This article posted today on Inside Higher Ed dealing with the bind of teaching queer theory to reluctant undergraduate students averse to its core politics. Written by Joshua Gunn at UT Austin, he describes a specific incident with a student’s parent in a large lecture class that made him fear for his job and subsequently “retreat” to liberal humanism. (Ken Rufo’s advice to him on the matter is included about half way down.) Like Gunn, I came to teach in a southern classroom via Minnesota, and the ensuing “culture shock” was indeed a lot for my sensibilities. Here’s a snippet from the end of the article:
I guess, then, I’m not radical enough. But I want to keep my job.I’ll admit as well that deep down there is a part of me that cannot let go of the notion that liberal humanism keeps some people alive — a faith I’d like to think has some affinity to Spivak’s notion of momentary solidarity in “strategic essentialism” for social and political action. I say I’d like to think it has an affinity, but perhaps I’m more sheepish and cowardly than I’d like to admit? Nevertheless, institutional pressures, the increasing erosion of academic freedom and the decay of tenure protections, the general, cultural hostility toward the professoriate, parental and alumni demands and the PTA-ification of the college and university, and the consumerist drive-thru window attitude about teaching that some students harbor, these trends collectively suggest that the teach-it-and-then-deconstruct-it approach may be the baby bear’s porridge pedagogy of our time. While I have yet to reach the stage in my career from which he is speaking, I can relate to his mindset and I struggle with some of the same questions. Moreover, I struggle with the relationship between my personal, academic, and pedagogical identities which all call me to different “performances” of myself. Sometimes I wonder if I’m radical enough in my teaching too…
