Part 3 of 10
How to Teach in Trump’s America [Bringing up Race, Immigration, Sexuality and everything else in
Higher Ed]
3 Social
Justice needs to be tied into your Curriculum
As the
statement from the AAUP offers, enlist controversial topics within your curriculum. It reads as a warning but I think it is a
gift. Why would we compartmentalize our
subjects from issues that they are naturally linked? For so long I have heard people in my field
of communication talk about how white communication is, in particular Public
Speaking. I love to teach this class
because of its roots in social justice movements. It is the perfect avenue to discuss current
events because so much of what we learn about the world is done so through
speaking publicly. No one loves to be
in front of people speaking. When we
accept that fear and anxiety we do it for a great cause, that is the only
reason we are drawn in front of the crowd.
It is not our natural state and yet we face it so that we can be heard,
so we can conjure change in some way. So
when I hear that they are teaching “whiteness” I wince because public speaking
belongs to the people, all people. So
why are our students not hearing this?
This is that long history of separating our discipline from the reality.
There is
naturally no separation between public speaking and diverse cultural methodology
and yet so many teach it that way, providing a proverbial nod to the
patriarchy. Why limit yourself? Embrace the history of your subject so we can
see how we have changed, add to it, provide your students with multiple ways of
learning. Because when we limit
ourselves we limit our students.
Students are deeply
effected by our current political leader’s new legislation so when we don’t
talk about it they assume that we don’t care, that their fear is unwarranted
which effects their performance in our class but also their overall
self-worth. Why not instead take the
approach of, we are all effected by this, maybe not as deeply as others but
this legislation does threaten to change our lives so let’s talk about the
history of this. Let’s talk about what’s going on so that when students come to
class they feel they are in a safe place. Legislation that is introducing a ban
that is threatening deportation, that is real life. In so many social science classes this is
relevant. Not from only a current events
platform but based in theory and research methods. Let’s talk about how less diverse populations
are more subject to disease, in biology labs.
Let’s talk about how travel bans, such as this, were used in Nazi
Germany in world history lectures. These
are not issues that exist in a vacuum. Include
these topics in your curriculum but don’t forget about your course polices.
We’re so afraid
to talk about race in America and yet after World War II when we liberated
Germany we asked, how could this happen, more importantly we demanded, how
could you let this happen after we were exposed to the horrors of the
concentration camps. We controlled their
media afterwards because we didn’t trust that they wouldn’t allow such hate
speech to command their airwaves again.
However here in the States we allow they KKK to march on Washington, we
watch as places of worship are desecrated, black churches bombed, Jewish
cemeteries vandalized and we hide under the protection of freedom of speech.
Why don’t we shut this down? Why during
the 2016 Presidential Campaign didn’t we say, this is hateful rhetoric, this is
creating a platform for hate - for Klan leaders? In your classroom don’t make the same
mistake. I often have faculty tell me, “but
we have to be tolerant.” Yes tolerant of
different opinions but I am not tolerant of hate. If you are faced with a student that is
making others uncomfortable with their homophobia, xenophobia or sexist agenda,
shut it down. It is your job to create a
safe place for students to speak out, not safe place for hate because no one is
safe once that is unleashed in the classroom.
Tolerance and freedom of speech are not be taken for granted but they
are also not a blanket statement saying that everyone can say whatever ugly and
vile thing they want without repercussions.
The safety of your students is not only physical but mental as
well. If another student is triggering
them, it is your responsibility to remove that student. Having a statements like this in your
syllabus protects students but also yourself.
It is your built in “back up.”
A few weeks ago
I posted an article on social media that included stories from U.S. immigrants
who were writing about how this ban effects
them. I thought it was beautifully done but
shortly after posting it, a high school
friend of mine, replied to my post.
Attacking the source, saying Buzzfeed wasn’t a reliable
source. They then posted another video
beneath mine stating, “here’s an immigrant that likes Trump so it’s not so
bad.” I was outraged, but why? As I thought about it I realized that they
were a man, particularly a white man, discounting these peoples’ experience. He
was saying that their experience wasn’t valid because of where it was
stated. But it also angered me because
he was insinuating that because one person liked the president that we should
make his hateful diction and bigoted legislation acceptable to all. When you say something that someone doesn’t
agree with on a fundamental level a less educated person will say that you are spouting
off alternative facts rather than entertain the notion that perhaps they have
been blind to a very dangerous entity.
This is why it is important to have multiple resources, appeal to
different aspects of students identities and remain persistent.
In my class students are seeing
themselves in the course material. When
I first began teaching full- time the big debate within my department was
textbooks. We argued that the books were
too expensive, that they didn’t cover all the material that it should but
mostly we were upset that our textbooks were written with one audience in mind;
white middle class high school graduates.
If you teach at a community college you understand that this is a very
small percentage of our student population.
We have students who graduated from high school forty years ago,
students who are coming back to school for the first time in decades. We have single parents who never graduated
from high school. We have students from
a very diverse background yet we are asking them to pay over one hundred
dollars on a book that does not consider their background and telling them,
this is how it is. When you are putting
your course material together think of your students. Do you have a large Navajo population, why
not include an article written by, Luci Tapahonso in your Intro to English
class? Do you have mostly women in one
particular class, why not include work by, Helen Oyeyemi instead of a male
author?
We know
mental health issues effect one in four people according to the WHO why not
have a reading addressing mental health in Higher Ed? Why don’t we talk about these things? Why have we accepted this lie that there is only
one type of student? That every student
needs to receive the exact same skills in order to succeed? Why have we just allowed the patriarchy to
command education?
Whatever the reason it is time
for us to stop buying into this outdated, doomed for failure mentality. We owe it to ourselves but not as much as we
owe it to our students.
Comments
Post a Comment