I should preface this with the caveat that I teach philosophy and have to deal with many of these scenarios (albeit in smaller classes, 25-50) on a regular basis. At my PT "real school" campus, the above situations occur frequently because many students are evangelical Christians. They know I am a liberal and some manage to figure out that I'm Buddhist. Yet, we make a community and cultivate friendships that last long after the class ends. At my FT 4-profit school (not so real), I short-circuit these types of disruptions/objections by controlling the direction of the discussion from the outset. The key in all situations is to respectfully refute their preconceptions while avoiding embarassment for the student. I also begin by offering the Thwarter a private audience with me to discuss the matter and move on by strongly refuting the inane positions above.

Scenario #1 - Explain privately to the Thwarter that she will receive no credit for the assignment and that if she is unwilling to do assignments, it is likely that her grade will be negatively impacted. I gently offer students the chance to leave the classroom community if they are simply unwilling to challenge their own beliefs.

Scenario #2: First, I address the bigotry and prejudice contained in the "White America" comment pointing out that anyone in the class who is not Native American, is from somewhere else, and hence, not entitled to judge more recent emigres. I point to 19-20th century prejudices agaist the Irish/Italians and Eastern Europeans. My syllabus contains language about compassion and kindness and I reiterate that I will not tolerate white supremacy or bigorty in the class. I will also talk to the Thwarter privately if she wishes to continue our discussion.

Scenario #3: Western philosophy rests on separating faith from reason. I point out that the creationists in the crowd are advancing a faith-based interpretation of reality, but that Christian creationism is only a reality for Christians. I advance science as a reason-centered enterprise based on publicly verifiable facts regardless of one's spiritual leanings. I would not let the creationists take control of the discussion from the outset. I would disarm that argument before beginning the class with my introduction to the material.

First, a general comment: I teach a mid-size (30-40) class on language and politics. We have an advantage in that the way we talk about politics is explicitly part of the content. However, how things are talked about is, it seems to me, always potentially part of any class's content. We begin the semester with an acknowledgment that we will be discussing subjects about which students may feel strongly, and devote an early class period to having the students discuss their expectations and lay out rules for civil and cooperative class discussion. That allows us to refer back to those rules throughout the semester and solves a few of these problems. Scenario #2 events are often short-circuited by other students with specific reference to our "Rules of Engagement."

However, if a Scenario #2 does occur, if I see a way to get that question to move us in a productive direction ("what are the different positions people have taken?" "what do people see as being at stake?"), I have found it useful to step back (physically) and say something like "An interesting suggestion. Does everyone agree with that?" Almost certainly, someone will announce that they don't, and the discussion will be off and running. I'd focus in this case on the definitional issues, since often, in my experience, the Thwarter statements tend to take as given certain definitions or categories ("White America" is an obvious one in this example) that deserve to be questioned.

I mention that physical step back because it signals that I'm taking myself out of the position of primary responder. Someone has made a statement; it's up to the class to show that it doesn't represent all of them. (I'll let the question sit there a minute or two, until the silence becomes uncomfortable if necessary.)

As for scenario #1, it seems reasonable to ask the student how she can possibly hope to argue against a position if she doesn't understand how those who hold it think.

I used to teach physics.

Scenario 1: I would challenge Tina that her dad sent her there to learn how to think about hard topics- or does she also feel that the only women who think about such things are feminists?

Scenario 2: I have no direct experience with this, as I taught in a very diverse setting. I think philostitute has the approach I would hope I would take, but I doubt I would have come up with this.

Scenario 3: I have quite a bit of experience with this, as I often had home-school kids in my (college) classes. They were always of high-school age, and so the situation called for very delicate handling. I would first re-assure the thwarters that many very smart practicing scientists also held these beliefs. That was usually enough to get the entire class into the same frame of mind (WTF??). I would tell them that faith wasn't in general a bad thing, and many people had faith in things and maybe didn't even realize it (I usually relate the story of the discover of the neutrino at this point, but very, very, severely summarized) Then I would say that they would not be penalized in my class for their personal beliefs. However, I would point out, the curriculum dictated that they know the theory I was presenting whether or not they believed it, and that was what I was going to present and assess them on. That seemed to satisfy, and even relieve, everybody enough to move on.

In a small NE Liberal Arts College, I teach Public Praxis, Religious Studies, and courses related to socio-economic justice, as well as a Core course for transfer students. The students in the Core course - World Views and Values - are drawn from every discipline in the College. I often, especially in this course, encounter the thwarters. Since I have a predilection for controversy (with ground rules for discourse), I tell the class from the outset that there is no party line, that I am more interested in what might be true, of value, even humane than winning points. Still the thwarters. I usually nod (without judgment) and then say to the class, "does anyone see this differently?" Rarely is it more than a moment or two before views start tumbling out. Then we are off....

<Comment removed by moderator>

shock collars

Thaks, for your comments everyone. You all have a smooth way of dealing with the student who can't see past his/her own perspective.

@abelragen thanks, but please see caveat #3 above. These are merely examples. They had nothing to do with left/right politics. The examples are not the point of this post.

Everyone else: To extend this conversation (and to move beyond the three examples above), how do you handle a thwarter FACULTY member? I'm reluctant to define a scenario that would describe the thwarter faculty member, but we've been around long enough to have seen one or two at meetings or events. You know the one, the one who sucks all potential, all hope, all discussion from the subject at hand. How do you handle that Thwarter?

@velvis "Shock collars"? We at ProfHacker do not ever advocate violence toward students. Ever. Toward the thwarter faculty member? Well, ....

(just kidding everyone, just kidding)

We never advocate violence. ;-)

Honestly - I'm generally the one that has to play the devil's advocate, most of my students are parrots, they're just trying to "get it right" without considering what they think.

So as horrible as it sounds I'm the one saying these things. In the past I have encouraged similar discussions based on these things... mainly because I've said them.

But to thwart the thwarters I bring up the opposing view before the thwarters have chance to with phrases like "ideas like creationism and evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive - let science tell you how and religion tell you why." Or "you don't need to be a feminist to read a text, perhaps it makes more sense to know more about the stance that you don't have so you can support the stance you do."

Sometimes though that takes too long so I just break out the electrically charged weaponry. ;)

Um, we're supposed to teach students, right? There are a few things that would want to get them to believe (e.g., they should read more newspapers, watch less TV, eat their vegetables, etc.), but in most things, we are not teaching them what to think so much as how to think.

All three of these scenarios sound like teachable moments. # 1 is probably the easiest. Tina Thwarter probably has no idea what a feminist is, much less whether feminism has anything to do with her attending college. Class discussion points:

* What is feminism anyway?

* Should you study something even if you don't like it? (Remember the Jesuitical notion of studying one's enemy very closely.) (Feel free to stoop to arguments like: we study disease BECAUSE it causes trouble, and then let the class pick apart the analogy.)

* Are there things that are part good and part trash (SF writer Theodore Sturgeon's dictum that 90 % of science fiction is trash probably applies to other fields, possibly even feminism).

The others are similar. For example, I have never taught evolution to likely creationists before, but if I did, I would carefully review Genesis in advance. What is important here, and in what ways do Genesis and Descent disagree? After all, both produce quite similar and somewhat jaundiced views of human nature. Does the Descent actually deny the existence of God or deny that God created Man?

And in these things, I suspect that it is important to be even-handed -- and take students seriously. After all, the goal is NOT to get the class to reach the "correct" conclusion; the goals (plural!) are:

* To teach students that there are often quite honest and intelligent people who disagree, and

* It is important to hear people out, not only because its the civil thing to do, but often because there is often something important and worthwhile in what they say, and

* Everyone is frequently wrong, so students should not be shocked to be wrong.

