Teaching for Inclusion: Difficult Dialogues

Difficult Socratic Dialogues

noreply@blogger.com (Peter M. Wright) — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:10:00 +0000

It appears that things have changed in Plato scholarship during the quarter century that has elapsed since I was trained as an undergraduate in philosophy and classical languages and, consequently, a book that I cannot recommend enough is Gerald A. Press, Plato: A Guide for the Perplexed, New York: Continuum, 2007.

What Press offers is a nuanced understanding of the philosophical project of Plato and his mentor. According to Press, Plato invented a particular mode of public inquiry (dialogue) that "evades what might be the reader's wish to be told the answer authoritatively, but at the same time and by evading this wish for intellectual dependence, [Plato] provokes the reader to philosophize" (p. 206). "Provocation," says Press, "not demonstration, is the Socratic mission of the dialogues" (ibid).

This is a dangerous mission, particularly in an intellectual climate where some students claim the "right" to be "educated" in a manner that does not offend them in any way. How is it possible to be constructively provocative? And how can both students and faculty learn to disagree without becoming themselves disagreeable?

If Press is right about Plato, Socrates and his school anticipated Marshall McLuhan's notion that the "medium is the message" and were far more concerned with the process by which dialogue was undertaken than with the conclusions that dialogue produces. That process amounted to Socratic pedagogy and was provocative of independent and often inconclusive thought: a kind of "open-ended" provocation that may be the most effective answer to students who complain that their professors are more concerned with "indoctrinating" them with a particular political or religious point of view than with "teaching" them a given subject.

The "Right" Not to be Offended?

noreply@blogger.com (Peter M. Wright) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:07:00 +0000

Check out this article in today's Chronicle of Higher Education.

2008 Carolina Summer Reading Program: A Place To Practice Your "DDI Chops"

noreply@blogger.com (Peter M. Wright) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:38:00 +0000

This year, incoming students who participate in the Carolina Summer Reading Program will be discussing Covering: The Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights by Kenji Yoshino, Professor of Law at Yale University School of Law.

The book fits well with the topics that I have been considering in this blog as a way to supplement CFE's Teaching for Inclusion manual. Peter A. Coclanis, Chair of the Carolina Summer Reading Program Committee and Albert R. Newsome Professor of History writes that:

In Covering, Yoshino deftly blends autobiography and legal reasoning to make a case for the profound importance of individualism, autonomy, and self-expression in our conceptualization of civil and political rights. By introducing sociologist Erving Goffman's notion of "covering" — how people are formally or informally coerced into toning down stigmatized identities, even when such identities are known — into the legal lexicon, Yoshino has both broadened and calibrated more finely the way we think and talk about identity politics and civil rights.
Yoshino, who is Japanese-American and gay, draws much on his own identity markers in Covering, but the overall thesis is applicable to any and all people whose identities, for one reason or another, are subject to stigma and who, as a result, are prone to "covering" behaviors. In Yoshino's view, such behaviors — based on differences in race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability status, etc. — are not only harmful psychologically to those forced to cover, but also morally impoverishing to socially-dominant groups, and threatening to the civil rights of us all. In calling for broad social acceptance of individuality and self-expression, Yoshino challenges us to think more clearly about who we are and about what constitutes true equality, social justice, and human dignity.

It will be interesting to see what sort of conversations take place among students and faculty around this book. Will readers of this book accept the definition of personal identity that underlies the author's arguments, or will they interrogate Yoshino's assumptions further? Developing the skills to encourage such discussions is one of the main objectives of the Difficult Dialogues Initiative.

Edward Scissorhands

noreply@blogger.com (Peter M. Wright) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 19:46:00 +0000

This may seem to be a rather odd place to read about Tim Burton's 1990 film Edward Scissorhands, but I recently screened the film for my children (ages 9 and 7) and (re-)discovered how the story can generate conversations about sameness and difference and the contradictory ways in which people who are perceived to be different from others may fare in social interaction.

For those who haven't seen the film, it is a darkly comedic fairy-tale. Edward (played by the actor Johnny Depp, pictured in character at left) is the creation of a genius inventor/mad scientist who drops dead of a heart attack before he can put the finishing touches on his invention. Consequently, instead of actual hands, Edward is left with sharp and unwieldy shears at the end of his arms (hence, his unusual if descriptive name). Despite his rather bizarre appearance, Edward is a sweet and gentle soul who is adopted by a stereotypical white suburban family who live in a stereotypical white suburban neighborhood (circa late 1950's, early 1960's). The busy-body neighbors of the adopting family (the Bogs) are curious about Edward at first, then charmed by him; ultimately, however, they find him frightening and a threat. At that point, a mob-mentality takes over and violence ensues...

