Scenario 1: Do Your Job
“The job of
someone who teaches in a college or university is to (1) introduce students to bodies of knowledge and traditions of
inquiry they didn’t know much about before; and (2) equip those same students
with the analytical skills that will enable them to move confidently within those traditions and to engage
in independent research should they choose to do so (18).
A student in a
rhetoric class approaches you and says “I am interested in writing this paper
about immigration reform in the feminine style. I don’t know much about it, but
I know it potentially operates outside of APA guidelines”. You tell the student
“no”, you must write about this topic the traditionally way. You will not be
taken seriously as a young scholar if you do not. You do your job, and
forcefully indoctrinate a potentially creative student into antiquated,
gendered expectations of academia.
Scenario 2: Don’t Try to Do Someone
Else’s Job
“Teachers, as I
have said repeatedly, teach materials and confer skills, and therefore don’t or
shouldn’t do a lot of other things – like produce active citizens, inculcate
the virtue of tolerance, redress injustices, and bring about political change”
(66).
A student in
your organizational leadership class tells you that they are apprehensive about
coming to class because other students are discriminating against them due to
their sexual orientation. They are anxious about attending lectures because
they are victims every time they do. You offer no consolation, you neglect to
address the discrimination in your classroom, and you insist that the student
speaks to a counselor about their problems. You didn't try to do someone else’s
job and further alienated a student, reinforcing academia’s intolerance for
individuals who live lifestyles outside of heteronormativity.
Scenario 3: Don’t Let Anyone Else Do Your
Job
“As long as
there are those who confuse advocacy with teaching, and so long as faculty colleagues
and university administrators look the other way, the academy invites the
criticism it receives” (152).
You invite a
guest speaker to your public speaking class. She is a marketing representative
from a soda company who gives an impassioned speech about advocacy, diverse
representation, inclusive vocabulary, and deliberately non-gendered product
branding in advertising. She urges your students to put their passions at the
forefront of their approach to public speaking. When she concludes, you tell
your students that her approach to debate and argument is impractical and
idealistic. Your students are free to practice personal activism outside of
your classroom, but they must adhere to traditional standards of debate within
your classroom. You didn’t let someone else do your job, and your students are
led to believe that there is no room in academia for passion and progressive
communicative practices.
Now, in each of
these scenarios you could argue that the students are at liberty to practice
and master a multitude of approaches. They are just expected to conform to
tradition for the purposes of their assignments. I take issue with this because
I disagree entirely with Fish’s notion of what a teacher should do. I believe we all
have a responsibility to educate ourselves as much as possible about systems of
power and oppression, and share our understandings with others. Professors are
uniquely positioned to do this effectively and with great reach because of the
nature of their jobs. Our job, first
and foremost, is to limit the amount of suffering we place on others. This is
our only obligation to one another, and should be a prevalent contribution to
both our personal and professional lives. Fish demonstrates an attachment to
traditions that privilege him above all others. It is our responsibility as
young instructors to change academia for the better.
No comments:
Post a Comment