Still More Thoughts on Dialogue

My student seems to have softened her position on the gay issue (see 2 posts below). Here is part of her proposal (draft only) she submitted by e-mail last night:

I’m not a homosexual. I go to church and like guys and if the question is going through anyone’s head, yes I am a girl. But I do have a uncle who’s a homosexual. It’s not easy being him either. People tell him stuff everyday. He’s been cussed at, threatened, and has had objects thrown at him. Yes, all that for walking with a guy and holding hands. For this reason, I think this topic is interesting and a hot issue to research on. Many Homosexuals are threatened and humiliated for the reason that they love someone of the same sex. Why is that when Americans get mad at people for being ”fake”, yet homosexuals are as real as they get and yet you ridicule them?

I'm not sure what's happened here. She appears to have done a 180 on this issue in just three days -- by just thinking about the issue on her own. Strange...but nice.

Further Thoughts on Dialogue

In Michigan, the schools have used this election year for real-world applications:

Programs such as these teach students to become critical thinkers and help them understand that voting gives them a voice in society. They quickly learn the relevance of specific issues like health care and the economy, issues many say they never paid attention to before getting involved at school. These are invaluable lessons our students will carry with them throughout life, learning how each decision will affect their future.

Which is all fine and dandy. I wonder, though, where political education just may overlap into the area of indoctrination. With the heavy feelings of commitment displayed by individuals toward each presidential candidate this season, is it possible that objectivity in the classroom can be thrown to the winds?

In the case of the student who tells me she objects to those who engage in alternative lifestyles (see post below), I try to remain as noncommittal as possible. I avoid telling her, "I think you're wrong, and here's why..." Because that's indoctrination. My role does not involve telling students what to think. Instead, I give her the freedom to carry out her research, make her arguments, support them -- while, at the same time, I play devil's advocate, instilling the need to anticipate opposing arguments, and to attempt to refute them, etc. Naturally, there are topics that are not only unsuitable, but outrageous -- (Example: "Hitler Didn't Go Far Enough" or something similar.) -- and I won't go there. All the same, I must be careful that I do not impose my own politics and personal values upon my students. That is not my mission.

Dialogue with an English Student...

...and it starts out rather cryptically. The subject has to do with what topic she will research for the near-balance of the semester, and I'm thinking of including it in my personal academic essay. The student begins with what sounds like a direct question but is actually a possible topic and/or research question for her essay...

STUDENT E-MAIL: is homosexuality acceptable?

TEACHER E-MAIL: That depends. There's a whole array of arguments you could make on such a broad topic? What is the argument you wish to make?

STUDENT E-MAIL: that it's wrong.

TEACHER E-MAIL: ...Wrong, based upon what sources of scholarly information?

STUDENT E-MAIL: Mainly on chiristian and religious sites.

TEACHER E-MAIL: For the purposes of research/argumentative essays, strictly sources based upon the spiritual, the mystical, the religious are not enough. Indeed, many professors will demand emphasis on the scientific, the empirical, the clinical, and the objective. Objective sources of information with no political axe to grind, no agenda to sell its readership -- these are the types of sources that you will be asked to consult throughout your college career. Besides, and I'll have to re-check this, I believe that I am restricted somewhat by the College Handbook from discussing religion in the classroom. (At least, this was what I was informed by the former chair of my department in 2001.) For my own part, I am not uncomfortable discussing virtually any topic in the classroom, but I may also be bound by certain rules and regulations. So, I shall have to look into this more. In short, I think you had better re-think your topic or at least the approach you propose to take.

STUDENT E-MAIL: what if i change it to it's the person's decision?

TEACHER E-MAIL: I'm not sure what you mean? Are we still discussing homosexuality? Many agree that it is a personal decision. Others might argue that adaptaton of the lifestyle is the result of other factors. Is this what you are referring to?

STUDENT E-MAIL: yes.

TEACHER E-MAIL: Okay. I'll be interested in seeing your proposal.

The preceding exchange was real, uncut, uncensored -- including my inadvertant mis-spelling of "adaptation." And I trust I'm not violating any ethical code in publishing this here.

As for myself, I'm still trying to make sense of it. Especially that "adjustment" in topic. In addition, I will need to inform the student that opinion pieces are allowed, based upon certain rhetorical requirements. (What was I thinking?)