A film such as Edward Scissorhands can be very useful where "Teaching for Inclusion" is concerned, because the characters in the film are complex enough that people can relate to them without necessarily identifying with them. In this way, the film affords the viewer critical distance: a relatively non-threatening space in which to confront questions of identity and difference--the stuff of which many contemporary difficult dialogues are made.

ON THE WEB: Potential Resources for Interested Faculty

noreply@blogger.com (Peter M. Wright) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:23:00 +0000

For the past decade, the Society for Values in Higher Education (SVHE) has advocated that colleges and universities come to understand themselves as training grounds for "deliberative democracy"--equipping students to participate effectively in democratic institutions. SVHE's "Democracy Project" was initiated in 1999 to "examine models of deliberative democracy and higher education's capacity to engage" them.

Faculty with a particular interest in aspects of religion and public life and the "difficult dialogues" that take place around them may wish to explore SVHE's web site.

Another potential resource is the Teagle Foundation. This Foundation is dedicated to "strengthening liberal education" by supporting projects that will, again, train 21st century college students to participate effectively in an open society and in democratic institutions.

Faith in the Classroom

noreply@blogger.com (Peter M. Wright) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:17:00 +0000

Miriam Rosalyn Diamond has edited a collection of essays designed to help faculty prepare themselves to "turn" potentially difficult discussions that may touch upon students' deeply held religious convictions into "constructive engagement."

The book's title is Encountering Faith in the Classroom and it was published by Stylus Publishing, LLC. in Sterling, Va. (2008). The editor is a faculty developer and coordinator of the Society for Values in Higher Education's Religion and Public Life Project.

Many of the authors of the essays collected in this volume are seasoned teachers and all share an abiding concern with the problems and possibilities that religious commitments bring to non-religious educational settings.

Because this book is a collection of essays rather than a monograph, it encourages selective reading. There is, for example, an essay written by a Professor of Law at Northwestern on the "role of religion and spirituality" in the law school classroom. There is another essay on the "science vs. religion" conflict. Other essays address potential legal issues that may arise when religion enters the discussion in public education, the potential for service learning to be a way for students to explore religious issues in the context of their secular education, undergraduate versus graduate students and the role of religion in the classroom, an African-American perspective of religion's role in education, and an exploration of the perspective of a religious fundamentalist.

For faculty who wish to see how specific difficult dialogues may be addressed, or how they may be addressed in a particular context, this book may be just the ticket.

More Resources for Difficult Dialogues at the CFE

noreply@blogger.com (Peter M. Wright) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:21:00 +0000

Lynn Davies, Educating Against Extremism, Stoke on Trent,UK: Trentham Books, 2008.

The author is Professor of International Education at the Centre for International Education and Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England.

Her book proposes an educational strategy that differs from the prevailing "conventional tolerant multiculturalism" which, she feels, is inadequate for addressing the root causes of "extremism" among 21st century disaffected youth (i.e., those most likely to be attracted to extremist movements and organizations).

Her strategy takes into account the fact that global communications technologies allow extremist organizations to recruit young people and to organize outside of educational institutions. In other words, it recognizes that schools have been "cut out of the loop" where contemporary disaffected youth are concerned.

What Davies wishes to do is to make educational institutions relevant to the political thinking of young people. The way to accomplish this objective is to offer young people a political (i.e., politicizing) education--yet one that avoids the uncritical inculcation of single truths.

Such an education must make a secure place for alternative ways of thinking and ambiguity. Davies argues for the centrality of political education, media education, "active citizenship education" (taking the mandate in public education for "civics" courses seriously), critical and comparative religious education: all of which affirm "human rights" as a universal value.

And underlying the educational process is a belief that a strong civil society is one that encourages critique but not without equipping citizens with the skills and dispositions to engage in critical discourse without resort to violence.

Topics discussed in the book include:

The nature of extremism and its relationship to myths and myth-making
The role of identity in radicalization
The role of faith-based schooling and segregation in radicalization
The concepts of Justice, Honor, and Revenge
Free speech, satire and offensive humor
Critical thinking and what the author terms "critical idealism."

