Tough Problems:

Discussing Controversial Topics

EDP 398T: Teaching Methodology

July 9, 2001

Sherlock Campbell

Barry Friedman

Christine Gray

Phillip Vaughn

Discussing Controversial Topics

Establish Rules of Engagement

In discussing controversial topics in the classroom, it is crucial to first establish a set of rules for class discussions. These rules serve several important purposes. As suggested by Svinicki (1999), these rules encourage the free pursuit of learning. They facilitate the creation of a safe haven or secure environment for learning to occur in which students feel free to 1) express their perspectives; 2) evaluate the validity of empirical data and theories; and 3) offer evidence for opposing arguments without the sanctions of ridicule or oppression. By promoting respect for all students and their thoughts and eliminating the fear of embarrassment, these rules allow even the shyest student the opportunity to participate. Furthermore, Svinicki suggests that the instructor create an atmosphere for class discussions that promotes justice and avoids maleficence. We recommend that within the first two to three days of class, the instructor establish the rules of engagement. The instructor should then lead a discussion of a non-controversial topic while the class practices using the rules. One suggestion for a non-controversial topic is the steps of the scientific method.

We would like to offer several suggestions for rules of engagement in class discussion. Any stated position should be supported with scientific evidence. Hearsay, personal experience, and some texts (e.g., the Bible) are not scientific evidence. Any student wishing to challenge another’s position must first restate that position in his or her own words. If at any point in the discussion the instructor wants to play the role of the devil’s advocate, the instructor will announce this intent. If the discussion becomes too intense, the instructor will attenuate the tension by calling a “time-out” in which either a moment of silence will be observed or students will write a minute paper on their current thoughts. Students who do not follow the rules of engagement should be spoken with directly after class.

It is also important for the instructor to focus on being tactful (Loehlin, 1992). Proper or appropriate terminology should be used to refer to different groups (e.g., Asians instead of Orientals, Blacks or African-Americans instead of Negroes, and women instead of girls). Refraining from using slurs of race, creed, sexual orientation, or sex is paramount. In addition, the instructor should immediately address and confront the use of slurs and point out to the class that this type of behavior or language use is inappropriate for this class and is seen as offensive by many.

Too often students are unaware of the personal convictions that unknowingly interfere with their ability to rationally evaluate opposing arguments. This poses a problem in class discussions of controversial topics. We suggest that the instructor discuss the difference between “the Truth” and truths. Prior to planned discussions of controversial topics, students should be allowed ample time both in and out of class to identify their personal convictions, particularly with topics with religious connotations. Often instructors only acknowledge knowing through empirical evidence and fail to help students see that other types of knowing such as through religious faith may be valid elsewhere. However, instructors should explain that only knowing through empirical data is appropriate evidence for the scientific arena. Furthermore, careful attention should be paid to allowing students to continue believing their personal convictions as long as their class discussions center on theories and positions that are empirically verifiable.

Avoid Falling Prey to Fallacies

When discussing a controversial topic such as race differences in intelligence, one should ensure that three common fallacies are not committed. The first fallacy that students (and some teachers!) often make occurs when one confuses the situation that exists in the world with one’s moral judgment about that situation. This conflation of what “is” with what “ought” to be often rears its ugly in the form of, ‘Well, if evidence suggests that the IQ gap between blacks and whites is partly due to genetics, than this difference ought to exist. It’s a natural phenomenon.’ Concluding that something is morally acceptable simply because it might be “natural” (however defined) is termed the naturalistic fallacy (Hume, 1964 [1739]). Infanticide, war, homicide, suicide, and even rape may be classified by some as “natural”, or as due in part to biology. Such “naturalness” in no way makes such behavior morally acceptable. What is, and what ought to be need to be kept separate. As Cartwright notes, “ the way in which humans want their social word to operate is a matter of values; biology is no more reliable a guide to what values we should hold than, for example, chemistry or astronomy” (2000, pp. 327).

A second common fallacy that arises when discussing race differences in intelligence is appropriately termed the anti-naturalistic fallacy: that what “ought” to exist “is” what exists (Buss, 1994). The individual who asserts that race differences in IQ do not exist simply because they do not want such differences to exist has committed this fallacy. Their view of how the world “ought” to be has fallaciously colored their view of how the world actually “is”. This fallacy is particularly pernicious because a failure to acknowledge the IQ gap between certain groups hampers the search for a means with which to close the gap (if so desired). Failure to identify a problem is tantamount to impeding its solution.

The third fallacy often committed when discussing race differences in intelligence is concluding that knowledge of group differences allows one to precisely “know” anything about any given individual in a group. The Iron Law of Individual Differences states that within-group differences are (almost) always greater than between-group differences. Knowing that blacks as a group perform lower than whites as a group on the Stanford-Binet IQ test tells you absolutely nothing about the IQ of any given black or white person. It is important that students understand that the distribution of IQ scores overlaps between groups, and that although the mean score for one group may significantly differ from the mean score for another group, differences in central tendency tell you nothing about any individual’s score within a group.

