By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
An article by Berny Belvedere in the July 27 edition of the American Thinker sought an answer to a question that Catholics, who teach in public high schools and colleges and who are serious about their faith, have to wrestle with throughout their teaching career. They know that Jesus instructed His disciples to “go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).
They are likely to have heard since they were children of the importance of being a “witness” to their faith, along with the encouragement given in many Catholic lay organizations to “live their faith in their daily lives.”
What, then, should they do if they are teaching a class that includes many non-Christian, or even atheist, students — whose parents pay their salary? This may not be much of an issue in a math or science class, but it can be a major concern in a history, social studies, literature, or philosophy course.
It is routine for left-wing teachers and professors to promote their secular humanist views in their classes. Should a Catholic teacher find some way to do the same, to openly promote Catholic positions in his classes? Should a Catholic professor teaching at a school like Michigan State or Florida State, for example, assign a healthy dose of the works of G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, and Christopher Dawson to his classes? He would be raked over the coals by his colleagues and the liberal media if he did.
Consider Belvedere’s way of dealing with the question. He tells us he has taught at “a number of local universities, with my assignment typically being one of the foundational courses, either ‘Introduction to Philosophy’ or ‘Introduction to Ethics.’ I am also a Christian. This means that out of all of the readings I assign, views I present, and arguments I consider, I naturally sympathize with some far more than I do with others. I have much more in common, philosophically speaking, with Aquinas than with Nietzsche.”
But he doesn’t “let it show. In fact,” he writes, “I studiously guard against telegraphing my religious views. I do this because of what I teach, where I teach, and whom I teach.” When questions such as, “What is the good life?” and “Does God exist?” come up in class, Belvedere reminds himself that it would be “inappropriate for me to show intellectual favoritism when there is little to no shared consensus about which answers to these questions are right.”
His guideline? “Unless the instructor is being opinionated for a pedagogical reason, perhaps as a foil in order to stimulate logical thinking, it is inappropriate to skew presentations in the direction of one view over the rest.”
Belvedere’s approach is reinforced for him by the fact that the “various universities that have hired me over the years to teach introductory philosophy courses are public universities, not private ones. It is perfectly legitimate for philosophy to be taught under the auspices of a particular tradition — so long as this is clear to potential students. But a philosophy course at a pluralistic university should reflect that pluralism in the curriculum.”
That means he thinks he should “at a minimum, maintain broad ideological neutrality. There should neither be theistic nor atheistic crusaders treating these courses as opportunities to proselytize.”
He tells us his goal is to make sure he does not create an “environment that is discriminatory against my non-theistic students. I want all of my students, no matter what their persuasion, to feel they’ve got just as much of a platform to participate in discussions as anyone else. This goal is sabotaged when students feel the professor is personally committed to one point of view and antagonistic toward the rest.”
I find nothing to take issue with in Belvedere’s position. It seems the only fair way to approach this situation. It is the approach I took during my years teaching in a public high school.
That said, the double-standard has always galled me. Left-wing teachers of every stripe imaginable — from new left Marxists to Afro-centric militants to trade union activists — show no reluctance to emphasize their ideological point of view in the classroom.
In the public high school where I taught in the suburbs of New York City, for instance, colleagues would display on their classroom walls posters of Che Guevara, Mao’s Red Guards, and Democratic candidates for the presidency. These teachers would openly and proudly promote their liberal views in their classes.
If anyone challenged their partisanship, they would employ two defenses: First, they would argue that they had the “academic freedom” to present their point of view to their classes; and then add that as long as they let their students express their opinion in classroom discussions, encouraging disagreement with the teacher on a particular topic was an effective teaching technique.
Do the left-wing teachers who make clear their opinions to their students actually do that? Do they permit students with traditional views to express their disagreement with the teacher without penalty? We all have heard numerous stories about cases where they do not.
But the point just now is that Christian teachers are not permitted the same leeway to promote their views in public high schools and universities. Imagine the reaction if a teacher or professor used his classes to encourage conversions to Catholicism, with the defense that he permitted his students to express their disagreement as he went about his efforts.
Why does the left get away with this double-standard? Numbers. Secular liberals control the academic world. It is why political correctness is the order of the day in our schools.
But there is another way of looking at Professor Belvedere’s position on “maintaining broad ideological neutrality” in his classes. I repeat: I did the same thing during my years as a public school teacher. Yet I always felt that there remained a way to be a witness to the faith in that role. I never promoted my personal beliefs, but I went out of my way to give a clear and fair explanation of the Catholic side, when a question relating to Catholicism came up in a class discussion.
I always felt that to be a more than adequate form of “giving witness.” Our side on the great questions in history and the social sciences comes out very well when it is presented accurately and fairly. It does not have to be tub-thumped to be effective. All a Catholic teacher has to do is be “fair and balanced,” in the words of a popular news network.
Catholic teachers can also evangelize in the manner — perhaps mistakenly — attributed to St. Francis: “Preach the Gospel always; use words when necessary.” Even if no one can find exactly where St. Francis said this, it sounds like something he would have said.
The point is that Catholic teachers, even if they scrupulously keep their religious beliefs private, can cast the Church in a highly favorable light by the example of being an upstanding and decent man or woman. Not all students will draw the conclusion that it is Catholicism that makes a favorite teacher a good person, but there will be enough who do to make the effort worthwhile.
+ + +
Readers are invited to submit comments and questions about this and other educational issues. The e-mail address for First Teachers is fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net, and the mailing address is P.O. Box 15, Wallingford, CT 06492.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress