Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me
Vox ^ | June 3, 2015 | Edward Schlosser

Posted on 06/03/2015 7:33:59 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

I'm a professor at a midsize state school. I have been teaching college classes for nine years now. I have won (minor) teaching awards, studied pedagogy extensively, and almost always score highly on my student evaluations. I am not a world-class teacher by any means, but I am conscientious; I attempt to put teaching ahead of research, and I take a healthy emotional stake in the well-being and growth of my students.

Things have changed since I started teaching. The vibe is different. I wish there were a less blunt way to put this, but my students sometimes scare me — particularly the liberal ones.

Not, like, in a person-by-person sense, but students in general. The student-teacher dynamic has been reenvisioned along a line that's simultaneously consumerist and hyper-protective, giving each and every student the ability to claim Grievous Harm in nearly any circumstance, after any affront, and a teacher's formal ability to respond to these claims is limited at best.

What it was like before

In early 2009, I was an adjunct, teaching a freshman-level writing course at a community college. Discussing infographics and data visualization, we watched a flash animation describing how Wall Street's recklessness had destroyed the economy.

The video stopped, and I asked whether the students thought it was effective. An older student raised his hand.

"What about Fannie and Freddie?" he asked. "Government kept giving homes to black people, to help out black people, white people didn't get anything, and then they couldn't pay for them. What about that?"

I gave a quick response about how most experts would disagree with that assumption, that it was actually an oversimplification, and pretty dishonest, and isn't it good that someone made the video we just watched to try to clear things up? And, hey, let's talk about whether that was effective, okay? If you don't think it was, how could it have been?

The rest of the discussion went on as usual.

The next week, I got called into my director's office. I was shown an email, sender name redacted, alleging that I "possessed communistical [sic] sympathies and refused to tell more than one side of the story." The story in question wasn't described, but I suspect it had do to with whether or not the economic collapse was caused by poor black people.

My director rolled her eyes. She knew the complaint was silly bull****. I wrote up a short description of the past week's class work, noting that we had looked at several examples of effective writing in various media and that I always made a good faith effort to include conservative narratives along with the liberal ones.

Along with a carbon-copy form, my description was placed into a file that may or may not have existed. Then ... nothing. It disappeared forever; no one cared about it beyond their contractual duties to document student concerns. I never heard another word of it again.

That was the first, and so far only, formal complaint a student has ever filed against me.

Now boat-rocking isn't just dangerous — it's suicidal

This isn't an accident: I have intentionally adjusted my teaching materials as the political winds have shifted. (I also make sure all my remotely offensive or challenging opinions, such as this article, are expressed either anonymously or pseudonymously). Most of my colleagues who still have jobs have done the same. We've seen bad things happen to too many good teachers — adjuncts getting axed because their evaluations dipped below a 3.0, grad students being removed from classes after a single student complaint, and so on.

I once saw an adjunct not get his contract renewed after students complained that he exposed them to "offensive" texts written by Edward Said and Mark Twain. His response, that the texts were meant to be a little upsetting, only fueled the students' ire and sealed his fate. That was enough to get me to comb through my syllabi and cut out anything I could see upsetting a coddled undergrad, texts ranging from Upton Sinclair to Maureen Tkacik — and I wasn't the only one who made adjustments, either.

I am frightened sometimes by the thought that a student would complain again like he did in 2009. Only this time it would be a student accusing me not of saying something too ideologically extreme — be it communism or racism or whatever — but of not being sensitive enough toward his feelings, of some simple act of indelicacy that's considered tantamount to physical assault. As Northwestern University professor Laura Kipnis writes, "Emotional discomfort is [now] regarded as equivalent to material injury, and all injuries have to be remediated." Hurting a student's feelings, even in the course of instruction that is absolutely appropriate and respectful, can now get a teacher into serious trouble.

In 2009, the subject of my student's complaint was my supposed ideology. I was communistical, the student felt, and everyone knows that communisticism is wrong. That was, at best, a debatable assertion. And as I was allowed to rebut it, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice. I didn't hesitate to reuse that same video in later semesters, and the student's complaint had no impact on my performance evaluations.

