Are Current Events Making Their Way Into Your Classroom? How?
Though philosophers are often (if not quite accurately) thought to have been asking the same questions for thousands of years, philosophers throughout history have responded in their work to the circumstances of their day.
[photo by Justin Weinberg]
For today, though, let’s focus on a question about teaching sent in by a assistant professor of philosophy.
They write:
How are current events being addressed in philosophy courses? I teach a contemporary moral problems course in which we cover topics like freedom of expression and immigration, but I do not quite know how (or whether) to introduce and manage discussion of the current and highly sensitive real-world events related to them. How much of today’s news should I be bringing into the classroom? What are other professors doing? Have they changed-up their readings to ones more relevant to the news? Have they altered their assignments? Or is it business as usual?
Also, I feel like generally I try to teach, at least lower-level courses, in such a way that my students are uncertain of my own views. I think this makes for more effective teaching. But that “neutrality” seems not only difficult but perhaps inappropriate for many of the current events I have in mind.
This professor says they’d be grateful for constructive advice on whether and how to discuss or address some of these highly charged current events. Readers?
I humbly suggest that much of the feeling that it’s inappropriate NOT to discuss day politics is actually an impulse to disgorge one’s upset on a captive audience. I am as passionate as anyone about politics and I don’t even mention the general presidential election in my political philosophy class as it happens and unfolds. Students are not enrolling for this service, we are not paid for this service, we are not particularly good at this service. Social media provides ample outlets for our political opinions.
Here’s a test. Create an online forum where you offer whatever service you think you’re going to provide in class. Let that forum be anonymous, and tell your students about it, and tell them it’s voluntary and ungraded. Then see how many find they need you to talk them through this difficult time. I wager you’ll find very few do.
Let me take a list of works that I plan to teach at least in part the next time I teach ethics– Plato’s Republic, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Mill’s On Liberty, Kant’s Perpetual Peace. Now even though this might get banned in Texas, I take it that it’s not overly idiosyncratic or “woke” (whatever that word even means). Well now every single thing on this list is going to have something to say about current controversies. So what should I do? Ignore those controversies since otherwise I may “disgorge [my] upset on a captive audience”?
Okay well then what if said “captive audience” brings them up? “Yes well perhaps Kant says about wrongness of a stronger power interfering in the affairs of a weaker one by changing its government might be relevant to this Venezuala stuff, but we can’t talk about it. You see I am terrified that I will disgorge my upset all over you folks and I can’t claim any expertise on this Kant fellow I’ve published several papers on. Really why would you expect me to understand a work I teach well enough to have views on it. Very odd. And of course no one signs up for a philosophy class to talk about guys like Kant right? Oh another question? Well maybe Plato’s tyrannical man might resemble some figures in the current politics I guess. But again we can’t talk about that. Upset disgorgement and all that. Plus you didn’t think we’d talk about Plato when you signed up for a philosophy class did you? Oh yes another. You think having to work 50 hours a week with an irregular hours like you did at your last job might interfere with the leisure Aristotle thinks necessary to eudaimonia? Well again I feel the need to steer rapidly away from such topics lest my upset get disgorged all over my poor captive audience and really why do you said captive audience insist on inflicting my opinions about philosophy on you? Beyond the absurdity of thinking that a philosophy professor will have any views on philosophy I also really think it’s time you realize that philosophy may be relevant to what’s happening in ancient Athens or 19th century India but it’s got no relevance to anything we do today.”
Seems a bit uncharitable. I read Dan’s comment as consistent with it being appropriate to discuss issues du jour: if you are competent enough and students want it. Maybe he’s wrong that students are not interested. But I read him as objecting to the claim that it is inappropriate *not* to discuss the issues du jour, a stronger claim than ‘it is okay to discuss them (provided that…),’ which I suspect Dan might concede.
I say this as someone who neither actively shields my classes from these issues nor proactively brings them up. If they come up, and it’s relevant, we’ll discuss them.
I took him to be making an even more narrow and even more interesting claim, which is that the specific feeling many of us (myself included) are feeling, a feeling of being upset and wanting to explode (disgorge) is a bad motivation for raising these issues. As you say, that is compatible with teaching these issues with different motivations. Perhaps even it is inappropriate not to discuss them, given the appropriate motivations.
> So what should I do? Ignore those controversies
Yes. It’s really not that hard. If you can’t teach a class on Plato or Aristotle without talking about Trump, then I think the problem lies on your end.
