Category Archives: Social Studies

Tips on “radical” teaching

In his June 1 ZNet Commentary Gary Olson, a professor at Moravian College in Pennsylvania, offers his take on “objectivity” and radical teaching. His tips are not really so much about “radical” teaching as they are about good teaching and the role of academic freedom in insuring such.

As he notes free expression and independent thinking in university classrooms “is jeopardized when powerful voices outside the academy attempt to dictate not only how subjects are taught but by whom. Some of these folks believe that any independent, critical thinking by students is inherently subversive. They prefer a certain conformity of perspective even at the cost of faculty authority, academic freedom and democracy itself.”

Perhaps the best example of the current threat is embodied in the so-called “Academic Bill of Rights” promoted by lefty turned right-winger David Horowitz and which has been considered in nearly twenty state legislatures.

Read on for Olson’s ZNet CommentaryZNet Commentary
Radical Teaching June 01, 2005
By Gary Olson

The issue of objectivity in the college classroom is widely misunderstood outside and even within colleges and universities. Frankly, many of us in academia contribute to this confusion by failing to adequately explain our larger mission.

On the one hand, this dereliction deprives the defense of academic freedom of potential allies. On the other, it makes higher education more vulnerable to external partisan groups intent on stifling open educational discourse and imposing their own narrow agendas. In what follows, I’ll sketch what I believe to be the essential responsibilities of college teachers.

First, any attempt by a teacher to slant discussion by knowingly misrepresenting, shading, or distorting information is unacceptable by any standard. Beyond that I doubt if one can be anything but subjective in most teaching situations. In fact “objectivity” is an inappropriate term.

Inevitably a teacher’s perspective will accompany any course. In my opinion there an element of dishonesty involved if this “bias” is camouflaged behind so-called detached scholarly neutrality. Given this fact, I try to be as up front as possible about my subjectivity. Presumably, faculty have spent considerable time and study mastering their subject. Their primary responsibility to that subject “is to seek and to state the truth as they see it.” (AAUP Statement of Professional Ethics) But no teacher has the “objective truth.”

Second, I readily plead guilty to not being neutral about the topics addressed in my own courses, from sexism, racism and homophobia to what I view as the the destructive nature of globalizing corporate capitalism, virulent nationalism and the misuses of religion. As a student I was invariably put off by teachers who feigned neutrality about the grievous state of our world: “Okay, Native Americans (or holocaust survivors, domestic abuse victims, starving children in Africa, etc.) we’ve heard your story, now let’s be fair and give equal moral weight to the other side! ”

Third, I’ve always found much to admire in the European tradition where professors are expected to “profess” something. As long as I don’t penalize students for disagreeing it’s imperative that students know what I think. So far, anonymous evaluations have never accused me of belittling a student’s right to disagree or lowering their grades for it.

Fourth, students are evaluated by appropriate scholarly standards for materials in a given course. And here a crucial distinction must be made. While I always respect students, I don’t always respect the content of their opinions. Why? Because all opinions aren’t equally valid. For example, a “student has no ‘right’ to be rewarded for an opinion of Moby Dick that is independent of these scholarly standards. If students possessed such rights, all knowledge would be rendered superfluous.” (AAUP)

Fifth, what students personally subscribe to at the end of a course is entirely their free choice. For example, in a biology course you would be expected to understand the theory of evolution but you could still “believe” in creationism in your personal life.

Or in astronomy you might retain the belief in a flat earth, but just don’t put that on the final exam. In other courses you’d be expected to demonstrate thorough familiarity with critiques of capitalist economics — receive an “A” — and then be free to go on to become a wildly successful Wall Street ruler of the universe.

Finally, in my ideal college, as students move from course to course they’re exposed to differing interpretations of the world from teachers who defend those positions with evidence, skill, and conviction. Am I confident that exposure to my radical version of “truth” will measure up well against these contending views and more importantly, against a student’s life experiences? (e.g. ZNet authors will offer a more convincing case to students for how the world works than any alternative perspective). Well, I suppose I am. Why else would I have devoted my life to this pursuit.

Again, I hope all teachers feel as strongly as I do about what they’re doing in the classroom so as to provide a worthy contest in the marketplace of ideas. Again, the only way truth can emerge and falsehoods be exposed (as Chomsky’s famous charge to intellectuals put it)is if, in the larger curriculum, we value tolerance and are open to hearing all points of view. Democracy depends on free expression and independent voices.

That mission is jeopardized when powerful voices outside the academy attempt to dictate not only how subjects are taught but by whom. Some of these folks believe that any independent, critical thinking by students is inherently subversive. They prefer a certain conformity of perspective even at the cost of faculty authority, academic freedom and democracy itself.

Beyond all the reasons cited earlier, I would argue that this last chilling threat is the clinching argument for protecting the autonomy of colleges and universities, yet another reason to provide students an environment where they can emerge from the shadows of Plato’s Cave and view the world for themselves. At least that’s my subjective opinion.

Gary Olson, Ph.D. is Chair of the Political Science Department at Moravian College in Bethlehem,PA. Contact: olson@moravian.edu

A double standard worth keeping

In his Z Net commentary published today, activist Tim Wise argues for a “double standard” in when it comes to racial/ethnic slurs (in the context of the recent firing of Okalhoma University’s baseball coach over the use of the n-word).

Wise concludes, “As with all racism, it is power and position that gives a racial slur its ability to injure. This is why slurs against whites like cracker or honky seem more juvenile than truly offensive. And this is why the n-word, spoken by whites, is so fundamentally less acceptable than the same term spoken by blacks, however potentially problematic the latter may be.”

The full commentary follows:ZNet Commentary
A Double Standard Worth Keeping May 30, 2005
By Tim Wise

As soon as Oklahoma University’s baseball coach Larry Cochell was fired recently, for using the n-word during off-camera conversations with two ESPN reporters, I knew instinctively what some were likely to say. Though I am far from psychic, it hardly required clairvoyant ability to see what was coming.

Sure enough, the foreseeable dialogue found its way into my local paper, in the form of an editorial by one of Nashville’s most respected sports writers, Joe Biddle. His remarks would mirror several others to be heard on sports radio in the past few days, and appear, from my experience at least, to represent the views of large numbers of whites in America.

As Biddle put it, while Cochell’s choice of words to describe one of his players (ostensibly in a light-hearted manner), was clearly unacceptable and deserving of censure, it was no more offensive than the casual use of the same term by blacks themselves, on the playground or from a stage, as with the comedy of Chris Rock or Richard Pryor (the latter of which has actually stopped using the n-word for more than two decades, unbeknownst, apparently, to Biddle).

In fact, the difference between Rock and Pryor in this regard largely mirrors the divide that exists throughout black America. About half of African Americans, when polled, say the word or it’s derivative (the one that ends with “a” instead of “er”) should never be used, and the other half argues that it can be used among blacks in certain contexts, as an endearment, or a subtle but unhateful dis, or as a way to “reclaim” the term and arguably strip it of its power to injure.

But whether or not some in the black community continue to use the term, there is no reason why whites should audibilize it, ever. That Biddle (and probably most whites) would call this a double standard is irrelevant. Fact is, history has been a double standard too, and it is this history that explains why the n-word is so much more offensive when coming from a white mouth than the mouth of an African American. That most whites don’t know much about the history of racism hardly pardons us: it has been a willed ignorance, after all, and as such can hardly be used as an excuse for the phony claims of equivalence forwarded by Biddle, or any number of white high school students I discuss the subject with each year.

Simply put, the historic use of the n-word in the white community is not one of mixed meaning. It is not a history in which we called our black friends or colleagues such a term, as if it meant little more than “hey there dude, let’s go grab a burger and fries at the Mickey D’s.” In the mouths and hearts of whites, that word has only been used in the context of contempt, of presumed white superiority, of anti-black bigotry.

As such, for any white person to use it today is to force the black person hearing it to immediately wonder what’s behind the comment, what the speaker’s intent really is, in a way they don’t have to sweat as readily when spoken by another black person. History creates a natural and internalized warning bell for any black person hearing a white person use the word, which, if triggered enough can create psychological scars far deeper than most whites could ever fully comprehend.

But to understand the fundamental difference between the white and black use of the word, beyond its historical legacy, consider a similar example.

I am from the South, and frankly, have never much appreciated the word “redneck,” which is so often used against white Southerners, largely because I know it as a slur against working class whites, especially rural folks, whose labor in the sun would cause their necks to become “red.” Though I admit to having used it before, often in fact, I have resolved not to do so in the future because of its derogatory implications, and because, frankly, many in my family, going back generations, would qualify for the designation.

But having said that, I must also note that when Jeff Foxworthy tells twenty minutes of redneck jokes (as in, his “You might be a redneck if…”
routine), I have a hard time taking offense. I don’t find the bit particularly funny, as it’s not my comedic cup of tea. But I don’t get pissed. And why? Simple: Jeff Foxworthy is in the family, so to speak. He too is a white Southerner; someone who could be viewed as a redneck; and as such, I can pretty safely assume he isn’t hating on his people or himself. Self-deprecating humor, while it can sometimes straddle the line with self-hatred, generally has a different feel than when someone outside the fold tells the same jokes.

In other words, if Jerry Seinfeld starts telling redneck jokes, we’re gonna have a problem.

It’s the same thing with Jewish jokes. I’m Jewish, as is my father’s father’s side of our family. For generations, Jewish comics have made a living telling jokes about our community. In fact, as a kid, I remember coming across several books of Jewish jokes in my dad’s old room, all of them written by other Jews. And while I didn’t think them very funny (after all, there’s nothing amusing about playing upon stereotypes with such quips as, “Why do Jews have long noses? Because air is free.”), nonetheless, I could assume this humor was emanating from a less toxic place than had it been published in a Klan pamphlet or church bulletin.

It’s sort of like the old playground wisdom that I can talk about my momma, but you had damn well better not do the same. Double standard? Sure. But so what?

That many whites won’t be able to understand this simple point is testimony to nothing so much as our own sense of entitlement. In other words, we are not used to anyone telling us that we can’t do something, or shouldn’t, and as such take great offense when our own freedom, including the freedom to offend, is constrained.

What else can explain the white hysteria over so-called political correctness, which, after all, was really never anything but the desire for folks not to be racist pricks, and to inculcate a norm of civility and respect for persons different from oneself?

I can think of no other reason than the desire to maintain a certain form of white privilege: the privilege of saying whatever we want, whenever we want, and feeling as though our right to lecture others on their behavior should logically take precedence over controlling our own.

In other words, the same privilege that (as the flipside to racism itself), has historically given the n-word its power to injure in the first place. As with all racism, it is power and position that gives a racial slur its ability to injure. This is why slurs against whites like cracker or honky seem more juvenile than truly offensive. And this is why the n-word, spoken by whites, is so fundamentally less acceptable than the same term spoken by blacks, however potentially problematic the latter may be.

Tim Wise is the author of White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son (Soft Skull, 2005) and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White (Routledge, 2005).

BCTF sues BC Premier Campbell

B.C.T.F. Sues Premier for Defaming Teachers

[Article for upcoming issue of Substance newspaper, Chicago, IL]

The British Columbia Teachers’ Federation has launched a lawsuit against the recently re-elected B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell, claiming teachers were defamed by Campbell, who in the closing days of the election campaign said they were going to strike in June.

In May, during last stages of the provincial election campaign, Campbell raised fears about the disruption the school year, particularly the provincial exams, by claiming that the B.C.T.F. was poised to take a strike vote immediately following the election.

At a news conference on May 12 (and in a press release titled “Put Students before Strikes”) Campbell accused the B.C.T.F. of harboring a “secret” and “duplicitous plan meant to engineer a school strike only weeks before the provincial exams that would throw our school system into chaos.”Campbell also accused the B.C.T.F. of acting in concert with the New Democratic Party, his primary opposition in the election, saying “they have run a campaign of deception, half-truths and misinformation. They are turning our classrooms and playgrounds into places of propaganda instead of places of learning.”

