[Teaching_Composition] Re: Teaching_Composition digest, Vol 1 #1123 - 3 msgs
Charles Nelson
teaching_composition@mailman.eppg.com
Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:01:18 -0400
------=_Part_162901_13865738.1160168478533
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Bill, for me, it's not the social or political issues that are taboo in a
composition classroom. I like my classes to do rhetorical analyses of the
presidential elections. I sometimes might bring in topics that are currently
in the news to look at the rhetoric, for instance, of the Foley scandal, or
a little while ago, the court decisions making same sex marriage legal in
Massachusetts but illegal in New York. I do so because I feel, I hope,
issues presently in the news may spark the interest of the students.
The problem for me is when an instructor has a particular agenda and
accordingly brings in topics that will "enlighten" the students. It doesn't
matter whether that agenda aligns with the status quo or opposes it. What
matters is how strongly the instructor is committed to his/her agenda. The
more strongly one holds a particular position, the harder it is not to move
across the line from education into indoctrination, or at least, into a
conflict of interest between having students engage in critical thinking as
opposed to being cautious or worse due to their understanding of the
instructor's position. Conflicts of interest are considered unethical,
sometimes illegal, in some professions. Lawyers, for instance, can't
represent both plaintiff and defendant. And just look at the research on
conflict of interest in pharmaceutical studies. I don't remember the exact
numbers and can't cite studies, but there is a significant difference (15%?)
in findings between researchers hired by a company and those with no
connection to a company. If there's such a difference in research that can
be easily quantified and measured, how much more so for discussing fuzzy
social-political issues. For me, it's just common sense that a conflict of
interest can undermine goals of critical thinking and learning in general.
Charles Nelson
Is taking the
> rhetorical approach you're suggesting an acceptable way to look at both
> mundane and controversial topics? Or is any type of assignment that
> assumes content inappropriate? Or is it only race, class, gender,
> sexuality, and hierarchy, among other cultural and social issues, that
> are taboo content in the composition classroom? If it is simply the
> introduction of reading and analysis to a writing course, the
> disagreement's substance is an old argument between expressivists and
> social constructionists/social-epistemics. If, however, we are simply
> suppressing particular topics because instructors with political =
> commitments might give students a fresh, critical view to =
> consider/account for in their writing, we are marking one set of =
> politics as unacceptable and masking the other set--the one aligned with =
> the status quo--under the guise of neutrality and concern for students' =
> freedom of expression. Your insights, Chris and Will, would be much =
> welcome, as would others.
> =20
> Bill
------=_Part_162901_13865738.1160168478533
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Bill, for me, it's not the social or political issues that are taboo in a c=
omposition classroom. I like my classes to do rhetorical analyses of the pr=
esidential elections. I sometimes might bring in topics that are currently =
in the news to look at the rhetoric, for instance, of the Foley scandal, or=
a little while ago, the court decisions making same sex marriage legal in =
Massachusetts but illegal in New York. I do so because I feel, I hope, issu=
es presently in the news may spark the interest of the students.
<br><br>The problem for me is when an instructor has a particular agenda an=
d accordingly brings in topics that will "enlighten" the students=
. It doesn't matter whether that agenda aligns with the status quo or oppos=
es it. What matters is how strongly the instructor is committed to his/her =
agenda. The more strongly one holds a particular position, the harder it is=
not to move across the line from education into indoctrination, or at leas=
t, into a conflict of interest between having students engage in critical t=
hinking as opposed to being cautious or worse due to their understanding of=
the instructor's position. Conflicts of interest are considered unethical,=
sometimes illegal, in some professions. Lawyers, for instance, can't repre=
sent both plaintiff and defendant. And just look at the research on conflic=
t of interest in pharmaceutical studies. I don't remember the exact numbers=
and can't cite studies, but there is a significant difference (15%?) in fi=
ndings between researchers hired by a company and those with no connection =
to a company. If there's such a difference in research that can be easily q=
uantified and measured, how much more so for discussing fuzzy social-politi=
cal issues. For me, it's just common sense that a conflict of interest can =
undermine goals of critical thinking and learning in general.=20
<br><br>Charles Nelson<br><br><div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; p=
adding-left: 1ex;">Is taking the<br>rhetorical approach you're suggesting a=
n acceptable way to look at both
<br>mundane and controversial topics? Or is any type of assignme=
nt that<br>assumes content inappropriate? Or is it only race, cl=
ass, gender,<br>sexuality, and hierarchy, among other cultural and social i=
ssues, that<br>are taboo content in the composition classroom? I=
f it is simply the
<br>introduction of reading and analysis to a writing course, the<br>disagr=
eement's substance is an old argument between expressivists and<br>social c=
onstructionists/social-epistemics. If, however, we are simply<br=
>suppressing particular topics because instructors with political =3D
<br>commitments might give students a fresh, critical view to =3D<br>consid=
er/account for in their writing, we are marking one set of =3D<br>politics =
as unacceptable and masking the other set--the one aligned with =3D<br>the =
status quo--under the guise of neutrality and concern for students' =3D
<br>freedom of expression. Your insights, Chris and Will, would =
be much =3D<br>welcome, as would others.<br>=3D20<br>Bill</blockquote></div=
>
------=_Part_162901_13865738.1160168478533--