Book review: done. Wireless network: still down ...
Anyway, a reader comments:
I'd also like to argue against one small point in "Academic Identity Politics":"he's teaching classics. How often does (or should) discussion of contemporary politics come up?? "
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the current value of classics as a discipline. In the original piece, Pilger describes exactly what he does in the classroom when making a classical work accessible to students now. As a comparative lit PhD with a classics background, I also make all kinds of references to contemporary events when discussing classical works with my students. And anyone who knows the roots of the words "discussion," "contemporary," and "politics," not to mention "Democrat" and "Republican," knows that the language, culture, and political forms of the classical Greek and Roman world remain very much a part of the fabric of today's world.
I stand corrected on how often contemporary politics will come up in the classics classroom.
You should be able to bring up discussion of current politics without that degenerating into a partisan discussion. There is the old standby of breaking students into small groups to come up with a joint argument. There is the technique of setting out the arguments for and against on the board. In short, if a topic is controversial and potentially partisan you want to separate the students from their own opinions. Make them argue the opposite of what they believe. Have them focus on small parts of the argument. Don't ask them whether events are right or wrong -- ask them how those events came to be. As a teacher you need to, from the start of class, be seen to argue both sides of issues so that students don't know your own political opinions, or at least can see that whatever your bumper sticker says, you don't bring that into the classroom.
... Right, onto the next book to review ...
Posted by robe0419 at December 17, 2004 11:21 AM | TrackBack