In 2015, such a complaint would not be delivered in such a fashion. Instead of focusing on the rightness or wrongness (or even acceptability) of the materials we reviewed in class, the complaint would center solely on how my teaching affected the student's emotional state. As I cannot speak to the emotions of my students, I could not mount a defense about the acceptability of my instruction. And if I responded in any way other than apologizing and changing the materials we reviewed in class, professional consequences would likely follow.

I wrote about this fear on my blog, and while the response was mostly positive, some liberals called me paranoid, or expressed doubt about why any teacher would nix the particular texts I listed. I guarantee you that these people do not work in higher education, or if they do they are at least two decades removed from the job search. The academic job market is brutal. Teachers who are not tenured or tenure-track faculty members have no right to due process before being dismissed, and there's a mile-long line of applicants eager to take their place. And as writer and academic Freddie DeBoer writes, they don't even have to be formally fired — they can just not get rehired. In this type of environment, boat-rocking isn't just dangerous, it's suicidal, and so teachers limit their lessons to things they know won't upset anybody.

The real problem: a simplistic, unworkable, and ultimately stifling conception of social justice

This shift in student-teacher dynamic placed many of the traditional goals of higher education — such as having students challenge their beliefs — off limits. While I used to pride myself on getting students to question themselves and engage with difficult concepts and texts, I now hesitate. What if this hurts my evaluations and I don't get tenure? How many complaints will it take before chairs and administrators begin to worry that I'm not giving our customers — er, students, pardon me — the positive experience they're paying for? Ten? Half a dozen? Two or three?

This phenomenon has been widely discussed as of late, mostly as a means of deriding political, economic, or cultural forces writers don't much care for. Commentators on the left and right have recently criticized the sensitivity and paranoia of today's college students. They worry about the stifling of free speech, the implementation of unenforceable conduct codes, and a general hostility against opinions and viewpoints that could cause students so much as a hint of discomfort.

I agree with some of these analyses more than others, but they all tend to be too simplistic. The current student-teacher dynamic has been shaped by a large confluence of factors, and perhaps the most important of these is the manner in which cultural studies and social justice writers have comported themselves in popular media. I have a great deal of respect for both of these fields, but their manifestations online, their desire to democratize complex fields of study by making them as digestible as a TGIF sitcom, has led to adoption of a totalizing, simplistic, unworkable, and ultimately stifling conception of social justice. The simplicity and absolutism of this conception has combined with the precarity of academic jobs to create higher ed's current climate of fear, a heavily policed discourse of semantic sensitivity in which safety and comfort have become the ends and the means of the college experience.

This new understanding of social justice politics resembles what University of Pennsylvania political science professor Adolph Reed Jr. calls a politics of personal testimony, in which the feelings of individuals are the primary or even exclusive means through which social issues are understood and discussed. Reed derides this sort of political approach as essentially being a non-politics, a discourse that "is focused much more on taxonomy than politics [which] emphasizes the names by which we should call some strains of inequality [ ... ] over specifying the mechanisms that produce them or even the steps that can be taken to combat them." Under such a conception, people become more concerned with signaling goodness, usually through semantics and empty gestures, than with actually working to effect change.

(VIDEO-AT-LINK)

Herein lies the folly of oversimplified identity politics: while identity concerns obviously warrant analysis, focusing on them too exclusively draws our attention so far inward that none of our analyses can lead to action. Rebecca Reilly Cooper, a political philosopher at the University of Warwick, worries about the effectiveness of a politics in which "particular experiences can never legitimately speak for any one other than ourselves, and personal narrative and testimony are elevated to such a degree that there can be no objective standpoint from which to examine their veracity." Personal experience and feelings aren't just a salient touchstone of contemporary identity politics; they are the entirety of these politics. In such an environment, it's no wonder that students are so prone to elevate minor slights to protestable offenses.

(It's also why seemingly piddling matters of cultural consumption warrant much more emotional outrage than concerns with larger material implications. Compare the number of web articles surrounding the supposed problematic aspects of the newest Avengers movie with those complaining about, say, the piecemeal dismantling of abortion rights. The former outnumber the latter considerably, and their rhetoric is typically much more impassioned and inflated. I'd discuss this in my classes — if I weren't too scared to talk about abortion.)

