|
Robert E. Stein, Alfred University Last year’s Diversity, Inclusiveness, and Inequality Workshop encouraged us to think of DIIE self-reflexively. “Instead of conceptualizing DIIE as learning about ‘the other,’ it is better conceived as a process of learning about oneself—it is about coming to recognize oneself as a social, historical, and political being” (616). This year’s DIIE Workshop pursued that idea further, exploring ways to get students to know themselves better. Many of us shared the view that to learn about ourselves meaningfully requires a great deal of unlearning. Our discussions revealed layers of knowledge and assumptions that not only needed discovering but also dismantling. How, we asked, can teachers help students to interrogate their pre-conceptions and to replace those with an understanding of their own place in the social, historical and political processes that create us—processes that, indeed, create those very pre-conceptions that need interrogation? For example, teaching comparative politics effectively involves more than conveying information about political institutions and political culture, for many students bring to the classroom rather wooden images of people around the world. Revealing pervasive images of other countries and their people as stereotypes teaches students to examine critically the information they receive. At the same time, it frees student minds to construct more nuanced understandings of the comparative politics subject matter. Or again, when teaching students about the role of race in American politics, faculty frequently run up against the misconception that race refers to non-white identities. Breaking down the idea that certain non-white people are racial and that they present a problem for society enables a teacher to portray the concept of race as a social construct that mediates relations between all people. That step can lead to discussions that transcend blame and guilt and focus on experiences and responsibilities. These misconceptions that must be unlearned are not coincidental. They are pervasive and serve to prop up entrenched interests. That presents a series of challenges for teachers. The first challenge is that many of us, as teachers, share some of these misconceptions. In virtually every discussion, workshop participants found themselves understanding diversity, and the process of teaching diversity, in deeper, more complex ways. One participant expressed the ongoing nature of diversity teaching and learning; he noted that we think we have arrived when we include a particular group in our thinking, but that reveals another form of exclusion that must be addressed. A second, and related challenge, is that teaching materials reflect many of the assumptions that need to be challenged. This was evident in the studies of textbooks that informed workshop discussions. American Politics introductory textbooks, for example, lack diversity in their text and images. More importantly, these textbooks lack the analytical perspective on U.S. institutions and culture that teaching diversity provides. Without that analytical perspective, teachers using these textbooks have an uphill climb if they wish to do more than teach diversity as an afterthought. Another example of this challenge can be seen in the syllabi of many courses on just war. Teaching “just war traditions” has its own tradition of portraying “just war theory” as a Christian construct. To teach inclusively means to teach other just war traditions, such as those of the Islamic and Jewish traditions. However, to develop an awareness of and a competency in those traditions requires the breaking down of assumptions regarding the equivalence of “just war theory” with Christian “just war tradition.” In our workshop, there was wide agreement that an essential component of developing the classroom environments and exercises that are necessary for DIIE goals to be achieved requires that teachers, too, be willing to examine their own assumptions, participate in their own process of unlearning, and collaborate with other teachers in developing alternatives to mainstream materials. A self-reflexive approach to teaching generates more pedagogical benefits than a more inclusive curriculum. When teachers engage in the process of questioning their own assumptions and exploring their own complicity in the perpetuation of exclusion and inequality, they provide a model for students. Further, that activity fosters a sense of trust in students who are being asked to do the same difficult work. In turn, students will be more likely to expose themselves to the vulnerability that unlearning engenders. This brings us to the third in this series of challenges, for addressing diversity and seeking inclusiveness means taking students out of their comfort zone. Many students are resistant to exploring diversity when they perceive it as something other than the main content of a course. Students who benefit from current social, economic and political arrangements frequently feel threatened when those arrangements are criticized. Teachers must find ways to draw students into meaningful self-reflection. To the extent possible, teachers should also seek to develop an atmosphere in which questioning “safe” views and having uncomfortable conversations can take place as safely as possible. Techniques for fostering this classroom environment included many from last year’s workshop such as role playing and small class activities. This year’s participants also noted the value of establishing early in the semester clear rules regarding equal respect for all students in the classroom. To be clear, avoiding discomfort is not the goal. The goal is to assure students that discomfort is part of learning and to draw them into the process by relating their experiences to larger social and political processes. Finding a way to engage students in the process of self-discovery can be a critical step in establishing an environment in which diversity programming will resonate with them. We developed classroom strategies that take advantage of materials that are familiar to students to help them address material with which they may not be familiar—engaging students in a conversation or exercise in which they felt a level of comfort or authority. In other words, we want to start addressing students where they are in order to get them to participate in the process of progressing to someplace new. Playing music, viewing hip-hop videos, developing relationships with mentors, and assigning team projects focused on a vital issue (in this case immigration) all emerged as possible methods for actively engaging students. These methods worked in different ways. When students develop an expertise (and a sense of expertise) on an issue, they become more invested in exploring the ramifications of their topic. Likewise, when students see the “other” as like themselves, the life experiences of others take on an importance that an abstraction does not have. Classroom exercises that we examined in our workshop used music as a vehicle to bring students to a level of identification with others that makes difficult discussions more productive. Emerging through our discussions of these pedagogical strategies was an increased awareness of the importance of context for the teaching of inclusiveness and diversity issues. Since so much standard teaching material marginalizes these issues by compartmentalizing them, the tendency to bring in these issues as supplementary material is strong. While this may be better than ignoring inclusiveness and diversity, it is not ideal. Adding in exercises without providing sufficient context can reinforce old patterns of thought. Integrating exercises and strategies into a course will be most effective when the course itself is redesigned to reflect the insights that studying inequality yields. Changing syllabi by making diversity a category of analysis that informs each unit instead of just adding a unit on diversity will often provide the kind of context necessary to make other teaching strategies particularly effective. This may lead to teaching more courses without textbooks, something that allows teachers to compose a course that is more reflective of the scholarship available. Participants also discussed the need to change one’s approach depending upon the context of the class one is teaching. In introductory courses, encouraging critical thinking may involve a teacher’s de-emphasizing one’s political views in order to draw all students into a conversation. In upper level courses, in contrast, vigorously arguing a set of views can be the catalyst to more critical thinking among students. All of these conversations were informed by an awareness of institutional constraints—especially on junior faculty. Many of the strategies and techniques explored and developed during the workshop take time, and that is always a difficult resource to find. Again, building on last year’s discussions, participants widely supported the creation of networks of support both within one’s institution and among peers in the discipline. The value of the Teaching and Learning Conference itself became a theme of the workshop, for it provides the kind of environment in which faculty can nurture networks of support which improve the prospects of achieving DIIE goals. |
Join/Renew Now!
Contribute
Contact APSA