An Underlying Pedagogical Goal: Teaching for Transformation

noreply@blogger.com (Peter M. Wright) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:06:00 +0000

When considering the problems involved with engaging students in "difficult dialogues," it is critical that teachers never lose sight of an underlying goal of a university education: personal transformation.

In the context of college teaching, personal transformation entails challenging students to critically examine their assumptions and open themselves to alternative ways of thinking. As Professor Patricia Cranton remarks:

We cannot teach transformation. We often cannot even identify how or why it happens. But we can teach as though the possibility always exists that a student will have a transformative experience. There are no special methods that guarantee transformation, although transformation is always one of our goals. In every strategy we use, we need to provide an ever-changing balance of challenge, support, and learner empowerment. Sometimes to ask the right challenging question at the right moment is the most important thing we can do. At other times, it is essential to validate a student's thoughts or feelings. And yet at another time, we need to say, "This is up to you now," because in the end, it is the student who chooses to transform.

The critical thing to remember is that teaching for inclusion and engaging students in difficult dialogues ought not to entail placing the student or the teacher in a defensive posture. This is not about doing "damage control." Instead, it is about finding ways to pro-actively address the issues of the day, turning them into "teaching moments" that may have transformative effects. The classroom can be a space of possibility and positive change for student and teacher alike.

See Patricia Cranton, "Teaching for Transformation," New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 93, Spring 2002, pp. 63-71.

Oleanna

noreply@blogger.com (Peter M. Wright) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:53:00 +0000

As noted in a previous blog post, CTL (now the Center for Faculty Excellence) at Carolina has acquired a DVD of David Mamet's "Oleanna."

After repeated viewings, I am prepared to recommend that this film be required for faculty in the present Age of Identity Politics. For surely here is a dramatic presentation of the most troubling risk inherent in the provision of a Socratic education (i.e., one that does not shrink from engaging students in "difficult dialogues") in any time and place: hemlock.

Was John (the college professor on the cusp of tenure depicted in this film) an innocent victim of the "dark forces" of identity politics (represented in the film by Carol, the professor's disgruntled student)? Did his actions truly conform to the particulars of the "crime" of which he stood accused? Was the sanction that he received fully justified?

These questions (and many more) haunt the film's narrative and denouement as so many Socratic imponderables.

I do not wish to spare anyone the pleasures (and pains) of watching this film, so I am hesitant to say more about it. What I will say is that teaching that dares to touch nerve-endings is a risky business. For my money, it is the best business for any teacher to be in--but caveat doctor!

CTL to Become CFE

noreply@blogger.com (Peter M. Wright) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:23:00 +0000

On July 1, 2008, the Center for Teaching and Learning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill will be renamed the Center for Faculty Excellence (CFE) as part of a broader restructuring of the Center. The "new" Center's mission will cover not only teaching and learning but also faculty development of research and leadership skills.

Existing programs will continue as previously offered through the summer of 2008.

Starting in the fall of 2008, DDI will be conducting monthly seminars with Professor Randall Styers (UNC, Department of Religious Studies) as Faculty facilitator. In other words, the partnership between CTL and DDI will continue, though CTL will participate as CFE.

The Syllabus: Preparing Students to Engage in Difficult Dialogues

noreply@blogger.com (Peter M. Wright) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:41:00 +0000

Teaching Islamic Studies in a post-9/11 world that was already freighted, pre-9/11, with identity politics, has given me some invaluable hands-on experience when it comes to managing difficult dialogues in class. One thing that I have tried to do is be pro-active on this score: to prepare students to expect to engage in difficult dialogues and, at the same time, to assure them that the classroom environment will be a safe one for frank discussion. Here is some sample language from my Early Islamic Civilization (beginnings to 1500 CE) syllabus that can be adapted for other courses:

A secondary concern of this course arises from its own institutional location within a modern democratic polity. Nothing we do in such an institutional setting is “merely” academic. Our charge as educators in such an environment is to make a contribution towards each individual’s development as a citizen capable of effective participation in an open society. We will therefore spend two weeks at the beginning of the semester thinking about how histories are written, by whom, and toward what ends. We will also consider how to identify various rhetorical strategies, assess their relative validity, and review the etiquette of argumentation. Throughout the term, we will have opportunities to apply what we have learned via classroom discussions, intellectual journals, the class listserv, and the essay portions of the written exams. These exercises will permit us to hone our skills as critical thinkers and to develop the habits appropriate to reasoned debate...

Notice that I try to capitalize on the fact that at Carolina we belong to a particular kind of educational community: a public university located in a modern democratic polity. We as faculty are not just educating future doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, Peace Corps volunteers, etc., but citizens. Voters. Therefore, students are not faced with the question of whether they will engage in difficult dialogues, but how. This approach to the problem helps students to see that conflict and controversy are normal parts of their education--because they are normal parts of doing business in a democracy. It also suggests to them that conflict and controversy are not necessarily negative aspects of life--if they are handled in an appropriate manner. Admittedly, that if is a big one: it is a challenge as significant as mastering the course material under scrutiny. As Ludwig Wittgenstein remarked in the Tractatus: "The facts all belong only to the task, and not to its performance." The task of teaching is more than "content-provision." There is a form to the content and, as Hayden White reminds us, "a content to the form."

Suggested Further Reading:

Rocheleau, Jordy and Bruce W. Speck. Rights & Wrongs in the Classroom: Ethical Issues in Postsecondary Teaching. Bolton, Mass: Anker Publishing Co., Inc., 2007.

Twale, Darla J. and Barbara M. De Luca. Faculty Incivility: The Rise of the Academic Bully Culture and What to do About It. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008.

Also of interest is the March/April 2008 issue of Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning (available at CTL and also on-line at http://www.changemag.org/). This particular issue (Vol. 40, No. 2) is focused upon "Fostering 'Difficult Dialogues'". The May/June 2007 issue of About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience (Vol. 12, No. 2) is (provocatively) dedicated to "The Absolute Imperative of Social Justice Education." It, too, is available at the offices of CTL.

DVD Library

noreply@blogger.com (Peter M. Wright) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:54:00 +0000

The Center for Teaching and Learning is developing a library of materials to assist faculty who wish to find creative ways to approach controversial topics. Towards this end, CTL has purchased a number of DVDs that are available for loan to faculty who may wish to screen them for classes or other occasions (e.g., discussion groups) related to the Difficult Dialogues Initiative. At present, our holdings are small (13 DVDs in all), but every film is thought-provoking and well worth viewing. What follows is a listing of the films with brief descriptions:

1. Guess Who's Coming To Dinner (1967), starring Spencer Tracy, Sidney Poitier, and Katherine Hepburn. Produced and directed by Stanley Kramer. This film was nominated for 10 Academy Awards in 1967, and won two: Best Actress (Hepburn) and Best Original Screenplay (written by William Rose). Tracy plays a left-leaning newspaper publisher whose politics are put to the test when his daughter (played by Katherine Houghton) announces her engagement to an internationally respected African-American physician (Poitier).

2. A Patch of Blue (1965), starring Sidney Poitier and Shelley Winters. Poitier plays Gordon Ralfe, a black man who befriends a white woman, Selina D'Arcey. Selina is blind and so she is unaware that her new friend is of a different race; what she does know is that this new friend is far more loving and supportive than her own (alcoholic and abusive) mother (played by Winters).

3. The Birth of a Nation (1915), starring Lillian Gish, Henry B. Walthall, Mae Marsh, and Mirian Cooper. D. W. Griffith's controversial Civil War epic based upon Thomas Dixon's "The Clansman." A landmark in film-making, but also disturbing for its sympathetic portrayal of the rise of the KKK.

4. 12 Angry Men (1957), starring Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley. Directed by Sidney Lumet. A teenage boy is accused of killing his father and 11 members of his jury are convinced of his guilt--but one man holds out, equally convinced of his innocence.

5. Let Him Have It (1991). Dramatic re-enactment of the events that led up to a famous murder trial that took place in England in the 1950's. The trial resulted in the conviction and execution of a young man whom many believed to be innocent; indeed, he was posthumously pardoned by the British Crown.

6. Dead Man Walking (1995), starring Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn. Sarandon plays Sr. Helen Prejean, a New Orleans nun who befriends a prisoner on death row (Matthew Poncelet, played by Penn). There appears to be nothing redeeming about Poncelet and his guilt for the brutal crimes for which he was convicted and sentenced to die is almost certain. Nevertheless, Sr. Prejean works tirelessly on his behalf. Directed, without sentimentality, by Tim Robbins.