Campbell is also quoted as saying, “this is the N.D.P. and B.C.T.F.’s hidden agenda. It’s a shameful confirmation of what we have suspected all along. It’s about putting strikes ahead of students and union interests ahead of public interests … no one wants another strike in our school system to deny our children their right to learning.”

B.C.T.F. immediately declared the Campbell’s comments and the imputation that the B.C.T.F. and the N.D.P. have colluded and conspired to achieve some improper purpose were “false and slanderous.”

During the last week of the campaign, B.C.T.F. President Sims challenged Campbell to explain “why he’s misleading British Columbians with ugly falsehoods about teachers holding children hostage. He’s using children as a wedge issue for his own political purposes.”

The B.C.T.F. called on Campbell to stop spouting inflammatory rhetoric and to tell the truth about teacher strikes: there has not been a single one in the last 12 years.

Here are a few important facts teacher actions in British Columbia:

Since 1993, when provincial bargaining was introduced under the N.D.P. government of Mike Harcourt, not one single school day has been lost due to a teacher strike. There have been some local strikes by school support workers, and in those instances teachers have respected the third-party picket lines. But in the last dozen years, B.C. schools have never once been closed due to a teacher strike.

Teachers first won full bargaining rights, including the right to strike, in 1987 under the Social Credit government of Bill VanderZalm. Since then, not a single student has failed to complete the school year due to a teacher strike.

In 2001, shortly after they took office, the Campbell Liberals attacked teachers’ bargaining rights by imposing essential service designation on education. B.C. is the only province in Canada to do so, and remains one of the only jurisdictions in the industrial world that deems education an essential service. Normally that designation is reserved for police, fire, and health care — services that impact life and limb.

In January 2002, the Liberals imposed a teacher contract through legislation. Bills 27 and 28 gutted the provisions that upheld the quality of public education in B.C., and teachers were outraged. As a result, tens of thousands protested this blow to public education with massive demonstrations in Vancouver, Victoria, and throughout the province.

“January 28, 2002 is the only day that schools have been closed due to a teacher action, and it would never have happened without the B.C. Liberals’ unjust legislation,” B.C.T.F. President Jinny Sims said. “Teachers are deeply concerned that parents are being unnecessarily alarmed by Campbell’s attempt to manufacture a crisis in the final days of the campaign.”

Sims added, “It is unconscionable for Premier Campbell to claim that there are plans for a school strike only weeks before provincial exams and days after the election.” She added, “It is outrageous that the premier would tell such blatant lies to the electorate. This is nothing less than fear-mongering. It is a disturbing act of desperation from a government that has failed our students and therefore needs to deflect scrutiny of its record.”

The suit against Campbell was filed in B.C. Supreme Court on May 25 and is seeking unspecified damages after Campbell and the B.C. Liberal party refused to issue an apology or retract statements made in the last week of the election campaign. The full text of Campbell’s comments can be found on the BC Liberal Party web site.

The suit claims the defendants knowingly committed defamation “in order to enhance the electoral prospects of Gordon Campbell personally, and the B.C. Liberal party’s candidates in the provincial legislature generally.”

Campbell’s remarks were based on a leaked memo from Mission, B.C. teachers that purported to show a strike was being prepared.

“Any decision to strike would have to be made by the [B.C.T.F.’s] representative assembly and that was said right in the Mission memo. At no time was a decision made to strike and even today no decision has been made and no recommendations have been made for a strike by the executive committee,” Sims told The Vancouver Sun [May 26].

“We have been without a contract for a year and we’d be remiss if we didn’t consider all the tools available to us, but at no time has a decision been made to take a strike vote,” said Sims.

Five days after the press conference in which Campbell made his inflammatory remarks, and for the first time in 22 years, British Columbia voters re-elected the governing party, but the new legislative assembly has a significantly stronger opposition. In their first term, Campbell’s Liberal’s hacked away at health care, social programs, and attacked unionized labor at every turn.

