This week, please respond to one (or both) of the prompts below:
OPTION 1: How have you approached debate and/or argumentative writing in your classroom? What problems or tensions do you encounter when teaching argument? How do this week’s readings complicate our understanding of argument?
OPTION 2: How can arguments and debates potentially reinforce colonizing attitudes and classroom contexts? How can we “decolonize” argumentative writing–if we can at all? Consider the readings from this week and feel free to bring in other resources, as well.
In your response, please remember to keep in mind the rubric. A brief overview:
- Approximately 200-250 words
- Specific reference to the assigned reading.
- Description of lesson idea, activity, resource, and/or mentor text. Please include a link to the resource when possible
My favorite way to introduce argument writing is to have students write a letter asking a parent for permission to go to a friend’s birthday party. Having taught sophomores in an all-girls school, Sweet Sixteens were the highlight of each weekend, and my students knew their parents’ counterarguments well. We would explore the learning opportunity that going to a different culture’s celebration would provide, the value of planning a safe trip home, and why parents often had common concerns. Having a prompt like this was low-stakes, connected argument development to the real world, and made my students feel like English class was teaching them to be clever (while also giving me the chance to have crucial conversations with them). Students would laugh at a prompt like this at first because they were so used to the high-stakes, two-choice debates that they have done in past English courses and often did in Social Studies; however, the open-ended questions (as Doxtdator argued) leave more room for students to explore the issue.
In some cases, I’ve let student comments help me navigate difficult issues, such as reading the required Of Mice and Men, which includes use of racist language. When we talk about issues like this in class, it’s usually something that I genuinely want to know their feelings about, and I always plan on using my findings to adjust my curriculum accordingly. In an in-class conversation (“debate”?) about content warnings, I had told students that I would be sharing with them the major topic covered in the novel Speak (which is rape) before we even started reading. I took my time explaining my reasons for arguably “spoiling” the novel, and was asking for their feedback– and how we can still take a lot from a book when the mystery has already been solved. As Carey explains, the “this or that” argument format not only tends to cover intensely heavy topics, but also encourages uncreative, binary thinking. Students are almost always memorizing an essay template, rather than really considering the issue and asking questions.
Arguments and debates often have the ability to silence, but they also have the potential to uplift, too, if we carefully consider the ways in which we approach an argument. Shannon Carey ruminates on this, when she suggests that much of the difficulty of debate “lies in our binary ways of approaching difficult, controversial issues.” These controversial issues, which are often misconstrued in its definition of controversial (after all, are the protection of human rights up for debate?) have much to do with race and power. The authors of the two articles bring up good points of discussion, such as Charlottesville and the attacks on Paris, and they leave us wondering how we could approach these issues with sensitivity and thoughtfulness. If something like this is presented in a binary fashion, in a “pro” or “con” approach, opportunities for injustice are created as arguments that could potentially justify certain forms of behavior and thinking. These two readings consider naming “designs and patterns” of injustice in order to further authentic debate, that is, to consider the myriad of ways in which these “controversies” come to exist. The larger consideration we should make as instructors is to allow students to truly understand why these events happen, and for what reasons do they continue to happen, and more importantly, how we can more critically examine an issue before labeling it as a matter of “yes” or “no.” I am not sure of how we can “decolonize” argumentative writing, but I do believe that reframing the questions and approaches to various issues can make way to authentic examinations of institutional and social issues.
As an aside, I find it problematic that Russell would write “assuming the best of H&M” as H&M’s motives are anything but good-natured, or in this regard, “incidental,” if one examines the fact that they are the biggest contributors to fast fashion in the wake of its environmental destruction, and more importantly, that they continually exploit impoverished factory workers in the East. This Western repressive exploitation can transfer into incidents such this poster in question, in which larger audiences may perceive a corporation’s actions as well-intentioned. “Assuming the best of H&M” already frames a certain position within the debate of this poster.
Since topics in social justice with our students of color can lead to uncomfortable positions in the classroom that we hope don’t derail or offend anybody. I often find myself asking the question “is this too far,” or “too intense” for my students or are lessons “age appropriate.” What I gather from Doxtdator (2018) is the need to change discussion questions centered on social justice from reactive to proactive to help students coming from marginalized and oppressive lives to conjure a voice in these issues.