Only stupid students are persuaded by an arrogant teacher. I once had a right wing wacko economics teacher (from Chicago, of course) who gave me a D for a term paper saying that if there was a nuclear meltdown, actual liability would exceed Price-Anderson liability cap. I was obviously prejudiced against nuclear power, the professor said. One year later, three-mile-island played out pretty much as I had predicted, and I have nurtured an irrational contempt of those charlatans from Chicago ever since. I suspect that I am not the only student who responded to disdain with disdain.

Last remark. I always warn students that I make lots of mistakes, and some enjoy catching me in my mistakes. IT IS IMPORTANT TO LEARN THAT IT IS OKAY TO BE WRONG. And when teacher is wrong, teacher does best to 'fess up graciously.

For #1: ask her what she thinks is "important". Let the class take it from there. Whatever subject she mentions, you should be able to relate your ideas on labeling - like tagging students with objections "thwarters".
For #2: Tony has used three words that should generate a year's worth of discussion: "white"; "rights", and "illegal". For example, where does the word "white" appear in any of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or the Amendments. Or in your state's constitution?
For #3: Wait a minute: You (the Professor) are giving the lecture and you have not mentioned the Bible? Why should the students be the ones who have to bring up the Creationist/Intelligent Design side? Preempt them. In your lecture outline handout, or in assigned readings before the lecture, cite the Biblical phrases, and the evolutionists' responses. For example, Behe vs. Dawkins on the eye. Or Paley vs. Miller on Design. Or Young Earth vs. Old Earth creationists.
(A more confrontational response that I, a Jew who teaches in southern Georgia, have used in parking lots when confronted with/by Bible waving evangelists: "But your Bible is in English. Christ spoke Aramaic. You know: true Christians learn Hebrew because Satan translates."

I begin my first year composition class with a short explanation of Perry's and Belenky's "ways of knowing." We talk a lot about what it means to "know" something and how that plays out in academia. When we get into sticky situations like those above, I often refer back to these ways and ask things like, "If we were trying to avoid dualism, how might we discuss this question?" This allows us to think more divergently and not to get trapped into the Thwarter's corner.

@22067030, @princeton67, and @bro64: thanks for such thoughtful comments. Your kinds of comments are what we strive for here in this series on the Disruptive Student. ProfHacker's readership is very broad, but a good percentage of our readers are new professors and grad students who do not have the experience of dealing with the Thwarters. Your thoughtful comments, and those of the readers who came before you in this thread, are methods new teachers can use. Thank you!

Ditto the above. I can't see the merit in any approach at trying to "outsmart" these students with whatever worldly knowledge we've picked up in our years of experience.

Each scenario presents a young person who has been handed language to use---"You're not a femininst," for instance---without that student taking the time to think about what these words mean.

That's what a classroom (at least, an English classroom I teach in) is for. What's a feminist? What's an illegal? In what ways do legal citizens pay for the things they get? What, exactly, does the Bible have to say, and how do we make meaning from it?

We prevent students' objections to our teaching from becoming open conversations at the peril of anyone learning anything.

I taught bioethics to large sections at SUNY Buffalo. I would prepare a list of20 hot topics (abortion, homosexuality, etc.) and survey the students on their opinions for each topic and which they felt most strongly about. I then divided the class into debate teams of @ 3 per side, pro and con, but I would assign the students who were pro choice the pro life position to defend and the students who were pro life the pro choice position. Ditto for homosexuality: chosen life style vs. inherent tendency. Occasionally I would have to send a student to the local Bishop to learn about the Devil's Advocate.

Students found that either their team or their view would emerge the winner in each debate, and that seemed to deflect the downer reaction of one who loses. And students emerged sometimes with their views changed, but always with a better understanding of both sides of the issue.

As a result, I never had the kind of disruption described in the three scenarios.

As a teacher, I'm willing to believe there is something more to these objections from students than just a desire not to learn, so I usually ask them to say more (or to rephrase if their first attempt at communication was abusive, which I deal with swiftly). I'll also ask for counter-reactions from the rest of the class. Then I'll try to form what they say into opposing viewpoints. But then I try to move them into a more objective way of thinking, usually by returning to whatever text is at issue. I try to move the students to a less emotionally charged reaction since it is usually pretty difficult and even painful for them to imagine that their dad or their faith might not have given them the whole story.

With faculty members, it's probably not much different. I'm willing to imagine that there's something about their reaction that I'm not understanding. So I ask questions. "I'm confused about X" - "I can't see that - can you explain more about Y?" Maybe they have a point, you know? Maybe not, Either way, I have more information from which to argue my own side.

One of my tricks is to say, "like the rest of the people running and teaching at this institution, I am professional scholar and college educator with multiple university degrees. Non of you, nor your parents, are qualified to know what you need to learn. Your refutation of my lesson is like arguing with a doctor who is about to operate on you (no I think my appendix are on the other side), or with the chef at your favorite restaurant (do you really need to keep chicken and fish separated? Chicken is better than fish, maybe you should store them together so they'll be equally good.) Etc."

I utterly disagree with the idea that some 18-22 year old knows what they need to learn. Nor do I accept that their no-college educated, or 2.5 GPA 30 years ago, parents have a clue either.

Another tactic: "if this were a job then would you refuse to do the job? The point of a university education is that you are trained in lots of ways of thinking and are able to get along with the world that is wider than the world of family and friends into which you were born. If you do not want to be able to get a job in that wider world, if you don't want to learn about the world beyond your hometown, your family, and your religion, then you should leave college now. A college education is about growth. That is the difference between you and folks who don't go to college. You know about the world, those other folks are just telling stories and calling it their opinion."

As for the bible quoting scenario, that behavior is rude. It would be like someone going into their church and reading quoting from Darwin aloud. Then I would turn to above arguments. I might also note that lots of people believe in lots of things, but the University tries to be about things that people think. Thinking and believe are not quite the same thing, although they can look alike they aren't.

Somewhere in all of this situations would be a private conversation.

However, since the students decided to involve the class, the initial response would be public.

There are, it seems to me, a couple of different kinds of thwarting behaviors. (I was going to write "techniques," but cleverclogs makes the excellent point that it's not necessarily about trying to disrupt the discussion.) Scenarios #1 and 2 are instances of what we could call the Thwart Direct: the student makes a statement that directly expressed his/her view. As the comments have indicated, these aren't generally too difficult to deal with, if one can address the specifics of the comment, often by talking about definitions or assumptions.

Where I run into trouble is with the "Thwart Indirect," where the student presupposes the sidetracking material (cf. Groucho Marx's "when did you stop beating your wife?"). Scenario #3 is an example of this: the students presuppose that a discussion of the Bible belongs in a science class. A student who asked "why aren't you talking about the account in Genesis?" is being direct and can be directly answered. A student who simply quotes Bible verses, or, worse, says, "Shouldn't we look at what God says about this?" is putting the thwarting material in a presupposition. Another example, from my own classroom, was a comment on a George W. Bush speech that essentially said (very much paraphrased and shortened), "He is using language associated with unity and determination, taking the opportunity to get everyone's attention off the stolen election." The student's main point about the language of the speech was true, but the comment about the election was completely off-base. I didn't want to address it because it was irrelevant to what we were doing, but I couldn't very well let it stand unchallenged.

It's the Thwart Indirect I still, after many years of teaching, have trouble dealing with satisfactorily.

A useful discussion; thanks. After decades of teaching, I'm now teaching online for the first time and finding that I need to deal with Thwarters in online discussion, and in different ways.

One way that is helping to do so in online discussion, and that has helped in f2f classroom discussion, is to work at helping students to differentiate between thinking and "feeling." So many sound like Las Vegas lounge singers (I have been known to hum that horrid tune "Feelings") in saying or writing "I feel. . . ." instead of "I think. . . ."

I tell them that I cannot grade feelings. Or beliefs. I can only grade what college is about: thinking. They want a grade for their work, whether oral discussion or in writing? They have to base their thinking, then, on evidence -- the evidence in the course readings first, and (only) then they can bring in other evidence for discussion. Somehow, the anti-feminist, for example, rarely has read anything to support his views and relapses into, "well, that's just what I feel/believe." And then I reiterate that I cannot grade feelings or beliefs but only the thinking process, so what do they think about the readings? etc.

