On Sunday, I published this post: Inviting Controversy Into Our Classrooms.
I had asked my friend Philip Russell to write it after he shared on Facebook about how well his students were able to discuss difficult topics in class, and how proud that made him. This past year has been a flood of controversy, of hard conversations, and I assumed that many teachers were wrestling with the question of how much of that should be brought into their teaching. Since Russell seemed to be managing it, I wanted him to share his experiences with my readers in the hopes that more teachers would take the brave step of allowing these conversations to happen in their classrooms.
We went through about four drafts of the piece to get it organized and make it clear and actionable, but it still had problems that neither of us recognized.
That’s what Twitter is for.
Not long after the post went live, voices of concern began to rise up in tweets. The people who responded made me see things I hadn’t considered before, and I soon realized a follow-up was needed. Rather than revise the original post—which would likely confuse anyone who read the comments about it—I’m opting to keep it as is, but invite those who read it to come here next.
Briefly: Although I still agree with the intent of the original post—that we should welcome, encourage, and guide the discussion of controversial issues in our classrooms—I now see that we needed to outline a more nuanced approach, one that avoids placing marginalized students in a position to have to defend their humanity.
Below, I will summarize the main points that were made, with links to some of the original threads on Twitter.
Issue 1: Having students discuss these topics in a “debate” format implies that all sides are equally valid.
Because many of the topics Russell used as examples centered around racism, the notion of giving equal weight to each side of such a debate is problematic. Christie Nold was the first to raise this issue: “I’m concerned about the impact of encouraging Ts use Charlottesville as a debate topic. A topic for conversation? Yes. To debate? I wonder how this might further the idea that there are ‘two sides’ in conversations about white supremacy.”
In a later tweet, Melinda Anderson highlighted an exchange near the end of the post, where two students discuss the recent H&M ad. Anderson took issue with the way Russell drew equivalence between the perspective of Sam, a student of color, and another student who thinks the ad is no big deal. She also suggested that students moving on after this exchange without further comment may not be worthy of celebration.
When I talked with Russell about the false equivalence concern, we agreed that some things in the post were presented more simplistically than what actually takes place in his classroom, and that this gave a falsely simplistic depiction of the conversations themselves.
“I think debate was a problematic term,” he said. “I use debate when I argue with my dad about nuances of policy. He thinks taxes should be one way; I think taxes should be the other, so we debate the issue. I wonder if using discussion would have been better. Having these discussions is such an involved process. The post is an outline of how I have them, but it’s not comprehensive.”
For teachers who want to have these kinds of discussions in their classrooms, I think the important takeaway here is that the way you initiate such conversations matters: Introducing a question as a debate suggests two equally valid sides, while opening up a topic for discussion or conversation doesn’t send the same message.
Issue 2: Asking students of color or other students in marginalized positions to participate or even listen to these “debates” can have a dehumanizing effect.
In the original post, Russell shares how he encourages students when they respectfully share their opposing views. But if one of the students in the discussion has a personal stake—their right to be treated equally and humanely—in the topic, validating arguments against those basic rights tells marginalized students that they don’t matter. Marian Dingle helped me see this scenario through a different lens: “as a SOC in that room, I would’ve felt silenced when the T praised the comments.”
In a different thread, Jess Lifshitz shared a similar perspective about what it would feel like for a student whose humanity is being debated: “As a gay educator, an adult, I imagine listening to students debate my right to be served at a bakery where the owner denies I have a right to be treated equally. It would be enough to bring me to tears. And I am an adult. The impact of kids feels too great.”
So what’s to learn from this? Teachers need to be careful not to introduce every subject as “up for debate,” and recognize that there may be students present who are personally impacted by these issues. Even if they are not present, it’s worth considering the impact this neutrality has on student attitudes, regardless of their background. When we give a neutral thumbs up to the expression of an idea that is inherently discriminatory or racist, even if we believe we’re merely encouraging its expression in civil tones, we communicate at least some approval of that idea.
My Lingering Questions
While this conversation has certainly deepened my understanding of how we approach these issues in our classrooms, as I hope it has done for other teachers who read the original post, I am still left wondering how, exactly, we should handle these conversations. When I first read the objections, including Justin Schleider’s link to a Huffington Post article about the recent Heineken commercial (a commercial I liked before, but that I now see problems with), I had two questions:
- If a student comes to us with racist views, what is the best way to approach that student to help him or her grow? If we accept the premise that most people hold some racist views that need examination, that means we’re talking about a lot of students. The original post encourages us to clarify opposing views, but there is a concern that clarifying gives too much validity, so what should be done instead? In my own private conversations with friends, I have seen people change their minds on an issue only after I have worked to understand where they are coming from. Understand is a loaded word here, not to be confused with agreeing; just clarifying. If, by doing that, we are sending a message that we feel that view is equally valid, what would be a better approach?
- How do we avoid silencing certain viewpoints…or is that the goal? Although no one stated outright that certain viewpoints should be silenced, I can’t shake the idea, mostly because I’m still not clear on the answer to my first question. The notion that certain viewpoints should be silenced feels dangerous to me, because if the shoe were on the other foot and the classroom were being run by someone who saw the world very differently from me, I certainly wouldn’t want them deciding who gets a voice.
Having considered these two questions, I get the sense that the answer lies in encouraging open discussion, framing the initial questions more thoughtfully as Benjamin Doxtdator wrote in his response to the post, and, as Kaitlin Popielarz and others mentioned, preparing ourselves as teachers with some historical context before getting the conversation started.
Another answer might be found in Stephenie Eriksson’s post that came out the day after ours: Teaching Conversation vs. Debate in Academic Argument. In this post, Eriksson describes other discussion formats that allow for a difference of opinion without necessarily giving equal weight to every viewpoint.
More Resources
Apart from the articles mentioned above, these two texts were also mentioned as good resources around these issues:
Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies: Teaching and Learning for Justice in a Changing World
by Django Paris and H. Samy Alim
Summary from Amazon: Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies raises fundamental questions about the purpose of schooling in changing societies. Bringing together an intergenerational group of prominent educators and researchers, this volume engages and extends the concept of culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP)–teaching that perpetuates and fosters linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of schooling for positive social transformation. The authors propose that schooling should be a site for sustaining the cultural practices of communities of color, rather than eradicating them. Chapters present theoretically grounded examples of how educators and scholars can support Black, Indigenous, Latinx, Asian/Pacific Islander, South African, and immigrant students as part of a collective movement towards educational justice in a changing world.
Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America
by Ibram X. Kendi
Summary from Amazon: Some Americans cling desperately to the myth that we are living in a post-racial society, that the election of the first Black president spelled the doom of racism. In fact, racist thought is alive and well in America–more sophisticated and more insidious than ever. And as award-winning historian Ibram X. Kendi argues in Stamped from the Beginning, if we have any hope of grappling with this stark reality, we must first understand how racist ideas were developed, disseminated, and enshrined in American society.
Let’s Keep Talking
Based on all the conversations I’ve been reading, it appears that many of us agree that these topics should not be swept under the rug, and teachers can serve a valuable role in helping to shape discussions of them. What we haven’t quite nailed down (in this space, anyway) is how best to do that. I would be grateful if we could continue talking about it here. Please share your thoughts, experiences, and links to other resources in the comments below.