In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, New to Teaching writes:
I’d love to start a discussion on whether we ought to tell our students our views on the material we’re teaching. Do you aim for your students to end the course not knowing what you think, perhaps because it shows that you’ve taught in a relatively unbiased way? Or, on the other hand, do you find that putting forward your own view provokes discussion and perhaps models a thoughtful approach to the issues? How likely are students to write essays they think the tutor will agree with in hopes of getting a better grade?
My inclination would be to not say much about my own views unless asked directly, but if asked, to answer honestly and openly. Is that a good strategy?
Any thoughts about the pros and cons of being more or less forthcoming about one’s philosophical views as a teacher would be appreciated.
I think this is a great query. My experience is that different people have very different views about this, and so I think it might be great to discuss it!
In response to the original comment, NK wrote:
I overhead a colleague talking with a student last year about one of her papers. She was objecting to a particular philosopher's views, and I thought she was making exactly the right kind of objection. My colleague, of course, kept coming up with responses on behalf of the philosopher in question. At some point, it occurred to me that, on the face of it, he was basically trying to talk her into accepting a bad view, which seems like a strange thing to do. Granted, on a deeper level, he was really just pressing her to articulate her objection more clearly and take account of possible responses. But I do wonder: do we need to hide our views to do that?
I'd like to think that there's a better strategy: be open about your views, but humble in light of your fallibility. Because, after all, if you think there are answers to the questions you're asking, and you're trying to find those answers, you'll almost certainly have views (at least about which views are dead ends). Hiding your views, I fear, just makes philosophy look like a game of clever arguing. So I've actually gravitated towards being more open about my views––but also trying to point out parts of those views I'm not sure I know how to defend. So I'll regularly pull a "This is what I think, but I'm not really sure, because [explain some problem for the view]."
In short, I'm inclined to think that there needs to be a sharp distinction between a philosophy class and a debate club, and revealing that you have views is one way of distinguishing the philosophy class.
Revealing that you have views might also empower your students to try to figure out what they actually think, and defend it, which is surely what we really want them to do. If we just teach the textbook objections, what do we expect them to do but memorize the textbook objections and spew them back at us?
My feelings are similar. I see my job as an instructor to develop my students' ability to understand and do philosophy. Yet, when we do philosophy, we don't bracket our own views. We defend things, and then engage in critical philosophical discussion with others. At the same time, doing philosophy well also involves charitably presenting and evaluating others' arguments. So, what I do when I teach is that I "go to the mat" for every view. Even when it's a view I reject, I present the view (and arguments for it) as forcefully as I can, such that my students often (erroneously) think I endorse the view. Then, as conversation proceeds, my students usually learn the problems I have with it. I don't often say, "My view is X" (though, if students ask, I may answer). Rather, it just often becomes clear in conversation what I think. Finally, at the same time, since I don't have settled views on many things, that often becomes clear in the classroom too: namely, that on particular topics I find different (and opposing) arguments roughly equally persuasive.
My own sense is that teaching philosophy this way makes it "real" and exciting for students, whereas "hiding" one's views makes philosophy seem more like a game of understanding arguments and objections. I've had numerous students say as much in my student evaluations, stating that they appreciate being treated as equals and collaborators in philosophical debate rather than being 'taught to'–which is more or less how I felt as an undergraduate when my professors did things this way.
I have heard some in the profession voice concerns about the effects of power-differentials here–basically, that because a professor has power over students, students may seek to please the professor by defending the professor's views. However, I believe this issue can be addressed effectively by making it clear in one's syllabi that students should not think that "agreeing with the professor" is the way to get a good grade, that they will be graded on the quality of their argumentation regardless of whether the professor agrees with their position, and that, if anything, the professor may be more impressed if the student gives a good argument against the professor's favored view. I also think it is vital, of course, to live up to this standard in one's grading practices: grading assignments that agree or disagree with one's favored views equally, on the basis of the quality of the student's argumentation.
Anyway, these are my thoughts. What are yours?
Leave a Reply