Thursday, September 13, 2007

Freedom in the Classroom (2007): Intolerance

 
I'm discussing the Freedom in the Classroom (2007) report from the American Association of University Professors [Freedom in the Classroom (2007].

The first posting covered the issue of indoctrination and made the point that Professors have to allow for debate in the classroom [Freedom in the Classroom (2007): Indoctrination]. The second posting discussed the report's comments on balance in the classroom—the proposition that Professors are obliged to present both sides of a controversy [Freedom in the Classroom (2007): Balance].

This posting addresses the third item in the report; namely the charge that "instructors are intolerant of students' religious, political, or socioeconomic views, thereby creating a hostile atmosphere inimical to learning."

Hostile Learning Environment
Contemporary critics of the academy have begun to deploy the concept of a "hostile learning environment," which was first developed in the context of antidiscrimination law. The concept has been used in universities to support speech codes that suppress expression deemed offensive to racial, ethnic, or other minorities. The concept is now being used in an attempt to suppress expression deemed offensive on religious or political grounds.

The statement On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes, adopted as Association policy in1994, acknowledges the need to "foster an atmosphere respectful of and welcoming to all persons." An instructor may not harass a student nor act on an invidiously discriminatory ground toward a student, in class or elsewhere. It is a breach of professional ethics for an instructor to hold a student up to obloquy or ridicule in class for advancing an idea grounded in religion, whether it is creationism or the geocentric theory of the solar system. It would be equally improper for an instructor to hold a student up to obloquy or ridicule for an idea grounded in politics, or anything else.
Hmmm ... while I agree with the sentiment here I'm not sure I agree entirely with the words. If a student in an astronomy class started arguing with their Professor by claiming the sun goes around the Earth, it would be almost impossible for that Professor to respond to the attack without making fun of the student's beliefs. There really are some ideas that are so far removed from reality that they can be mocked in public.

Similarly, a student who claimed that women are inferior beings who deserve to be stoned to death for adultery does not have to be treated with undue reverence in the classroom just because their views are based on religion. And students who advocate the position that scientists are frauds and liars because evolution conflicts with the Bible do not necessarily deserve to be treated with kid gloves. I agree that obloquy is almost always inappropriate. I certainly agree that harassment and discrimination are wrong. But a little bit of ridicule may be okay.
But the current application of the idea of a "hostile learning environment" to the pedagogical context of higher education presupposes much more than blatant disrespect or harassment. It assumes that students have a right not to have their most cherished beliefs challenged. This assumption contradicts the central purpose of higher education, which is to challenge students to think hard about their own perspectives, whatever those might be. It is neither harassment nor discriminatory treatment of a student to hold up to close criticism an idea or viewpoint the student has posited or advanced. Ideas that are germane to a subject under discussion in a classroom cannot be censored because a student with particular religious or political beliefs might be offended. Instruction cannot proceed in the atmosphere of fear that would be produced were a teacher to become subject to administrative sanction based upon the idiosyncratic reaction of one or more students. This would create a classroom environment inimical to the free and vigorous exchange of ideas necessary for teaching and learning in higher education.
Right on! Once again, the authors of this report have hit the nail on the head. Students should be encouraged to speak out but they can't hide behind charges of intolerance or "hostile learning environment" when their opinions are criticized.

3 comments:

  1. It is a breach of professional ethics for an instructor to hold a student up to obloquy or ridicule in class for advancing an idea grounded in religion, whether it is creationism or the geocentric theory of the solar system.

    It is neither harassment nor discriminatory treatment of a student to hold up to close criticism an idea or viewpoint the student has posited or advanced.

    The authors of this document understand the key point: you are not your idea. I agree that it's wrong to ridicule or mock a student, but it's quite right to mock an idea, particularly if it is as disconnected from reality as the stated examples. If some religious twit of a student pushes hard for special creation in a biology class, the instructor has every right, even probably a duty, to mercilessly destroy that idea, but perhaps a warning is in order before the intellectual bloodbath that the attack is squarely aimed at the idea, and not at the student personally. If they conflate their idea with their personality, that's their problem.

    Right on! Once again, the authors of this report have hit the nail on the head.

    Yeah, that too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have read that in law schools, instructors are moving away from the socratic method of teaching law because students have complained that it holds their ideas and interpretations up to ridicule and destruction by the professor. Kind of sad to see it go, if this is the case, because I don't understand how people think that their ideas are of value if they can't stand up to challenge.

    I had a philosophy professor, in a seminar course who introduced us to socratic teaching, and while we felt challenged (even though it was really freshman level philosphy) it forced me to prepare for the classes all the more.

    College is a time for students to be able to mature and expect challenge, and the SAF organization is really a sad intrusion into academia. I find it odd, when they introduce bills into the legislature enabling students to have professors censured for their views. Especially since they are conservative, and their whole thing is about reducing government interference in freedom of speech. Isn't it? Or am I being silly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was thinking that we can strengthen this, but Mike Haubrich surpassed my perspective.

    But FWIW, some ideas really mock themselves when subjected to impartial analysis (flat earth, YEC, et cetera) so ridicule is unavoidable.

    Further, some ideas are ridiculous in a contemporary analysis (sexual abstinence, revenge codes) so it is important to communicate that.

    Socratic method can do both.

    ReplyDelete