The press for actionability, or even for comprehensive analyses that go beyond personal testimony, is hereby considered redundant, since all we need to do to fix the world's problems is adjust the feelings attached to them and open up the floor for various identity groups to have their say. All the old, enlightened means of discussion and analysis —from due process to scientific method — are dismissed as being blind to emotional concerns and therefore unfairly skewed toward the interest of straight white males. All that matters is that people are allowed to speak, that their narratives are accepted without question, and that the bad feelings go away.

So it's not just that students refuse to countenance uncomfortable ideas — they refuse to engage them, period. Engagement is considered unnecessary, as the immediate, emotional reactions of students contain all the analysis and judgment that sensitive issues demand. As Judith Shulevitz wrote in the New York Times, these refusals can shut down discussion in genuinely contentious areas, such as when Oxford canceled an abortion debate. More often, they affect surprisingly minor matters, as when Hamsphire College disinvited an Afrobeat band because their lineup had too many white people in it.

When feelings become more important than issues

At the very least, there's debate to be had in these areas. Ideally, pro-choice students would be comfortable enough in the strength of their arguments to subject them to discussion, and a conversation about a band's supposed cultural appropriation could take place alongside a performance. But these cancellations and disinvitations are framed in terms of feelings, not issues. The abortion debate was canceled because it would have imperiled the "welfare and safety of our students." The Afrofunk band's presence would not have been "safe and healthy." No one can rebut feelings, and so the only thing left to do is shut down the things that cause distress — no argument, no discussion, just hit the mute button and pretend eliminating discomfort is the same as effecting actual change.

In a New York Magazine piece, Jonathan Chait described the chilling effect this type of discourse has upon classrooms. Chait's piece generated seismic backlash, and while I disagree with much of his diagnosis, I have to admit he does a decent job of describing the symptoms. He cites an anonymous professor who says that "she and her fellow faculty members are terrified of facing accusations of triggering trauma." Internet liberals pooh-poohed this comment, likening the professor to one of Tom Friedman's imaginary cab drivers. But I've seen what's being described here. I've lived it. It's real, and it affects liberal, socially conscious teachers much more than conservative ones.

If we wish to remove this fear, and to adopt a politics that can lead to more substantial change, we need to adjust our discourse. Ideally, we can have a conversation that is conscious of the role of identity issues and confident of the ideas that emanate from the people who embody those identities. It would call out and criticize unfair, arbitrary, or otherwise stifling discursive boundaries, but avoid falling into pettiness or nihilism. It wouldn't be moderate, necessarily, but it would be deliberate. It would require effort.

In the start of his piece, Chait hypothetically asks if "the offensiveness of an idea [can] be determined objectively, or only by recourse to the identity of the person taking offense." Here, he's getting at the concerns addressed by Reed and Reilly-Cooper, the worry that we've turned our analysis so completely inward that our judgment of a person's speech hinges more upon their identity signifiers than on their ideas.

A sensible response to Chait's question would be that this is a false binary, and that ideas can and should be judged both by the strength of their logic and by the cultural weight afforded to their speaker's identity. Chait appears to believe only the former, and that's kind of ridiculous. Of course someone's social standing affects whether their ideas are considered offensive, or righteous, or even worth listening to. How can you think otherwise?

We destroy ourselves when identity becomes our sole focus

Feminists and anti-racists recognize that identity does matter. This is indisputable. If we subscribe to the belief that ideas can be judged within a vacuum, uninfluenced by the social weight of their proponents, we perpetuate a system in which arbitrary markers like race and gender influence the perceived correctness of ideas. We can't overcome prejudice by pretending it doesn't exist. Focusing on identity allows us to interrogate the process through which white males have their opinions taken at face value, while women, people of color, and non-normatively gendered people struggle to have their voices heard.

