Pedagocial Slavery

Today, a professor from my law school alma mater was asked to take a leave of absence. The long and the short of the situation was apparently this (if you read through the comments, a student in the class enlightened everyone, in detail, as to what happened and it is not the same as the article itself): during a class discussing legal remedies available to plaintiffs, the professor asked whether descendants of slaves today were better off than their counterparts still living in Africa. Since the purpose of remedies is to make people equal to where they would have been without the injustice, the extreme argument is that if ancestors were never brought here, then their descendants would still be in Africa. At the same time, he showed a video with an interview by a pimp showing how the pimp treated prostitutes as his slaves, controlling their money and living situation. His point was that slavery still exists in this country. When the interview ended, it overlapped with a screen shot of a woman in a provocative stance, scantily clad.

Apparently, several students were incensed not just over the video but also over comments made by other students in the room. Those not in the room are unable to attest as to the comments made. One of the many issues is that the professor was asked to take a leave of absence for the rest of the semester starting immediately. This particular professor is well-known on campus for many things - being a bit of a lech, being intellectually provacative, pushing students’ buttons, being loved, and being hated. Regardless of whether one likes or dislikes his pedagogical philosophy, the issues seem to be partly of academic freedom and partly of administrative respect.

Academic freedom, agreed, needs to flow in two directions. Teachers in higher education need to be allowed to present information in the way they feel will best educate their students. Now, when faced with a roomful of students staring back blankly, a professor will often do whatever he/she can to incite students to participate. Birmingham, the professor in question, is one of those educators. His pedagogical approach is to present an extreme argument meant to inflame emotions. Often, he pushes students to the extreme in class to make them articulate an argument. Students are/were often insulted by his point of view. However, it should be noted that his personal point of view was never made public to students until after graduation. He would often play both sides of a single argument tryiing to elicit a logical, reasoned response from a student.

This particular professor disregards arguments that have no logical reasoning behind them. His goal is to incite riot, then shake out the gut reactions in a logical fashion. Although his classes are not formal in the sense that they are not rote memorization, they teach valuable skills such as thinking on one’s feet and explaining oneself clearly and logically. For some students, his methods open their minds in ways that they have not previously experienced.

His methods may be unorthodox. Indeed, he may even have sexually harassed some female students. Both of these arguments have supporting evidence or testimony, be it formal or informal. His reputation precedes him on the campus. There is a choice whether to take his classes or not, except for the one required class he teaches every two or three years. There is merit in having someone such as him in an academic environment intended to elicit new thinking and problem solving.

While students must feel comfortable expressing their opinions in class, one of the issues that seems to be creeping into the conversations attached to the article is that the students whose views insulted others in the classroom were not shut down to restore calm in the classroom. This is a thin line to walk. At what point does not allowing students to voice potentially insulting viewpoints compromise their abilities to feel comfortable expressing their opinions and participate in their education? Moreover, if students are offended in a classroom setting in which the educator openly welcomes debate, why can they not speak up for themselves to debate students who are making the obnoxious comments? Yes, the educator is in control of the room. Yes, the educator should be aware of classroom dynamics. However, since these are law school students, they are at least 22 years of age and already well-educated adults. At this age, they should be able to stand up for themselves. This seems to be a symptom of young people not being willing to take responsibility for their feelings but to expect someone else to intervene on their behalf to make things better for them. At some point, students need to be able to take responsibility and stand up for themselves as opposed to hoping someone else will fix the problem. Part of the educational process is learning how to respond to others in society.

The second major issue in this situation is that of the reaction of the administration. The comment by a current student indicates that this incident took place in an Evening Class (there are Evening and Day Divisions at the school). The current Dean decided to request that the professor leave. A campus meeting was held for students to discuss their concerns. The meeting was at 5pm on a week night. At 5pm, most Evening Division students are still at work. Most cannot afford to take time off of work to attend a meeting on a campus to air feelings. They have other responsibilities. This is just one incident of treating one group of students as “less than” on the campus.

The disconcerting aspect of this situation is that the cause of the request to leave lies in insulting a group of students. However, the administration feels that it is not necessary to incorporate the views of another group of students that could not attend the campus meeting. There was no attempt to make the meeting convenient for the Evening Division students who were directly affected. This is a pattern of behavior with this Dean that existed back when he was Dean of Students, and Evening Division education requirements were not as elaborate as Day Division, thus creating a “less than” education. The requirement issue has since been rectified after students fought for their rights; however, this willingness to only listen to those students whose opinion he respects and agrees with continues.

This is, perhaps, a more insidious issue example of student academic freedom. One group of students being considered less than the others - less dedicated, less worthy - implies that only certain viewpoints will be heard. This compromises the education of these students who pay equal tuition to those who are there full time. Why is it that these students’ views are considered not equal to those of the full time students? Why is it that their voices were not allowed to be heard? This is a situation in which beliefs and rights are stifled. This is no different than what Birmingham allegedly did by not controlling one group of ideas in support of another. This makes the administration, in some respects, worse than the professor being asked to take a leave of absence. The administration is, in effect, hypocritcal. It will request a professor resign for not being sensitive to student concerns and yet does the same thing.

In the end, the issue regarding reparations for descendants of slaves was the issue being discussed in the class. The professor’s tactics and control of classroom dynamics may have been an issue; however, it is his right as the professor to conduct his class the way he wishes. It is the right of the students to complain. To request him to leave because he did not require students to conform to one set of beliefs, however, is a version of slavery. The Dean is the pedagogical pimp, controlling the teacher’s money and his teaching situation. It is nothing more than pedagogical slavery.