Kind of Fishy

more stanley fish.

he argues on his nytimes.com blog that the role of an academician is only to instruct and not to attempt to guide students to take proactive roles in political, humanitarian, or other causes. he writes that teachers are "paid and trained" to do only two things:

"1) to introduce students to materials they didn’t know a whole lot about, and 2) to equip them with the skills that will enable them, first, to analyze and evaluate those materials and, second, to perform independent research, should they choose to do so, after the semester is over. That’s it. That’s the job. There’s nothing more."

fish argues that trying to do more results in the politicization of the classroom, and that political and moral questions must be left out.

so what should a teacher do? fish asserts that,

"instead of asking questions like 'What should be done?' or 'Who is in the right?' you ask, 'What are the origins of this controversy?' or 'What relationship does it have to controversies taking place in other areas of inquiry?' or 'What is the structure of argument on both sides?'"

i both agree and disagree with mr. fish. i disagree that large political, moral, and other questions and issues should be left out of the classroom. rather, i believe that guiding students as they grapple with complex but crucial issues is central to the ethical duty of a teacher. i agree, though, that the two items mr. fish lists to illustrate what he believes encompasses the role of an academic are correct and proper -- but i think they should be applied in helping students prepare for an active, involved, and politically and socially relevant adulthood.

THAT, to me, is the real role of the teacher academic. yes, it's very important to cover new materials of which students are not knowledgeable, but this should be done with an eye to the student's involvement in the larger world of political, social, and moral issues they will face down the road.