I wonder how many graduate instructors actually sit around trying to think of ways to introduce their own politics into the classroom discussion. I know my politics probably “leak” out, but I don’t put them forward purposely. I have firm beliefs about being open minded, and I know this comes out in my course because most of our papers center on finding scholars in unlikely places. Is this bad? After reading Hairston’s article, I still don’t think so.
Is freshman composition “a tool, something to be used.” in a place where one has a captive audience? I suppose it could be very well used that way, but do people actually do this? I’ve yet to meet one. Most of the politically charged courses I have attended have been courses for upper-classmen or for graduate students. Perhaps the rest of you (my classmates here) use a political agenda to spur your students to write? Somehow, I doubt it, but I could be wrong.
At one point Hairston asks: “Have they asked those students what they want to learn?” (184) Okay, let’s ask them. How many differing answers will we get? How many of the topics will be amenable being converted into writing assignments? Maybe many, maybe too many, and how do we do this at the beginning of the class, then write the syllabus, and then begin the course? I don’t know, but I find it much easier to have the syllabus prepared before meeting the students. That may be somewhat selfish on my part, but getting forty students to agree on a class agenda would be time-consuming and frustrating. But, just for the heck of it I think I will assign a fourth paper in my class, at the end, asking the students to tell me what they think would be good fodder for the upcoming semester.
She goes on to ask: “By the same reasoning, couldn’t one claim that since we know it is impossible to find absolute, objective truths, we might as well abandon the search for truth and settle for opinion, superstition and conjecture?” (188). She seems to be searching for things to exaggerate here. Maybe she isn’t, but I think she’s taking herself a little too seriously, perhaps. I agree that we are not here to create freshmen students in whatever image we deem best, but I don’t think many are out to “manipulate” the students. I hope we can open eyes and minds, but that doesn’t mean I hope to “change” the student.
1 comment:
Righto, Maggie. I've had the students discuss what they would have me change before, and I DO think it's helpful, but it's always in retrospect. I DID know of one instructor who used the first week to structure the course WITH the students. You'll forgive me for being less than impressed, I hope. I wholly agree that while the course (particularly ours) should be tailored to the student in many ways, walking in "blind" is not the way to do it.
Also, it seems to me that Hairston is an exaggerater in much of this article, which I tried to bring up in my entry yesterday....BUT, as you say, our leanings DO slip out...I think this is bound to happen, unless you teach something that you aren't interested in or know nothing about.;) I also think that in some cases these leanings are leany-er than in others....again, my feelings on this tend to crop under "that's bad teaching" rather than some insidious desire to conquer the world..."do you know what time it is, Pinky?"....it's not so much that they sit around and think about it, it seems more probable that they don't sit around and think about it...more of my two cents..
Post a Comment