The debates we have in class usually deal with pros and cons issues—Using language like should we support (insert topic), should we oppose (insert topic)—Doxtdator and Shannon argue about the passivity of argumentative debates like this, which in turn, reinforces colonial ideals within the classroom. We are used to debates as one side talks as the other side listens, then vice versa—This teaches students the artificial “accountable talk” seen in classrooms. Allowing a discussion about should we or should we not have a confederate flag reinforces the idea that slavery, Jim crow, red lining in the housing markets are all acceptable forms of living in the past; Questions like should the united states allow Syrian refugees into the country, also are harmful to students that are marginalized and experience racism; moving forward we can rework the question to still have argumentative qualities: “How have the united states made errors in it’s treatment of refugees in the past, how could the united states create a more accepting environment for refugees and undocumented immigrants in the future?” Questions like this acknowledge the issue of how it came to light in the United States and acknowledges student’s engagement with the problem and promotes progress for the future.
In order to counter this and to challenge modes of thought about social issues, teachers need to envision solutions for our students to embrace. I want to echo the words of Nikki Sanchez within my classroom “History is not our fault, but it is our responsibility.” From there, we can begin to have discussions about the strongest way to engage with these issues and support ways to improve their lives directly. Creating a proactive future for our students is the best way to approach argumentative topics.
I have encountered argumentative writing in two forms, both with the ninth grade in preparing them for regents writing, and with my A.P language class as they are engaging with the argument section of the AP exam and both have come with their own set of difficulties that range from content knowledge, keeping the task in sight with each article/ reading, and engaging them without giving them materials that are too far out of their reach.
– The topic that I had selected, based on the previous teachers lessons as well as approved curriculum was the debate on “Should College Athletes Get paid?”. While this may not have been a topic that directly related to content and discussion (and would not have been close to my first choice) that was part of a cultural discourse, it then related and led to students finding branched uses that were culturally relevant to things they have seen/ experienced. The readings from this week didn’t ‘complicate’ my understanding of argument, but we can teach argument without purposefully bringing the class into the cultural discourse because students can actively make connections through the context within the writing to make the conversation culturally responsive. One thing that I immediately noticed my students doing was that in the articles we were reading, which focused on the pros and cons of college athletes receiving compensation, is that they were able to make connections between statistics provided on people who did and did not support the compensation, and how it related to racial divisions and geographical ability and disabilities. Students made it a point to include in the counterclaim/ rebuttal sections of their essays that race played a factor because it was typically students coming from lower class families and on scholarships who weren’t able to work while on the team who suffered as opposed to their counterparts from well to do backgrounds who were supported by families. While this was only a few students, it does make me wonder how they would have done with a topic that strikes more human empathetical interest.
When working with my 11th graders on the synthesis essays on the issue of the legality of the Death Penalty in the United States, I engaged them first in a Gallery Walk, with pictures and quotes depicting either pro death penalty or anti death penalty. Then I had students engage in a socratic seminar in which they would discuss the ethical necessity for the death penalty and ‘playing God.’ Now, reading through the articles I can see that I was forcing students to sway one way or another during the Gallery Walk, because there had been no representation of ‘divergent thinking’ as discussed in “On Cultivating Radical Imagination, or Why I Will Never Teach Debate Again.” The author writes “it reifies specific, restrictive ways of thinking about complex issues. It takes, as a given, that there are two ways to think about an issue; two ways that have usually been tried out or advocated for by people with power.” And my students at first, kept within those boundaries that I had initially established but were able to discuss and provide reasonings for why they landed in the gray area of a seemingly black and white argument.
One of the difficulties that I had encountered was, when having students engage with several texts and then begin writing, how to help students keep track of the ‘arguments’ that were being made by each author and it could be utilized.
Another difficulty that I had encountered was having students justify and explain the evidence they were using to support their claim, instead of simply using quotes as explanations.
