We saw yesterday (post here), that Mika BrzezinskiÂ , cohost of Morning Joe,Â said that it’s the media’s jobÂ â€œactually control exactly what people think.â€ She obviously didn’t mean that, some people jumped on it anyway. Here’s another example of lapsus profiteeringÂ (I’ll find a better name).
Today let’s think for a second about the phrase “telling people what to think” and its cognates. I bring this up because sometime today at CPAC, Betsy DeVos, the new Secretary of Education, filed, for the nth time, the complaint that universities “tell people what to think.” Â From the Chronicle of Higher Education:
â€œThe faculty, from adjunct professors to deans, tell you what to do, what to say, and more ominously, what to think. They say that if you voted for Donald Trump, youâ€™re a threat to the university community,â€ read the remarks. â€œBut the real threat is silencing the First Amendment rights of people with whom you disagree.â€
Teaching is pretty challenging. You have to deal, in the first place, with people who are not your epistemic peers. This means they know less than you do. As a result you seem pretty pedantic much of the time and pretty much anything you do with them in class will involveÂ telling them what to think. For instance: don’tÂ generalize from marginal cases;Â don’t straw man people you’re arguing with; and don’t base your argument on vague and equivocal terminology, like “think” (in the above case).Â Now naturally I’ll giveÂ reasons for their thinking this.Â But I’m still telling them what to think. That charge is inescapable because, and I’m telling you what to think again,Â vacuous.
Yes, of course she means to dust off the old one about “indoctrination” and the like. Well, while we’re lazily advancing tropes, here’s one of my own. I’ve tried and tried to indoctrinate my students into not using the passive voice –yet it still gets used! How successful will I be in getting them to accept the subtleties of my modified version of Rawls’ theory of justice?
2 thoughts on “What to think”
Right on, John. The whole point of teaching is to have some knowledge (or at least epistemically improved belief) on the other side of the process.
Moreover, it’s usually the conservatives who hold that the substantive vs procedural notions of education (what to think vs how to think) should tilt toward substantive. It’s not that they object to people with expertise having influence over student minds, but it’s the nature of the influence they object to.
One last thing, and underlining that most teaching comes with backing arguments. When I do provide my students with contents for what to think on the other side, it’s because I’ve provided them with the kind of backing that justifies it. The problem with DeVos is that she, like too many, cannot distinguish institutional and epistemic authority.
Comments are closed.