Monday, August 5, 2013

How Does an Atheist Teach a God-Awful Text? An Early Thirsty

So, here's some serious misery. 'Serious' inasmuch as it is not student-related but raining down from above, and I don't know what to fucking do about it.

I've got some classes at a new place, a CC, and they use a pre-selected text, which I've dealt with before. No worries, right? Well, for one of the classes, the text is a god-awful piece of tripe that argues for the importance of 'faith' to living a moral life.

What the ever-loving fuck? Seriously?

Look, I'm not trying to put down anyone's beliefs, but I'm an atheist, and an aggressive one, at that. And I'm pretty sure, after reading some literature from the First Amendment Center, that this is a gross violation of the law. And I sure as shit can't teach this with a straight face, or in good conscience. But if I don't use this book, I don't get the job, and I don't get the measly amount of money they're offering me.The measly amount of money that I desperately need.

Q: What the bloody fucking hell do I DO?

-Wylodmayer

31 comments:

  1. Do what a Keynesian or a Marxist does when teaching introductory economics and "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman has been put by the department on the syllabus: list it on the syllabus, mention it briefly, use the Abraham Lincoln quote, "For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing they like," assign readings from it, and leave it at that. If you assign readings to modern students, you may be assured that virtually no one will read them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry to be so unhelpful but suck it up. You might have to use the text but do they tell you to use only that text? Find something that fits your views and use both. Let the books argue against each other.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, turn it into a philosophy class and really take the issue head on. :)
    One problem, though, with setting up Chicken Soup for the Soul versus Being and Nothingness is that they'll prefer the former because they can understand it easily. I see this in a methods class-- they'll find an outdated/simplistic methodology more compelling because their reading isn't good enough to "get" the more sophisticated options.

    ReplyDelete
  4. teach the text by teaching the problem.- make the class about determining the underlying assumptions of the text, and the debates surrounding those assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  5. They're telling you not only what anthology to use, but which texts from it to assign, and when? Eek! The assembly-line approach that everybody seems to fear will arrive if we adopt the bovine approach* is apparently already here (and no, I'm not surprised, not a bit. There's a certain "first they came for the adjuncts" logic to the complaints of senior professors who fear that somebody else might now get to do the lecturing).

    But to get back to the question: Like others above, I'd say either balance the text with an equally- or better-reasoned text arguing that faith is *not* necessary to leading a moral life (try for something relatively calm and non-militant, not something that ridicules faith as superstition, or even that focuses on the atrocities that have been committed in the name of faith -- and yes, there are many -- but that sticks pretty narrowly to the question of whether faith is *necessary* for morality), or deconstruct the text as a piece of reasoning, leading students gently through identifying assumptions, possible counterarguments, etc., etc., and letting them come up with the actual content as much as possible. Or, if you think even those approaches are likely to go radioactive (due to your own deeply-felt beliefs or the students'), do something innocuous based loosely on the text, like a grammar or citation exercise (if challenged, say that you just couldn't bear seeing another misplaced apostrophe, missing signal phrase, or whatever, and did your best to incorporate the assigned reading into what you felt was most urgent).

    For whatever it's worth, this strikes me as a counterproductive choice pedagogically. The purpose of college is not proselytizing (either for a faith perspective or a purely secular one), and, while students do need to learn to think critically, the way to do that is not to go straight for something related to the most deeply-held parts of their identity (and exactly the point that their relatives, friends, pastors, etc. may be telling them will be under threat by the big bad secularist academy). They need to start with something much less fraught, and work their way up. (Or at least that's the case in composition; I'm not arguing here that freshman bio or other science courses shouldn't take evolution as a given; I realize that's not an available choice).


    *Trying to avoid a word that apparently attracts spam. Make a bovine noise and add C.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait a minute, you mean the text isn't an anthology you've used before (I wasn't reading carefully enough, I think), but a single long text with this theme? What the #$%@!

      The only thing I can think of in that case is some sort of "critical approaches" approach -- what would someone with a historicist bent say about this text? a Marxist? a Freudian? a gender theorist?

      It does seem if the class focuses on a single text for the whole semester, there ought to be some room for supplementary reading, both critical and counterpoint.

