After reading over others comments about the ideology in the classroom, I find myself wondering how exactly we can discuss ideology in a classroom. I understand that a classroom can be a place to discover oneself, face opposition to the ideas that you already hold, and hopefully, adjust to the new information and arguments a student or instructor encounters. However, in my class at least, I tend to avoid actually discussing the topics at hand, and I focus on the bigger picture: social activism and ways to go about it.
I choose to avoid these topics because, as Danielle pointed out, unless students have been affected by it, they generally don’t have an opinion, nor care. As a result, I try to open up the discussion to broader things. One of the best in-class writing assignments I did was to make the students create their own social activism campaign, a logo, and then tell about how they would go about implementing such an idea. I received a multitude of different campaigns (along with the ones where they just copy their friend, of course) that gave me better insight to the things they, maybe, care about. It was also very private. To talk about certain ideologies in classrooms, while holding your own ideology, is a difficult task when you have students that adamantly oppose you. For example, when talking about LGBT issues, what if a question is asked that only a LGBT person can answer? Do we let the unopposed idea stay uncontested? Sometimes we can give answers, but they taste unsatisfactory; as in, we can’t thoroughly answer the question because the experience isn’t ours. If that’s the case, the only way to get an answer from the question is if a student comes out, so to speak. At that point, it can be extremely awkward for the student, perhaps even embarrassing. I realize this is a highly specific example, but things like this do happen. To let the point stand uncontested, in a debate at least, means that the point is accepted.
What if the accepted point conflicts with your own ideology? Can you actually keep your own opinions out of the discussion? Instructors are the authority figures, and so the students tend to agree with you, at least vocally. One of the most surprising things to me, and to my students, this semester was when I told them they didn’t have to agree with the essay (speaking about Restak at that point in time). They believed that they must accept the essay as a Truth to learn. The same applies when you confer your ideology in the classroom. They will always agree with you. Even in their papers, differing from Natalie’s students, they agree with you, to the point where you can tell they don’t agree because of the language of the essay.
Perhaps I haven’t stated in a coherent manner the issue I was trying to take with the concept in the social-epistemic model Berlin talks about. Injecting your own ideology into the classroom is difficult to keep from doing; however, discussions about ideology can still be beneficial. I just find it hard to bring up these issues in class because of the students’ apathy to most of the issues and an innate anxiety about discussing the issues due to anger, awkwardness, etc. Trina’s suggestion about setting ground rules is something I can get behind, but I also find students can and will break those ground rules when in a heated debate. Since working at the UCEW, one of the hardest clients I ever had to help was not one where the student was difficult and resistant to any help, but one where I had to help construct an essay that directly opposed my own viewpoints and watch the student create and use “facts.” But they were facts I could have countered with others, divulging my own views. Creating a discussion about the highly contested issue would not have helped the student become a better writer, I believe; focusing on how the student can implement his or her ideas into the paper and then creating a logical structure helps more.
(Note: I love having ideological discussions and encountering all these new and opposing ideas, despite the above paragraphs.)
