For educators at public institutions in the state of Alabama, October 1, 2024, is a significant day: SB 129 goes into effect.
SB 129 is our state’s version of anti-DEI legislation to restrict the work of public institutions to address issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Among other things, the bill prohibits public entities from sponsoring “any diversity, equity, and inclusion program” or maintaining “any office, physical location, or department that promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.” This includes a mandate that institutions “designate restrooms on the basis of biological sex.”
The law also bans the teaching of perceived ‘divisive’ concepts that compel students to think or feel a particular kind of way. Concepts that carry the label of divisive include:
“That any race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior.”
“That individuals should be discriminated against or adversely treated because of their race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.”
“That the moral character of an individual is determined by his or her race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.”
“That, by virtue of an individual's race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin, the individual is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously.”
“That individuals, by virtue of race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.”
On the face of it, these divisive concepts look worthy of banishment. Maybe they leave you scratching your head, wondering who does this in the classroom? Certainly not any teacher you know. Whether or not these concepts have actually been taught in Alabama classrooms, the larger issue is that faculty who teach many of the topics (race, slavery, gender and sexuality, immigration) that are at the heart of these divisive concepts, are not sure how to proceed in the face of legislation that encourages the termination of faculty who violate the state law.
What if, for example, after a lecture on slavery and racism, a student says that something I said in my lecture made them feel bad about their subject position? Could I be in violation of teaching a divisive concept?
Or what if a student declares that an assigned reading about a Jordanian transgender woman’s effort to become a US citizen is coercive by virtue of being required reading for a course?
I have had conversations with colleagues about scenarios like these and many others. There is a general sense that the law has created pitfalls, and we must walk gingerly even as we continue to do the work that matters most to us.
Given that our blog series emphasizes dialogue and effective communication in the face of challenging, tense classroom moments, I offer one important reminder that might help you formulate your own strategies for how to communicate with your students amid anti-DEI legislation in Alabama and elsewhere.
The reminder is this: Signposting matters. Now more than ever.
It has always been a tenet of good pedagogy to communicate teaching goals and expectations to our students.
And this is not just about reviewing the student learning outcomes on the first day or previewing course content from one class session to the next session. It is about baring all the pedagogical devices, about going through the painstaking steps of explaining every teaching move – why I am assigning this particular quiz or asking this particular essay prompt or featuring this particular excerpt from a particular text.
Again, signposting is just good teaching. It provides clarity for students. It builds a sense of trust, which fosters community in the classroom. It helps to alleviate the anxiety that students sometimes feel by being in the classroom and not having clear answers to those ‘why’ questions.
If students are not clear about why they are being exposed to certain classroom material or a controversial idea, they will fill in that void … with claims like I am being indoctrinated. The teacher wants me to think like her. It is not enough, for example, to expose students to the idea of racial privilege or gendered privilege. We have to be explicit in linking that exposure to deeper learning, sharpening their critical thinking and reading skills.
Here are a couple sources you might find helpful that offer further perspectives on signposting and pedagogical practice: Geoff Petty’s “Teacher Talk” and “The Art of Explaining” in Teaching Today: A Practical Guide (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016): 153-170 and Rachael Cayley’s “Signposting and Metadiscourse” in Explorations of Style: A Blog about Academic Writing (Sept. 1, 2011).
If nothing else, SB 129 has forced me to be more intentional about describing my teaching processes. It is a level of metadiscourse that can make one feel self-conscious. And yet, nowadays that is the work. That is the work indeed.
Comentarios