BackStage

Update: Read this over at scatterplot.

Well, the ScatterEffect is at it again. I think there is also a Law and Letters Effect, or the BelleEffect, but it led to some interesting commentary on my original post on teaching Race and Ethnicity to undergraduates.

I write about the relationship between teaching discrimination and politics:

“Rather, I would hope, showing the data and evidence that does show that there still exists race discrimination should challenge the assumption that we are meritocracy and that we have equality for all. What you want to DO about it — that’s political. My job is not to answer that question, but give students the tools to answer it themselves.

Anomie, always thought provoking, responds:

Not to hijack the comments thread (maybe this would be better answered in a separate blog post), but what’s your thoughts on displaying your political beliefs in class?

I have a tendency to be upfront about them, but also give the pros and cons of every side to the best of my ability. Based on student evals, I seem to do that fine. They know what I think but they don’t feel like I’m pushing that belief on them. (I ask at the end of the semester to be sure).

But some people argue you should keep you own beliefs out of the class. Present the facts and the political attitudes toward how those facts should be dealt with (and the meaning behind them: i.e., is there inequality because of racism or because white people are just plain better/harder working/etc.?), but be agnostic regarding which answer you side with.

I take the more open approach, much like a qualitative researcher would be expected to state their biases so that the reader could situate their findings, so should the professor state their biases so the student could situate their learning.

But I’m not entirely sure yet…

Me either Anomie. But, perhaps the ScatterEffect and BelleEffect will help us out on this one.

So far, my feelings are to be as open as possible. I cannot be agnositc on statements like:

is there inequality because of racism or because white people are just plain better/harder working/etc.?

because of the evidence that points towards racism and discrimination as the underlying cause of thing such as pay equity issues. To me, that issue is not a political one. It is a social reality. Otherwise, what are you teaching? A series of statistics? Moreover, a series of statistics that does not even include the concept of statistical control?

I am open to being wrong about this. Perhaps it is a political issue. If it is, I would be harder to convince that it should be. But, perhaps even it should be. It seems to me that politics comes in when you argue about what should be done about the underlying social reality — that discrimination exists and results in negative impacts where it works. Whether that means you should have affirmative action programs, Title IX programs, if it is appropriate to work towards equity rather than equailty — I think that is politics.

I have no problems telling my students where I come down on the political issues. In fact, I agree that we should be open about them. I do stress, both verbally and in my grading, that I will not grade based on my political beliefs.

On my original post on Race and Ethnicity, Educatorblog gave the suggestion (and a link to materials) for having a debate in the classroom. I have used this approach before, and really like it. Not only does it work as a classroom activity, but as an assignment as well. I try to stress that there is a big difference between understanding the social reality and coming to conclusions about what should be done about it. I do want students to come to their own decisions on this matter, to form their own ideas about policy and approaches, but want them to do so on solid ground. Meaning, I want them to understand the social reality behind politics.

A paper assignment on say affirmative action can bring this home to students. Have them discuss the social reality, then discuss affirmative action with all its possible benefits and its problems, and then take a position on what they believe about the effectiveness of the policy. Former students of mine can tell you, no matter what position they took (on affirmative action, gender equity in sports, or other assigned issues), they were graded on their argumentation and grasp of concepts. Some of the best papers were those who took the opposite position than I would have. I think the key here is to have a solid grading ruberic — and also transparency surrounding that ruberic. I have had this assignment for three semesters of social problems. Each student does two issues (out of four, they get to pick). So, in total I’ve had over 1200 of these papers that I’ve graded (taking all sides of the issue). Never once has a student accused me of grading unfairly because of my politics. I think it is because I stay as transparent as possible throughout the assignment and grading process.

I am super excited to be teaching social psychology this fall. Not only is it my passion, but I’m pretty damn knowledgable in the area. I’m not saying I know it all, but I’m pretty well conversant with most the major theories and ideas — and some less known ones. I am also pretty good at knowing the history of the field, how it developed, and the major movements and how these things affected our current trends.

I am less excited about teaching Ethnicity and Race in the Spring. Actually, to be quite honest, I’m terrified of it. I don’t know this area, hardly at all (outside ethnic enclaves, social capital, Latino/a immigrant literature, racialization) While I know that is something I can learn and prepare in time, I’m also terrified of teaching mostly white, middle class, conservative students that haunt this Midwestern town. Teaching Social Problems (as a TA), I found that racism and sexism where thought to no longer exist. Challenging these assumptions was equated with preaching and trying to push my political beliefs on my students. I am also concerned with debate running out of control in the classroom, like the occurrence summarized by Drek (although I hope I would handle it much better than she did, I’m untried, so who knows?). Also, I honestly have not spent as much time analyzing my own sexist and racist beliefs, unlike this very brave post that made me start thinking of this in the first place. (I’m thinking of having the students read that post with the unpacking the invisible knapsack thing?). How much is being a white woman going to affect how students listen to me, or are willing to challenge me? I’ve read some articles in Teaching Sociology that indicates this is a huge issue.