Present Information Quantitatively

By definition, controversial topics are apt to arouse the passions of those who are exposed to these topics. This may be particularly true regarding the research on race differences in intelligence. Not only is this topic likely to prompt strong emotional reactions, but it is also likely to attract a great deal of attention. Laymen, members of the media, and politicians who may otherwise be totally unconcerned with psychological research may draw inappropriate conclusions, be offended, or contribute to the spread of misinformation due to their lack of sophistication in interpreting social science research. Even college students enrolled in psychology classes tend to inadequately analyze and interpret research when they perceive the research as having great personal or social relevance.

Loehlin (1992) offers several recommendations to mitigate potential problems that are likely to arise when research on race differences in intelligence are presented. These strategies are applicable in other situations where one presents research on controversial topics. One of these recommendations is to put things in a quantitative perspective. A clear explication of the practical import of the findings, presented in appropriate quantitative terms, may serve to minimize the likelihood that students will draw unfounded and erroneous conclusions. The difference between statistical and practical significance should be clearly addressed. For example, a person who is not very familiar with social science research may be told that an examination of an extremely large, random sample of adults revealed that there are racial differences in intelligence at the 0.001 level of significance. This person may be at risk of concluding something like, “The findings are unequivocal. Blacks are less intelligent than whites.” What is likely to be lost on this person is that the extremely large sample size increased the likelihood of detecting group differences of even negligible practical importance. Fewer instances of harmful, erroneous conclusions being drawn may result from the use of quantitative measures of practical significance (such as effect sizes and the percent of variance accounted for) rather than from a reliance on the potentially misleading aspect of statistical significance. Judicious use of appropriate quantitative information is invaluable for the effective communication of controversial research findings.

Controversial Topics as Quintessential Teaching Moments

In this paper a blueprint for preparing to discuss a controversial topic has been presented. First, when establishing rules of engagement for the classroom, be sure to include rules specifically addressing discussion of topics that may be controversial. Second, during the actual discussion, listen closely, enforce the established rules of engagement, and redirect when necessary. This process was elaborated using the example of race differences in intelligence. Many other topics could have been addressed, among them, sex differences, sexual behaviors, sexual harassment, religion/evolution, affirmative action, abortion, and politics. Any of these potentially controversial topics could be used to stimulate classroom discussion and learning. After all, if a topic is controversial, it has more potential to be engaging to students. However, what new teacher doesn’t have nightmares of beginning a class discussion, only to have it degenerate into an unproductive, potentially dangerous shouting match? This blueprint can be expanded to include preparations for controversial discussions that are not on the syllabus.

The first and probably most important thing to keep in mind during any class is the planned educational objective. Having a specific goal to accomplish can marshal our attention and actions during trying times. It is easy to become distracted or confused during a heated discussion. Having specific educational objectives focuses our attention to allow us to choose appropriate actions. For example, if analyzing arguments is a goal of a class, what better time to model that behavior than during a discussion. Stop the action for a moment, restate the argument and have students analyze the argument. Not only does this approach slow things down a bit and (hopefully) engage people’s brains, it establishes a learning environment. If, however, a controversial topic comes up during a class when the objective is to cover a great deal of information, allow that to guide your decision making process. Perhaps it would be best to quickly summarize the discussion, mention the objective, and then move on, suggesting a discussion after class for those that are interested.

It may be useful to organize the various strategies, goals and approaches into a grid (see below). Possible courses of actions can be divided into those that occur before the class session in which the controversial discussion takes place, those that occur during that class session, and those that occur after that class session. They can further be subdivided into actions occurring in the classroom, and those assigned outside the classroom. The grid below provides a few possible actions to take when discussing controversial topics in the classroom. Although it is intended to aid you in your preparations, it is by no means complete. In summary, carefully chosen objectives in combination with a well-prepared groundwork, before, during, and after the discussion, will go a long way to ensuring successful learning experiences for instructors and their students.

References

Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire. New York: Basic Books.

Cartwright, J. (2000). Evolution and human behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hume, D. (1964 [1739]). A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Should we do research on race differences in intelligence? Intelligence, 16, 1-4.

Svinicki, M. D. (1999). Ethics in college teaching. In W. J. McKeachie’s, Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 289-300.

	In the Classroom	Outside the Classroom
Before the class session	-rules of engagement -“practice” discussion	-research topic (readings, short writing assignment) -journal -online class chat room
During the class session	-First: DON’T PANIC!! -keep educational objectives in mind (you did set objectives, didn’t you?!) -refresh rules of engagement -enforce rules -keep topic limited	-safety issues: security/campus police -TA?: student may need to vent to TA outside class
After the class session	-debrief -summarize, put into perspective	-assignment: summarize discussion, analyze, critique, suggestions, etc -teacher: critique, journal