Argument writing is strongly pushed by my administration. We were told that our pacing calendar was to be put on hold and that all of January should be dedicated to Regents Prep. Whenever I introduce an argument writing task, I always try to put it into context for my students. I usually say something like, “This is a complex issue and you are all complex individuals with a wide range of life experiences. There is some validity to both sides of this issue but for the purpose of this task, you must choose ONE.” Students often complain about the binary choice that they have. Why do we ask them to say yes or no to the death penalty, an issue that society has wrestled with for ages and that has huge religious and ethical components? In On Cultivating Radical Imagination, or Why I Will Never Teach Debate Again, by Shannon Carey: “Any large issue in this wild and precious world is not ¨problem of sides. It’s a tangled web of complexity that can be understood.” By giving them two choices to explore nuanced and highly-charged issues, we are denying them the opportunity to truly connect with these issues in a personal and meaningful way.
I tried to incorporate our unit text, “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” by Ken Kesey into my Regents prep so we weren’t swimming through a sea of random articles and there was some cohesion between the lessons. It was written in the 1960s and it is filled with racist and sexist language and ideas. I have apologized for the language used (although no one seems to mind the “f-bombs) but it is difficult to ignore the overtly racist sentiments. The only “bad” males on the ward are the “black boys” who are under the female nurse’s control. I have three African American students across my two senior classes and don’t want to “other” them or single them out. I have supplemented the text with non-fiction detailing what a transitional time the 1960s were because of the Civil Rights movement and the evolving role of women in society. Some students have suggested that as a society, we’ve gotten rid of racism but upon further discussion, they will admit this is not the case. I think, in a large part, binary or a right/ wrong argument approach to writing has stifled their ability to think critically, something we a purporting to foster. According to Benjamin Doxtdator, “We can’t afford that kind of closing of radical imaginations. Perhaps rather than debate, we should start with a basic question: ‘what’s wrong?’”
My concern is that the Regents have such an impact on our students (graduation, diploma level, possible scholarship money and/ or college placement) and our schools (FUNDING, state ratings, future enrollment and did I mention funding?) they inevitably shape our curriculums. With a binary choice argument essay being 43% of student’s Regents scores, schools can’t afford to ignore this inauthentic writing task.
Before I had begun the argumentative writing unit within my classroom, I wanted students to be part of a debate on a topic that they always spoke about on a daily basis. Since I know that my students would rather be part of a debate than partake in a writing assignment within class, I had them respond to the following question for homework, “Do you think cellphones should be used within the classroom? How would it benefit or distract your learning?”. When they came into class the next day, I had them sit on two separate sides of the classroom (one side against having cellphones and the other side for having cellphones within the classroom). I dedicated a period to this debate, in which I wrote down the ideas that were being said within the classroom. This was the introduction to argumentative writing since most of my students believed they did not have the capability to write an exemplar writing piece. I allowed them to notice the arguments they were having within the classrooms and which portions of these ideas could be included within their argumentative writing piece. One problem that I did encounter during this writing process was the lack of creativity and structure that students faced within their writing. Since my school does follow a strict rubric on what they expect to be within written pieces, many sentence frames were given to the students, but many of them struggled with rebuttals and counterclaims, since this was the portion of the writing that needed their analysis and structure within it.
This week’s readings complicated my understanding of argumentative writing because I had always been taught that there needs to be a pro and a con side to an argument; there was never anything in between. Within Shannon’s article, it states, “We usually see complex issues and actions with these two options: are you pro, or are you con? The problem with this thinking, as Robin Hoseman, a fellow educator and member of my PLC, says, is that any large issue in this wild and precious world is not ¨problem of sides. It’s a tangled web of complexity that can be understood.¨ Many of the topics being brought up within argumentative writing should not have a solid ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to them, yet most of our schools simply want students to follow the form of a traditional way of argumentative writing, which refrains students from thinking critically. Our students are accustomed to receiving sentence frames and an outline for an exemplar writing pieces while their own thoughts get hindered behind this. As educators, we always put such an emphasis on students thought processes, yet we should take a step back and notice what curriculum our students are following within schools. As a middle school teacher, I want to give them the building blocks to argumentative writing since it is a big part of their Regents grade, which they will be faced with in high school. Unfortunately, these traditional ways of teaching argumentative writing cannot be eliminated since there is such an emphasis on it within students’ academic careers.