The opposition New Democratic Party, which held only two seats in the previous assembly, exceeded expectations by winning 41 percent of the vote (to the Liberals 46 percent). The new legislative assembly will host 33 N.D.P. representatives, with one seat still undecided. The B.C. Labor Federation backs the N.D.P.

Against objectivity

People are often misled to think that anyone who comes into a discussion with strong views about an issue cannot be unprejudiced. The key question is whether the views are justified.

Neutrality, objectivity, and unbiasness are often considered largely the same thing and almost always a good when it comes to teaching, journalism, and writing history.

But, consider the following. Neutrality is a political category, that is, not supporting any factions in a dispute. Holding a neutral stance in a conflict is no more likely to ensure rightness or objectivity than any other and often is a sign of ignorance of the issues. In a recent interview on Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now!, Howard Zinn put it this way “to be neutral, to be passive in a situation is to collaborate with whatever is going on.”

Absence of bias in an area is not absence of convictions in an area, thus neutrality is not objectivity. To be objective is to be unbiased or unprejudiced.

The spring 2005 newletter of the Pacific Northwest Historians Guild included a brief quote from Zinn that objectivity in scholarship and in the media is not only “harmful and misleading, it’s not desirable.”

The brief quote in the PNHG newsletter is from an interview of Zinn by David Barsamian (founder of Alternative Radio) in 1992. The complete interview is available on the amazing ZNet web site.

Here is a brief excerpt from that interview, in which Zinn makes his case against objectivity:DB: You’ve made the astounding comment that objectivity in scholarship, in the media and elsewhere is not only “harmful and misleading, it’s not desirable.”

HZ:I’ve said two things about it. One, that it’s not possible. Two, it’s not desirable. It’s not possible because all history is a selection out of an infinite number of facts. As soon as you begin to select, you select according to what you think is important. Therefore it is already not objective. It’s already biased in the direction of whatever you, as the selector of this information, think people should know. So it’s really not possible. Of course, some people claim to be objective. The worst thing is to claim to be objective. Of course you can’t be. Historians should say what their values are, what they care about, what their background is, and let you know what is important to them so that young people and everybody who reads history are warned in advance that they should never count on any one source, but should go to many sources. So it’s not possible to be objective, and it’s not desirable if it were possible. We should have history that does reflect points of view and values, in other words, history that is not objective. We should have history that enhances human values, humane values, values of brotherhood, sisterhood, peace, justice and equality. The closest I can get to it is the values enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. Equality, the right of all people to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those are values that historians should actively promulgate in writing history. In doing that they needn’t distort or omit important things. But it does mean if they have those values in mind, that they will emphasize those things in history which will bring up a new generation of people who read history books and who will care about treating other people equally, about doing away with war, about justice in every form.

DB: How do you filter those biases, or can you even filter them?

HZ:As I’ve said, yes, I have my biases, my leanings. So if I’m writing or speaking about Columbus, I will try not to hide, omit the fact that Columbus did a remarkable thing in crossing the ocean and venturing out into uncharted waters. It took physical courage and navigational skill. It was a remarkable event. I have to say that so that I don’t omit what people see as the positive side of Columbus. But then I have to go on to say the other things about Columbus which are much more important than his navigational skill, than the fact that he was a religious man. That is how he treated the human beings that he found in this hemisphere. The enslavement, the torture, the murder, the dehumanization of these people. That is the important thing.

There’s an interesting way in which you can frame a sentence which will show what you emphasize and which will have two very different results. Here’s what I mean. Take Columbus as an example. You can frame it, and this was the way the Harvard historian Samuel Eliot Morison in effect framed it in his biography of Columbus: Columbus committed genocide, but he was a wonderful sailor. He did a remarkable and extraordinary thing in finding these islands in the Western Hemisphere. Where’s the emphasis there? He committed genocide, but … He’s a good sailor. I say, He was a good sailor, but he treated people with the most horrible cruelty. Those are two different ways of saying the same facts. Depending on which side of the buck you’re on, you show your bias. I believe that it’s good for us to put our biases in the direction of a humane view of history.