My nomination for the most predictable platitude invoked by university professors when describing the essence of their job is “teaching students to think for themselves.”
Thanks, Bob, for this compelling account of your teaching and deepening students' understanding of the complexities of international politics, wars, media coverage of them, all together. This is exemplary teaching you did, and kudos for doing it.
I think it's especially notable that you hit on a salient principle about teaching for "critical thinking": it works only with disciplinary or subject knowledge. Students need to gain a foothold in a body of knowledge, a discipline, or a set of ideas to *work with* in order to think critically. It doesn't happen in a vacuum, or without context. Getting the students up to speed on international law, treaties, international conventions and organizations, was important in that course.
I also agree it's better if faculty are honest about their own politics--they can do this without propagandizing or enforcing an orthodoxy in the classroom (though some certainly do that!). Getting students to see how a subject matter expert or scholar *thinks* is part of the challenge, and the opportunity, for getting students to think more effectively and broaden their narrow perspectives (most undergraduates need to have their perspectives broadened, I'd venture). That can happen in a nonthreatening way if a classroom climate can be created to get students to talk and avoid the self-censorship of peer disapproval.
Related to all of this--the matter of "viewpoint diversity", which is a core principle of HxA and one that most of us believe in (though it's taken a hit recently from some, as a "right-coded" catchphrase--and is certainly a bromide when used by someone like conservative activist Chris Rufo). Viewpoint diversity has a better meaning or valence when competing claims are aired and discussed without the preconditions for ideological alignment already determined, and not used as a bludgeon for gaining power. I do think that "viewpoint diversity" becomes a reality for academic discourse and debates in general, with the acknowledgement that some "viewpoints" aren't that well-developed, and some "viewpoints" are better-evidenced because they're based on multiple forms of data, argumentation, and perspectives. Prefabricated "viewpoints" need to be disassembled and assumptions need to be questioned. We need a better discussion about "viewpoints"!
Thanks again for this excellent example of humane teaching.
"..After the invasion, it’s not surprising that journalists avoided the question..."
They avoided most questions..
Law aside...the killer question before and after was.."what was the Intelligence" that lead to the invasion?"..it was primarily based on one lying Iraqi clown in Germany, who gave a narrative the US administration wanted...then the Brits/Germans/US would repeat different versions from the same source..too each other and then call it "multiple sources confirm"...
Curveball: Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War Hardcover –Bob Drogin
You make a solid point. What's omitted from teaching and books is VASTLY WORSE PROPAGANDA than what's said. There's no way to discuss a topic that doesn't exist.
For instance, I had never heard of our 1918 invasion and occupation of Russia. Books, media and teachers never mentioned it. I learned about it a few years ago when I was reading old Signal Corps documents in Googlebooks as research for a tech history blog post. I was looking for info on 'wired radio' and found a long factual description of building railroads and phone lines to aid our invasion and occupation! Huh? What were we trying to accomplish? I still don't know. What we DID accomplish, desired or not, was hardening Lenin's determination.
Thanks, professor. Great article with many important points to consider from both sides of the debate concerning political views in the classroom.
I was a graduate student at UT in 2005 thirsting for ways to connect historical lessons to US foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, I found few professors and students willing to engage in discussions about terrorism and, in fact, whether the US and its allies were committing terrorist acts. Admittedly, that was not a popular topic at the time. Still, as you note, it was one worth discussing. A bit disillusioned, I took an NSEP Fellowship to study in Tajikistan in 2006, completing my research on the roots of Central Asian Islamic resistance to the newly constituted governments of former Soviet Central Asia.
As a teacher, I've found it interesting that adhering to Enlightenment values and the five freedoms of the First Amendment got me labeled as a radical liberal 20 years ago. Although my views have not changed, I'm currently considered rather conservative. Criticism began when I refused to give the Obama Administration a pass on its drone assassination program and abuse of the Espionage Act to harass journalists.
Perhaps a good critical discussion would be one that analyzed how devotion to reason is considered radical, noble, dangerous or necessary depending on which way the political winds are blowing at any given time.
Thanks, Bob, for this compelling account of your teaching and deepening students' understanding of the complexities of international politics, wars, media coverage of them, all together. This is exemplary teaching you did, and kudos for doing it.
I think it's especially notable that you hit on a salient principle about teaching for "critical thinking": it works only with disciplinary or subject knowledge. Students need to gain a foothold in a body of knowledge, a discipline, or a set of ideas to *work with* in order to think critically. It doesn't happen in a vacuum, or without context. Getting the students up to speed on international law, treaties, international conventions and organizations, was important in that course.
I also agree it's better if faculty are honest about their own politics--they can do this without propagandizing or enforcing an orthodoxy in the classroom (though some certainly do that!). Getting students to see how a subject matter expert or scholar *thinks* is part of the challenge, and the opportunity, for getting students to think more effectively and broaden their narrow perspectives (most undergraduates need to have their perspectives broadened, I'd venture). That can happen in a nonthreatening way if a classroom climate can be created to get students to talk and avoid the self-censorship of peer disapproval.
Related to all of this--the matter of "viewpoint diversity", which is a core principle of HxA and one that most of us believe in (though it's taken a hit recently from some, as a "right-coded" catchphrase--and is certainly a bromide when used by someone like conservative activist Chris Rufo). Viewpoint diversity has a better meaning or valence when competing claims are aired and discussed without the preconditions for ideological alignment already determined, and not used as a bludgeon for gaining power. I do think that "viewpoint diversity" becomes a reality for academic discourse and debates in general, with the acknowledgement that some "viewpoints" aren't that well-developed, and some "viewpoints" are better-evidenced because they're based on multiple forms of data, argumentation, and perspectives. Prefabricated "viewpoints" need to be disassembled and assumptions need to be questioned. We need a better discussion about "viewpoints"!
Thanks again for this excellent example of humane teaching.
Makes sense. Here's the thing:
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/anthropological-reversibility
https://hxlibraries.substack.com/p/when-collegiality-becomes-censorship
"..After the invasion, it’s not surprising that journalists avoided the question..."
They avoided most questions..
Law aside...the killer question before and after was.."what was the Intelligence" that lead to the invasion?"..it was primarily based on one lying Iraqi clown in Germany, who gave a narrative the US administration wanted...then the Brits/Germans/US would repeat different versions from the same source..too each other and then call it "multiple sources confirm"...
Curveball: Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War Hardcover –Bob Drogin
You make a solid point. What's omitted from teaching and books is VASTLY WORSE PROPAGANDA than what's said. There's no way to discuss a topic that doesn't exist.
For instance, I had never heard of our 1918 invasion and occupation of Russia. Books, media and teachers never mentioned it. I learned about it a few years ago when I was reading old Signal Corps documents in Googlebooks as research for a tech history blog post. I was looking for info on 'wired radio' and found a long factual description of building railroads and phone lines to aid our invasion and occupation! Huh? What were we trying to accomplish? I still don't know. What we DID accomplish, desired or not, was hardening Lenin's determination.
Thanks, professor. Great article with many important points to consider from both sides of the debate concerning political views in the classroom.
I was a graduate student at UT in 2005 thirsting for ways to connect historical lessons to US foreign policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, I found few professors and students willing to engage in discussions about terrorism and, in fact, whether the US and its allies were committing terrorist acts. Admittedly, that was not a popular topic at the time. Still, as you note, it was one worth discussing. A bit disillusioned, I took an NSEP Fellowship to study in Tajikistan in 2006, completing my research on the roots of Central Asian Islamic resistance to the newly constituted governments of former Soviet Central Asia.
As a teacher, I've found it interesting that adhering to Enlightenment values and the five freedoms of the First Amendment got me labeled as a radical liberal 20 years ago. Although my views have not changed, I'm currently considered rather conservative. Criticism began when I refused to give the Obama Administration a pass on its drone assassination program and abuse of the Espionage Act to harass journalists.
Perhaps a good critical discussion would be one that analyzed how devotion to reason is considered radical, noble, dangerous or necessary depending on which way the political winds are blowing at any given time.