Arguments and debates can potentially reinforce colonizing attitudes because each of our students come into the classroom with their own views, personal and those that stem from their families or upbringing. I think that debates can be tricky because we want every student to feel that their voice and opinion is valid. As a result, we have to set expectations and rules when it comes to these situations. It only takes one comment from a peer for a student to shut down or feel that their opinions or thoughts are not legitimate or important. I feel that there are merits to having debates but there are also many disadvantages. When students take the ELA Regents they are always asked to choose ONE side even if the issue is far more complicated. I feel that this dissolves the importance of the issue as well as diminishes any connection the students may have with the issue.
In the article “On Cultivating Radical Imagination, or Why I Will Never Teach Debate Again,” I felt that Shannon Carey made a great point about how choosing sides is the easy way out and that we should teach our students to dig deeper and be more creative than that. As she states, “This idea that we must respond to violence with violence is easy. It is not creative…We usually see complex issues and actions with these two options: are you pro, or are you con? The problem with this thinking is that any large issue in this wild and precious world is not a ‘problem of sides.’ It’s a tangled web of complexity that can be understood” (2015). I believe that what Carey means by this is that we should encourage our students to think for themselves and not just accept things as they have always been. Just because we have always fought wars does not mean that violence is the only way to solve problems. Controversial issues are not just two-sided, are multi-faceted and have a depth that we should explore. There are multiple ways to think of the issues that we are faced with each day.
I have approached argumentative writing in my classroom through the NYS ELA Regents guidance, meaning I teach students how to write a cookie-cutter argumentative essay to pass the regents. The problems I encounter when teaching arguments include the limited ability for creativity and “what-ifs” or “maybe” in a discussion, as these aren’t responses accepted on the regents. This week’s reading, specifically “The Humanity of Our Students Isn’t Up for Debate” complicate my understanding of argument, as Doxtdator writes, “When you put students in the place of having to defend their humanity in a debate, the most appropriate response would be an emotional and heated exchange.” The idea of having students defend their humanity was unfamiliar to me at first, because I always believed an argument was simply a class discussion. However, looking at it now I realize, having a student defend their beliefs can be traumatizing, especially amongst the presence of your peers. This reinforces colonizing attitudes and classroom contexts because it can lead students to remove themselves from the conversation, or question their beliefs if they do not follow traditional views. The idea of humanizing arguments is something I touched upon last year, with a goal for students to feel more passion towards Elie Wiesel’s Night. Using the text, I brought in supplemental texts regarding the September 11th attacks for students to empathize with the genocide–which allowed them to engage emotionally with the argument. However, restructuring argumentative writing and essays is a task I truly am at a loss for as an English teacher.
Argumentative writing is one of my favorite units to teach, because it allows students to feel some sort of authenticity in their work. Many times, I try to tailor assignments and prompts with some sort of student choice so that students feel passionately or strongly about the topic they are writing about. I work argumentative writing into the classroom by starting out with low-stakes writing—a free-write or a “Tell Them How You Feel Tuesday,” or, as Phil so gracefully allowed me to use, “Why You Mad Wednesday?” These low-stakes writing assignments allow students to take a prompt or topic and develop an argumentative stance on their side, one in which they feel personally connected to. As always, I push students to write not only their own perspective, but acknowledge the counter-claim. While they may disagree with the opposing side, they have to acknowledge and understand what the opposition to their claims may be.
For topics that do not personally marginalize individuals and races, religions, classes, etc. this kind of writing and discussion in class is a bit simpler. For a topic such as, “Should students be required to wear uniforms?” which, many of my students feel strongly about, as they are forced to wear uniforms, it’s a “lower-stakes” issue. But, with topics such as sexism, racism, classism, homophobia, bias, ageism, Semitism—the discussions become, for many educators, “scary.”
It’s a teacher’s biggest fear to have a classroom in which individuals feel unwelcome or offended. When it comes to argumentative writing, I don’t believe anything should be “off the table.” Depending on the grade that one is teaching, there should be the “hard topics” included in an argumentative writing unit. Far too often, as Doxtdator points out, politics are avoided in pedagogy. Truthfully, this is a complete mistake. In a time period in which students are going to be the voice of tomorrow and, many high school students will be voting within the year they graduate, allowing them to learn about certain events, political conversations, and “tough topics” in the safety and security of a classroom is beneficial and important.
The true issue with debate and argumentative writing lies where we, as educators, view argumentative formatting. As Carey points out, the “two-sided debate” is hindering the critical thinking of students overall. Often times, there are several sides to a debate, and acknowledging that these sides exist does not always have to be conforming or agreeing with a side. In an age-appropriate setting, discussing the critical issues of today is so imperative, avoiding them in a classroom is harming students ability to go into the real world and become critical thinkers who can impact the global society overall.
In my journalism classes last year, my 10th graders wrote Op-Eds on topics of their choice. Many of these topics were the “tougher” issues that Carey discusses:
-What are the socioeconomic impacts of Trump’s border wall?
-Should marijuana be legalized?
-Should minority students receive more secondary education funding?
-Should parents have a say in teenager’s sexual choices?
While these argumentative style writing pieces did take a specific stance, some of the lessons leading up to this were analyzing tweets from several perspectives on issues such as white nationalist marches, Black Lives Matter protests, school shootings, and other very difficult topics. Bringing them into a classroom environment can be challenging, but avoiding them overall is something that educators should not accept as an option. If we’re not the ones to expose these kind of discussions with students, who will?
it depends on what the goal of my lesson is. for Socratic Seminars, I try yo lea them into more of a discussion than a debate, which is how it is explained to be. The problem with that is the natural need to argue for children. The Seminars always turn into an argumentative debate because students don’t have the self-control within them. to try and alleviate the situation, i always conduct practice seminars first. We choose a random topic, and the students practice how to conduct themselves during a Seminar. The rest of the class observes and makes notes about what went well and what didn’t. We then discuss what happens together as a class to see what to improve on. Also, I started to turn the Seminars into debates. Rather than fight against the wave, just go with it. By turning it into a more debate style format, students are more invested and participate more. When it comes to practice, I assign two group leader to help keep people under control and ensure that everyone is participating. Of course, the issue is always with sensitive subjects. Sometimes the arguments diverge to other topic other from what is dictated, and these off topics can get very heated. These are children who are still learning social norms and behaviors, so many of them wills ay something offensive without knowing or meaning to. This can cause a ruckus in the room very quickly. When it comes to this I quickly get the discussion back on task and refocus on the questions. However, there have been times when I have touched upon sensitive issues such as race and discrimination. Not as much as I would like, but from time to time I would. The article by Polleck dives into the idea of using social issues to teach argumentative writing. Polleck makes mention about having students unpack the essential question of how authors use their writing to discuss nonfiction texts (Pollock 56). Having students delve into these social topics is far more engaging to them since they will definitely have opinions on the matter. Especially if the topic discussed is about the Holocaust. If framed right, students will become more invested in the debate and in sharing their feelings. On the same page, Polleck discusses having these students make the connections not just to the state test prep, but o their own experience. Having them look at their own community and seeing how it shapes their view of their communities (Pollock 56). Having the students also engage int he text through the use of monologues and memoirs was fascinating as it forces the students to enter the shoes of those they are studying, thus creating a more personal connection with the text and nurturing further analysis (Polleck 58).
Although I believe that debate is a very useful tool in the classroom, I can see how it can reinforce colonizing attitudes in the classroom. One of the examples given in one of the articles happened in my class. In the article “The Humanity of Our Students Isn’t Up for Debate” by Benjamin Doxtdator, the topic of Charlottesville is discussed. Educators in the article are unsure whether they should discuss this topic, fearing that it will give validation to the racist side of this argument. Although my school is in the heart of NYC, many people still have conservative views, and I was worried about how this topic could erupt. I had to make it very clear that the racism of these individuals was not up for debate. What they did and are saying is wrong and I disagree with it. However, I still believe they had the right to say it. I then had to frame the debate around their first amendment rights, not what they were saying. I think at this moment, I learned without even realizing it that “nothing is more important than how we frame our questions, what’s up for debate and what isn’t.” At this moment I realized that I had to be clear about what was being debated, or I would otherwise have to count on the maturity of 8th graders to steer our conversation in the right direction. Betting on the maturity of 8th graders is not one I’m willing to take. I think that debates naturally create a me vs you mentality. Especially in 8th grade, my class wants to know who won, who is the victor? I think that making what is being debated very clear is part of a broader debate mindset that we must teach our kids. We need to convey the fact that debates are tools to learn, not to declare winners. I think once we can shift this mindset that is attached to debates and arguments, we can move more away from colonization in general.
Argument writing has historically been fraught with colonialist attitudes–particularly stiff-upper lip Ancient Greek by way of the British Enlightenment attitudes. These problematic elements are insidious and permeate each and every part of the argument writing process. From the formulation of questions, which often do attempt to create offensive, dehumanizing premises to start with. Questions like “is racism still a problem” or “should women/LGBTQ+ individuals have equal rights” or any questions using language like “illegal immigrants/aliens” are extremely dehumanizing and asked from a pseudo-objective place of privilege. We are told that we must, without question, provide airtime in our own writing for the opposing argument, even if it denies our very existence. We are told that arguments only have weight if they are written in a stuffy, unemotional, purely “logical” way. The use of “I,” personal anecdotes, any mention of feelings, or any indication of passion about the subject. We are told that if our argument isn’t delivered coolly, as if it is exclusively an intellectual exercise instead of one that actually makes us feel things or has real impact on real lives.
I absolutely love debate. I love seeing my students get riled up as they draw upon their intellectual weaponry to engage with one another without drawing blood. Honestly, in order to get my students into the debate, I will make somewhat incendiary comments in a joking way. I will take what the students said and harden up the rhetoric. I have found that the biggest problem with debate in most of my classes is that the students are shy and afraid to speak formally in front of their peers. I believe a small breakdown of the ritual is necessary to remove part of the stigma, and I find it helps the students speak, have fun, and play a role in the learning process.
Since I have been in New York, I don’t think I have had anyone in any of my classes suggest that we should be objective in our classrooms and keep our political opinions to ourselves. The article “The Humanity of our Students isn’t up for Debate,” must be coming from a very different place and engage with very different readings, “I am routinely dismayed by attempts to keep politics separate from pedagogy. Too many of the top books for teachers focus more on ‘hacks’ or tricks to get kids ‘engaged’ than on addressing the deeper structural injustices that shape our society and schools.” I remember too many times in school when my teachers made their political opinions known, or even front and center of their classroom. The result? A failure to educate all students. We all agree that our students should be represented in our readings and curriculum, and to press either a far-right or far-left agenda in 100% of the readings and discussions in our classroom could cause students to disengage, not show up for class, not participate in class, believe that everything coming out of the class is coming from a biased perspective, and much more.
That is why I dedicate myself to maintaining political neutrality in my classroom and in my readings, as to not fail to educate all students.
Arguments and debates have the potential to reinforce colonizing attitudes based on the topics chosen and framing the question. Further, students are forced to agree or disagree and not see any other resolution or employ “radical imagination” to think outside of the agree/disagree parameters.
According to Benjamin Doxtdator, many of the topics we ask students to debate are questions that “debate humanity”. The topics ask students to agree or disagree with colonizing attitudes such as, white supremacy, civil policing and truly politically heated topics that many adults struggle with talking about. Further, these topics are framed by questions that stagnate thinking. Shannon Carey states, “If we cannot envision another world, we most certainly cannot make it happen.” In other words, by providing the choice of agree/ disagree or pro/con students are unable to debate topics that are already expressing colonizing attiudes.
In contrast, Theodore F. Fabiano believes using New Yorker Magazine covers allows for the same depth of conversation without much of the “heated” and inhumane topics that are often debated in schools. Jody Polleck uses literature as well as visual literacy (like Fabiano) to discuss and debate topics that are socially difficult and propelling the colonizing attitudes.
Providing students with the opportunity to think with “radical imagination” is a step in a the right direction. Allow students to explore the topic using a multitude of resources as Fabiano and Polleck suggests allows students to generate their own inquiry and frame discussions that hopefully exploit the “white is right” attitudes that we inadvertently teach by means of a colonizing curriculum. Therefore, I think employing these strategies is a progress however, I am unsure if this is a band-aid for an otherwise broken institution that reinforces these attitudes and thinking.
