In his presidential address delivered at the Modern Language Association Convention last December (go here and scroll down to “Listen to the 2008 Presidential Address”), Gerald Graff made clear his approval of various developments in literary studies associated with positions on the left of the ideological spectrum.
Education conservatives believe that progressivist and multiculturalist imperatives have weakened the humanities curriculum, but Graff maintains: “The 60s are still often seen as having dumbed education down, but I would argue that, in the humanities at least, the post-60s college curriculum has been far more intellectually challenging than the relatively tame and circumscribed affair I experienced as an undergraduate in the 50s.”
Indeed, while conservatives have complained that the flood of critical theories of various kinds has turned the humanities into a perfunctory and predictable arena, Graff insists: “In language and literature departments, students had to cope with a barrage of new theories, methods of reading, and isms, and . . . these new ideas and approaches have re-energized the humanities.” (Graff does regret, however, that the coexistence of these pluralistic meta-criticisms was never clearly explained to students.)
Conservatives also “present a highly skewed picture of the problem of classroom indoctrination,” Graff insists, and they “jump far too quickly to conclusions . . . from the circumstantial evidence of course descriptions and syllabi.”
For all his disagreements, though, Graff’s address marks a signal adjustment in how humanities professors treat conservative adversaries. It is, in fact, a sweeping call for a different attitude — not a recommendation that humanities professors become more attuned to conservative ideas of education and culture, but a request that they admit them as respectable positions worthy of examination.
Much of his argument turns upon contradictions among the professor ranks.
For one thing, when humanities professors knock David Horowitz and others for exaggerating the problem of politicized coercion in classrooms, they overlook the claims to “political instruction” made by many humanities professors for decades. Graff points out: “since the 60s, ‘transforming’ the political consciousness of students has been widely defended in print as a legitimate goal of teaching, as is seen in such self-described trends as ‘the pedagogy of the oppressed,’ ‘critical pedagogy,’ ‘teaching for social justice,’ ‘radical pedagogy,’ and ‘anti-oppressive education.’”
He made the same point several years ago in an essay in Radical Teacher entitled “Teaching Politically Without Political Correctness” (see here). There he wrote, “given the claims made by liberatory theorists, it is reasonable enough for their critics to suspect that bullying and indoctrination is what radical pedagogy is after.”
In his address, Graff assures that he doesn’t know whether political coercion is taking place or not, but “what I do know, however, is that what the advocates of these pedagogies say in print is often disturbing.”
For humanities professors to react against criticism from the right as if it were delusional or purely a power play, then, is to engage in a degree of self-denial. Yes, Graff asserts that figures on the right “have loudly denounced today’s academic humanists as politically correct thought police (or as their enablers), and these insulting characterizations have gained traction in the popular media.”
But he adds, “Many of us have reacted to these denunciations as an outrageous interference with our academic freedom, one that at worst is aimed at cutting off our public support. I would argue, however, that to respond effectively to these charges we need to become less dismissive and defensive and more willing to ask whether some of them may be true.”
Not that they are true, but only that professors must allow rightist criticisms on the table, and refute them on the grounds of the evidence, not on the real or presumed motives of the critics. That means that academics must stop regarding right-wing critics in such a cynical ad hominem light.
Graff: “Unfortunately, in responding to the conservative charges we too often deny or minimize the possibility that abuse of classroom authority is a genuine problem, evading the issue by accusing the accusers of being the ones who are motivated only by ideology.” Once you refuse conservative critics any meritorious aim, you can dismiss everything they say. Graff cites a point I made in a panel earlier in the vonvention, that such a response “denies them ‘any decent or honest motive,’ as if they did not sincerely ‘care about young minds and the curriculum.’”
Again, this doesn’t mean that Graff concedes any points to the right. “My own view,” he states, “is that though conservative critics present a highly skewed picture of the problem of classroom indoctrination, they have not made it up.” While they may be wrong, they don’t fabricate their case out of nothing.
It is time to break out of the us vs. them stance, to open the academic marketplace of ideas. Graff: “To sum up, then: 1. As teachers we need to encounter strongly opposing views in order to think at our best and to prevent students from feeling pressured to agree with us; 2. We need others to represent those opposing views, since we can’t do so adequately by ourselves; 3. Our colleagues will normally be the others most qualified and empowered to represent those views.”
Number 3 sounds like it might keep the circle closed, but if teachers adhere to 1 and 2, the stigmatization of opposing perspectives will certainly diminish, and the ad hominem removal of opinions won’t so smoothly pass muster.
Graff concludes: “Whatever the case, without trying to turn back the clock, I believe we would benefit today from more of the spirit of fair play embraced by earlier fellow traveling academics like the one I quoted a moment ago who worried that using one’s ‘position in the classroom’ to ‘influence young people’ is not ‘good sportsmanship.’”
That’s what it comes down to. Academics may treat conservatives as wrong, wrong-headed, misguided, confused, insufficiently informed, and tied to false premises. But also, they should start with the generous assumption that education critics on the right share the same basic concerns about students, and that acknowledging those common grounds can advance the debate beyond the now-aging polarities of the academic culture wars.
