RE: Spectator coverage of a current issue

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view
Nowlan, Robert A. (RANOWLAN@uwec.edu)
Thu, 12 May 2005 13:27:45 -0500



Subject: RE: Spectator coverage of a current issue
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:27:45 -0500
Message-ID: <BDD0A3EABE40F04A8C7200805EDE5A6A0219F11A@PEPSI.uwec.edu>
From: "Nowlan, Robert A." <RANOWLAN@uwec.edu>

On a matter indirectly related, but still relevant, I thought people might be interested to know that I wrote a letter (on Monday) to _The Spectator_ in response to the letter published in Monday's issue from Leonard Gibbs of Social Work. The editor asked me to edit to 300 words, which I did -immediately, so, supposedly, she could publish it, yet it didn't show up in today's issue (at least the on-line issue). If they do publish another issue before the end of the semester, which I am not sure they will, then it may still show up. Here it is:

 

 

In Monday's (5/9)issue of _The Spectator_, Leonard Gibbs writes, "If on the very last day of class students are as baffled about where their professor's personal opinion lies regarding major controversial issues in the class as they were on the very first day of class, then they are learning how to think for themselves in a scholarly way." Yet, if university students are "baffled" by where their professor stands on focal issues addressed in the course at the end of the semester, either the professor has done a poor job communicating or the professor has been intellectually dishonest. Any serious intellectual, working as a professor at the university level, should be open with her students about her stance on the issues she addresses in teaching the texts and topics she does. In making her positions clear and being open about them, trusting and respecting her students as capable of dealing with these for what they are, she invites contestation and makes it all the less likely that she might "deviously" "manipulate" students' thinking. Professors who feign a position of "disinterested neutrality" in relation to the texts and topics they teach are, in contrast, those who are far more likely to be manipulative, because it is impossible to be genuinely disinterested about social issues that shape who and what we are all about, and it is also likewise impossible to remain effectively neutral in relation to ongoing social struggles over how to conceive of and engage with these issues. Of course, professors should strive to do justice to positions different from, and opposing, their own, and to welcome, in fact encourage, students always to feel free to disagree with, argue against, and critique the positions they maintain-but students can't do this if professors pretend to be above and beyond positioning.

 

Bob Nowlan

Associate Professor, English

 

 

Efforts to suppress and curtail progressive teaching-or intimidate us and compel us to engage in self-censorship-are active, continuous, and multi-faceted, especially in relation to glbt issues. Despite the fact that I always make a thorough case for this being central to and what I am about, where I come from, and what I am doing at this institution, from the beginning of the semester in all my classes (and repeatedly thereafter), every time a glbt issue comes up, and every time we address a text dealing indirectly as well as directly with glbt issues, this becomes a highly sensitive, fraught period for a significant number of students, and frequently a significant number of them object strongly to engaging with these kinds of issues (and texts) at all, or without giving due 'balance' to the 'anti-homosexual' position, or the
'religious conservative' position. What's more, they also frequently enough contend that, the instructor, in this case me, should remain
'objectively' 'neutral' on these issues, and not indicate any support for or affiliation toward one position versus another because they are so 'sensitive', 'controversial', and 'upsetting' to many. This happens in classes here at all levels, every year, every semester. I am well-prepared by now, of course, to argue for a contrary conception of pedagogical practice than this position supports, and to critique their position quite thoroughly and effectively, which I always do, but it still takes plenty of time, and energy, effectively preventing us from doing as much as we otherwise could with these texts and issues than would be the case if we could tackle them without having to clear these hurdles in order to do so. In short, people like me, hired with expertise in critical theory of sexuality as well as in glbt/queer studies, almost always have to spend a great deal of the time and energy we could otherwise devote to simply teaching from our fields of expertise, and within these fields, toward justifying these fields being taught at all. This is a serious problem; students at UWEC, as well as at Memorial, do not, by and large, to this day obtain an adequate education in either critical theory of sexuality and gender, or in gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer studies. And this kind of education can make a positive-a progressive-difference, even if it can hardly do so all by itself; I've seen this happen again and again with many students where I've had to fight hard to break through and make a dent in how they thought, and understood, and related. It's happening now, once again, in a number of my current classes with issues of sexuality, broadly conceived, and versus glbt identities, practices, communities, histories, cultures, and politics, more narrowly, but, again, this takes a lot of time and effort, in and beyond class time
-and it requires struggling with considerable, and often quite vehement, resistance. In many ways it can be quite exciting, but it can also be overwhelming too. Ultimately, we need to forge ways to make this work a more successful collective effort, here at UWEC, at Memorial, and beyond. We don't want well-qualified, highly accomplished, and truly brave people like Beth Franklin to decide simply to go teach elsewhere because it is no longer possible to be effective in this area (I have heard that the Franklins may be moving on before too long-not necessarily directly in response to this situation, but to seek 'better alternatives' elsewhere). And I know there are certainly times, like this week, when I participate in my department's long-range planning discussion concerning upcoming retirements and their prospective impact upon us, that I think that I myself may well retire as soon as I possibly can so that I am not thoroughly exhausted and worn down by the time that happens, and so that I can continue to make progressive contributions elsewhere and otherwise after I have concluded teaching here.

 

 

 

Bob Nowlan

 

 

-----Original Message----- From: sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu
[mailto:sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu] On Behalf Of Hale, C. Kate Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 12:46 PM To: Richmond, Elizabeth B.; Markgraf, Jill S.; Wilcox, Jean A.; Alea, Mary Ellen; Wesenberg, Nancy Christine; SFPJ Subject: Re: Spectator coverage of a current issue

 

How many folks on the SFPJ listserve have children at Memorial? Or elsewhere in the ECASD? Perhaps we could do a "group" letter to the school board.

I have a son, just finishing his junior year at Memorial.

Kate Hale

On 5/12/05 11:10 AM, "Richmond, Elizabeth B." <RICHMOEB@uwec.edu> wrote:

I have sent a letter of support of Franklin to the Board, but I didn't mention being a parent of school age children. Some of the school board members have expressed appreciation for the letters of support. Jill's idea has merit.

Betsy Richmond

________________________________

From: sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu
[mailto:sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu]
<mailto:sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu%5d> On Behalf Of Markgraf, Jill S. Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:39 AM To: Hale, C. Kate; Wilcox, Jean A.; Alea, Mary Ellen; Wesenberg, Nancy Christine; SFPJ Subject: RE: Spectator coverage of a current issue

Hi, I'm new to this list, so maybe this has been done already. I know many of us have contacted the school board. But what about sending to the school board a petition or signed letter from parents in support of tolerance, acceptance and discourse in our schools to counter the unsigned letter? Jill Markgraf

________________________________

From: sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu
[mailto:sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu]
<mailto:sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu%5d> On Behalf Of Hale, C. Kate Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:35 AM To: Wilcox, Jean A.; Alea, Mary Ellen; Wesenberg, Nancy Christine; SFPJ Subject: Re: Spectator coverage of a current issue

Jean and all---

I actually typed "scary" at first . . . I'm trying NOT to be scared, but in truth I am at least part of the time.

Jean, your point is absolutely correct: I think we have some educating to do here so that people understand that the status quo IS already political.

But how to proceed?

Kate

On 5/12/05 9:30 AM, "Wilcox, Jean A." <wilcoxja@uwec.edu> wrote:

Kate and Others,

I find this more than disheartening; I find it downright scary. I particularly find the "unsigned" letter from parents scary. Is not allowing the discussion of political issues in the classroom in fact allowing a political statement to be made in the classroom?

Jean Wilcox

 

________________________________

From: sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu
[mailto:sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu]
<mailto:sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu%5d> On Behalf Of Alea, Mary Ellen Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:14 AM To: Wesenberg, Nancy Christine; Hale, C. Kate; sfpj@listserve.uwec.edu Subject: Re: Spectator coverage of a current issue

Question: where is the principal in all of this. It seems to me his voice has been quiet. I thought he was a stand-up kind of guy. --ME Alea

On 5/12/05 9:00 AM, "Wesenberg, Nancy Christine" <WESENBNC@uwec.edu> wrote:

Just for your information, The board of directors of the LGBT Center of the Chippewa has crafted a letter in support of Beth Franklin which will be delivered to the School Board and the L-T today. N. Wesenberg

 
 

________________________________

From: sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu
[mailto:sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu]
<mailto:sfpj-request@listserve.uwec.edu%5d> On Behalf Of Hale, C. Kate Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 8:19 AM To: SFPJ Subject: FW: Spectator coverage of a current issue

Colleagues,

This is disheartening-the rally at Clairemont yesterday was well attended and the energy there was good. But this response, these additional comments from Mr. Bennett, really troubles me.

We need to stay alert and to be prepared to act as necessary.

Kate Hale English
------ Forwarded Message From: "Phillips, William H." <philliwh@uwec.edu> Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 06:42:16 -0500 To: "ENGL.STAFF" <ENGL.STAFF@uwec.edu> Subject: Spectator coverage of a current issue

  The Spectator - Campus News Issue: 5/12/05

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

Discussion, photo of student angers parents By Karline Koehler

Eau Claire community members are divided after a local high school teacher showed photographs of transgendered UW-Eau Claire senior Jessica Janiuk's face as part of a discussion about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people.

On April 14, Memorial High School English teacher Beth Franklin showed classes photos of Janiuk's face before and after (see photo) her sex change. The lesson took place during the Day of Silence, an event "to recognize and protest the discrimination and harassment" against LGBT people.

During the discussion, one student walked out of the classroom. His father, Neal Bennett, filed a complaint against the school board, stating the situation constituted harassment.

"She's taking her own agenda and she is forcing it on the students," Bennett said. "It doesn't matter what that agenda is - if it's a controversial issue, that's wrong."

Franklin is the adviser for GLASS, Memorial's LGBT student group. She declined to comment for this article.

"This whole incident is the very reason that the Day of Silence even exists," Janiuk said. "This is an attempt of a large community to silence minority groups. I won't stand by and let that happen."

That's why Janiuk organized a rally in support of Franklin Wednesday at the corner of Keith Street and Clairemont Avenue.

"Her lesson was in line with all the policies of the school," Janiuk said. "The problem here is ignorance. It's not bigotry; it's not hate speech. The only way to fight ignorance is through education."

However, Bennett said he believes such discussions can be harmful to still-maturing high school students.

"They may look like they're adults, but they're teenagers," he said.
"They have a lot of stuff that they're trying to figure out."

Janiuk said the parents' criticism of Franklin's teaching was also personal.

"Even though he may not have directed it at me, it attacked me," she said. "It's not an easy thing to deal with, knowing a sizeable part of the town is upset that you exist."

Bennett said parents should have been notified ahead of time about the discussion and given the option to remove their children.

"You can talk about gays, but there are times when that discussion needs to stay away from the students. It becomes offensive to people," Bennett said. "If someone decides to do that to their own body, that's a very private issue."

Janiuk disagreed.

"They're not private issues, they're life issues," she said. "They're no more private than your ethnicity or your family. That's who you are and there's nothing wrong with expressing it. It doesn't have to be kept secret."

In addition to the rally, Janiuk said, she is organizing an educational panel and forum at Memorial in response to the debate. She also plans to meet with the school's principal.

"I've had a lot of people say, 'Jess, just tell me where to be,' " Janiuk said. "I'm not concerned (for myself). It's for everyone who is now being told they're not welcome here."

In early May, the school board received an unsigned letter from parents objecting to sexual and political issues in the classroom. Bennett said the group is asking for the school's administration and staff to be retrained on rules, for the school to enforce a dress code for teachers banning "offensive" clothing such as "rainbow-colored necklaces," for the school board to hold a forum with parents twice a year and for the educational system to "return to American heritage and tradition in the classroom."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

------ End of Forwarded Message

 

 

 



New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view
This archive was generated on Thu May 12 2005 - 13:27:53 Central Daylight Time