Some want to limit the ability of students to ask questions or make comments in college classes. This trend is disturbing, deeply wrong, and harmful. Allowing college students to openly question and comment in a classroom is, I believe, crucially important to a quality education.
Some want to limit the ability of students to ask questions or make comments in college classes. I am a college professor who was ordered by my department chair to sharply limit student questions in a world religions course. Especially given the specific topic restrictions the chair demanded, I refused because such restrictions would result in a stilted and biased course. I have heard from some other professors that this is a growing problem at colleges across the country. This trend is disturbing, deeply wrong, and harmful. Allowing college students to openly question and comment in a classroom is, I believe, crucially important to a quality education.
First, I'll start with the big question (being a philosophy prof.). What is the purpose of education? Certainly for students to learn, but to that end, do we want them to learn by indoctrination or do we want students becoming skilled critical thinkers? This is the important question because the answer goes a long way toward determining what type of people our educational system produces.
If it is indoctrination we seek--where students are asked to just listen, take notes, and regurgitate what the professor says--then education is easy. Perhaps that is why indoctrination appeals to some. The issue of curriculum is simplified because it is just a matter of deciding what to feed into the machine; and yes, we are treating students like machines, just input and output devices. Teaching is simply a matter of honing a static presentation and then delivering a staged production. The result of that approach is, at best, a group of mentally limited clones. Maybe that is appealing to some, but I hope few would agree.
If we actually want to nurture critical thinkers, students who aren't machines but people who can think for themselves, then the art of teaching becomes more challenging. In this approach, you are not programming machines but cultivating people. The curriculum then has to become more than just a sheaf of notes or a slide presentation. The professor must persuade students to engage the material, and that entails interacting with the students, asking them questions, and soliciting and welcoming their questions in return. The professor must listen to the students and be responsive to them. The professor must know and understand broader topics rather than just delivering a scripted presentation on a single topic. That level of effort and caring is more than some professors are willing to put in. That is a shame.
This latter approach means allowing students to speak, ask questions, make comments, be participants in their education. This aspect, students being active participants, seems to frighten some people. With students, I can understand their being intimidated. Some students are shy and have great difficulty speaking in front of others. The teacher-student power dynamic also makes student participation more difficult, especially when a teacher has an imperious nature. With professors, I confess I am less sympathetic. If you cannot enjoy interacting with students and do not want to help them, then why are you teaching? I have heard so many stories and seen firsthand professors who become belligerent if students interrupt their presentations to ask for clarification or who become outright hostile if a student holds a different view of the material. Whatever such professors' personal motivations for their behavior, it is difficult to excuse. Intentionally or not, these professors are practicing indoctrination and are expecting the machine-students to do nothing but perform their task of being quiet input devices. (I recognize that there are pedagogical differences between disciplines but the principle of allowing student questions applies to all.)
Another common fear about allowing students to speak is the prospect of what the students will say. True, when you allow more freedom you don't always get the positive, constructive results you hope for. Yes, students can go off topic, act out, say things that are silly, impertinent, or controversial. Yet the only way to ensure that free speech is never inappropriate is to ban it entirely. We do not forbid speech in other areas of our society, so why should we do it in education? We shouldn't. Instead, a good professor can take troublesome statements in the classroom and turn them into a valuable learning experience by encouraging the class to consider and comment. It is a matter of listening, responding, and soliciting input from other students. Professors who have created an environment in which discussion is welcomed and multiple viewpoints respected will find that by encouraging critical thinking in their students, those students will respond constructively to controversial statements from their peers. To the contrary, when professors discourage discussion, they will find that even mildly contentious statements become tremendously problematic in the vacuum of ideas they have created.
Censorship of student discussion in the classroom does not create a positive learning experience. Even subtle censorship has a chilling affect on the education process. Limits on student discussion deprive students of the robust debate essential to education and participation in a free and democratic society. By respecting and encouraging the right of students to speak, and hearing and considering all viewpoints, the professor creates a positive learning environment. Everyone has to put in more effort, but the possibilities for learning and growth are then so much greater.