      Delete
    2. "*Trying to avoid a word that apparently attracts spam. Make a bovine noise and add C. "

      In my head, I hear a cow lowing, "cooooo"

      It took me awhile.

      Delete
    3. Hmm. . .I probably should have added "at the end" at the end. Also, think more conventionally (i.e. speak and say, or whatever those now-undoubtedly-outdated wheelie things with the pointer and the pull string were called).

      Delete
  6. Can you spin "faith" to be about something other than religion? Like "faith in human progress" or "faith in the scientific method as a right guiding principle" or "faith in your own moral compass" or something like that?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I love the idea of using the text to talk about the ways that religion (that's what the text means, I presume, by faith?) has been used by civilizations for eons to encourage behaviors that are not anti social---ie---moral. I was born and raised a Catholic (now I have switched to a different, but still Christian, religion) and the most informative and enlightening discussions I ever had about morality were with a militant atheist with whom I shared office hours early on as an adjunct. After all, informed faith is so much better than the blind variety----and so much more likely to induce behavior that might be considered moral by most people. There are so many ways to do this by supplementing with other readings----it could make the course a really great learning experience for your students who are not snowflakes (a few in every crowd---right?).

    I'd just worry that you'll get complaints if you don't do it with a light touch. Who needs that kind of aggravation? Tread carefully----but do try to make it work so that you can get that money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course you might be wanting to emphasize that religion has also been used for eons by civilizations to encourage behaviors that are NOT very social-----not in a moral sense, anyway (maybe even the Crusades were socially positive for some people in a political sense!). I think there'd be room for that too, but you might want to start small.

      Delete
    2. Mmm... What more social than a crusade -- "social" in the sense of vigorous interpersonal intercourse. :P

      Delete
  8. Best-case scenario: the CC in question is not a religious sort of place, and then you can do what was suggested above: include in the course, with at least equal weight, readings from the faithless point of view. A selection from Dennett, Dawkins and Hitchens would do nicely, if the students can handle that level of reading.

    The mass-produced texts for basic math can be awful too, for different reasons. When I have the option, I just pick my own text, and then have to deal with criticism from two sources. First the students. One of the main "skills of the modern student" is monitoring peers: if all the other sections are using the standard text, you're asking them to do more work! How unfair! Your text is too advanced! And secondly from administrators, who automatically side with the students.

    If the CC does have a religious bent (possibly undeclared), you're screwed. Then it's a joke, and you can either embrace the joke (and look for another job) or emphasize the parts of the text that omit the faith-based "arguments".

    ReplyDelete
  9. Can you clarify? It seems very odd to have one text on the "importance of faith" that you would use for an entire semester, or even a huge part of the semester. I avoid texts all the time. How much time do you have to spend on this?

    Then of course, as others have said, can you turn things around and ask "Is faith always important to living a moral life"? If your community college isn't a religious one, you're likely to find any number of sympathizers. Often in my comp class I have students argue a view opposite their own, as an exercise.

    Just a little piece of advice: Leave your "aggressive" atheism at the classroom door. I'm a devout Christian and that's where I leave my belief.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seconded. If the students know what your opinion is, you've failed. (Most of the time I fail, but still...)

      Delete
  10. I have a habit of assigning too many readings than we can cover in class. That way, they appear on the syllabus in case someone up above takes a look at it. When we run out of time I simply say that I won't test on anything we couldn't cover in class and not to worry about those readings. The overlords are happy because it looks like it's being taught and the students are happy because it's not.

    Of course, this all depends on the CC you're at. I spent a couple terms at a fundamentalist CC where I was expected to pray over my sandwich before I ate it. I needed the money so I feel your pain.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If it's a fundamentalist (or otherwise explicitly faith-based) institution, I'd strongly suggest turning down the offer, and looking for other work. You're not a good fit, and there are activities other than teaching that pay better (or there is teaching online; Monkey has offered some good advice on getting into that if you're not already doing it). But from your references to law and the First Amendment Center, I'm guessing that it's officially secular. Even if it is officially secular, but covertly (at least in this department) faith-based, I wonder whether this fight is worth your time/energy. I'm not telling you not to do it; I'm just suggesting you think twice about what you would have done if this opportunity had not arisen, and consider doing that instead. Given who you are, and who they may be, this sounds like it might be far more of a time/energy suck than it's worth. In short, don't put yourself in a position to be an atheist martyr unless that's really one of your major life goals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. P.S. This advice comes from a practicing Christian who does not apply to many Christian colleges that require a faith statement, because, although I have one, it would almost certainly not be judged satisfactory. Whether you challenge religious creep in a supposedly-secular institution is a trickier question, but, once again, I'd refer you to your broader life goals, and how such activity would fit with them.

