, it's true.

[Jendi]

Sorry, Hugo, I was unclear in my last post. What I meant was that in *secular* universities, one can study Christian history and doctrine in a variety of departments, taught by professors with many different agendas or none at all. But one very rarely finds gender-studies professors who fall outside the liberal-feminist spectrum, and the idea of teaching with an open ideological bias is more acceptable in that department than in, say, history. Moreover, many of these professors are not as scrupulous as you are about making dissenters feel welcome. And given the cost of tuition these days, there's enormous pressure to just say whatever the professor wants, get your B+ and get a decent job instead of being a martyr and spoiling your transcript. At least that was my experience at Harvard in the 1990s.

[Hugo]

Jendi, here's where you and I agree: those of us who do see our jobs as "raising up feminists" must bend over backwards to create a safe and fair (albeit challenging) environment for all: conservatives, liberals, men's rights advocates, the deeply religious and the profoundly secular. It's up to those of us who are privileged to teach women's studies to model passion, tolerance, and humility even as we push an agenda of justice and equality.

[Mr. Bad]

Hugo, at my uni there have been cases where men have been kicked out of WS classes for simply speaking out in opposition of the ideas presented. I'm glad that you are more tolerant than some of the profs here.

[ms. b.]

Depends how you spin "speaking against". Misogynist/racist/homophobic speech has no place in the classroom.

I hate how students are often presumed by the anti-WS side to be passive receivers. My politics faculty is hugely liberally biased (not in the US liberal/conservative way, in the political thought way, as in liberal democracies, the end of history, all that crap), and you'd think it'd churn out good little advocates of Western late-stage capitalist governance. But hey, we all read other things and take other classes and argue with our professors; I'm an anthropology student also, and reject a lot of the deterministic things politics has to say. Young people are not always as receptive to brainwash as we're made out to be.

[stanton]

Hugo and Vacula, your analogies don't fit the situation, from my POV. I believe that we agree that schools founded upon an ideology such as the ones named (and I could add Maharishi U. in Iowa and Naropa Institute in Boulder, and many more) have a stated mission, to produce graduates firmly grounded in their particular belief system. But the inherent bias of WS courses is implicit, you say, and should require no disclaimer, since students are hip enough to know the score.

Inherent bias is one thing, but having a primary mission to inculcate a favored political philosophy in students is not simple bias. I could understand a serious believer having faith that an unbiased education will result in most students taking up the "correct" path, but education should be the primary mission - not conversion or reaffirmation - in a public institution. I doubt you would be willing to share your schools' precious funds with adherents of other belief systems who would also like to have a foothold in academia for spreading their truths. Would "Capitalist Studies" work for you, with an unstated mission to produce globalists?

Lastly, students know about the bias, yes. But I am confident that the primary mission is not known, and furthermore, that there would be serious repercussions if it were to be stated as such. As it stands, this is the semi-hidden agenda of WS, and Hugo is one of the few to allow this truth to be uttered in a place where the public has access to it. But even Hugo is aware of what would happen if this mission were to be stated explicitly in course descriptions. Thus, the insistence that it is a legitimate mission, but there is no need to state it. If it is legitimate, then there is no reason to fear stating it. One simple sentence at the end of each WS course description would do it: "The primary purpose of this course is to produce feminists." (I left out the adjective 'young' to allow for older students.) Thou dost protest too much, guys (and gals :-)).