The American Association of University Professors has just published a document called Freedom in the Classroom (2007) [Freedom in the Classroom (2007]. The report was written by a subcommittee on Academic Freedom and Tenure. This report addresses some very important issues that relate to the role of university Professors in general but it is especially relevant in the context of the evolution/creationism controversy. Michael Bérubé has written a very nice article about freedom in the classroom for the latest issue of Inside Higher Education [Freedom to Teach]. It's worth reading. One of my favorite philosophers, Janet Stemwedel has posted a really comprehensive and thoughtful article on her blog Adventures in Ethics and Science [Freedom in the classroom]. This is such an important issue that I'd like to add my two cents. It's an issue that comes up frequently in my own classes and in lunchtime discussions with colleagues.
The report covers four "charges" against Professors.
Critics charge that the professoriate is abusing the classroom in four particular ways: (1) instructors "indoctrinate" rather than educate; (2) instructors fail fairly to present conflicting views on contentious subjects, thereby depriving students of educationally essential "diversity" or "balance"; (3) instructors are intolerant of students' religious, political, or socioeconomic views, thereby creating a hostile atmosphere inimical to learning; and (4) instructors persistently interject material, especially of a political or ideological character, irrelevant to the subject of instruction. We address each of these charges in turn.I'll discuss each of these charges in separate postings.
Indoctrination
Professors are often accused of indoctrinating students rather than educating them. This charge arises when a particular group, such as religious fundamentalists, perceive that their views on the literal truth of the Bible are not getting proper attention in the university.
It is not indoctrination for professors to expect students to comprehend ideas and apply knowledge that is accepted as true within a relevant discipline. For example, it is not indoctrination for professors of biology to require students to understand principles of evolution; indeed, it would be a dereliction of professional responsibility to fail to do so. Students must remain free to question generally accepted beliefs if they can do so, in the words of the 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure, using "a scholar's method and . . . in a scholar's spirit." But professors of logic may insist that students accept the logical validity of the syllogism, and professors of astronomy may insist that students accept the proposition that the earth orbits around the sun, unless in either case students have good logical or astronomical grounds to differ.This is an important point. Professors are not obliged to present ideas that are in conflict with the established "truth" in a discipline. They are, however, obligated to permit dissent from this established truth provided students can present a scholarly argument. However, students need to understand that although they have the freedom to challenge the "accepted beliefs" they must be prepared to defend their challenge. Professors are under no obligation to simply permit speeches in the classroom without making any comment.
We all understand that some positions are so overwhelmingly correct that it makes no sense to try accommodate an opposing view. But not all positions fall into this category. Sometimes a Professor will argue a certain point of view that may not be universally accepted within the discipline. Is this indoctrination?
It is not indoctrination when, as a result of their research and study, instructors assert to their students that in their view particular propositions are true, even if these propositions are controversial within a discipline. It is not indoctrination for an economist to say to his students that in his view the creation of markets is the most effective means for promoting growth in underdeveloped nations, or for a biologist to assert her belief that evolution occurs through punctuated equilibriums rather than through continuous processes.What this means is that Professors cannot refuse to allow debate in the classroom. In my experience this rarely happens. If there's a lack of debate and argumentation it stems more from self-censorship among the students than from censorship by the teacher. Most of us would dearly love to hear more from our students—especially if they disagree with us. It seems that no matter how provocatively I present an opinion I can never get a rise out of my students.
Indoctrination occurs only when instructors dogmatically insist on the truth of such propositions by refusing to accord their students the opportunity to contest them. Vigorously to assert a proposition or a viewpoint, however controversial, is to engage in argumentation and discussion-an engagement that lies at the core of academic freedom. Such engagement is essential if students are to acquire skills of critical independence. The essence of higher education does not lie in the passive transmission of knowledge but in the inculcation of a mature independence of mind.
Professors are not obliged to present ideas that are in conflict with the established "truth" in a discipline. They are, however, obligated to permit dissent from this established truth provided students can present a scholarly argument. However, students need to understand that although they have the freedom to challenge the "accepted beliefs" they must be prepared to defend their challenge. Professors are under no obligation to simply permit speeches in the classroom without making any comment.
ReplyDeleteI think the term "scholarly argument" is really the core here. My impression is that most people do not know the difference between a scholarly argument and simple disagreement. Of course professors must allow and should encourage scholarly arguments - isn't that what universities are for? But that's not the same thing as mindless shouting back and forth, with no consideration of evidence or logical thinking.
I wonder if this confusion stems from a general lack of informed criticism in the lives of most people, such that I also often see a disagreement over an idea misinterpreted as an attack on a person.
I have a vested interest in quality education despite not being a teacher. So I will add my 2 c:
ReplyDelete[2 c] As Bérubé explains, it is a welcome statement, clear and compelling. I assume that its wordiness suits its target group. (And certainly Bérubé, Stemwedel and Moran reacts favorably. :-P )
And I can't see anything substantial to complain over or add. I guess I'm in the position of Moran's students - the experts knows this material, and some fellow students are annoyed by interruptions, so what to say really. I'm a bit bemused by the need to restate some of the most basic principles such as presenting the major theories or views of a subject though. But that only adds to the perceived importance.
But FWIW there is a reaction on Bérubé's and Stemwedel's posts that could be discussed as well. Commenters note that the statement feels free to let educators go outside the course description. One commenter takes offense to Bérubé abjuring the course description as a "contract".
IMO that is an entirely different subject where Bérubé is more correct than those commenters. The statement takes the reasonable approach of a free analysis. In such a context I think of course descriptions as a means for communication, describing (obviously) the course before and after. The "contract" view is mainly the statement that the description should be appropriate and the objectives suitable.
The later ties into the compromise secondary function of course descriptions, as quality control. A setting one can use for analysis of QC is the process view of enterprises. (I'm not sure what it is called in english.)
Whether one wants to see classes as often repeated and slowly changing projects, or as a fast changing batch process as research and educational methods progress, one can see that objectives (course descriptions) are but part of needed QC. So, not exactly firmly (or even enough as) "a contract". [/2 c]