I don’t think many students would show up to such a forum if all I talked about was philosophy. But I think if a good teacher they liked offered an ungraded class discussion on stuff like this a lot of students would come. The problem is most good philosophy teachers still don’t know much about politics and would just pontificate. In short, if you are charismatic and good philosophy teacher at a school with motivated students they probably do want to hear what you think, but what you think is probably pretty reductive and wrong in a lot of ways unless it’s a topic you have an expertise on (e.g. potentially someone who works on just war theory talking about Gaza) as well as feeling confident you have the relevant empirical facts which is something philosophers tend to forget are actually needed to make real world pronouncements
My point here is what else are the state funded Civics Centers for except for, you know, discussing issues like federal overreach. https://open.substack.com/pub/hollisrobbinsanecdotal/p/civics-centers-as-ivory-towers
Uninteresting answer, but it depends. I think a nursing class in Minneapolis right now very well might need a day to talk about, but not so much a generic upper division ethics class. But I’d caution generally against thinking that students necessarily want class to be about the world; during COVID the last thing that many wanted was to have to talk about the pandemic in a place where the attraction was getting away from the world a bit. Not everyone processes bad news by talking about it.
That said, if it comes up organically and you can speak intelligently about it, it’s fine. It very well might.
I am currently teaching a course on the ethics of political resistance for undergraduate students. Talking about current events has been unavoidable for that class. But one thing I’ve asked students to do that (imo) worked pretty well is to focus on the ethical issue at hand and to avoid discussions about empirical facts (e.g. what is the intention of the Israeli campaign in Gaza, was the car driver endangering ICE agents etc.). That, so the intention, helps to get the ethical picture clear and avoids discussions about things that we have little chance of settling conclusively and that don’t help students understand the ethical issues.
As to how they can be introduced: I felt like they came up naturally in the course of the class, at least partly because these kinds of things served as examples in the readings (e.g. police violence).
I like your comment. By contrast, I’m *really* interested in the empirical stuff (e.g., where were the car tires pointing, when and how many shots were fired, etc.), and I guess for a couple reasons.
First, I think a lot of these things come down to the “totality of the facts”, not single freeze frames. And sort of seeing how complicated and messy all that is–and to which people have to respond in real time–it, itself, sort of a philosophical point.
And, second, self-defense doesn’t have to be against an *actual* threat; e.g., the legal test is whether the users of force reasonably believe themselves to be in danger, not whether they actually are. So I need the actual facts to think through the applicability of (so-called “imperfect”) self-defense.
But I for sure concede that this makes more sense in a philosophy of law class than in an ethics of political resistance class. And I’m definitely teaching the former.
Probably the most hot-button class I teach is on immigration. Students seem to very much appreciate that we focus on arguments rather than political positions. Probably as a result, I have students who have changed their minds on the topic (and hence their political positions), and not just in one direction. I don’t make an effort to bring in the latest outrage, but I do point out that philosophers who defend states’ right to exclude do not support the kind of thing that’s happening these days in the U.S or Europe. That’s important both for students who support immigration restrictions (so that they see they don’t have to support what’s happening today) and those who oppose immigration restrictions (so that they see their philosophical opponents need not support what’s happening today).
I follow the Ulysses strategy: I don’t read news and I absolutely and resolutely avoid any kind of social media. This doesn’t mean I don’t bring anything to class, but it is much less than what it used to be. Even if I teach more contested topics like migration, I stick to the text. I am not based in the US, so I am even less afraid of connecting to actual politics – I just don’t see the point. Today’s politics (thereby I mean political debate, the arguments, the positions, not the events themselves) is not of the quality that it would be worth connecting to unless students specifically want to. I stick to the text and see where that takes us. But I generally prefer to teach topics like metaethics since then I am even less forced to engage with crazy culture wars.
It is a pity because I used to see the point of connecting to political debate; in fact, in the relevant fields, this was pretty much a must, I thought. But those days are over: the days when we were part of a political community that engaged in more or less reasonable debate about issues that determine our common future. So now, sorry, thanks, but no, thanks: I am happy to discuss theoretical matters and use historical examples, but as much as I can, I avoid contemporary events.
I would certainly agree that students should be ignorant of your own views on such things. When asked, I tell them to ask me at the end of the term, which they seldom do.
