Search News


Browse Archives

News

'Teach Them to Challenge Authority'

September 4, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Stanley Fish may be telling academics to keep their opinions to themselves, but Gregory S. Prince Jr. thinks it is time for colleges to stop trying to make their classrooms neutral. Prince, the former president of Hampshire College, argues for professors to take all kinds of positions -- as a tool for challenging their students. His new book, Teach Them to Challenge Authority: Educating for Healthy Societies (Continuum) outlines this view, and Prince responded via e-mail to questions about the work.

Q: What's wrong with a neutral stance in the classroom?

A: A neutral stance in the classroom is appropriate as one of many pedagogical approaches. When it becomes the only pedagogical approach, it deprives students of the chance to learn how to challenge those who have power over them -- a skill that is essential in any career, that is essential for the health of any institution and that is critical in a democratic society. Higher education should have been very concerned that at a place like Enron, where almost all of its senior departmental and corporate leadership were college educated, only two at most challenged what was taking place.

Q: You note the criticism that conservatives hurl on liberal academics. Do you think academics have adequately defended themselves?

A: Academics have not adequately defended themselves. Too often they have ignored the critics or taken the position that there is no problem. As the first step in mounting an adequate defense, they should acknowledge that the conservatives are right about the principle that students should not be ridiculed for disagreeing with their professors. They should acknowledge that students should be encouraged to disagree with the politics of their professors. They should acknowledge their responsibility to listen respectfully to opposing points of view and to guide students to sources that support such views.

What happens all too often is that they deny there is a problem rather than challenging the proposed solution to the problem. The problem always will exist because there always will be individuals who cannot or will not master the difficult art of effective teaching. In contrast, I accept that the there are undoubtedly many cases where the critics are right but that to whatever extent the problem exists, the solution that the conservatives propose -- having the faculty always maintain a position of neutrality -- is the wrong one. Faculty need to take positions so that students can learn how to challenge those in authority. How a faculty member takes a positions is what is critical. It is an art both to take positions and to create an atmosphere in which students will learn how to challenge those positions

Q: What advice would you give to professors who agree with your book,but who teach at institutions where students are more conservative than those at Hampshire?

A: I would give them the same advice that I would give to Hampshire faculty and to faculty in any university. Acknowledge the differences where they exist, listen well to the students, create an atmosphere where they can challenge your positions, respect the students enough to take their positions seriously and be willing to state your own positions and to engage the students in discussion and debate about those positions.

Q: How can you tell if a university is "engaged" in the way you advocate?

A: Universities that test themselves by asking constantly whether they are doing enough and then push themselves to do more are engaged in the way I advocate. What made Hampshire such an exciting place for me was its culture that made asking whether we were doing enough in the classroom, with individual students and with the community outside the college a perpetual part of the educational conversation. Often what we were doing was good, but measured against what was needed, it was rarely good enough. Students are an important part of that conversation because they so often are impatient and feel that so much more can be done. They helped fight complacency that all too often is the greatest danger to delivering a quality educational experience. As a completely different kind of example, land grant institutions, with their explicit service missions that have served this country so well, generally are and have to be, in constant conversations with their legislatures and the public whom they serve about whether “they are doing enough.” Those conversations, difficult as they are sometimes, benefit the academy and the public.

Q: How can presidents protect the freedom of their professors to teach as you suggest -- and encourage it?

A: The most effective way is to model in their own behavior what they expect of the faculty, to articulate and practice the principles of discourse that make it possible simultaneously to take positions and to encourage students to challenge those positions and pursue a review and reward system that supports the principles. Confront constructively and fairly and do not ignore those situations where the practices of faculty do not support the core value of the principles of discourse -- that what matters is the strength and integrity of one’s argument and rhetoric, not the political hue of the opinion being defended.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on 'Teach Them to Challenge Authority'

  • Interesting!
  • Posted by James Liptonish on September 4, 2008 at 8:30am EDT
  • Professors professing neutrality?! Interesting.