But we also destroy ourselves when identity becomes our sole focus. Consider that tweet I linked to earlier, from critic and artist Zahira Kelly, in which she implies that the whole of scientific inquiry is somehow invalid because it has been conducted mostly by white males.

el cuco
‎@bad_dominicana

when ppl go off on evo psych, its always some shady colonizer white man theory that ignores nonwhite human history. but "science". ok

el cuco
‎@bad_dominicana

most "scientific thought" as u know it isnt that scientific but shaped by white patriarchal bias of ppl who claimed authority on it.

9:16 AM - 15 Nov 2014

Kelly is intelligent. Her voice is important. She realizes, correctly, that evolutionary psychology is flawed, and that science has often been misused to legitimize racist and sexist beliefs. But why draw that out to the extreme of rejecting scientific inquiry as a whole? Can't we see how it's dangerous to reject centuries of established thought so blithely? Or how scary and extreme that makes us look to people who don't already agree with us? And tactically, can't we see how shortsighted it is to abandon a viable and respected manner of inquiry just because it's associated with white males?

This sort of misplaced extremism is not confined to Twitter and the comments sections of liberal blogs. It was born in the more extreme and nihilistic corners of academic theory, and its watered-down manifestations on social media have severe real-world implications. In another instance, two female professors of library science publically outed and shamed a male colleague they accused of being creepy at conferences, going so far as to openly celebrate the prospect of ruining his career. I don't doubt that some men are creepy at conferences — they are. And for all I know, this guy might be an A-level creep. But part of the female professors' shtick was the strong insistence that harassment victims should never be asked for proof, that an enunciation of an accusation is all it should ever take to secure a guilty verdict. The identity of the victims overrides the identity of the harasser, and that's all the proof they need.

This is terrifying. No one will ever accept that. And if that becomes a salient part of liberal politics, liberals are going to suffer tremendous electoral defeat.

Debate and discussion would ideally temper this identity-based discourse, make it more usable and less scary to outsiders. Teachers and academics are the best candidates to foster this discussion, but most of us are too scared and economically disempowered to say anything. Right now, there's nothing much to do other than sit on our hands and wait for the ascension of conservative political backlash — hop into the echo chamber, pile invective upon the next person or company who says something vaguely insensitive, insulate ourselves further and further from any concerns that might resonate outside of our own little corner of Twitter.


TOPICS: Education; Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: college; education; liberal; liberals; politicalcorrectness; professor; student; students
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
To: Norm Lenhart

Having been in classes in very liberal institutions in the last decade, I can guarantee that not only did that instructor dismiss this student’s challenge, he/she went out of their way to ridicule this student.

I had one class, world geography, where the instructor produced climate change propaganda for every section. When I would challenge him and show him the “follow-up” articles that outright contradicted what he provided, he would change the subject then close the discussion so I couldn’t respond.


41 posted on 06/03/2015 8:33:28 PM PDT by ican'tbelieveit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart
He tried to brainwash his class about the subprime crisis and then gets his knickers in a twist because some student makes a formal protest about his lib/fascist presentation.

Now I'm supposed to feel sorry about him and all the other libs who created the cesspool of p.c. thought that now dominates many universities? Tough toenails professor...he who rides the tiger dare not dismount.

42 posted on 06/03/2015 8:41:22 PM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ican'tbelieveit

Liberalism at it’s finest. When an entire generation of liberals took over academia, the resulting problems in the world were not hard to predict. Which is why the 1936 Communist Goals put such emphasis on doing that very thing.

The most insidious part is that the kids taught by the libs simply don’t have the tools to see the indoctrination for what it is...because...

They were specifically taught to NOT have that tool in the toolbox.


43 posted on 06/03/2015 8:41:37 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart
I graduated in '94 at a state university in Wisconsin...not Madison. I had been attending college part time for about twenty-five years at the same university.

By and large, most of my profs were decidedly leftist and a few outright communists. They didn't all wear their politics on their sleeves, but many were not shy about it. Some of them were really obnoxious jerks, but most were decent people outside of their politics.

44 posted on 06/03/2015 8:48:48 PM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

I have no idea what my professors thought. I went to an engineering school. I would guess fairly conservative (lots of oil, gas, mining). But I see in my Alumni magazine they are developing new sources of energy and research. Global warming you know. Sad - what I learned at that school makes me look at the facts. I guess they need their government funding though.


45 posted on 06/03/2015 8:52:18 PM PDT by 21twelve (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2185147/posts It is happening again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The simplicity and absolutism of this conception has combined with the precarity of academic jobs to create higher ed's current climate of fear, a heavily policed discourse of semantic sensitivity in which safety and comfort have become the ends and the means of the college experience.

Probably the only logical outcome of years of multiculturalism, all sorts of ethnic studies, women's studies, queer studies and on and on. So many groups with so many grievances have emerged that little can be evaluated objectively, let alone openly criticized.

When I started reading articles about 'safe zones' and how the hypersensitive feelings of students had begun to dictate what discourse was acceptable, I knew a new realm of idiocy and degeneracy had been entered.

46 posted on 06/03/2015 8:53:26 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I wonder if the good professor has considered the long term consequences of this trend.

It will continue to make liberal college graduates even LESS employable in the private sector where real knowledge and results matter.

"Ceterum censeo 0bama esse delendam."

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)

LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

47 posted on 06/03/2015 8:59:29 PM PDT by LonePalm (Commander and Chef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: txhurl

In all the camps they designed specifically for conservatives.


49 posted on 06/03/2015 9:03:42 PM PDT by 5th MEB (Progressives in the open; --- FIRE FOR EFFECT!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Political correctness is self inflicted delusion. If practiced by a critical number of people, especially people in important political, social and business positions, an entire culture corrodes due to a dearth of analytical thinking and expression.
However this professor makes it clear why it is important to bring lawsuits against institutions and individuals that implement and enforce free speech codes. Its important to hold them personally and financially responsible for violations of civil rights.


50 posted on 06/03/2015 9:03:48 PM PDT by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Things not working out like you planned, Dr. Frankenstein?


51 posted on 06/03/2015 9:03:55 PM PDT by TigersEye (If You Are Ignorant, Don't Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

They ‘appeared to be’ decent people in public. They were in fact liberal garbage. Just another aspect of pushing the lie of leftist politics.

“See? We are nice guys! We just see things differently!”

No, they are proto-nazis that will be the first to drop the facade when like a supposedly ‘peaceful muslim’ they take power.


52 posted on 06/03/2015 9:08:17 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel
Liberal professors like this guy should go back and read the history of China’s “Great Leap Forward”

Yes, Mao's red guards were formed from young people. They persecuted millions. This is where the US is heading. Too bad for those youngsters that old white guys own so many guns :)

53 posted on 06/03/2015 9:24:20 PM PDT by matt1234
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If this guy teaches writing he needs to learn how to teach people to write things that will hold the readers’ attention. Very boring.


54 posted on 06/03/2015 9:30:51 PM PDT by VerySadAmerican (I'm very sad for my country. Personally, I've never been happier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao

What’s a “Conservative Professor” ?


55 posted on 06/03/2015 9:32:54 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

students are calling their liberal teachers on their ideologically bias.

good.


56 posted on 06/03/2015 9:38:30 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

There are places like N Korea where nothing offensive is ever said publicly. And there are places like Zimbabwe where race trumps everything. Both are basket cases.


57 posted on 06/03/2015 9:47:20 PM PDT by matt1234
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

What’s a “Conservative Professor” ?

Someone who presents the truth without a political agenda and does not bend to the PC orthodoxy. Someone who rejects a Marxist/Post Modernist worldview


58 posted on 06/03/2015 10:04:10 PM PDT by Fai Mao (Genius at Large)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Liberal college professor reaping what he has sown. You know he was all behind creating a parade school children convinced they were owned entitlements and were all victims of something or other. Now the chickens have come home to roost and it scares him. Well, you made your bed Mr. Liberal bed-wetting commie college professor.

These liberal students scare you? They terrify me. They are tomorrow’s leaders and they are really going to screw up what is left of this nation after Obama is through with it.

Thanks for nothing pinko commie bed-wetting liberal schmuck. YOU CAUSED THIS you a-hole.


59 posted on 06/03/2015 10:06:35 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (Lord God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obadiah

The left is “fascist”.

Excellent observation.


60 posted on 06/03/2015 10:08:07 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (Lord God help us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson