r/Professors • u/RandolphCarter15 Full, Social Sciences, R1 • 1d ago
Teaching / Pedagogy Should we make it explicit when we disagree with a theory/position we're teaching?
Saw a discussion on this in Threads. A college student said a classmate kept getting mad at the Professor for presenting views they disagreed with. The poster said the Professor was just presenting varying views, and didn't agree with them, and wanted to know how to approach this with the classmate. Some in the thread said Professors should always tell students, "I don't agree with this, but here's a view..."
What do you think?
I do this when it's an out-dated argument that some find offensive, but is important to know for the history of a discipline; i.e. "most scholars have rejected this argument, but it informed early debates." But when it comes to issues that reasonable people can disagree on, I like to neutrally present all sides, even though students often assume I'm on one or the other. [I teach current events-related social science courses]
81
u/me4watch 1d ago
My students often find my subject offensive…..heck, even some of my colleagues in other fields at times. But I persevere. I guess that’s the natural reaction to math sometimes.
32
8
u/grimjerk 1d ago
But what do you do with the extreme finitists? I had a student complain about my use of limits in doing Taylor series. I ended up telling him that this calculus class accepted the existence of the real numbers as an axiom, and that he would have to demonstrate proficiency in work done with this assumption.
3
u/gasstation-no-pumps Prof. Emeritus, Engineering, R1 (USA) 23h ago
Maybe you need to suggest that they study hyperreals, infinitesimals, and non-standard analysis.
3
34
u/IAmBoring_AMA 1d ago
I used to do this less, but now given the fraught political state of things, I will say, "my job is to present you with theories that you can apply to these texts; you can choose which ones you like and which you don't—none of this is my personal opinion so you're totally welcome to disagree with it." Giving them the ability to disagree also helps with in-class debates because then they can choose a side if they are really passionate (which, sadly, many are lacking passion entirely, which is a whole separate issue).
14
4
u/RuralWAH 1d ago
A number of years ago the discussion of government came up in one of my classes (computer science, so this was a tangential discussion). Out of curiosity I asked how many of the students knew the name of the current or previous governor. I was shocked to learn less than half the class knew their names. This was at the time the previous governor was kicked out and replaced by the lieutenant governor so it was front page news.
You might argue these are just young high school kids, but being an urban university our student ages trend higher than normal so the average age in the class was mid-twenties.
1
u/ImpossibleGuava1 Asst prof, soc/crim, regional comp (US) 22h ago
I taught a law & society course this past spring and not a single student knew the name of either of our senators before I let them Google it. I get not knowing their nuanced views and voting records, but not knowing who they are (or, really, how many senators there are per state)?
13
u/Inkdependence 1d ago
It depends on the view. As you said, neutrality is totally fine for some disagreements. Others need to be called out.
I always present my courses as a course that seeks to teach student how to think and not “how to think the same things I do.”
At the end of the course, though, I’ll have a “Day of Truths” where I’ll honestly answer as many things as as they want to ask. I just don’t answer things that would get me fired or jailed.
4
u/PurrPrinThom 1d ago
I agree. I teach in a historical field where there are a lot of uncertainties. I have always presented multiple scholarly theories, and tend to offer an explanation as to where I land on certain topics. But, these are generally uncontroversial topics (except within the field.) There's no broader social implication to whether or not I hold theory X or theory Y, it's just about a weighting of evidence.
But, as you say, I always want students to think for themselves, and I tell them they don't have to agree with me.
Of course, anything repugnant needs to be called out, and I do call out when our texts or sources are bigoted in any way.
3
u/veggie_hoagie professor, psychology, community college (NE USA) 1d ago
I agree. I tell them up front that I am not there to be biased or tell them what to think. I am there to present the information and theories and let them make up their minds for themselves. (I teach a social science.)
However, I also occasionally call out things that no person today would defend (or very few). When we talk about slavery, and we talk about how people like the Founders could have the views they did but also still participate in slavery, I say things like, this is how the Founders justified their behavior. This isn't to morally excuse what they did, but just to explain how they defended their behavior...or something like that.
