The New York Sophist

I have a debate course nearly oversubscribed starting in a week. The course is a part of the University's new committment to having social justice imbedded in the curriculum.

I'm interested to see what topics they would like to turn into motions, and off we go. I'm teaching some light policy debate theory because it really does present some nice grounding for the students to figure out how to engage one another instead of just announcing the facts. 

I'm entering the class with one question: What is social justice? Would we know it if we saw it, or is that too easy? Is it a process, a moral attitude, a policy framework - what? 

I think I'll intervene with some ideas from the de-incarceration movement as well as questions about power and the U.S. Constitution - are the rights outlined in this document a good guideline or fundamental rights? 

I hope the students find the class valuable in a University and higher education system that communicate with great clarity, daily, how little they value the transformative, creative student experience and paint a future of having the attitude of consumerism, the attitude of a commodity, and the only path to success is being a commodity that consumes other commodities. 

I got a new GoPro so what better way to break it in than to walk and talk through something on my mind about teaching.

I think what explains the lack of student motivation best is that they have only one measure to evaluate things in this world: entertainment. Is it entertaining? If not, they won’t do it.

How do we engage a generation of people whose only reason to engage anything is that they think it is entertaining?

On Friday I’ll post the second vlog on this topic. Subscribe to my YouTube channel to get the first look!

Is asking someone to consider the broader impact of supporting a policy out of place? Disrespectful? Is it hostile? Is it inconsiderate?

The Governor of Louisiana thinks so. An LSU Law professor asked students that if they felt comfortable voting for Donald Trump because of his policy agenda, they should consider how that makes people of different identities feel.

This is a great argument, one that is great because of the element of surprise. Most people who are voting purely on policy issues – something like the southern border for example – wouldn’t be connected to the rights of the groups that Trump and a lot of his supporters don’t appear to have respect for or care about.

This probably won’t go anywhere as in a classroom teaching a class a professor has a lot of protection. They have academic freedom and first amendment freedom. Professors often rely on saying controversial or surprising things to stimulate class discussion and thought. Where else in the world would highly-educated people be permitted to stimulate thought at this level without university protections?

It’s a great thing to think about for a lawyer: How would supporting the letter of the law, or a policy, have adverse communication effects that could be interpreted as a policy choice, or worse, a principled stand? Sometimes in choosing what we think is the best policy we are happy to let the lives and bodies of others serve as the lubricant to let the gears of our lives operate unimpeded. Occasionally this is done willingly, more often this is done out of a cursory awareness but an unwillingness or perception that there can be no other way. What this professor is suggesting is that perhaps the decision of how to vote or support policy should be done via a different kind of rubric, one that doesn’t force a choice.

The university today is often thought of as a job-training site. Students are there to learn how to do a job, and that’s it – it should be apolitical. This model strips the university of a number of its more important and vital functions which can be thought of through different narratives and discourses. The job training model is the least relevant namely because it would be so much cheaper to enter the job after high school and be taught by your employers. This wouldn’t take public money, it would be corporations footing the bill, and they would get employees who did things exactly the way they wanted. But most corporations would be against this; they want the university system. But why? Someone with a degree commands more salary and also probably has the tools to push back on poor decisions made by bosses, asking annoying questions and wanting reasons why the policies are the way they are.

Let’s think of the university as a seed bank, as the place that ideas we have rejected are allowed to live in a terrarium of sorts, where we can repopulate the world with the extinct ideas if we ever needed to. This is why universities teach things that are “useless” to many people outside the university. Teaching these things allow people to understand that these perspectives are around and available, and can be used if needed to address something, solve an issue, or provide some new light to old perceptions. The seed vault keeps ideas and methods alive and available in case society realizes that their quest for progress and innovation didn’t check the blind spot. This is insurance at the minimum.

But also the seed vault model encourages different ways of thinking by exposing students to types of thinking and approaches that seem incorrect and out of place. Academic freedom is essential to allow professors to introduce ways and approaches to thought that aren’t popular or automatic. We are the products of many things when it comes to our thought: The media, our relatives and friends, what we choose to read, watch, and listen to in our spare time. We need direct intervention in this, and that intervention is unlikely to come on the path of least resistance. That is, it has to come from an agitator who is protected and encouraged to agitate – a teacher.

A teacher cannot just say whatever they want. Academic freedom is the responsibility to be free to interrogate and speak however they wish about anything that will encourage or spark different ways of thinking. In this case, this incident is justified. The professor is not dismissing the people who voted for Donald Trump, he is pushing on the question of whether or not it is ethical to vote for someone purely on policy. What a question! Isn’t that what we are supposed to do, make logical decisions about what’s best for the country? This professor pushes back – best for whose country?

Unfortunately our elected officials are starting to think of dissent – even the intellectual exercise of dissent – is a threat to the country. Which is one of the biggest threats to the country that we could possibly face. If we are no longer permitted to question authority and criticize how we make decisions, what sort of democracy do we have at that point? Who is really free to express ideas? What kind of culture will that attitude produce?

The responses have been poor, to understate it. I see little action plan and a lot of reaction to something that was apparently “hard to imagine” – most of the population voting against foreigners and for America first. I’m not sure who finds that hard to imagine, but it shouldn’t be rhetoricians. But here we are – everyone upset and calling for the most extreme responses in scholarship, teaching, or what have you. Some favorites: Argumentation can’t be taught anymore and that we should only work on the scholarship of fascism.

I have some other ideas that I think are pretty good responses to the election, and none are totalizing or extreme. I think that campaign discourse really locks us into a bad frame when it comes to post-election communication: “This is the most important election of our lifetimes!” (this was said to me when I first voted in Bush vs. Clinton vs. Perot). “Your vote your voice!” and now “the country is doomed!” – we did have a civil war where states turned against the Federal government, and somehow we survived. This crazy extreme response is a bit ungrounded. Here are some things I am thinking about:

Assign more Constitutional reading and assignments

I think that the obsession we have with fact-based assignments for argumentation and/or public speaking is a death sentence for invention. Creating arguments about possibility should be what we are teaching, not “how to look up a peer-reviewed article.” For Christ’s sake, they won’t have access to them in a few years because we continue to support ridiculous paywalls from greedy bastards like Taylor and Francis, who do nothing but count money. Instead, show them how to craft reasonable claims based on past claims, arguments, and moments of controversy. I think rooting that in the Constitution and controversies about rights or governmental powers is a great way to root them in research and evidence that is not paywalled, but free to access as well as showing them how speculative arguments are based on facts/data/information and attempt to move decisions/actions/attitudes based on that. I think this will be a helpful way to intervene in what I see from the national election – an inability to imagine otherwise (both students and faculty are struggling with this). The Constitution is an imperfect document written by imperfect people that has been misunderstood in many ways over its life, then corrected with newer, better misunderstandings. And it’s a discourse that holds power over our daily lives. It’s the perfect pitch upon which to teach some rhetorical practices, particularly ones that claim understanding, truth, or historical continuity about something.

Change Tenure Standards

We have a wealth of amazing research out there, buried in a journal that isn’t accessible unless someone pays over $50 to access it. Most Americans (and even more people globally) don’t have access to our journals. Let’s change our departmental tenure standards to encourage faculty to try to aim their work at public(s). We don’t want to be in another situation where scholars face a devastating election result and all they can do is post links to a limited number of offset copies of their 2017 essay discussing how failures in communication could lead to a fascist state. We need to be in that discussion, as it’s happening, in the publications that people are linking to, sharing, quoting, and texting their family about. We need to encourage graduate students to write in public-facing ways. This intervention can help those who can’t afford or don’t need college to get access to some of our insights and lessons. Furthermore, it can have the added benefit of offering something – anything – against the rising tide of discourse that says universities are just forced liberal education camps. Let’s show them what we are up to.

Create a campus culture of debate

One of the biggest benefits for the plutocrats of election discourse is how distasteful, painful, and horrifying it is to have to talk to a liberal/MAGA person. By not engaging one another as humans capable of changing our attitudes about things, we engage one another as problems, issues, or blights. Democracy, like driving a car, is a cooperative endeavor even though it appears to be an individual act. Encouraging debates, that is the tradition of switch-side debate, where people advocate for positions that are not their own hardcore commitments, allows people to experience debate not as the performance of passionate authenticity but instead the attempt to reach audiences and have them reconsider their attitude about something. The focus on the role of language and rhetoric in shaping what we feel and think is vital to democracy. Changing position is the only real politics available if you want to live in a democracy – you have to believe people can change their minds. We’re losing this idea if we haven’t already. Encouraging such activity as a normal part of the educated life is an important change that I hope to try to push for going forward.

Dialectical Thinking instead of Critical Thinking

Too often critical thinking becomes a crutch for a preference: “That’s not critical thinking” is really “You don’t agree with me so you can’t think.” We need a better way to teach critical thinking then just getting the correct position on an issue or the best position that we can think of. We must prepare students for future problems of which we can only imagine on our darkest days. One way of doing this is teaching a dialectical approach to thought. Teaching students, or demonstrating to them, that as they think and speak about something the relationship to it changes, therefore it changes in their mind to something else as they are speaking about it would be the way to go. Not sure how to do this one. I’m reading a lot about dialectical method and trying to imagine how this would go in the classroom. I’m starting to think that good debate pedagogy and practice winds up here eventually. But we don’t see good debate pedagogy these days. The focus here is the attention to the statement of thought – David Bohm style of freezing the articulation for examination of that itself – in the midst of the discussion/debate/dialogue about the larger issue at hand. This could be done with some more practice perhaps and will really help students see the university as a different place, something really impossible to predict from their high school experiences but all the more lovely for it.

These are my initial responses to the election. I will have more as I think more. Let’s try to avoid the reactions. Leave that to the journalists. Scholars should be better. Professors should profess something other than doom.

Writing studies seems so much more serious than anything going on in speech communication rhetoric to me these days. I think what’s most attractive is the focus on the idea of pedagogy. This requires the assumption that people can change if we give them opportunity to do so, and that opportunity exists in the carefully crafted use of language.

Some refutatio: No, it doesn’t mean this is the only way to change people. No, not everyone is always willing or able to change. But it does require some civic faith to live in a democratic order – part of that faith is not dismissing the assumption before you’ve had a go.

These things apply to speech comm rhetoric as well, but public speaking has been set aside as something irrelevant to the work of the verbal rhetoricians. The important thing is criticism not creation: The work that is to be valued doesn’t happen with students, it happens in monographs. Teaching is something that isn’t valued as a site of academic work by speech communication rhetoricians.

This isn’t everyone; there are speech comm rhetoricians who care about teaching, but their teaching is ironic in relation to what counts as good research in the field. You see people teaching modality as the heart of rhetoric, teaching peer-reviewed sources as the only form of evidence while writing and publishing about the speech that gets lost in between civic forms of power and testimony that is rejected as evidence by power because of race. If this appears in the public speaking curriculum, it would be a very rare thing indeed!

But in writing studies it seems that modality has been replaced by this idea of improvement through practice and reflection. This is what public speaking should be. I try to make it more like this, but I think I need more instruction from writing studies. There’s a depth there I can’t really seem to get into. So I’m trying to assemble a reading list for myself from the syllabi I can find online from writing studies graduate seminars.

In speech communication, there’s no premium on teaching whatsoever. Maybe it’s changed? I hope so. It’s assumed that if you have a tournament debate background you can teach argumentation. It’s assumed you can teach public speaking if you have been accepted to a graduate program. What training you get, or what supervision you get is really random. I know of a couple of programs where that supervision is from a lawyer – someone without an academic degree.

This is too much separation between graduate studies and teaching to be productive, and I hope maybe in writing studies I can find something to help me unlearn a few things.