I am a theoretical physicist and currently Director of 
July 13, 2005
Should professors reveal their views?
During the last academic year, UCITE organized a faculty seminar on whether, and how much, of their own views professors should reveal to the students in their classes.
One faculty member recalled one of her own teachers admiringly. She said that he had guided the discussions in her college classes very skillfully and in such a way that no one knew what his own views were on the (often controversial) topics they discussed. She felt that his avoidance on revealing his own views led to a greater willingness on the part of students to express their own, since they were not agreeing or disagreeing with the authority figure. She felt that his model was one that others should follow.
Underlying this model is the belief that students may fear that going against the views of the professor might result in them being penalized or that agreeing with the professor might be viewed as an attempt at ingratiation to get better grades.
I am not convinced by this argument, both on a practical level and on principle, but am open to persuasion.
As a purely practical matter, I am not sure how many of us have the skills to pull off what this admired professor did. It seems to me that it would be enormously difficult to spend a whole semester discussing things with a group of people without revealing one's own position on the topics. It is hard to keep aloof from the discussion if one is intensely interested in the topic. As readers of this blog know, I have opinions on a lot of things and if such topics come up for discussion, I am not sure that I have the ability to successfully conceal my views from students. So many of us will betray ourselves, by word or tone or nuances, despite our best efforts at concealment.
But I am also not convinced that this is a good idea even in principle, and I'd like to put out my concerns and get some feedback, since I know that some of the readers of this blog are either currently students or have recently been students.
One concern about hiding my own views is precisely that the act of hiding means that I am behaving artificially. After all, I assume that students know that academics tend to have strong views on things, and they will assume that I am no exception. Those students who speak their minds irrespective of the instructor's views won't care whether I reveal my views or not, or whether they agree with me or not. But for those students for whom my views are pertinent, isn't it better for them to know exactly where I stand so that they can tailor their comments appropriately and accurately, rather than trying to play guessing games and risk being wrong?
Another concern that I have arises from my personal view that the purpose of discussions is not to argue or change people's views on anything but for people to better understand why they believe whatever they believe. And one of the best ways to achieve such understanding is to hear the basis for other people's beliefs. By probing with questions the reasoning of other people, and by having others ask you questions about your own beliefs, all of the participants in a discussion obtain deeper understanding. In the course of such discussions, some of our views might change but that is an incidental byproduct of discussions, not the goal.
Seen in this light, I see my role as a teacher as modeling this kind of behavior, and this requires me to reveal my views, to demonstrate how I use evidence and argument to arrive at my conclusions. I feel (hope?) that students benefit from hearing the views of someone who has perhaps, simply by virtue of being older, thought about these things for a longer time than they have, even if they do not agree with my conclusions. To play the role of just a discussion monitor and not share my views seems to defeat one of the purposes of my being in the classroom.
The fly in the ointment (as always) is the issue of grades. I (of course) think that I will not think negatively of someone who holds views opposed to mine and it will not affect their grades. But that is easy for me to say since I am not the one being graded. Students may not be that sanguine about my objectivity, and worry about how I view them if they should disagree with me.
When I raised this topic briefly with my own class last year, they all seemed to come down in favor of professors NOT hiding their personal views. But I am curious as to what readers of this blog think.
Do you think professors should reveal their views or keep them hidden?
POST SCRIPT 1
The website Crooks and Liars has posted a funny video clip from the Daily Show that addresses how high levels of fear are generated in America, a topic that I blogged about earlier.
This article by John Nichols compares the British response to the tragedy with the way the American media tried to frame it.
POST SCRIPT 2
Also, for those of you struggling to keep up with the complicated set of issues involved with the Valerie Plame-Joseph Wilson-Robert Novak-Judith Miller-Matthew Cooper-confidential journalistic sources issue, there is an excellent article by Robert Kuttner that (I hope) clears things up.
Comments
I have had a few professors sucessfully hide their opinions from me. I spent most of the semester trying to figure out what they believed and why, but to no avail. I find this frustrating.
You commented on this "air of objectivity" in the media (Politics and Fear Factor 2 comments) citing preference for knowing the bias of the source because people "tend to factor it in in interpreting the news they get."
Why would this be any different in the classroom? If my professor holds strong views on a subject relative to class, I think I have a right to know about the source of information that is feeding me, lest I be deceived or misled (even if only mildly).
Personally, my intellectual integrity has become more important than my grades. If I disagree with the professor I will write what I want to, give it my best shot, and if the professor gives me a lower grade I don't care so much if I believe in what I have written. I still haven't checked my grades from spring semester, and I don't plan to any time soon. If only we could rid ourselves of grades entirely.