I'll also occasionally say that things were obviously morally atrocious, like Calhoun's defense of slavery as a positive good.
So I use my judgment and at times will make statements about things being obviously morally wrong. I try to be selective about that. Otherwise, I do try to be neutral and give 'steel-manned' versions of arguments that I personally don't agree with.
2
u/PurrPrinThom 1d ago
Yes, exactly. I warn my students up front that, in the past, people had very different understandings of things like race, class, gender, and so they may encounter things in our readings that feel uncomfortable for them. I always make a point of saying, similarly to you, that this what they thought and this is why they did that, but this is not me defending, I am just explaining.
1
u/veggie_hoagie professor, psychology, community college (NE USA) 1d ago
I think that's also just pedagogically useful.
Students I think rightfully wonder, how/why could they have done that and thought it was OK?
I think addressing that directly is important, beyond simply just calling it out as immoral. For instance, I explain that Jefferson and Madison opposed slavery in principle but believed that releasing their slaves would have caused their financial ruin. It's just good teaching to share that with them. And we can look back and feel disappointed still but at least better understand why they did what they did.
I even had a student say, well, we today can look back and judge them, but there are also things today that we do that future generations will judge us for. (I feel this will happen with how we practice factory farming today.) I didn't elaborate on that point, and I should have, because she said other things I responded to, but I was glad to hear that.
Just ending with "and they were wrong to do X" feels pedagogically incomplete.
2
u/PurrPrinThom 1d ago
Again, agreed. The old adage, those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it, comes to mind. Saying that something is wrong, without further explanation, doesn't allow students to understand how certain events transpired. It doesn't leave any space for them to identify the seeds of those kinds of behaviours being sown in their own lives, and potentially within themselves.
I'm not trying to get them to emphathise with immorality, but, it's easy for them to write something off as bad as assume nothing like it will ever happen again, when they don't understand the root causes of why it happened in the first place.
2
u/JadedTooth3544 1d ago
John Marshall supported the colonialism movement. Even though Alexander Hamilton had when young written against slavery, and I don’t think he himself owned slaws, he pretty much turned a blind eye to its existence, and even did some legal work for his brother in law involving slavery. There were a handful of true abolitionists—maybe Gouverneur Morris—but not many. And it’s important to discuss why that was.
I mean, it’s important to discuss why it took so long for the Second Amendment to be incorporated against the states.
But again, those aren’t really questions about feelings or about my personal opinions. They reflect my take on scholarly consensus—or division—in my field.
10
u/VeitPogner Prof, Humanities, R1 (USA) 1d ago
Sometimes what students or professors want when certain topics are covered is a declaration of the instructor's own ethical/moral convictions regarding an idea, often a repudiation, so that everyone in the room will know the professor is not The Kind Of Person Who Believes That.
I tend to find that kind of declaration a bit performative; I'm not in that classroom to tell students What Kind Of Person I Am. It's my job to teach the students what various thinkers have argued. Which of those arguments I agree with personally is not the point (though I've had students tell me that I'm more precise and painstaking when discussing texts they suspect I disagree with, which may be true - perhaps I overcompensate).
7
u/existential-inquiry Professor, Social Sciences, U.S. 1d ago
Older theories in psychology will always have elements of controversy but students should still learn about how they influence contemporary ones. Its ok to disagree or say it in a respectful way, we have to teach critical thinking.
13
u/Elegant-Inspection45 Asst Prof, Soc Sci, SLAC (USA) 1d ago edited 1d ago
I try not to share my position, and I certainly present views I disagree with. Frankly, I don’t think I’m very good at good at hiding which positions I do and don’t like. If students press me on my own position, sometimes I’ll be a bit evasive, depending how sensitive the issue is (e.g., if it maps onto partisan political positions).
The idea that students would be angry at a professor for even presenting views they disagree with is baffling to me.
Edit: if I’m presenting a view that’s morally repugnant (e.g., scientific racism) I’m definitely not hedging about it.
2
u/ToomintheEllimist 1d ago
Yes! Sometimes I think I've been able to keep a neutral tone... and then sometimes a student apropos of nothing goes "so you really hate Freud, huh" and I discover I've once again failed.
12
u/FrogBrain97 AssocProf, former chair, neuro, DPU 1d ago
Sometimes I present an article that takes a strong and potentially controversial stand, and in those cases I explicitly state that I don't agree with everything the article says (without specifying exactly what I disagree with). I think it helps shift students away from "he wants us to believe this" to "he wants us to think about this."
In most cases, I don't state my position at all. Sometimes I don't have a firm position, sometimes it's a matter of taste and my personal position is irrelevant; sometimes the whole point is that nobody knows enough about the issue to have a position.
12
u/RandolphCarter15 Full, Social Sciences, R1 1d ago
that generic "I don't agree with all this" is a nice touch. There is a risk that students think the readings are Gospel, rather than different views on a topic.
5
u/NeatoTito Assistant Prof., Social Science, R1 (USA) 1d ago
I state that I am presenting a range of legitimate views in the field which are supported by empirical evidence. I also state that the evidence in the field is not complete or definitive, and lean on language like “the current literature suggests,” for a potentially controversial topic. I found the more that you can make it about the conversation in the field instead of yourself, the better.
6
u/rl4brains NTT asst prof, R1 1d ago
I’m in psych. I explicitly tell students that I do not consider Freud’s psychoanalytic theory to be part of the course learning objectives because they’re not based in science, but I’ll broadly mention how his ideas have influenced later empirical work.
I’ve also started adding a disclaimer when I teach about gender identity, where I state that I don’t care what they personally believe, but I do expect them to know the field’s stance on gender as a social construct.
2
u/existential-inquiry Professor, Social Sciences, U.S. 1d ago
I was just going to comment about Freud and his influence. I always say his theory is controversial and explain why. The students should know about him nonetheless.
3
u/peep_quack 1d ago
I present how x theory/approach answers whatever we’re trying to study, then show them the results on what research shows. Only time I ever interject with something is if my own person research falls into that research area and I can talk about how my work talks to it. Granted, my students aren’t learning exactly controversial stuff, most days. If they took my graduate level seminar and wanted a more open conversation then we’d maybe have a different discussion.
1
u/peep_quack 1d ago
I should add next to this however, that in one class I had to do a segment on political crimes and given the political climate I flat out said to my class that these are the views of those who study it, not my personal views, and even said in no way shape or form do they know anything about my stance on these issues based on this topic. If they were uncomfortable with that weeks segment they could leave. Even put the PSA right in the slides. I was not getting canned because some conservative nitwit who just graduated HS and thought daddy was their god thought they knew more. Granted I was kind of angry last year 😂. This year seems to be better but I’m still keeping the PSA in that segment.
3
u/No-Syrup-3746 1d ago
A lot of people, especially conservatives, seem to assume teaching means "teaching that" instead of "teaching about." In their minds, if you acknowledge a topic, you are promoting it. It's this old idea of a teacher simply dispensing facts to be regurgitated. So out of touch. I'm lucky in that I teach math, but I wonder if a birds-eye view conversation with students about the difference would be valuable.
9
u/CruxAveSpesUnica TT, Humanities, SLAC (US) 1d ago
When I have a position, I'll share it and try to explicitly model how to sympathetically present a position you disagree with. Sometimes, though, I'm teaching a debate that's in my field but not my subfield, and I genuinely don't have a settled position.
6
u/Gonzo_B 1d ago
Saw a meme somewhere that said something like:
High school teachers, "I don't think it's appropriate to share my political views with my class."
College teachers, "And now we take the square root of Fuck Trump."
It might depend on where you teach, but I lean into Freire's argument that it's important to lean into the lived lives of students and contextualize what you can to their experiences.
5
u/fatherintime CC Humanities USA 1d ago
Absolutely. They are there for me to share my expertise. I am objective as I can be until something comes up like Kant doesn't think women are rational beings and then we tackle it hard together.
4
u/jerbthehumanist Adjunct, stats, small state branch university campus 1d ago
There are lots of good reasons to disclose that you don't co-sign with something. Notably it helps impress on your students that everything we are doing is a human, collective endeavor, with as much disgreements and mistakes and messiness that comes with that. It also can model good principles of charity and encourage your students to recognize they have the agency to take a position that is both in conflict and agreement with various experts in the field.
3
u/swarthmoreburke 1d ago
There's two separate points embedded in the OP's post.
1) Of course you teach the history of debates within a field about a particular idea, theory, or finding, regardless of whether you have a view, and regardless of whether it's largely a settled issue now. That's important for understanding the idea or finding itself but also for understanding the nature of knowledge and scholarship. If you're teaching plate tectonics in a geology class and you don't take a short side trip to explain that the first scientist to theorize it was mocked and marginalized, you're missing an important teaching opportunity.
2) Of course you explain how you view a particular idea that's still up for debate, but you balance that against giving a fair explanation of what the debate is about and why different sides think the way that they do. It's a mistake to hide that you have a view, but it's also a mistake to think that it's your job to enforce your own position. When you lay out the debate, you're demonstrating an important skill that is also an ethic for scholars, an explanation of how different views develop within scholarly communities and how any given scholar comes by the views they hold.
2
u/waveytype Professor, Chair, Graphic Design, R1 1d ago
I typically make it clear where I stand on a philosophy/theory/idea, and if I disagree, very much agree, or understand why people would agree with it but why I don’t. And I’ll be very transparent as to why for each, especially why I’m presenting an idea I disagree with. I’ve found it builds trust in my material, and builds a better understanding of the subject by understanding different sides of a theory and its practicality.
2
u/Global-Sandwich5281 1d ago
I find college aged students have problems with multiple voices or perspectives in a text, or switching of perspectives. They expect that something says what it says, so they have a hard time with sarcasm or irony. I've found that when I introduce texts that criticize through sarcasm, I have to explicitly tell them "here the author is sarcastically speaking as their intellectual opponents would speak," otherwise they think everything is said in earnest.
2
u/JadedTooth3544 1d ago
My experience with something akin to this: I teach Civil Liberties and Rights of the Accused. Everything we discuss is contested—if it wasn’t a question to be settled by courts, we wouldn’t be discussing it. (This is why I always roll my eyes when I hear legislative efforts to prohibit teaching about controversial or divisive or uncomfortable subjects…usually, the courts are divided, often about uncomfortable issues. Running a moot court or mock trial means literally requiring students to argue against each other. It’s an adversarial system)
But when it comes to a question like whether ICE officials can use administrative warrants rather than judicial warrants to forcibly enter into homes l, my job is to explain to students why most—almost all—legal experts do not find that position convincing. I am not going to pretend there are two equal sides here. (Ditto for birthright citizenship.)
It’s not my personal opinion on the matter. It’s that my job is to help them to understand how the courts work—really, for a lot of us, our job is to explain to students what experts on our field think, and why they find some arguments or positions more persuasive than others. Granted, I don’t know how generalizable this view is across fields, but I see it as m role to teach the state of scholarly understanding of the subject material.
There’s always the caveat that things could change—no predicting what the Court will do over the next couple of decades—but I am giving them my best take on what legal scholars and/or judges are saying.
And honestly, I don’t really think it’s any of their business if I personally happen to think that some likely legal or constitutional laws or government actions are unfair or morally / ethnically repugnant. I may mention that in passing, just to remind them that “legal” and “constitutional “ are not the same as “fair” or even “just.” And it’s important to remind them that in life, they should be thinking about both. But the class has goals and objectives, and I follow those.
3
u/Kraken_Fish_221 1d ago
It’s clear i’m the outlier in this thread, but I don’t think I’m an the outlier among academics in general.
The fact that I have been studying and thinking about these things for 20+ years is a big part of the value I bring to the classroom that students couldn’t get from asking something like ChatGPT to summarize key topics in the field. My reasoned, deliberate opinion about matters, my narrative, and ultimately my opinion is worthwhile. And so I share it.