So, while I am not so worried about being able to handle my fall class, I am terrified of the spring. I imagine it will take me many more hours of prep, a lot more “I’ll look into that and get back to you”, and I have no idea how to approach it (where I have a clear philosophy on how to teach social psych). Also of note, while I have had one class on teaching sociology, have TAed for two classes (four times), this fall will be my first actual class (thank baby Jesus that social psych is first).

Besides the syllabi on the ASA website, do you (oh wonderful readers), have comments, sources, and advice for me? Books that you have used that you like a lot? Assignments that seem to work? Any activities from Teaching Sociology that have worked for you? I’ll love you forever for any help you can give me.

Meanwhile, when I think about it, I almost need to pull out a lunch sack. Not a good way to walk into a classroom, eh?

Law and Order SVU has a tendency to include social psychological theories in its stories. Tonight’s was a prime example. I was all excited to watch because it starred Robin Williams, by far one of my favorite actors (Fisher King is brilliant).

Tonight’s episode centered around a character who called fast food restaurants posing as Detective Milgram, that’s right… A play on the Milgram you are all thinking of. The episode was loosely based on the real life story of a man who called McDonald’s restaurants (Taco Bell and Applebee’s too) and told managers to detain (and strip naked) employees because the officer had proof of the employee’s thievery. He did this around SIXTY times in three years. The real criminal wasn’t clever enough to call himself Detective Milgram (Scott instead). Much like in the study, the managers followed the orders of the “police officer.” One extreme example of the real life case:

On Nov. 30, 2000, the caller persuaded the manager at a McDonald’s in Leitchfield, Ky., to remove her own clothes in front of a customer whom the caller said was suspected of sex offenses. The caller promised that undercover officers would burst in and arrest the customer the moment he attempted to molest her, said Detective Lt. Gary Troutman of the Leitchfield Police Department.

There are worse examples–including one where the caller had the man who was holding the employee hostage give him fellatio. The obedience is not only on the part of the workers who do the searching, but also those who were searched. Says one victim (and victims they were):

“I was scared because they were a higher authority to me,” she said. “I was scared for my own safety because I thought I was in trouble with the law.”

The SVU example was not this extreme, but went into Milgram more in-depth–I won’t give away the ending if you haven’t seen it. There is another great episode that utilizes Asch conformity (from a few years ago) to attempt to explain why two girls went along with a murder. I use this for a paper assignment.

Really, if you don’t know about this, read the article. I think it would be a great example of obedience to authority when discussing this in class. Always when I taught about this, students would argue it is no longer the same as it was in Milgram’s day. Even when discussing the more recent repeats of Milgram’s experiment, students still deny it would happen in America. Showing parts of SVU, perhaps, or assigning this newspaper article could be a great addition to a social psych class. It would also work for some organization courses, I think.

First of all, who else out there is a social psychologist? Anomie, you are, correct? Who else?

Anyway, how excited am I? I got switched from teaching ethnic and race relations this fall to teaching the social psychology undergraduate class! I was terrified of having my first stand alone (I’ve been an RA these past 3 years) in race. It’s not that I don’t study race, my dissertation is on Latino/a networks, but I am far less comfortable with my knowledge in that area than my knowledge in social psych.

The question: What textbooks do you use? My original thought was to have the students read actual social psychology (just the easy stuff–Stryker 1977, a chapter from his 1980 book, the Delamater 2003 chapter on social exchange, some qualitative research, etc.) but I’ve been told that the students really desire to have a textbook because they like the structure it gives and I should just lecture on the other stuff. So, now I’m looking for a SOCIOLOGICAL social psychology textbook. Anyone know of a good one out there?

Oh, relevant information: It’s supposed to be a junior level class and I will have 30-40 students (much better than the +100 of the race class!). Most will be sociology or criminology majors. I think that the class also gets a fair number of psychology students checking out the competition.

I am assuming assigning a Handbook (Burke or Delamater) would not be the way to go. Maybe that’s wrong. Anyway, hopefully some of you out there can give a first time teacher some tips.