I bring up current issues only as examples of the relevance of the things we’re talking about in class. So, during covid, I would use “I took ivermectin and got better, so…..”, as an example of a false cause fallacy (even if the conclusion turns out to be true). Or, on a bit on just war theory, I would mention the Gaza /Israel dispute as an example of how the material matters (Is it war? Does it meet the conditions for just war? When are civilian casualties acceptable?). Etc.
“See, this stuff matters!” is the only goal in doing so.
Certainly, if we are discussing ethics or politics, or just if I am teaching introductory reasoning. I take very seriously the need not to preach and I usually don’t give my own opinions unless asked.
I often wonder what kind of instructor I would have been during the 1960s. When history books recount this era, what can they say I did?
At this point, trying to remain neutral and not discussing current events while discussing political philosophy and ethics feels like a cop-out, especially in my case, teaching at an institution where the majority of students are Hispanic, many of whom are directly affected by racism, regardless of their citizenship. Students often look to us as role models, even if it doesn’t always seem that way.
We should not interpret students’ apparent reluctance to participate as disinterest. Many come from authoritative upbringings where they were rarely asked, “What do you think?” For many students, when I ask this question, it is the first time they have been encouraged to voice their opinions in their lives. Many of my students have expressed a curiosity about what civil discourse looks like. They are tired of the disingenuous talking points often presented by social media figures. It’s rare for young students to encounter discussions that don’t pressure them to click, like, or subscribe.
I try frame the course as a safe space to ask tough questions. Also fostering Empowerment through action. That’s why I have incorporated civic engagement into my courses, even online courses. Ramona Ilea, Susan Hawthorne, and Monica “Mo” Janzen have put together an excellent collection of resources and advice if you have never incorporated civic engagement as part of coursework work
https://www.engagedphilosophy.com/
there are issues around pedagogical fairness that counsel deliberate neutrality on the professor’s part on some occasions, but there are also issues around the politics of representation that discourage silence.
it depends a lot on the style of philosophical study you model and on the style of education your department and university foster (naked credentialism, cura personalis, democratic citizenship, etc), but i would submit that a) it is false that every professor is warranted in cleaving exclusively to a nothing-but-the-philosophy curriculum and pedagogy that declines to address the world outside the classroom, and b) it is true that philosophical education has (if not uniformly and to an unknown extent) been chosen by students on the basis of some (even if implicit or one-sided) understanding that philosophical thinking, discussion, argumentation, study, etc. are relevant to the world outside the classroom, not generally or abstractly, but in the here and now.
i don’t think that maintaining critical distance is incompatible with talking about the times and all they entail, even talking in a candidly partial or committed way. i also think that, for your students, you are going to represent philosophy. they do need to see some evidence that the thinking you are encouraging them to do matters.
Like “An adjunct,” My answer is that it depends a lot on one’s answer to the question of “What are we doing here?”/”Why do philosophy?” I believe very strongly that we ought to motivate and justify decisions as philosophy, teachers to students. And my own view of why to do philosophy is because I think it helps improve our lives in the world. So, it’s important to me to bring in current events where applicable, to give my own views on various topics, and to model philosophical engagement with the world for students.
That being said, it’s important to avoid preaching, because that isn’t good for students’ learning and philosophical development. Giving one’s own views works best when one has been able to develop the importance of disagreement with students and students have gotten practice disagreeing with each other and the course texts.
Building on Max and An adjust’s comments, I think students are entitled to expect that philosophy matters to life and therefore that philosophical discussions in class will, to some extent, reference what is happening “out there.” This doesn’t necessarily mean that discussions will start with reference to some recent or ongoing event, or that the purpose is just to explain what is happening right now, but that current circumstances sometimes offer up examples that may be relevant to think about and which could help contextualize the ideas under discussion. This may not apply uniformly across the curriculum, of course, but it is appropriate, imo, that things that are relevant are brought into the conversation, where relevant, and that students are invited to discuss them in relation to the ideas central to the course they are studying. And that invitation need not always come from the instructor; students themselves will often invite each other and the class as a whole to engage in this way.
If the guy who wrote you wants a sincere and thoughtful answer to his question rather than pearl clutching and prissy condescending takedowns of a straw man position he doesn’t hold I’d highly recommend this piece:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-184773315
(The stuff on economics is particularly good. I wonder how many folks here think Econ profs should scrupulously avoid current events or give Marxism equal time with neoclassical approaches?)