Is UCITE working on that, getting rid of grades? Grades always seem to be such an impediment to learning. =)
I like Aaron's comparison to objectivity in the news media. The more a news source stresses that it is unbiased (FOXNews' "fair and balanced" campaign provides a salient example), the more I an inclined to look for the unavoidable prejudice that is included in all reporting. I specifically seek news sources that are up front with their biases, as I find that I am better able to draw my own conclusions from them.In my experience, the same applies to teaching. I found that classes in subjects that could easily generate controversy were most successful when professors explained disagreements, gave their opinions, defended them, and made it clear that differences of opinion among the students were perfectly acceptable. This last part, though, is crucial if discussion is to be successful.
I do think it was helpful when professors were able to hold back on their opinions at least at the start of the discussion, not to be secretive but to establish the discussion as open, to give students a chance to put their own opinions out there first. I don't know that it's helpful to have a professor hide their opinion the entire class; usually students can figure out what a professor thinks even when they are trying to be objective. But to come right out at the beginning of a discussion might make students hesistant to express opposing opinions.
I don't have a unitary opinion on this. Actually, I think Aaron's argument for openness is the best one: it's easier to correct for bias in the input when that bias is obvious.
On the other hand, it becomes more difficult to correct for bias in the input when everybody's bias is on the table *and* the bias points in a uniform direction. This is unfortunately the case in my home department: the professors here are astonishingly well-aligned in terms of their theoretical stances on one or two major issues in cognitive psychology, and so it's been hard in graduate school to separate "things that all psychologists believe because the evidence is overwhelming" from "things that this particular school holds to." And I've found that in this context I do appreciate the teachers (like my advisor) who are more reticent regarding their own beliefs. The more passionate ones too often seem to believe that the evidence for their position is as strong as, say, the evidence for evolution, and that anyone who disagrees must clearly be a moron or an ideologue. Which is stupid, because hello, it's psychology; none of our theories are really all that good yet. Or all that well-specified, for that matter.
I also want to point out that it is probably not actually obvious to students that academics tend to have strong opinions. I think very few of them have any idea what it is that academics *do*, or why they do it. It may be more obvious to students at Case, many of whom aspire to an academic career, than it is to people at my school, where the distribution of expectations from college and from life is much broader.
Pre-script: I believe that the title to this entry should contain the word "professors" (plural) rather than "professor's" (singular, possessive). Assuming that I am correct, please feel free to delete this pre-script after having made the change. [Thanks for pointing this out. I have made the change -MS]
While I have no problems with professors sharing their views on subject matter, they must be very careful just to share their views, and neither give the impression that their views are the only ones acceptable nor attempt to indoctrinate their students. (Indoctrination may not be a big problem at CWRU - but I have heard of it happening elsewhere.)
I had two professors during my undergraduate days, Gary Deimling (SOCI) and Alexander Lamis (POSC) who, despite their liberal views, had no objection to my conservatism. Those situations can be conducive to learning, as viewpoints can be discussed without fear of reprisal. However, I had one lecturer, E. Sue Wamsley (HIST), who granted me grades proportional to my agreement with her viewpoints. As this had never happened to me before, it took me quite a while to figure out why I was being penalized - that is, until I wrote a paper with which she agreed, and I finally got an A-. There was another student in the class who was a conservative who was nearly failed; fortunately, she managed to pass and her graduation was not impeded. Wamsley's excuse for docking me points was always that I had not included enough detail or breadth - and that my essays were too long. Schrodinger's Cat, anyone?
Considering the reputation that some have earned on the left, that is, that liberals are tolerant and therefore conservatives are intolerant, one of my favorite humorous musings is, "I'm a Conservative; therefore, I'm always right." (Before getting too angry too quickly, read that carefully.) This usually elicits a chuckle and a smirk from a conservative, a mild chuckle from a liberal, and much screaming from a radical liberal.
As the point of teaching is to convey information, political views should not be expressed except as asides and be labeled clearly by the professor as being views and opinions. Unfortunately, some in academia view the academic pulpit as one of inculcation and not one of instruction - and correcting that must be a top priority of all who care about the state of education in this country.
If a professor isn't going to reveal his opinions in a classroom where controversial topics are relevant, then I don't see why he needs to be there at all. In my experiance, an average group of 18-22 year olds can hold a reasonable debate without the need of a hall moniter.
Also, I'm not clear on how a professor who is inclined to dock students grades based on their clashing opinions will behave any differently if he's listening but not sharing. Their opinion still exists.
I enjoyed the informative article you linked to on the Plame-Rove debacle, but I don't agree with his closing suggestion:
"We need a public interest test, not an absolute privilege."
Public interest is of course relative (just look at the WSJ op-ed suggesting Rove should be thanked for his role in this: http://tinyurl.com/cqn2t), and such an approach would be doomed to indefinite partisan debate.
Reporters won't be able to effectively do their job if they have to apply a political litmus test based on the ruling party before deciding if they should even talk to a potential source (Miller went to jail without ever even publishing a story on this). And how willing will sources be to talk if they can't be assured confidentiality (or at least not until after the reporter hears what they have to say.
Though it can be misused like it has been here, it really seems to me that reporter-source confidentiality needs to be protected for the same reasons that we have whistleblower protection laws: it's one of the few checks we have on the secretive nature of those in power.