They usually subside and/or drop for discussion to go forward, because my stance is so eminently fair and respectful in others' eyes, and other students will emulate it by beginning with "I respect your feelings, but I think. . . ." (Of course, the anti-feminists and fundamentalists and such -- I have them all at my campus -- will get me on evals. This posed a lot of problems for me when untenured, and I empathize with those colleagues.)

bro64 brings forth an excellent point! I believe, as a professor, that my job is to prompt students to question their currently held beliefs, not to change them, but to assist them towards reflecting on why they believe what they believe.

At the heart of adult learning is the potential for transformational learning, or deep, reflective learning that may require students to reflect, and ultimately reframe their world views. There is no way to cause transformative learning, but as effective teachers we might set conditions in a way that, like cultivating soil for a garden, will provide the kind of environment that may lead the student to possible transformation, and a subsequent enlarged world view.

I do this in my classes by asking other students what they think or feel... that is usually enough to get dialogue going, and if they get confrontational I remind them that there is enough room in the world for more than one point of view.

Do a google search on transformative learning and you will find some very interesting work that includes Perry, Belenky, Cranton, Daloz, Mezirow, Dirkx, Elias, O'Sullivan, Taylor, Kasl, Marsick, York, and Wallace. Dirkx recounts in one of his stories an experience when a dualistic thinker derailed the class.

jungianscholar

I once taught AP Bio in a (fundamentalist) religious high school in Georgia. The text (the same one used for almost ALL AP Bio in the US) was full of statements like "evolution is the central organizing principle of Biology," and it discussed almost every possible topic from that view point. (E.g., instead of saying "monkeys have tails," it would say "monkeys evolved tails.")

During the 2nd or 3rd class, I stopped, dropped the pitch of my voice (so the little dears could tell I was changing subject), and said something very much like this: "look: we don't have a lot of time to discuss this, but it's important, so listen carefully. I know that this book, and Biologists in general, believe differently about how the various creatures came to be than y'all do. And that's okay. The thing is, Science has specific boundaries, and most of what the Bible says is outside those. It is, literally, beyond Science. I'm here to teach you what Science has to say. And that's what you are here to learn. Even, or especially, if you plan to make a career of arguing against it, you need to learn what Science has to say on this topic. And, by the way, that's what's going to be on the AP test, which it's my job to prepare you for. The truth is, it's not so hard to understand Science and the Bible in ways that they are not at odds with each other, and I'll be very happy to discuss that with you, briefly or at length, but I don't have time during the 42 minutes we have every day to get you ready for the AP test. Does that work for everyone?"

And it did. The other thing I would do is say something like "Biologists think..." or "the scientific view is that..." frequently when discussing these topics.

Saying that illustrated to them the missing ingredient in many of these comments: RESPECT for the views of the student. If they perceive that you have respect for them and their view, you will almost never have an overt problem like the examples. The big difficulty is that you can't really fake it; kids may not know (almost) anything, but they have *great* BS detectors. You have to actually HAVE respect for their view. Sadly, some of the posts here demonstrate that their authors would simply not be able to pull that off.

If you are secure and fixed in your position, and convinced of the wrongness of any other, you would be silly to expect different of your students.

lkcoleman, a Thwart Indirect is certainly harder to deal with than a direct one; for me (not in the classroom just now), I wasn't always so good at recognizing them until after the fact.

If you recognize them when they occur, can't you turn them into a direct discussion by pointing out the presupposition and bringing it to the forefront? Then you can have the same straightforward kind of conversation about it? Something like "that question presupposes that X is true. But regardless of how convinced YOU may be of X, don't you agree that X is neither universally accepted, nor actually proven? So it can't be presupposed, can it? How could you ask that question in a way that doesn't presuppose X?"

I imagine that the students would get tired of hearing this whole speech, and would get better at not provoking it.