      Delete
    2. I think Cassandra provides helpful advice. Take religion out of it for a moment. You are assigned to teach using a text that you think is a poor representation of the field of study. Who do you think will win - you or the department head*? Now, add the element of religion into the mix so that everybody feels that the other person is insulting their personal beliefs. Does that help you win? No. Scream "first amendment" all you want. You'll lose and the process will be a huge stress on you. Is the money really worth it?

      If you must do this, consider an exercise in learning to lie. Lying convincingly is an underrated skill that helps our society function. Whether you are testifying to Congress or talking to the Dean, lying can help you. Learn to do it well.

      * As I wrote this, it occurred to me that nobody has suggested that you take your concern to your department head. The odds of finding a fellow atheist who might sympathize with you are dramatically higher in academia. You might gently broach the subject by expressing concern for offending other students' religious and nonreligious beliefs.

      Delete
    3. I, too, wondered whether there was someone with whom you might discuss your concerns. On the other hand, "good" adjuncts are seen (barely) and not heard; in a school that's already using a standard text (and efficiency as well as a standardization measure), it seems highly unlikely that anyone is going to want to have a discussion about texts with the adjunct hired two weeks before class starts, presumably to teach sections created a few days before. Also, there's no time to order another text (and students have already been told they'd be using the set one and may have bought it, etc., etc., etc.)

      Delete
  12. Can you lecture in the manner of Sarcastic Ray?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBGh03nvkdUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBGh03nvkdU

    ReplyDelete
  13. It just seems so easy to tear a text like that apart. I was assigned a textbook that argued that "nature" superiority of European civilization as the fundamental lens for the last 1000 years. I had to use it; the students paid like $150 for it. And I spent the whole term talking about the thousands of reasonable ways it was totally wrong. We destroyed that text and my students developed excellent writing, reasoning, and analytical skills while we did so. Have fun with it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think Academic Monkey has a good start on it..

    If you have an online CMS, find links to challenge the assumptions of the text -- then, make assignments in which your students summarize the argument in the text AND the objections to that argument -- have them write these before class and then class discussion is about the comparison.

    I also love the idea of putting too much on the reading schedule, then not discussing or testing on the text much at all -- although, that can come around to bite you if your students snitch.. SO, make writing assignments in which they have a choice of texts to write about and include the assigned text as well as sources that are more fun to experience -- websites, movies etc.. let the students do more of the choosing and roll with the class discussion.

    I'd also be very up-front in class about what you think the biases are and ask for input from your students. Make it clear that you see morality as coming from a variety of sources and ask them if they really think that atheists and agnostics can't ALSO be good people? All it takes is one or two students brave enough to speak up in response and the whole mood of the class will change.

    For your own well-being, I'd ask for the official course outline -- I've found that most CCs have them deep in some vault, but do so with the idea that you'd like to see what the college is assuming is included in your course so that your students will have an adequate preparation for other courses. I'd be willing to bet that IF you're at a public CC (aren't most of them public??), a course outline biased toward religion wouldn't have been approved. If/when your teaching methods are called into question, you can say that you're trying to align your curriculum with the course outline, learning outcomes etc. Remind your challenger that IF students complain, the combination of syllabus and course outline constitutes the contract between college/professor and student. You were only trying to make sure things were done properly in following the course outline.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Teach around the text.

    Use it (because it's mandatory) but then take the *real* lessons necessary for the discipline and highlight them in class. Try to avoid the "religious" elements all that you can. Of course, this presumes that the text is actually slightly on target for the discipline; if not, you're screwed --- extra texts = extra work/ extra expense = unhappy customer-students.

