MY POLITICAL VIEWS

There is a discussion going on via the Law and Courts discussion list about whether or not professors should take positions on controversial issues in the classroom. Probably the question is best phrased as how one ought to reveal one's own political beliefs: tentatively, straightforwardly or in an opaque fashion (I'm ruling out "combatively" because such a position is probably related to a failure of pedagogical imagination). Even attempts to scrupulously avoid revealing one's own views will end up revealing something about one's own views; really attentive students will pick up clues no matter how hard you try -- if you're doing anything interesting in the classroom, that is.

I have had students who were not clear on my political positions by the end of a semester with me. I have always considered that kind of student confusion to be a good thing, or at least evidence of a kind of neutrality that should be the scholarly and pedagogical goal. Students deserve first and foremost an open forum within which they can develop their own capabilities. One necessary pedagogical faith is, I think, that it is good -- part of any defensible account of human flourishing -- for individuals to develop their capacities to reason, reflect, defend one's own views in an articulate and respectful manner, and to listen and respond to the views of others. Students don't get smarter by thinking what I think; they get smarter by figuring out what they think. A classroom in which there is no opportunity to respond to competing views because the professor has stifled debate is a classroom in which less development is taking place. That is a failed classroom. And to the extent that it helps to stifle debate and discourage dissenters from taking controversial positions, expressing one's views destroys one aspect of the forum.

I have known several excellent professors who were able to articulate their own views in a way that did not stifle debate. Generally the way to do this is to present one's views in a tentative manner, as theses or thoughts or observations that are contestible and up for debate. Even better is to dissimulate slightly and present your views in the form of the views of a third person whose positions are then up for discussion. But if you want to present your own views as your own views, do so with the appropriate humility and sense of distance that you would bring to the views of (other) folks on the syllabus.

The problem of revealing one's political views in the classroom raises a related question that has been bothering me for some time: how appropriate is it to reveal one's political views on a blog? Generally I have figured that those students who take the trouble to read what I've written here are going to be self-confident enough to speak their mind in class regardless of whether or not they think I agree with them. At least I hope that that is the case. I try to create an atmosphere in the classroom in which students feel comfortable expressing a wide variety of views; many of my best students most assuredly do not agree with me, know that they do not agree with me, and are willing to defend their views in the classroom in a spirited and articulate manner. I love that. It's part of the reward of teaching.

So, here's a plea: if you're in one of my classes and you're reading this, please consider the following. Even your teachers need to vent sometimes. And if something here bothers you, let me know! Tell me why you think I'm wrong. You won't be the first. And if you want to test it out, phrase your question in the following manner:

I've heard it said that X [X = something that directly contradicts what you're saying]. What do you think?

I'll appreciate it. And you might even be right!

MORE: This post doesn't really get at the issue, I know. The narrow issue is as follows: should a professor reveal that he or she is in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment in the context of a course on civil liberties? The particular professor in question is a well-respected conservative at an ivy league school; the discussion emerged somehow (haven't followed up yet) out of a reaction to this editorial by David Brooks on conservatives in university life. Let me offer the following imperfect thoughts, based on my experiences teaching at a school in which many of the most articulate students are politically conservative:

In the question of pending political expressions of disapproval of gays and lesbians, it is necessary for the classroom to be a forum for the expression of views by both those who are directly affected by such actions and those who would defend the actions (and those who would ultimately vote for representatives who defend such actions). There is no getting around the fact that there are many politically powerful groups and individuals who want to withhold public expressions of approval for gays and lesbians, and many who would actually prefer to punish them criminally. My sense of their arguments is that they work best as unarticulated beliefs, even beliefs that are explicitly in opposition to the views espoused by liberal intellectuals. Force the arguments into the light of day, and force those who would defend those arguments to confront the fact that they will be harming people whom they know, people who are willing to say that they are being harmed. It will take articulate defenses of the rights of gays and lesbians in the form of non-first-person professorial arguments to make other students think. And if no one is willing to articulate arguments against things like the FMA, then the professor should do it. If the professor's own views prevent that from happening, then there is a failure of pedagogical will. A tolerant atmosphere does not mean an atmosphere that is free of conflict; rather, it means an atmosphere in which individuals are better able to be heard than they might be in the harsh glare of the political process.

MORE: See also Josh Cherniss's thoughts here (scroll down for post).