“History has a liberal bias,” one of my undergraduate professors informed us on the third day of class. His comments were in response to a student who asked why all his professors seemed to be left-leaning. I thought about that statement a lot throughout graduate school, as I met professors and students who, with very few exceptions, embraced liberal or left-wing politics in one capacity or another. Most historians, myself included, hold a commitment to social justice that informs our scholarship, alters our interpretations, and influences our teaching.
But taking graduate classes and teaching undergraduates are two very different things. When I started my teaching career, I often wondered about the appropriate level of political discussion, and I noticed that professors seemed to fall into two camps. Let’s call the first camp the neutrals. These professors have deeply held opinions about politics that tend to overlap with their study of history. But they make it a point to never reveal their personal viewpoints to students, preferring instead to play devil’s advocate from a variety of perspectives. For example, I had a friend who was incredibly active in local Democratic politics who proudly proclaimed, “My students aren’t sure if I’m a Republican or a Democrat.” Other professors (let’s call them the activists) don’t believe in that kind of separation between the personal and the professional. They assume that in a marketplace of ideas, students are capable of interacting with different political viewpoints, even if the person expressing those views is responsible for grading their papers. I don’t have a strong preference for either of these approaches, and I think they are each appropriate at times. It’s up to the professor to determine which style works best in the classroom at any given moment. A student who might respond well to authenticity at one moment may need the devil’s advocate approach in the next.
One thing I’ve realized over the past several years is that there really are no easy answers. I think we all believe deeply in academic freedom and trust faculty to determine appropriate classroom interactions. But how would we feel about a professor openly opposing marriage equality in the classroom? What about racism or sexism? What if a professor used her classroom to promote a particular brand of religion? If a professor’s freedom to share his viewpoints creates an environment of intimidation or prejudice, does academic freedom protect him? Probably not.
I’ll close by throwing out one idea: There is a difference between overt partisanship and the expression of broad political ideals. Advocating for a particular political candidate might be inappropriate, while expressing support for basic human rights is an integral part of most of our courses. My sense is that many historians view our work as vital to the cultivation of democracy, equality, and justice. How adept we are at expressing those ideals in the classroom will determine what kind of changes we create in society.
I’m interested to hear from others on this topic. What do you think?
Thank you Blake for asking these important, difficult questions. You’ve prompted me to think more explicitly about how I handle “the politics of politics,” as you cleverly put it. I certainly do not have settled answers, but I tend to seek authenticity without intimidation. I’ve given up on attempts to completely hide my values. I know that some instructors can do it, but I just can’t. What I can do, however, is communicate a genuine sense of intellectual humility, creating a safe space for students to express different answers. My teaching model is that of the honest, transparent inquirer. I use the past to interrogate my values, and vice versa. I encourage my students to do the same. I suppose I am unsettled enough in my ideologies to remain open to change, and for me, sharing that openness, curiosity, and humility with students enables us to be reflective about political values. I’m not in the classroom to convert students to my ideologies, but it is a goal of mine to convert them to critically evaluating their values. I teach methods of critical thinking, not ideology, and the best way for me to do that seems to be modeling the process myself.
Actually, I don’t think anyone can completely hide their values in the classroom. On the first day, my students learn that I value things like punctuality, individual responsibility, academic integrity, etc. Nonetheless, I agree with you that humility is essential to good teaching.
I’d say I’m in Blake’s first camp, the neutrals. That preference may stem from the fact that I began my career teaching philosophy, which definitely shaped my teaching style. In fact, I began teaching Introduction to Logic, where I taught students how to formulate and critique arguments. But I think the main reason most students can’t figure out if I’m a a Republican or a Democrat is because I can authentically point out what I believe to be strengths and weaknesses in most political figures, movements, parties, etc. None of them perfectly reflect a completely coherent political ideology (assuming that completely coherent ideologies are even humanly possible, which I doubt) because humans act in real situations with conflicting demands and responsibilities.
As my father in law facetiously says, my job is to bring students to a higher level of confusion. I want students to move far beyond the punditry that surrounds us and learn to see the complexity of politics and other historical issues.
Having said all of that, when I first switched to teaching history, I marveled at the opportunity to make extended, semester long genetic arguments. I think we all do that by spinning out our interpretation of the history we cover in each course. We provide a story about the genesis of the present. But by bit, we can lay out premises subtly all semester long that make our interpretation seem like the most plausible one by the end of the semester. As Tom Haskell wrote, “objectivity is not neutrality.” I seek an operational objectivity, weighing all the evidence that I can on interpretations of the New Deal, for example, and then I present what I believe is the best interpretation. That interpretation fits together with the larger interpretation I began spinning out back when we were covering Reconstruction and it will fit in with my interpretation of the Reagan years.
Jim,
I agree with you that remembering Haskell’s words can be a big help in the classroom. We don’t really have the option of neutrality, even if we wanted it. As you pointed out, we all have a certain set of values that come across in the classroom. I like your idea of presenting a variety of interpretations, but making clear which one you think makes the most sense. That is especially true for topics like the New Deal, 60s liberalism, Reagan’s America, etc. Thanks for reading and giving us your thoughts!
Very well put. I think your point about humility is really important. Using the classroom to promote any rigid ideology isn’t helpful, but authenticity can draw students into the process of critical inquiry. It’s such a hard balance. Anyone who says they have mastered it is probably lying.
This comment has been removed by the author.
{{{ beaming with pride }}}
Awwwwwwwwwww. You taught me well! 🙂
This comment has been removed by the author.