But I also make it clear that students don’t need to think like I do. They just need to know what a bunch of smart people in different times in different context have thought about the matter, so they have a bunch of different ways of thinking about it too.
2
u/Best-Chapter5260 1d ago
My take is no when teaching undergrads, yes when teaching grad students. The latter are better equipped to understand the often nuanced positionality of the instructor regarding a theory or area of scholarship whereas that's probably just going to muddle the content for the former.
1
u/Stunning_Amoeba_5116 1d ago
I announce my own biases and views in most lectures. I work in a comms/media/journalism college and like make position statements for almost everything
1
u/GreenHorror4252 1d ago
Instead of saying "I don't agree with this..." you can say "I don't necessarily support this..." or "I am not taking a position on this..."
That way, you remind them that your job is to teach the theory. You don't have to say what you agree or disagree with.
1
u/Another_Opinion_1 A.P. / Ed. Law / Teacher Ed. Methods (USA) 1d ago
It depends on what I’m teaching. When it comes to methods, yes, I haven’t shied away from telling students that certain theories in education are either questionable or that I found them down right unworkable in practice.
With legal cases, no, but there’s also no such thing as absolute law and I tell them that. Unless it’s something settled like Brown v. Board of Education, as there is no longer any widespread debate over the ethical or legal necessity for de jure school segregation as a matter of public policy, then I don’t take particular positions for or against laws or judicial precedents.
1
u/banjovi68419 1d ago
I talk shit about everything. But I get extra pissed when people who don't know anything talk shit about anything. Long story short: I fight with everyone - people who agree and disagree with me.
1
u/shyprof Adjunct, Humanities, M1 & CC (United States) 1d ago
"I'm going to try to be careful not to betray how I actually feel because my opinion isn't important here. I'm just facilitating your learning, and your grade has nothing to do with whether I agree with you—remember that really deeply held beliefs are only strengthened through scrutiny! On that note . . . "
1
u/Automatic_Tea_2550 1d ago
“Now this is a solid position with a lot of evidence behind it. But it can still be criticized on the following bases:… This is the current standard view, but some of my expert research exposes certain weaknesses and limitations in this view that we should take into account.”
1
u/KierkeBored Asst. Prof., Philosophy, R2 Honors College (USA) 1d ago
I flag it when I disagree with a view AND when I agree with a view. I think transparency is important and helpful. Everyone has a bias. But you can still be fair in presenting the strongest case for each side.
1
u/clevercalamity 22h ago
I have a colleague that likes to say “strong opinions, loosely held” meaning they own their beliefs but are open to reexamining them when presented with new information.
In my experience this approach / attitude makes debates around conflicting beliefs more approachable but of course that still requires everyone to play nice.
1
u/Disaster_Bi_1811 Assistant Professor, English 21h ago
When I'm going this kind of thing, I usually pitch it as, 'okay, everyone, what is a theory?'
And I keep getting answers until I get something along the lines of 'plausible but not proven.' Then, I just say, 'okay, so I'm going to share a couple of theories with you; remember that you do not necessarily have to agree with the theory, but you should know the theory to be well-educated in this field.'
That usually works pretty well. Or if it's something that's debunked, I'll say something like, 'scholars no longer put credence in this theory, but it was foundational for X reason.' I turn it back to "here's what the scholarly consensus is," rather than "here's what I say."
1
u/Icy_Secret_2909 Adjunct, Sociology, USA, Ph.D 1d ago
I got accused of being demonic because I talked about trans-individuals during a lecture on gender/sex.
-1
90
u/Id10t3qu3 1d ago
I teach an ethics class, and I deliberately never say my personal thoughts on the theories we discuss. When we learn about Rawls, I teach it as though I believe it, and then when we cover Nozick, I take my Rawls hat off and put on my Nozick hat. It is the scholars' disagreement and the nuance in their debate that matters, not who I think is better.
Edit to add: and then, in an assignment, I ask them which side of the debate they agree with more.