Speaking of the secretive nature of government, I found this article really interesting, and thought I'd share: http://tinyurl.com/abxu9
But getting back to my original point, it seems that Kuttner needs to sort out conflicting desires. He wants to see freedom of press and source confidentiality preserved, but not in this case seemingly because he didn't like Miller's usual stance on issues and he would like to see Rove get canned.
It also seems unjust not to mention the legal view on Miller's being sent to jail. The legal argument seems to be (as I understand it) that source confidentiality is not at stake here because this falls under circumstances that were never protected to begin with. Specifically, they're (supposedly) not protected because if a government official with legitimate access to the leaked confidential information shared that with them, then they *witnessed* a criminal act and can be subpoenaed to testify about it.
That may or may not be true, but even if it is, I still hold my personal belief that it *should* be protected.
I think that Alyx made a great point, if a professor is prone to bias he or she will be so whether or not his/her opinions are revealed. But I would like to think that grading biases are rare and also that what one learns is more important than one's grades.
If the goal is to teach, to inspire discussion, to get the students to think and wrestle with the issue, then I think it is quite useful for the professor to share his or her views. It brings a focal point to the discussion, personalizes the issue at hand and can be a great tool for bringing the topic to life.
I remember years ago I was taking a course in Japanese Government from Roger Bowen. (Current secretary general of American Association of University Professors who is known most for the sex conference scandal when he was Pres. of SUNY New Paltz)
One day, Roger (as he as known) was zipping around the classroom (he lived on caffeine and nicotine) telling us another story of his time in Japan. The topic was the clash between progress and tradition and the rights of the state and/corporate interests to take from those in their way. (Very similar to the recent Supreme Court Case involving eminent domain) Specifically farmers were being displaced to make way for transportation to Narita Airport. A lively discussion ensued and while we knew that Roger was for the farmers, it was fully acceptable for people in the class to take the commercial stance as well.
What made this particularly interesting was that Roger had gone with a group of Japanese students to protest the taking of the land. I believe they'd all climbed into trees and were refusing to leave. He was all for this until the students started throwing molotov cocktails, and things got out of control.
Now here I am working at Case and I haven't the foggiest notion what grade I rec'd in that class, but I do remember the excitement of that discussion and far more details than I would have expected to have retained. That to me is the sign of great teaching. His passion about the topic and his personal anecdotes about this historical moment halfway round the world brought Japan alive on a cold snowy day in Maine.
Tom,
This issue of what should be protected and what not is complicated. University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone who, in an interview on the NPR program On The Media, is described as "a champion of first Amendment rights and ardent supporter of shield laws for journalists", says the following:
"The critical mistake, in my view, that the Times has made, and Time Magazine up till this point has made, is to mistake what is really a source privilege with what they would like to have as a reporter's privilege. When we talk about the attorney-client privilege or the doctor-patient privilege, or the reporter-source privilege, the reason for the privilege is not to protect the lawyer or the doctor or the reporter. It's to protect the person who's disclosing the information from the fear that if he makes that disclosure, it will later get him in trouble. And that's the entire reason for the privilege. The distinctive feature about this situation is that the individuals who made the disclosure were committing a criminal offense in doing so, and there's no public policy in protecting their identities. In the doctor-patient privilege, when a patient seeks advice from the doctor not to treat a medical ailment but in order to commit a fraud on an insurance company, the privilege does not apply. All I'm saying is the exact same thing should apply in the journalist-source situation. I believe there should be a very broad journalist-source privilege that should cover 99 percent of the situations. I believe in a much more aggressive privilege than even most people who want a privilege. But I don't believe it covers this particular situation."
Wow, that's really enlightening, thanks!
Aaron,
I am afraid that grades are with us to stay. And they are not all bad, actually. It is that they often become the only reason we do anything, and this is what makes them negative. Grades can become a spur to doing better work *provided* they find the work itself challenging and rewarding. But if the work is not interesting, then the grades become a negative influence.
What UCITE tries to do is to try and find ways to put grades in the background, not front and center as they are now. I believe that if students feel they are learning things that are interesting and that the assessments are fair and that the instructor is not arbitrary or capricious, then they worry less about grades and focus more on learning.
So we try and help instructors to find ways to create such an atmosphere in their classrooms.
I teach high school juniors and seniors, and I've given this issue thought previously (largely in the context of ID, evolution, and the age of the universe). The issue of revealing an instructor's viewpoint is a little different with high school students. 16 year olds often don't feel as secure in their right to disagree with a teacher as college students may. I usually start out without revealing my beliefs or even playing devil's advocate against my beliefs if one side is afraid to speak up. But, as Mano said, I think it's important to explain _why_ I believe what I believe and to model how one can have an intelligent dialogue with people who may not share your views. So sooner or later, I do certainly reveal my beliefs.
It's late; I hope that was coherent.
Jeremy