I really do love my job

I do work that I love. Of course, there are parts of being an academic I'm not too fond of (does anyone like department meetings?), but teaching provides real pleasures for me. It's not something I do, but something I am. And I get to make a living doing it. I'm lucky.

This is one of those weeks where I'm reminded of why I do what I do. I've had a hard time getting into a groove this semester. I'm teaching three classes at two schools, and no two days of the week have the same schedule, so I spent the first couple weeks of the semester constantly asking myself, "Am I on the right campus? Which room am I supposed to be in right now?" (Plus, I'd quite simply forgotten how much work and time this three class/two campus thing takes.) I'm still not comfortable with my schedule (I'm a creature of habit, and the lack of routine is making me a little crazy), but I've gotten used to it enough that this week I finally really hit my stride in the classroom. Things (including me figuring out each group's personality) have finally fallen into place enough that I've got my flow back in the classroom.

In two of my classes, we were discussing Vilma Santiago-Irizarry's Medicalizing Ethnicity. It's a tough read for some of my students (highly abstract and theoretical, which can be difficult for students not used to consistently reading that kind of language), but asks what I think are some important questions. One of the points she raises is that in the implementation of the three bicultural, bilingual Latino psychiatric programs the deployment of "culture" served to actually erase certain forms of cultural difference (indeed to pathologize them). In other words, cultural sensitivity worked to maintain a certain form of normative cultural dominance. One of the things I'm asking them to do is to take a look at how certain cultural sensitivity/awareness programs on campus deploy "culture" to see if similar processes are at work.

I've also spent all day today meeting with students from one of those classes to discuss group research projects they're working on. It's so much fun to watch them get excited about these projects (indeed to get excited with them...they're asking some fun questions and looking at some interesting phenomena). The conversations I've been having with students today have just been fun.

They haven't been frivolous, though. This morning a student who took a class from me two years ago stopped in to chat about some things she was thinking about in another class. So, we talked about knowledge and relativism and morality and making judgements and all sorts of things. This is the spot where teaching moves beyond joy and into privilege. This student wasn't simply asking for factual information, but wanted to talk about how to integrate new information into her life, indeed she was in part asking how she should live life. To have someone trust you enough to ask that you help sort out major ethical dilemmas is quite an honor. It's also an awesome responsibility. (Part of my reason for saying that is that I don't trust easily, so it may just be me.)

Teaching is about forming relationships. Because I focus so strongly on conversation and dialogue in my classes, those relationships become more important. Although they may get annoying at times, I genuinely like my students and want to see them succeed. Getting to know my students, to get a feel for what their lives are and have been like, to figure out what passions drive them, all of these things help me to be a better teacher because they help me to discuss how the concepts we're working with obtain in their own lives.

That's why I get so fussy when I see shit like this bill introduced in Arizona (via Pandagon:

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
Section 1. Title 15, chapter 14, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding article 8, to read:
ARTICLE 8. ALTERNATIVE COURSEWORK AND MATERIALS
15-1881. Alternative coursework or materials
EACH UNIVERSITY UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS AND EACH COMMUNITY COLLEGE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF A COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT SHALL ADOPT PROCEDURES BY WHICH STUDENTS WHO OBJECT TO ANY COURSE, COURSEWORK, LEARNING MATERIAL OR ACTIVITY ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS PERSONALL OFFENSIVE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITHOUT FINANCIAL OR ACADEMIC PENALTY AN ALTERNATIVE COURSE, ALTERNATIVE COURSEWORK, ALTERNATIVE LEARNING MATERIALS OR ALTERNATIVE ACTIVITY. OBJECTION TO A COURSE, COURSEWORK, LEARNING MATERIAL OR ACTIVITY ON THE BASIS THAT IT IS PERSONALLY OFFENSIVE INCLUDES OBJECTIONS THAT THE COURSE, COURSEWORK, LEARNING MATERIAL OR ACTIVITY CONFLICTS WITH THE STUDENT'S BELIEFS OR PRACTICES IN SEX, MORALITY OR RELIGION.

A bit more from Reznor.

Of course, I'm upset that some whackjob legislator is attempting to allow students to determine what I teach. The reason this shit really pisses me off, though, is that it's a direct attack on my professionalism and my ethics.

Professionally, I choose readings that contradict my students' beliefs. Hell, I choose readings that contradict my own! There are many reasons for doing this, not the least of which is pedagogy. It's useful to be able, no matter what your persuasion, to analyze arguments--and evidence to support them--from a number of positions. It's useful in finding solutions, and in argumentation itself. Bills such as this say that I'm not enough of a professional to be trusted with the selection of topics. The years of study and work that I put in, the skills I've worked at developing, the training I've received...all worthless. I can't be trusted to develop a syllabus (and my students can't be trusted to critically read any text I assign them). Bills such as this are a direct attack on my professionalism. I take that personally.

But, beyond the attack on my professionalism, I take it personally because it's also an attack on my ethics. I don't develop relationships with my students out of some cynical motive to indoctinate them into leftist thought. Some of the best conversations I've had (in the classroom and in my office) have been with conservative students. The difference between those students and the folks pushing this bill and similar attacks on academics is that those students have developed relationships with me, a liberal academic. They knew I wasn't some ideologically-driven monster, but a guy who's passionate about teaching sociology, and pretty damned good at it. They were dealing not with a culture warior, but with an enthusiastic and inviting individual who has a knack for translating complex theory into comprehensible English. They were chatting with a guy who was willing to listen to their problems and help them think about solutions.

I'm not out to dictate the course of my students' lives, I'm there to help them find a path.

It's the same with this bill as it is with the insane David Horowitz attacks as it is with conservative faculty idiocy. Because I take those relationships with students and the responsibilities accompanying them so seriously, I'm personally offended by these attacks on academics. Because I--as a liberal academic--exist in the minds of the Right not as a human but as a caricature, they're incapable of seeing these deeper issues involved. Because they themselves think of educations as nothing more than indoctrination, they refuse to see what teaching actually entails. It's more than an attempt to dictate my work life, though, it's an attack on me.

Now, as to that Habermas vs. Lyotard matchup, can I write-in Baudrillard?

Just another reminder....Michael Berube's post on academic freedom is well worth another read.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | |