Disclosing one's views when teaching?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, New to Teaching writes:

I’d love to start a discussion on whether we ought to tell our students our views on the material we’re teaching. Do you aim for your students to end the course not knowing what you think, perhaps because it shows that you’ve taught in a relatively unbiased way? Or, on the other hand, do you find that putting forward your own view provokes discussion and perhaps models a thoughtful approach to the issues? How likely are students to write essays they think the tutor will agree with in hopes of getting a better grade?

My inclination would be to not say much about my own views unless asked directly, but if asked, to answer honestly and openly. Is that a good strategy?

Any thoughts about the pros and cons of being more or less forthcoming about one’s philosophical views as a teacher would be appreciated.

I think this is a great query. My experience is that different people have very different views about this, and so I think it might be great to discuss it!

In response to the original comment, NK wrote:

I overhead a colleague talking with a student last year about one of her papers. She was objecting to a particular philosopher's views, and I thought she was making exactly the right kind of objection. My colleague, of course, kept coming up with responses on behalf of the philosopher in question. At some point, it occurred to me that, on the face of it, he was basically trying to talk her into accepting a bad view, which seems like a strange thing to do. Granted, on a deeper level, he was really just pressing her to articulate her objection more clearly and take account of possible responses. But I do wonder: do we need to hide our views to do that?

I'd like to think that there's a better strategy: be open about your views, but humble in light of your fallibility. Because, after all, if you think there are answers to the questions you're asking, and you're trying to find those answers, you'll almost certainly have views (at least about which views are dead ends). Hiding your views, I fear, just makes philosophy look like a game of clever arguing. So I've actually gravitated towards being more open about my views––but also trying to point out parts of those views I'm not sure I know how to defend. So I'll regularly pull a "This is what I think, but I'm not really sure, because [explain some problem for the view]."

In short, I'm inclined to think that there needs to be a sharp distinction between a philosophy class and a debate club, and revealing that you have views is one way of distinguishing the philosophy class.

Revealing that you have views might also empower your students to try to figure out what they actually think, and defend it, which is surely what we really want them to do. If we just teach the textbook objections, what do we expect them to do but memorize the textbook objections and spew them back at us?

My feelings are similar. I see my job as an instructor to develop my students' ability to understand and do philosophy. Yet, when we do philosophy, we don't bracket our own views. We defend things, and then engage in critical philosophical discussion with others. At the same time, doing philosophy well also involves charitably presenting and evaluating others' arguments. So, what I do when I teach is that I "go to the mat" for every view. Even when it's a view I reject, I present the view (and arguments for it) as forcefully as I can, such that my students often (erroneously) think I endorse the view. Then, as conversation proceeds, my students usually learn the problems I have with it. I don't often say, "My view is X" (though, if students ask, I may answer). Rather, it just often becomes clear in conversation what I think. Finally, at the same time, since I don't have settled views on many things, that often becomes clear in the classroom too: namely, that on particular topics I find different (and opposing) arguments roughly equally persuasive.

My own sense is that teaching philosophy this way makes it "real" and exciting for students, whereas "hiding" one's views makes philosophy seem more like a game of understanding arguments and objections. I've had numerous students say as much in my student evaluations, stating that they appreciate being treated as equals and collaborators in philosophical debate rather than being 'taught to'--which is more or less how I felt as an undergraduate when my professors did things this way.

I have heard some in the profession voice concerns about the effects of power-differentials here--basically, that because a professor has power over students, students may seek to please the professor by defending the professor's views. However, I believe this issue can be addressed effectively by making it clear in one's syllabi that students should not think that "agreeing with the professor" is the way to get a good grade, that they will be graded on the quality of their argumentation regardless of whether the professor agrees with their position, and that, if anything, the professor may be more impressed if the student gives a good argument against the professor's favored view. I also think it is vital, of course, to live up to this standard in one's grading practices: grading assignments that agree or disagree with one's favored views equally, on the basis of the quality of the student's argumentation. 

Anyway, these are my thoughts. What are yours?

Comments

[Sebastian Lutz]

Brian Besong writes (in "Teaching the Debate", Teaching Philosophy 39(4):401-412, 2016, philpapers.org/rec/BESTTD):

"One very common style of teaching philosophy involves remaining publicly neutral regarding the views being debated—a technique commonly styled ‘teaching the debate.’ This paper seeks to survey evidence from the literature in social psychology that suggests teaching the debate naturally lends itself to student skepticism toward the philosophical views presented. In contrast, research suggests that presenting one’s own views alongside teaching the debate in question—or ‘engaging the debate’—can effectively avoid eliciting skeptical attitudes among students without sacrificing desirable pedagogical outcomes. Thus, there are good reasons to engage philosophical debates as an educator, not merely teach them."

[Nicolas Delon]

I usually disclose my views, with appropriate caveats, uncertainty and framing it as my view-we-can-talk-more-about-the-arguments-if-you-want. My main rationale, besides appearing relatable (I’m an actual person with views, not an impartial argument-churning-machine, is that I often teach subjects involving animal ethics where it would be odd for me to pretend I’m just a spectator. Students want to know what I think and I believe they have a right to it, sort of.

[Amanda]

I think it is fine to do either, provided that if you disclose your views, you are fair about it and don't discourage students who think differently.(Sadly, I think very few philosophers are fair to views with which they disagree, alas. But then again, if these sorts of persons tried to hide their views, then I'm sure they still wouldn't be fair, so it is kind of a wash.)

Marcus said, "Yet, when we do philosophy, we don't bracket our own views. We defend things, and then engage in critical philosophical discussion with others."

Well, I do the second part. But the first part isn't how I do philosophy. I often *do* bracket my own views. And a significant percentage of the time ,my own views are agonistic, anyway. I don't have any issue writing a paper for a position I think is false, or (more frequently) that I am unsure of its truth. I see writing philosophy as a task in making good arguments for why something *could* be the case. This doesn't require actually believing whatever you are arguing for.

Anyway, I disclose my own views when teaching only when specifically asked. And every once and a while students will ask (as in, ask while I am teaching, not in private...they do that too but that's not what I'm talking about.) I make it pretty clear with how I teach, that I first explain an argument in favor of Y and then an argument against Y. So the students seem aware that I 'm not making the case for my own views. In evaluations, I have gotten various remarks about how students appreciate that I am "fair" and "not biased." I do not, however, think this means everyone should teach how I do. I'm sure people who disclose their views have gotten remarks from students about their "honesty." This is all to say, I find it very implausible that either disclosing or not disclosing one's views should be seen as the "right" way to teach, full-stop. There are good and bad ways to take either approach, and the *best* approach depends on the individual instructor and all sorts of facets about their skills and personality.

I will say that revealing one's views will inevitably, or almost inevitably, isolate certain students. Regardless of how the instructor presents themselves, they will feel as though the instructor does not respect and understand people like them. This is not a reason to never disclose one's views, for there is no teaching method that pleases everyone. But I want to throw that out there.

[Postdoc]

The Besong piece is quite helpful. Many thanks, Sebastian.