Teaching and the Quest for Classroom Neutrality

* A recent email I sent out to a Christian Professors Group I am part of:

Recently I was at a Starbucks doing some reading.  I read three interesting pieces that are all, in one way or another, relevant to our roles as Christians in higher education.

1. "Conservative(s) Teaching and Classroom Neutrality" by Christopher Tollefson

2.  "Can 'Fear Equity' Revive Campus Free Speech?" by Lee Jussim and Robert Maranto

3.  "The Radicalization of the American Academy" by Lee Jussim, et. al. 

Here I want to focus on the first short article by Tollefson.  He addresses the issue of the divide between those who attempt to use the classroom for progressive advocacy and, on the other hand, those who promote complete neutrality on the professor's behalf.  Tollefson asks us to consider "a third way to approach as least some difficult issues in the classroom, one that departs from the strategy of neutrality."  Tollefson gives his experience as a template.  In his medical ethics classes he will assign his own work defending the humanity of the human embryo along with argumentation against the destruction of embryos.  His students know where he stands on this controversial issue.  He also assigns readings from diverse perspectives but his students know that their professor is not "neutral" on this issue.  He speaks to the value of this pedagogy:

First, what is modeled in the classroom is not simply the presentation of arguments and critical thought, but the presentation of arguments and critical thought in defense of what is believed to be true.  And this matters.  Classroom neutrality can be important and appropriate in various ways, but it risks what neutrality-based approaches to politics risk: that it suggests to students that there is no truth, only arguments, and that their presentation and criticisim on all sides is as much an intellectual game as anything else.

 

 But that is not where we want our students to end up: we want them to argue for the sake of getting at, and defending, the truth.  And while this can be encouraged by who takes no side in the argument, it is shown by one who defends a position because, as he says, he believes it to be true.

 

 Second, what is likewise modeled and shown is that the project of defending what is believed to be true can be done in a good spirit, with goodwill, and with respect for all participants.  When this approach is successful (I am not saying that I am successful in it!) then intellectual opponents will have become as good intellectual friends as intellectual allies will be.

I have actually taken this approach in my Philosophy 101 classes.  About week 6 or 7 my students read an article I wrote (based on a public presentation I gave at GCC) on "Why Science Needs God." After reading this, the students know I believe in God and am arguing for a certain relationship between science and religion.  I have the students evaluate the paper and tell them that some of the best papers I have received on this assignment are from those who have disagreed with me.  I also tell them that there is a problem with the paper that has been pointed out by students--and that I agree with the criticism!  

I would encourage you to read Tollefson's piece and see how it might affect your classroom presentations.  Do you agree or disagree with his thoughts?  How do you (or, how could you) take Tollefson's approach in your classroom with your content?

One last thing... last semester I wrote a piece for the GCC CTLE's blog.  It looks at some of the issues from the above essays.  I tried to create the space for increased conversations by those who are ideologically and philosophically divided.  Take a look and see what you think--"Crossing Cultural Divides with 'Adversarial Collaboration'"