    Previous experience:

    As a TA, I once encountered a prof who loathed the standard text for the department because he saw a lot of inappropriate religiosity in it. I didn't... probably because I focused on the parts that were explanatory and ignored the (religious) examples, which would exchanged by more general ones in lecture and discussion sections.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I teach at a SLAC that is affiliated with a church. I am not of that faith, but I jump through the hoops because my job depends on it, and my commitment to the school dictates that if I teach there, I respect the mission of the SLAC. This doesn't mean I teach everything the way others might expect. I believe part of my responsibility as an educator is to teach students to think for themselves, and if assigned a text I believe doesn't do that, I find ways to get students to realize that themselves.

    Mostly, though, if I assign it in LONG chunks, they read the first 2 pages and then quit reading.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi. I practice a religion that has zero colleges in the United States and I regularly have to assign readings that discuss issues that are against my beliefs. However, I don't take it personally and I teach the subject matter for what it is: subject matter. I don't have to believe in every text I assign and if I didn't assign the texts I don't agree with on a faith-based basis, I would be an awful instructor. My advice to you is to realize that your beliefs don't have to bleed over into your teaching and vice versa.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hey, everyone! First, thanks for all the advice. Now, to try and answer some of the questions that have been asked and address some of the points raised:

    1) This is a public CC, with a legal obligation to remain neutral not only between religious persuasions, but also between belief and non-belief. Officially, at any rate.

    2) The text is one I have to use. In theory, I can introduce other readings, but making copies of them would be at my own expense.

    3) The textbook is a shoddy piece of crap that doesn't engage adequately with the substantive issues of moral development and its relation to everyday life, but it IS littered with Bible quotes and starts off the first chapter talking about how "pop culture" teaches people to "do whatever they like regardless of how it harms themselves or others." It also speaks, repeatedly, of the "evils" of pop culture.

    4) The book is by a no-name author (a SUSPICIOUSLY no-name author, in fact - I think it's a pseudonym) from a no-name press.

    5) If I were teaching ABOUT religious beliefs and how they relate to moral development, I'd be fine with that. I've taught that many times. But teaching this text straight would require me to assert as fact something I flatly believe to be false. And, not incidentally, something that logically implies I am not a moral person.

    6) I fully agree that if the class knows what your own views are, you've failed. In the past, classes have expressed confusion as to whether I was religious or not. I don't let them know. The guy who assigned this text obviously feels different. All his RYP reviews talk about how great it is to have a "good Christian professor."

    7) I considered teaching the class as a critique of the book, but I want to work for this place next semester, too, and I'm frankly afraid I won't get to if I attack this book... especially since I have some suspicions that the guy who assigned it had a hand in writing it or has a personal connection to whomever did (see #4).

    8) My initial impulse was to tell the guy who assigned the text that I have some problems with it, and that he might be exposing the school to legal action if he keeps using it. I have not done that (see below).

    9) For now, I've taken the coward's way out - I got that course assignment swapped for another that uses a more standard text. I feel like shit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, #9 sounds like a pretty sensible approach to me. Besides saving you grief, it puts you in a position to quietly learn more about the department, its workings and personalities, and how in the world the text (which sounds really, really odd, to put the kindest face on it) came to be assigned. If you find anything interesting (i.e. along the lines of #s4 and 7), you have the option not only of exposing the information yourself, but also of passing on the information to other possibly-interested parties (sympathetic local legislators and/or journalists come to mind; this is especially true if the textbook is expensive and/or can be construed as such. The ACLU, Americans for the Separation of Church and State, or other similar organizations might also be interested. And/or there's always guerilla posting of your own on the The Site That Shall Not Be Named -- you could rate colleagues other than the text-assigner who teach with the text highly, but mention the problems with the book; that might get their, and the administration's, attention. As others have pointed out, and you have concurred, students at a public college shouldn't *know* they've got a "good Christian professor" -- or at least shouldn't have any detailed idea of what his specific beliefs are.)

      Delete
  19. Oh no, another text that gives religion a bad name. Faith, when tied in together with the subject of metaphysics, is insanely complex.

    Funny how Quebec and other euro states don't have the separation of church and state, yet can run circles around American students. Hah!

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.