OCR Text |
Show lessons, Fail 2004 page 13 was not part of the religion. At times, different citizens chose it their duty to articulate my religious inadequacies. Fortunately, two individuals reserved their judgments and made efforts to get to know me. Although I know they held the same beliefs as the rest, I found our conversations to be much more enriching than the "thou shalts" that were otherwise being pronounced upon my head. They explained to me their religion and they debated differences that even they had within their own belief system. And, although they strongly opposed some of my beliefs, they listened to me. I knew that we had won each others' respect and friendship when, at the end of my year-long stay in their country, one of them said to me, "I spoke to my [religious leader] about you and he said that even if you are not one of us, you can still make it to heaven." I could have received no better compliment from him. No matter the cause of religiosity; we still have spiritual content to cover. In the Axson-Flynn settlement, instructors may include content that challenges deeply held spiritual beliefs that is required for "reasonable curricular integrity". We are responsible for defining "reasonable" and also for letting class participants know in advance when beliefs might be challenged. A group of students had decided to show a brief clip from the movie Schindler's List just after it had been banned from the BYU campus because of its 'R' rating for nudity. Their purpose was to graphically illustrate both racism and violence in a course unit on violence and public health. Prior to airing the clip, I felt it necessary to let the class know that it would be ok if anyone felt they had to leave the room while it showed, though we were "only" going to see brutality and not nudity in the clip. No one left. Of course, I thought the violence was much more counter-religious than seeing a non-sexualized nude body would have been. Many of use are careful, as the above vignette illustrates, to accommodate sensibilities. Our concern as faculty is to make sure that university students are not needlessly distracted from learning by anything provocative that is not related to the material at hand. As an example, we protect our small children from exposure to clothing that can provoke violence. Thus, we have dress codes in middle school in the Salt Lake School District, and an entire nation has banned the wearing of head scarves in lower grades by Muslim women. However, we are teaching young adults. In higher education, that which is distracting for children is usually seen as fodder for discussion, until the cry, "Too far!" is heard. With the perception that the University of Utah is biased against the Mormon religion, we may hear "Too far!" too soon. It is our job to lay out our pedagogical reasons for both content and process that teaches and moves the discussion forward, in a context of heightened sensitivity to anti-Mormonism. Note that we use the phrase "heightened sensitivity to anti-Mormonism". The U is not anti-Mormon. That is a myth that has been repeatedly disproved. What we still struggle with is the perception that we are insensitive to spirituality of all types and that we foster dissent when dissent is tantamount to disloyalty, including disloyalty to religious tenets. So our concern is that something will always be offensive, no matter how careful we are. We will have sensitivities that are bruised, with resultant classroom bad behaviors. Listening degenerates into merely waiting one's turn to speak. Some students may not wait their turn at all; voices are raised; conversations become testimonies. Since it is our responsibility as faculty to ensure an environment conducive to learning, Teaching Tips Once behavioral expectations are asserted and even modeled, we can use other teaching techniques to advance learning. Best practices when teaching sensitive content - and sometimes everything is potentially sensitive -include: • Inviting students to step back from the material and reflect on bigger themes • Use of role play to place themselves in the other's position • listing all perspectives on the board for all to see. Of course, when emotions get very high, writing can often be a safe place for expression and learning. / frequently have students reflect on the class in writing and hand that in to me. There have been times when the paper is practically singed around the edges with the heat of the emotion on the page, and you would never have known it from their quiet demeanor in class. I don't even try to respond to the content; I just respond to the emotion with a "Thank you for letting me know how strongly this affected you..." we deliberately shift our instructor roles when matters that challenge spiritual tenets are introduced in the classroom. We become referees, rudeness police, rule-makers and rule-enforcers. At times, the bias exhibited may be extreme and be offensive to the instructor, challenging our abilities to bracket our own emotions and remain, in fact and in deed, the instructor. I'll never forget sitting in the back of a room as a peer evaluator while a faculty member introduced content about therapeutic abortion procedures, and hearing some whispers from the students behind me that were quite derogatory. I was completely offended and immediately livid. Because I knew I would be their instructor during the next semester, I had to force myself to not turn around and memorize their faces; I just didn't want to know who was saying such terrible things about women who had undergone abortions. However, one important point of the Axson-Flynn case was that the student could not avoid engaging in the content and was not given alternatives to the content. Ethically and legally, of course, the author's words were not alterable. How we as teachers shall work with two or more immovable and conflicting value sets remains to be resolved, yet most of us as intellectuals enjoy engaging in a good, challenging debate, and helping students learn this same skill. Beliefs should not be left to ossify and the function of a university education is to learn to continually and intelligently examine beliefs for veracity and fit. At the same time, our intellectual selves coexist with our spiritual selves. As President Young said in one of his addresses to staff this September, "Beliefs should be challenged, not destroyed." Artwork: Courtesy of Mary Francy at the Museum of Fine Arts |