|
rock and a hard place on this. First, I don’t know the entire story, so take this as a caveat. Second, this is a damn long post, so . . .
Okay, I teach college literature and I sometimes use what some would consider fairly controversial techniques. For example, recently I was teaching Antigone and my students just were not getting what it was Antigone had done, in context of the Greek culture, or the implications of her act in context of our own. It is a highly charged tragedy that has a fairly relevant theme: laws of the state vs. laws of the Gods ( for many of us, individual conscience). Well, long story short, as we discussed the text and some students brought up the current conditions in our culture and saw Bush as Creon, I more or less - okay directly, suggested - it was about time some one popped him. Now I said it in such a way that it would A) be clear it was not intended as a serious course of action and B) technically would be in violation of the law ( and I honestly hope this post is not in violation of the law). I also had a student from out of state in class who ( ahead of time, I have to admit, and yes I covered the student‘s ass in all events) I had prepped in the event that the issue came up who would sort of mildly cheerlead the idea ( without, of course, directly agreeing). So I suggest it, nervous chuckles ensue, student cheerleads, all think it’s a joke and we goof on the idea. Class goes on - I am back to noumena vs. kerygmata blah blah Pericles blah - and 15 minutes later, I bring it up again, and tell them that - legally - we can all be busted. We had collectively committed an act of treason ( thank God for the crossing state lines and old conspiracy laws). My students, as the phrase goes, almost shit. I end with a disclaimer to the effect that “all opinions expressed in this class are simply illustrative and yaddah yaddah yadda.” Students breathe collective sigh of relief. Students get picture. I worry about my Dean breaking my chops. Now I worry about this post, Still, good class. Okay. That is by way of where I am coming from. Generally, I am a first amendment fanatic.
More recently, I have been teaching Dante, and in trying to explain how the levels of Dante’s hell work ( it is the intention, not the act, per se that decides - to quote Chubby Checker -“how low you can go“) I have often used Warren Zevon to illustrate: Excitable Boy ( a sin of incontinence), Boom Boom Mancini ( a sin of violence and emotion), Send Lawyers Guns and Money ( a sin of conscious malice and fraud). Upshot is, someone kills someone else.
This time, as a result of the tragedy at Virginia Tech , I simply could not use Excitable Boy ( or the other two as a result, so I had to figure out another hook). It was not an issue of being sensitive to students’ needs. That is not, really, my job. However, I knew where it would go, and it would lead to me not teaching Dante - my job at that moment - but to discussing a whole host of other unrelated issues - unrelated to Dante. Possibly those other issues are more important and relevant - in fact, they probably are - but then I don’t need to get there by way of Warren Zevon, nor do I need a controversial hook. I can just bring up the issue. (Incidentally, one of my students was at a funeral for one of the victims so this is more than simply an academic consideration for me).
The issue, I think, is one’s agenda. Why is that teaching technique being used? Was the professor trying to help his students to look at things from a different perspective? Was he challenging them or was he indoctrinating them? Was it an open discussion about how we deal with these issues? That would seem to be the key issue for me. That can’t always be decided immediately. Now, within that framework, it might be (probably was) a miserable technique. But that is an issue of is he a competent or a lousy teacher. It might be that given the immediacy of that event, there was no need to bring it up at that moment in that way. It could be that guidelines regarding how it was to be brought up in classes involving material not related to that event ( psychology, criminal justice, clearly related - accounting, computer programming, agriculture clearly not related- all else pretty much up for grabs).
I do feel, though, that a possibly - and I don't know - poor choice of teaching methods led to an administrative reaction that is, to say the least, far worse and far more chilling. My motto is, when in doubt, side with the First amendment and intellectual freedom. Next class I start Hamlet, and with all of the talk of The Great Chain of Being and the Four Humors, it would seem that Virginia Tech might be relevant. I mean we have a disturbed loner - melancholic is the term - who causes the deaths of quite a number of individuals - I just hope I have the nerve to bring it up, should it be academically appropriate.
As a college teacher, I would support his right to do what he did if it was in the best interests of his students. Were I, say, on a rank and tenure committee, and this were part of a pattern of poor techniques, IMHO, he would be gone. Were it an aberration in his methods, or even a sound method, he or she would get my vote. Regardless of whether I think that the position about arming students is right or wrong ( I don't need to say that I thinks it is out to lunch), I think that - at least from the limited knowledge I have, the administration screwed up.
Sorry for the long post, but this whole issue is something I have been thinking about constantly of late.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
