Teaching Journal (4): Violence in the Classroom

Week 6: I encountered my first significant difficulty on the Biometrics, Criminality and Surveillance week. All the readings centered on the use of biometric and surveillance technology at the border in the “war on terror”. The readings were quite dense. One document the historical emergence of biometric technology (Foucauldian genealogy), two were semiotic (semi-psychoanalytic) analysis of images and text. Neither of the student presentations addressed the close reading and dwelled on a notion (not found in the readings) that border technologies are not “effective”.

Thus far, the student presentations had been well done and I began to rely on them to jump start the class discussions. The presenters for this week had grossly misread the readings and we spiralled into a strange conversation. The students were very set on “catching the terrorist” and deeply invested in the constructed notion of security. I let the students speak pop-corn style and eventually I stopped them and asked “What is a terrorist?”. In my attempt to deconstruct the binary rhetoric of security vs. threat, I asked just how much of their freedoms and rights they are willing to give up to the state in the name of security, which is itself manufactured.

One white male student claimed that he has been stopped and his files examined at the airport during travels and felt that he is willing to give up a small amount of freedom because he knows he’ll be let go at the end. I felt the violence of that statement resonate in the classroom. What do I do as an instructor in such situations? Due to my general aversion to conflict, my immediate reaction was to open it up to the class. Luckily one student critically intervened. I asked the class who has been stopped at the border or their names caught on some kind of watch-list. About five raised their hands, including the white male student. The other four were either people of colour or racially white but (as we had established in previous classes) had racialized names. I was stuck again. I didn’t want to point this out, thereby tokenizing or highlighting their marginality without their consent. But I wasn’t sure whether my point came across.

I realized that, when it comes to border security, many university students have a difficult time with critical engagement. I also realized that I don’t have the skills to deal with comments that reinforce dominant ideology and perpetuate violence in the classroom. I think that as a critical scholar committed to anti-discrimination and anti-oppression, I lack the skills and know-how to address these issues in class discussions. I’ve been drawing on my experiences from my days of queer youth organizing and AIDS education but I need more specific strategies for the classroom. The events of this class deeply affected me. I felt that I had failed some students (including the one who spoke out at the problematic comment) and failed my own politics. My friend assured me that I did the best that I could. Talking with her, I realized that I need anti-discrimination and anti-oppression training. I remember from my years in Toronto that there are community advocacy organizations who conduct such workshops in community groups and other companies/organizations. They have a wealth of knowledge and know-how in dealing with oppression in social/classroom situations . I need help to actualize and strategize my theoretical training.

editing other people's writing

I have been editing a lot of other people’s writing lately: my students’ first assignment and a close friend’s article drafts. Not only is it a delicious break from my own writing, especially if it’s a beautiful piece of work as was my friend’s fabulous analysis of zombie films, but it’s a great opportunity to hone my editing skills.

My students submitted the first (of three) concept papers early this month. I gave them the option to submit one of the three papers as a revised edit of a previous paper. This meant that I had to grade the papers differently. I ignored grammatical errors, unless they repeated consistently, and instead focused on structure and logical flow of argument. I didn’t “correct errors” but alerted the students to their weaknesses and strengths and sections where they can write with greater clarity. It took a bit longer to grade these papers but I knew the work I put in now will come back in the form of improved papers the next time around. At least I hope!

I used similar editing strategies when I read my friend’s article. I saw several incarnations of this piece, from point form notes to the final draft and at each point my friend asked me to read the piece in a certain way. For example, she asked that I comment on overall structure of argument in the point form notes. Later stages of the draft required more meticulous reading, such as sentence structures. As an editor, you have to be attuned to the needs of the writer at a given stage of their writing. There’s no point in correcting grammatical errors at the point form stage! What a waste of your time and their time. You can be spending that time to really pay attention to overall structure and “map” of argument.

While I edited my friend’s drafts, I also wrote the first working (rough) draft of one of my dissertation chapters. Being in the editing mind-space and writing at the same time proved to be extremely useful for me. I edited my own writing as I wrote, but in a different way than I did before (see Wednesday, August 27, 2008 post). I wasn’t hyper-editing to the point of censoring myself, but I would write and then look at what I’ve written to check for sentence structure (redundant? awkward? confusing?) and the sentence’s contirbution/role in the overall paragraph/section (necessary? flows logically? should be somewhere else?). I would “flag” sections I am uncertain about with a grey highlight (as I would when I’m editing someone else’s writing) and make comments to myself in Italics (“need better transition”, “put somewhere else?”).

I have a looming deadline for a working draft of my full dissertation (August!) and it’s easy for me to refuse doing anything else, much less work on other people’s writing. But it’s all part of improving and fine-tuning my writing skills at all stages of writing, which includes editing. There’s the added bonus of reading something other than my own writing (that I stare at day in and day out) and subject matter (look! zombies!!).

Teaching Journal (3): Close reading exercise

Week 5: I tried something completely new today, what I decided to call "close reading exercise." It turned out that a student had dropped the course and one of the readings for this week did not have an assigned student presenter. I had initially decided to lecture on it myself but then I came up with a different plan.

The students had just submitted their first concept paper, which is basically a key-term paper and so relies on close reading of text and comprehension. Yet I've come to realize, as a former undergraduate myself, that students are not really taught how to read these texts that often use sophisticated stylistic devices, such as irony and imagery. I keep wondering just how much students fully understand the readings. Or are they assuming the meaning of what they read? Or are they projecting what they want to read?

I divided the article, "Straw men and their followers" by Evelynn Hammonds, into four sections and divided the class into four groups. Each group was responsible for reading one section, summarize it, point out the arguments, identify stylistic devices and style of reasoning. I wanted to give them about 10 mins for the exercise but the discussions were quite lively and it was obvious to me that they were really engaging with one another and with the text so I let it go on for 20 mins.

At the very least from the immediate verbal feedback, students pointed out that there were slight discrepancies in how they read the text but also how each person ended up contradicting her/himself in trying to encapsulate Hammonds' argument. They pointed out stylistic devices, such as tone, sarcasm, irony, use of air quotes and rhetorical questions and the ways in which these devices help to support her argument.

Some of the drawbacks of this exercise were that, because students were given sections of an article, they weren't aware of the bigger picture in the argument. There were some misunderstandings and confusion as a result. But I pointed out that this confusion points to the importance of argumentative flow and completeness, as well as writings that get taken out of context, which not only happens in academia but also journalism and everyday interactions.

I personally found the exercise helpful. It gave me a chance to see how they read. And I think it did the same for them... at least, that's what I hope. I ended the exercise by explaining my rationale. We are so well trained to critique, critique, critique that we forget to really pay attention to what someone writes and honour their position as well as the work they have put into their work. I asked whether anyone has had an experience where they were arguing with someone but it turned out they were arguing about completely different things or were actually arguing for the same thing. This happens in academic writing as well. Misreading and misunderstanding are fairly common. Close-reading and writing concept papers are part of my effort to develop skills in meaningful critique, which I believe starts with close-reading and comprehension.