  • Challenge 99% authority?
  • Posted by Bart on September 4, 2008 at 8:55am EDT
  • Several studies have proven empirically that while most non-softside academia faculties (engineering, law, business, medicine) have political-registration diversity -- faculties such as Iowa's poly-sci departments are 25-2 registered to one of two majority political parties.

    Does this mean that Sarah Palin is going to become posed in classrooms as possibly positive for the USA? Can't wait to actually see that happen.

  • muzzling the profs and the press
  • Posted by lindsay waters on September 4, 2008 at 10:25am EDT
  • bravo scott
    this interview is heartening after last night's show
    the muzzling of the profs that the self-styled Dean of America, Fish, calls for is thae exact equivalent of the muzzling of the press that the Republicans are championing.
    emerson said something like society is every where in a conspiracy against the spirit of its members.

  • back at ya
  • Posted by Jud in Chicago on September 4, 2008 at 10:25am EDT
  • I'd like to challenge the authority of those who decide that I should challenge authority. I'd rather learn to assess and evaluate authority so that I can appropriately submit to those authorities worthy of being followed and challenge only those authorities who are unworthy of allegiance.

    Too often, those who blindly follow the command to "Question authority!" end up inhabiting Monty Python's argument clinic.
    ("This isn't an argument." "Yes it is." "No, it isn't! It's just contradiction." "No, it isn't." "Yes, it is!")

  • neutral stance
  • Posted by Ludwik Kowalski , Retired physics teacher at Montclair State University on September 4, 2008 at 10:45am EDT
  • I am a physics teacher and the issue of the "neutral stance" probably does not apply to me. But teachers of history and sociology must address it. One way to do this is to clearly distinguish propositions from validations, as in physics (where students often have labs).

    How can we validate propositions in social science classrooms? By debating controversial topics. To promote a debate, a teacher could prepare a set of hard-to-answer questions. An example of such questions can be found at the end of this webpage:

    http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/stalinism.html

    I wrote them to initiate an online discussion of the so-called "communist morality."

  • Posted by E on September 4, 2008 at 1:10pm EDT
  • While I agree with the author's sentiments, try teaching Charles Darwin as a literary text in a Southwest Georgian community college without being neutral. I find it is often very helpful (and possibly beneficial to me keeping my job) to make the students challenge each other. Having structured debates where students have to defend positions that are not their own often seems to help, too. But, it's not really common practice to challenge authority at my institution...even for faculty. Again, I'm not saying it's right, but an important life lesson for our students that coincides with challenging authority is that is also comes with very real consequences (unfortunately). Maybe I'll simply harness the muse of Percy Shelley and send my anonymous challenges to authority via balloons.

  • Posted by Jack Diaz on September 4, 2008 at 2:05pm EDT
  • This might sound simplistic, but if you want to get students thinking and truely aren't concerned about advocating a specific position, the why not pick a position out of a hat. Tell the students that you are not necessarily advocating a position you believe in but are instead advocating challanges. In fact, take a position out of law schools and tell a student what stance he or she is to defend.

  • Way to go, Bart!
  • Posted by DFS on September 4, 2008 at 3:40pm EDT
  • That would be interesting.

    Let it be known that David Horowitz is not specifically insisting on neutrality in everything taught, only where appropriate. I don't think that leftist or rightist politics should have any bearing on physics or math.

    But, in the interest of critical thinking, when the professor takes one position and stimulates critical thought, he should then take the opposite position and do it again. Doesn't anyone else out there realize that this would be fair? And even more "critical?"

  • More S. Fish?
  • Posted by Bart on September 4, 2008 at 8:00pm EDT
  • " .. But, in the interest of critical thinking, when the professor takes one position and stimulates critical thought, he should then take the opposite position .."

    In the professional schools, and colleges still concerned about classical thinking abilities -- professional faculty require students to advocate a broad spectrum of outcomes and worldviews, in an accurate and timely fashion.

    It is the mentally-suffocating, grossly-biased academic departments (often directly funded with taxpayer money) that have come under severe criticism. Their obvious lack of rigorous study and scholarship have caused their problems -- nothing else.

    Critical thinking is not just criticizing -- any liquored-up U.S. beer-hall is filled with that. First, it requires demanding levels of knowledge and expertise. Without expertise -- do not act surprised if one's "facts" and "assumptions" are severely questioned.

  • Neutral stance ?
  • Posted by Ludwik Kowalski , retired physics teacher at Montclair State University on September 5, 2008 at 9:05am EDT
  • I think that the term "neutral stance" should be replaced by the term "objective stance."

    What does it mean to be objective? It means not to be biased toward data supporting our expectations. It means listening and reacting to what others have to say. Expectations, based on previous knowledge and experience, are natural to all teachers and students.

    I fully agree with the author that we should "acknowledge the differences where they exist, listen well to the students, create an atmosphere where they can challenge" us and defend their own "objective stand."

  • Teach the Discipline
  • Posted by James W. Gettys on September 5, 2008 at 9:30am EDT
  • A version of the "keep it neutral" pedagogy is "Teach the Discipline." There was a heated, verbose discussion earlier this summer in response to Fish's book. There I was implored not to pontificate in front of students in areas outside my expertise. Since I am not trained in political science, economics, sociology, psychology, history, theology and so on, I should have nothing to say, or ask, in composition or literature classes touching upon those disciplines.

    In the discussion I was demanding to know how one then teaches such anthologized works as John Winthrop's "A Modell of Christian Charity," William Bradford's "Of Plymouth Plantation," Jonathan Edwards's sermons, The Federalist Papers, The Declaration of Independence, Elizabeth Cady Stanton's "Declaration of Sentiments," Frederick Douglass's "Narrative," Moby-Dick, The Grapes of Wrath, etc. without showing students how to anaylze such works exclusive of history, eonomics, sociology, psychology, religion and so on. Somehow, sticking to my own discipline--rhetoric and literature--I was told, repeatedly, is proper because apolitical. And my classroom is not to wax political or historical if I have no political science or history training (or so I understood such rigid drawing of disciplinary boundaries to imply).

    But surely, a major theme of all of literature involves the dialectic of the ideological and the utopian. How can one introduce students to that literary theme without wading into politics, history, economics, and so on?

  • Posted by Sibby Wieland on October 8, 2008 at 3:45pm EDT
  • I attended Hampshire while Greg Prince was president, and I appreciate his comments. I just wish that I'd seen more evidence of these lofty but very worthy goals during my time there.

    I always give major "props" to professors like Walid Ra'ad (now at Queens College) who pushed for real dialogue in the classroom, and never insulted any viewpoint no matter how far out of the mainstream... but unfortunately some others were more interested in "political hue" than the "principles of discourse".

    This kind of behavior denies students tools they need in the future. Students who are not allowed to find ways of functional criticism and argument, have no idea how to communicate to, let alone compromise with, their opponents. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about Hillsdale or Hampshire; students need to learn respectful ways of dialoguing outside the echo box.

    While I was there, I remember a professor who announced to the class, "We won the Vietnam war," (the "we" referring to the peace movement, not the NVA or Vietnamese people) and another who brought in a McNeil-Lehrer News Hour interview with John McCain, only to begin cursing angrily at the television in front of my class. (This was 1995, not 2008, by the way.)

    Such professors made it uncomfortable for students to disagree, however mildly. This kind of arrogant insistence of "professor knows best" extended to other arenas of student life - when I privately approached another academic, timidly asking if expensive books could be put on reserve, she was very hostile, asking me for details about my own finances, then arguing that students were simply "lazy" and only "pleading poverty". (Apparently her worldview omitted those of us on Pell Grants and work-study - and I was too cowed by her at the time to explain my request.)

    In politics or education, leaders who stubbornly insist on only one "correct" point of view don't equip young people to deal with a more complex world.