In my first semester of undergrad ever, at The College of Saint Rose I had 3 interactions with 3 different professors that I will likely never forget. They also are the reason I am so hesitant to leave NYC… because the way I felt after these interactions, as a young adult makes me terrified of being put in a position where I might have to explain them to my own children. And yes, I know they can happen anywhere but, I find this city to be more cautious of what they say in mixed company.
In my language and linguistics class I was asked to do a presentation on Ebonics since I speak it and I was asked to ensure that in my presentation on Ebonics that I made sure to include why Ebonics should be considered a legitimate dialect of English. There were 2 problems here, first while I used slang, I certainly don’t and probably never have spoken Ebonics. And second, why was it left to me to argue the validity of a dialect of English when I didn’t and don’t believe that there should even be a such thing as SAE.
That professor’s assumption that my skin tone automatically made me a member of the group that spoke in this particular dialect was not only out of line, it told me, within the first week of class that this professor had already had a narrative of my life and even my abilities or lack thereof in her mind. I would need to work twice as hard if not more than my white counterparts to prove that I had an at least adequate gasp of “SAE” and could perform at the same level as all of the other college freshman. The problem with most of the argumentative prompts “created” by many of the teachers I have come across in my life is simple, the premise is wrong. The world is black and white with millions of shades of gray in between. Our discussions, even academic ones should allow space for that as well.
Depending on the chosen controversial topic that a teacher may want to have their students think about, engage with, and take a position on, it is easy to see how arguments and debates can reinforce colonizing attitudes. This is particularly true of students of color who come from various socio-economic backgrounds that range from poverty to well-off financially. Depending on a students experience in their development from adolescence to adulthood, their perspectives on issues that range from police brutality to the state of the welfare system are destined to be varied. This may not seem problematic, but one only needs to see the state of discourse in our society today to know that censorship and silencing the “wrong side” is quickly becoming the norm in debating and arguing a specific point or perspective. So how does this reinforce colonizing attitudes? If one takes a look at the history of oppression by the majority against the minority, it quickly becomes clear that the silencing of voices has long been used to reinforce systems of racism and oppression that stem from years of lopsided power which has historically forced conforming beliefs. At the same time, forcing one side into silence also disbands any hope for changing their opinion, or at least getting them to think about the other side of an issue.
This is echoed by both Benjamin Doxtador, author of the article “The Humanity of Our Students Isn’t Up for Debate”, and by blogger Shannon who wrote a post titled, “On Cultivating Radical Imagination, Or Why I Will Never Teach Debate Again”. Shannon writes in her blog that we usually see complex and controversial issues as being for (pro) or against (con) instead of looking at the intricacies that underly the issue (My Year of Teaching Dangerously). Doxtador cites multiple sources in his article that centers on the idea that instead of “covering up” or “running away” from controversial issues in the classroom, but that we need to focus on how we frame questions so that instead of it being a “pro” and “con” discussion, students can dive deeper into the issues in order to develop well-thought-out arguments that allow for multiple perspectives to be heard. Using ideas from both authors, it is quite possible to “decolonize” arguments and debate by framing questions in a way that limit bias and center more on “foregrounding the humanity of our students rather than threatening it.”
My approach to teaching argumentative writing has usually focused on the claim and counterclaim. I also place a big emphasis on teaching rhetorical strategies such as ethos, pathos and logos. For me persuasion is a big aspect of argumentative writing and that persuasion comes in the form of credibility through evidence. In writing an argument, I always tell my students that for an argument to be valid you need evidence. Before reading these articles I used to think that subtracting myself from the equation because of my own implicit biases was the best approach. Especially when it came to hard topics or controversial topics such as racism. Personally, because I taught journalism my first year I thought that it was paramount to cover current events in America and around the world, and usually those topics spanned from topics that students could relate to. I covered various forms of topics through different mediums, which I feel connected to the article, Put Me in the Game: Video Games and Argument Writing for Environmental Action presents an interesting idea that mediums such as video games can be used to discuss difficult topics presented within them. In the article it mentions that sensitive topics that are often represented in games such as Grand theft Auto Five themes like violence, and abusing woman, drugs are prevalent and the author suggests that educators can use the students interest in these video games to keep them engaged but using a critical lens to tackle some of these topics.