UPDATE!

One minute after I published the post, I received this from the student:

STUDENT E-MAIL: ok. thank you for the help.

Some help, huh? I know this sounds cynical, but sometimes I wonder if I'm in the right racket.

Not Just Another Assignment

As a student in Teaching Basic Writing over a decade ago, I wrote a personal experience essay about high-school high-jinks the night of my graduation. It was the usual "us-boys-could-really-party" cliche, done up in five pages; and the nicest thing one could say is that it was stylish but silly.

Naturally, the story had to have a "point." That was a stated requirement. I interpreted this as stuffing my essay with something of deep import to complement what was merely a superficial remembrance full of aimless, sophomoric humor. So I reached into my memory banks and came up with the Kent State University shootings. I guess it worked because I got an 'A' on the paper.

Now I am required to write a personal academic narrative, and I have a day in which to e-mail an idea or two to my professor. This is going to be tough! Looks like it's time for an attitude adjustment.

The Name's Bloom

First reactions to Bloom's hardships as she traversed the spiral stairway to Tier A:

**Clever use of the "name" motif: "Call me Lynn," echoing the "Ishmael" reference from an earlier chapter -- and the idea of writers as survivors who have lived to "tell the tale."

**The professional allusions seem designed to appeal to anyone in academia. Namely,

*those who enjoy tenure...
*those who had tenure, but resigned for family reasons...
*those who teach half-time with half benefits and responsibilities...
*those who dream of tenure and their own office, while sharing space beneath the stairs with the kitty litter...

And there's more. On this last note, let me report that having your own office is not all it's cracked up to be. NOT having an office has its advantages. It's not as if you're a professional nomad, and Bloom is dramatizing when she recalls her own part-time experiences as some weird sort of night creature, haunting the campus at all hours, morning, noon, or evening.

Virtual space has replaced physical space for many instructors. My office is in a computer. I have found it convenient. So have the students. Certainly, office space has its advantages too. A comfortable, familiar place to prepare before class, unwind after class, and to meet with students. But technology is in the process of altering all of that.

And let me add this -- Ten years ago, I would never believe that I would ever express the feelings above.

Indoctrination or Stupidity?...

...Is there a difference? Well, yes, there is. But I'm not certain I'd run this opinion piece by my students, no matter what the tetrad. On the other hand, perhaps it might be advisable to occasionally remind students that there are indeed a few supporters of the Dred Scott decision here and there -- even in good, old, enlightened 21st Century America. (Or am I going too far?)

The piece begins provocatively enough:

I'M WHITE, and I'm not voting for Barack Obama...

And from there on, it's all downhill. At one point, we are told:

...Obama is in so many ways the Great Black Hope...

The author is Christine M. Flowers. She is a lawyer. This opinion piece was published in the Philadelphia Daily News. And if someone confronts me with that tired jive about Obama as "the darling of the Eastern Establishment liberal media," I'll have them attempt to explain Christine M. Flowers.

Invention or Indoctrination?

Assuming one were teaching a composition class in the History/Political Science tetrad, how would the instructor facilitate the subject of the post below?

I'm not sure I would want to; my tendency to hide my political leanings from my students might well evaporate. I am constantly en garde with reference to a teaching strategy that might very well resemble indoctrination. Even if students happen to present an argument that I am in agreement with, I challenge them with a counter-argument.

And there are counter-arguments that could be presented to establish a justification for AIG's week of partying at the St. Regis Spa in California. (Among the revelers, there were actually only 10 AIG representatives present. Besides, the week had been planned and scheduled before the bailout had been requested and granted. Et cetera.) And there are counter-counter-arguments. (Whether there were 10 or 20 AIG employees, what difference does that make? And even if the big, expensive celebration was already scheduled, why could it not be cancelled?) And there are, of course, counter-counter-counter rejoinders...

The first strategy that comes to mind would be an in-class debate. Fine, but how would you set that up? What would the rules be? Would the teacher serve as judge and evaluator, or would a panel of students serve in that capacity? Would the format include both uninterrupted vocal delivery as well as a verbal free-for-all among all participants? What about readings beforehand? Not just recent news articles, but one concerning the ethics of business practice in a global economy, or a Paul Krugman or David Brooks op-ed piece.

And oh yes, where would writing come in? Oh, well. Just thinking out loud...