A nuanced understanding of all knowledge systems, whether in arts, humanities, science, or any other discipline, requires acknowledging their constructed nature. Scholars from different disciplines are continuously engaged in the process of deconstruction and reconstruction, unveiling multiple narratives regularly. This is indeed a crucial and highly relevant exercise in academics, as it is through such interrogations and interventions that the body of knowledge becomes rich and, at the same time, enriching.
Failure to recognise this fundamental truth can lead to unnecessary, intense and sometimes unpleasant debates, as I observed recently in a research forum of teachers. The pressing question that arose in me during and after these acrimonious exchanges was how teachers should navigate opinions, views, and perspectives—first among themselves, and then in a classroom environment inherently characterised by diverse ideological positions.
Teaching is an art. It is a complex art, and now, thanks to external and internal forces, it has become a complicated one, too. For many teachers, it has evolved into a craft through years of dedicated effort. However, this craft becomes even more challenging in the backdrop of a politically polarised academic climate. Over the last two decades or so, there’s no denying that a growing precarity in academia has been perceived, raising concerns about freely expressing one’s views in the classroom. Within the teaching community, a perceptible feeling of curtailment and restriction that negatively impacts academic autonomy has crept in.
Some teachers are even apprehensive about whether their statements made in a specific context might go viral. The probability of their statements being taken out of context, putting them in a precarious situation, is relatively high. In such times, educators find themselves grappling with the delicate balance of fulfilling their primary duties: first, disseminating information and, second , cultivating an environment where students not only absorb knowledge, but actively contribute to societal well-being.
The dichotomy emerges prominently in the second duty, where educators are required to guide students beyond the transmission of information. Clearly, this involves encouraging critical thinking, a vital 21st-century skill, fostering the ability to question established norms, and engaging in open debates with diverse perspectives. More often than not, a pervasive fear lingers at this juncture: why tread an unsafe path? Why invite trouble by delving into politically significant discussions?
During such challenging situations, teachers commonly adopt two approaches. The first involves sidestepping potential repercussions by avoiding political discussions altogether. The second entails creating space for discourse while keeping personal views and positions totally aside or, at times, ambiguous. A third approach, rarely found today, is where educators openly take positions and express their opinions without mincing words. Unfortunately, those who adopt the third approach often face severe consequences, ranging from forced resignations to dismissals, as witnessed recently at a private university and in an online education agency.
Fundamentally, academics must operate based on the postulate that knowledge is not only provisional but also highly subjective, as professed by Jean Francois Lyotard, the renowned postmodernist, drawing on the philosophies of Nietzsche and Wittgenstein. Therefore, recognising the plurality of truths, educators are required to navigate a complex academic landscape where multiple narratives inherently coexist, each in turn shaping different perspectives of the world. Acknowledging that no knowledge system is wholly objective or absolute truth is paramount.
Consequently, the concept of neutrality becomes problematic as every individual, inevitably rooted in their subjectivities that are continuously formed by social, linguistic, political, and religious orientations, ideologies, and leanings, attempts to make sense of the world. Appreciating the impossibility of complete neutrality, educators should foster an environment where opposing views are respected. This sense of neutrality is what all classrooms must encourage and uphold. Undoubtedly, it is a delicate balancing act, but an essential skill for teachers to develop.
While ‘complete neutrality’ is impossible, teachers must prevent the propagation of misinformation or divisive comments and correct students without bias or prejudice at the same time. Upholding students’ freedom of expression, including the political, is supreme. While refraining from imposing their viewpoints at all times, teachers must provide a space for discussions. Creating space for debates does not necessarily normalise opinions, as long as civility and decency prevail, supported by factual evidence. The challenge for teachers lies in avoiding political proselytising and presenting personal opinions as part of a diverse range of voices, not as the dominant or ‘the’ correct view.
Is the option to avoid political discussions altogether available to teachers? Certainly, but doing so could be counterproductive and, in fact, defeat the purpose of education. While some educators staunchly argue that avoiding political discourse is an abdication of a teacher’s responsibility, others may prefer to seek a ‘safe zone.’
In my view, however, the only safety guaranteed should be intellectual, ensuring respect for students regardless of their views and opinions. Teachers’ prime duty is to prepare students to become conscientious citizens, aware of their rights and responsibilities, and learn to hold themselves accountable for their words and deeds. These are achievable only by nurturing their critical thinking skills. Learning to navigate political differences and engaging in discussions are vital skills for meaningful education, a cornerstone of a healthy democracy.
In the realm of academia, classrooms can thrive on disagreement. Embracing differing viewpoints and teaching students to evaluate evidence critically are crucial for a robust education system. This, in turn, contributes to establishing a resilient democratic system. While some educators may perceive their role as merely information agents, especially in the currently highly polarised landscape, there is no reason to shy away from discussions, even in the face of challenges. Instead, it must be viewed as an opportunity to empower students to think critically, navigate complexities, and contribute meaningfully to society.
Blurb: In this polarised climate, some teachers worry whether their statements might go viral without context. So they are grappling with the delicate balance of fulfilling their primary duties: disseminating information and cultivating an environment where students absorb knowledge and contribute to society
JOHN J KENNEDY
Professor and Dean, CHRIST (Deemed) University, Bengaluru