Illustration by Louise Zergaeng PomeroyI’m a professor at a branch campus of
a large state-university system in a state
that has passed — and is planning to
pass more — laws dictating what (and
how) we can teach in our classrooms. ese
laws are intentionally vague and allow
almost any material related to several
important topics to be called into question.
is has emboldened a small but very
vocal part of our student body to disrupt
classrooms whenever issues of race,
gender, religion or sexuality are raised.
I’m a tenured, popular professor,
and I’m not worried that engaging with
this material puts my job in danger.
Even if I were, I don’t think that would be
an ethical reason not to teach it. I am,
however, noticing that a new willingness
on the part of that small minority of
students to say blatantly racist or bigoted
things is taking a toll on the other
students, particularly those whose
identities are implicated in the discussion.
In the past, I would simply have shut
down inappropriate discussions, but
I’m no longer legally allowed to do
so, and the administration has made
it clear that they would not support
any professor who does so.
My question, then, is whether it’s ethical
to continue to teach material I know will
expose students to bigoted, racist speech from
their classmates, with whom they will then
be expected to maintain a collegial working
relationship. In a nutshell, if teaching the
poet and activist Audre Lorde means forcing
Black, queer and female students to endure
racist, homophobic, miso nistic comments
from their classmates, is it still ethical to
teach Audre Lorde?Name WithheldThe classroom is a place where students
should indeed be free to express their
views at appropriate times on relevant
topics. But the norms of pedagogy have
always regulated classroom speech: Stu-
dents don’t have the right to interrupt or to
go on too long or to stray from the subject.
Sometimes teachers, in turn, have a duty
to explain what is wrong with the content
of a student’s comments or the manner
in which it’s expressed. This, too, is part20 5.1.22 Illustration by Tomi Um
of the free exchange of ideas that these
higher-education laws purport to support.
A consistent application of this princi-
ple does not shield students from being
told that their remarks are racist or sexist
or homophobic and that these things are
wrong. (And yes, I know consistency is
not a hallmark of legislators in states like
yours, who in other respects seem eager
to restrict academic freedom.) Teachers
should defend such claims with reasons
and encourage their students to do the
same. You are in the business not of tell-
ing them what they must think but of
off ering arguments that will allow them
to reach their own conclusions.
There’s also the reality that some things
people say have the eff ect of interfering
with the learning of others. It’s very hard
to think clearly when you feel categorical-
ly derogated. How to reduce these eff ects?
One thing that may help is to exercise
your freedom of expression by explaining
your approach at the start of the class,
even on the syllabus.
I don’t know the nature of your courses,
but here are some things you might tell
your students: That you’ll set aside time for
discussion in class and that they are wel-
come to say whatever they think in those
discussions, if it’s on topic. That because
your aim is to have as many students par-
ticipate as possible, you may sometimes
have to cut them off. That the material
in your course may raise issues that are
contentious in your community, and some
people may choose to say things that are
upsetting or off ensive to others. That
other students should feel free to object
and to explain their objections. That no
sincerely off ered and relevant position is
out of bounds, but that you hope students
will express their views respectfully and
with an awareness that when they cause
off ense to others, they can make it harder
for classmates to learn and to participate.
That when a student says something that
you believe is wrong and off ensive, you
will sometimes point this out, and if you
do so, you will explain why.
Whether something is properly
viewed as off ensive may itself be a matter
of controversy, of course, but a college
class should train people to defend their
views, even on controversial matters, not
to avoid controversy. If you prepare your
students for the sort of episode you’re
concerned about by giving them per-
mission to respond, you’ll also empowerHow Can I Teach
When I’m Not Allowed
To Shut Down Trolls?
To submit a query:
Send an email to
ethicist@nytimes
.com; or send mail
to The Ethicist, The
New York Times
Magazine, 620
Eighth Avenue, New
York, N.Y. 10018.
(Include a daytime
phone number.)Sanjay writes:
My wife recently
purchased some
comfortable soft
pajamas. Whenever
we return home
from an outing, she
immediately runs to
our bedroom only
to emerge seconds
later in her pajamas,
announcing:
‘‘We be jammin’!’’
I have two issues:
1) Pajamas should
only be worn to bed,
and 2) her pajamas
shouldn’t have
a catchphrase.
Could you rule that
she stop both?
————
Marriage is
hard. But two great
consolations
guaranteed in
the contract are
these: 1) The
right to dress down,
be comfortable
and, indeed, be
so vulnerable
in front of another
human that no
goofball pun is off
limits; 2) the right
to experience joy.
Especially in your
pajamas. I am sorry
you are unfamiliar
with these terms
of your agreement.
Please revisit the
paperwork. Take
your time. The rest
of us will just be
jammin’ over here.Bonus Advice
From Judge
John HodgmanThe Ethicist By Kwame Anthony Appiah