7. The Thin Blue Line (1988). Errol Morris's dramatic re-enactment of the evidence that convicted Randall Dale Adams of the cold-blooded killing of a Dallas police officer in 1976. This film helped to secure the eventual release of Adams (who was innocent) and the conviction of David Harris, the teenage runaway whom Adams had befriended on the night of the crime.

8. Bowling for Columbine (2002). Controversial filmmaker Michael Moore's attempt to connect the mass murder perpetrated by two students at Columbine High School and America's "culture of violence."

9. The Verdict (1982), starring Paul Newman and Charlotte Rampling; directed by Sidney Lumet, with a screenplay by David Mamet. A down-on-his-luck ambulance-chasing attorney turns down a large offer of settlement from the Catholic Diocese of Boston in a medical malpractice case--on principle. Newman's closing speech to the jury is a masterful appeal to conscience.

10. The Mission (1986), starring Robert De Niro and Jeremy Irons. A lavish epic depiction of the struggles between Church and State in 18th century Europe and the effects of these struggles upon the lives of indigenous peoples in the colonized regions of South America. A brilliant and moving film.

11. Why We Fight (2006). Eugene Jarecki's prize-winning meditation upon President Dwight Eisenhower's 1961 Farewell Address in which he warned his fellow Americans about the rise of the "Military-Industrial complex." Featuring John McCain, Gore Vidal, and others.

12. Inherit the Wind (1960). Starring Spencer Tracy, Frederic March, and Gene Kelly. A dramatic treatment of the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial" in which a school science teacher was prosecuted for teaching Darwinian theory.

13. Oleanna (1994). David Mamet directs his own screenplay regarding a male college professor on the cusp of tenure and his struggling female student. Their meeting behind closed doors yields mutual misunderstanding and a charge of sexual harassment. Starring William H. Macy and Debra Eisenstadt.

Welcome to the Blog!

noreply@blogger.com (Peter M. Wright) — Tue, 27 May 2008 19:24:00 +0000

This is the inaugural post of the "Teaching for Inclusion: Difficult Dialogues" blog. Why "Teaching for Inclusion"? Why "Difficult Dialogues"? Perhaps a little background is in order...

Part One: Teaching for Inclusion

In 1997, the Center for Teaching and Learning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ("Carolina") published a handbook for faculty entitled Teaching for Inclusion: Diversity in the College Classroom. The stated purpose of this handbook was to help Carolina faculty to adjust to emerging student demographics.

As the authors of this volume noted in their introduction, since the late 1970's Carolina had witnessed a steady diversification of its student body by race, gender, ethnicity, and religion. This change reflected national trends such as the struggles for civil and women's rights; it also reflected Congressional desire to tinker with the broader social fabric through legislation: the Immigration Act of 1965 increased the number of foreign nationals from Africa and Asia immigrating to the U.S. One consequence of the Act was the gradual infusion of American society with individuals and families whose cultures differed in significant respects from those of their European predecessors.

The new demographic diversity on campus was not merely cosmetic: race, gender, ethnicity, and religion are all potential reservoirs of personal identity--and potent ones at that. The relative homogeneity that had characterized previous student populations was being replaced, and the visible shift to student bodies with "multicultural" representation was accompanied by a momentous shift in outlook: one that called into question prior assumptions about what it means to be an American.

For prior generations (schooled under the conditions of the prevailing racial, cultural, ethnic, and religious homogeneity), the assertion that the U.S. is "one nation, indivisible" seemed uncontroversial. America's entrance into two European "World Wars" and its emergence from them as a victorious nation in an international system served to underscore the "self-evidence" of this claim.

But when, in the middle of the 20th century, minority populations within the United States began to clamor for rights and recognition equal to those enjoyed by members of the homogeneous majority, they brought to light social tensions that had been long submerged beneath public assertions of national unity and identity. The resulting political upheavals that characterized much of U.S. history in the latter half of the 20th century are evidence of the adjustments that all Americans have had to make in order to achieve a more inclusive vision of what it means to be an American.

The cohorts of students that arrived on campus in the 1990's better reflected the increasing diversity of the country's evolving social and cultural fabric than at any time previously; at the same moment, faculty were embracing the new vision of inclusiveness and even beginning to advocate for the expansion of this "heterogeneous" vision. Sexual orientation, physical ability (including learning styles), and political commitments acquired unprecedented distinctiveness as they were transformed into recognized markers of personal identity.

As a consequence, one's identity as an American became extended, as it were; in some cases, it actually became "hyphenated" as such terms as "African-American" and "Asian-American" became increasingly common. Likewise, personal attributes or tendencies such as same-sex attraction became essentialized: one does not simply experience same-sex or heterosexual attraction, one is a particular kind of person (Gay, Bi, Straight, etc.).

The late 20th century advent of a multicultural vision of what it means to be an American-- what I shall henceforth term "identity politics"--has not gone uncontested. It has its strong advocates, strong opponents, and many who find themselves caught in the middle. CTL's role in these changing times is to build upon what it accomplished with Teaching for Inclusion: providing faculty with effective ways to negotiate the socio-political climate that they inhabit, along with their students, in the classroom.

Part Two: 9/11 and the Difficult Dialogues Initiative

The tragic events of September 11, 2001 demonstrated, most dramatically, what can happen when identity politics turn lethal. Of course, this was not the first time that identity politics had fueled violence in the U.S. (the 1995 bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City is a recent example). But 9/11 has seemed to many Americans to be in a category of its own: the spectacular magnitude of the crime and the fact that the perpetrators were not U.S. citizens combined to create a heady brew of resurgent nationalism throughout the country.

As many observers have noted, one potential casualty of the new nationalistic mood is academic freedom; for where such sentiments prevail, loyalty to the state is sometimes construed to be sufficient reason to preempt criticism of the government--despite Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech.

In an effort to help academics cope with this new era, the Ford Foundation launched, in the spring of 2005, what it calls the "Difficult Dialogues Initiative" (DDI). DDI is designed to promote both pluralism and academic freedom on college campuses across the United States. Carolina was one of twenty-seven institutions selected to participate in this program. This blog has been created to make visible the connection between CTL, its publications and programs, and the implementation of the Ford Foundation's Difficult Dialogues Initiative at Carolina.

It is hoped that the new partnership between CTL and the DDI will equip educators to be pro-active and turn the potential for classroom conflict into opportunities for stimulating conversations that further the educational mission of the university.

How best to do this? There are no doubt multiple approaches one can take. Having spent several years in the classroom teaching courses in Islamic Studies (a fertile field for controversy!) and, at the same time, reviewing the burgeoning literature on this topic, I have come to view questions of identity (and its complement, difference) as being related, in complex ways, to concerns about justice. As anyone who has read a Platonic dialogue can attest, however, conversations about justice often burden their participants with "Socratic imponderables."

Is this such a bad thing? Yes and no. Ed Neal, CTL's Director of Faculty Development, is fond of noting that "Socrates was not a content-provider." In other words, as with any pedagogy that legitimately looks to Socrates as its model, students are likely to emerge from the classroom with more questions than answers.

This can be a frustrating experience for students who take comfort in the clarity that identity politics (where every person is endowed with a clear sense of "who they are") tends to provide. If students arrive at the university expecting to encounter a "frustration free" learning experience, a Socratic education is liable to prove disappointing.

In an increasingly multicultural landscape, students have been encouraged to consider the ways in which they differ from one another, and to think about justice in terms of honoring those differences and preserving their integrity. This is a very valuable exercise and no doubt one that makes an important contribution to every student's apprehension of what may constitute justice.

The hidden cost of such an approach lies in the potential for students to conclude that identity markers such as race, gender, ethnicity, and religion impose unbridgeable gaps between groups of people.

The challenge of teaching for inclusion while, at the same time, engaging students in the difficult dialogues to which such inclusion gives rise is the new pedagogy that we have been bequeathed by our particular location in history. It is a pedagogy in the making, a work in progress. This blog will diary the continuing efforts of Carolina's Center for Teaching and Learning to assist faculty to make this new pedagogy a reality in their classrooms.

Recommended Reading:

Gaddy, Barbara B., T. William Hall, Robert J. Marzano, School Wars: Resolving Our Conflicts Over Religion and Values, San Francisco: Jossy-Bass Publishers, 1996.

Nash, Robert J., DeMethra LaSha Bradley, Arthur W. Chickering, How to Talk About Hot Topics on Campus: From Polarization to Moral Conversation, San Francisco: Jossy-Bass Publishers, 2008.

Press, Gerald A., Plato: A Guide for the Perplexed, London & New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2007.

Teaching What You're Not: Identity Politics in Higher Education, edited by Katherine J. Mayberry, New York: New York University Press, 1996.

Note: School Wars, How to Talk About Hot Topics, and Teaching What You're Not, are all available to Carolina faculty at CTL's library.