To the Editor:
It is no secret that we, the students of Oberlin College, feel our voices should be heard in the classroom. We constantly malign professors for not being open enough to criticism, for a lack of truthfulness when it comes to issues. The disheartening reality is that privileges of openness (though it may not be right, it is something of a privilege in classes here) tend to be abused by students as much as they can be revoked by professors.
On the first day of History 253: Recent America, Professor David Stradling was unabashed in his frankness with out class. He understood the issues we would deal with may become extremely personal. He proceeded to make it known that he is a "liberal", and that this may well factor into his teaching over the semester, as " narratives are political" to one degree or another. David chose candor over false pretenses, and fostered critical thinking on issues without constructing the facade of an objective observer who has no stake in what is said.
It is the nature of a course in the History department that its scope be somewhat limited, and that it choose some things to be covered and other to be left out. At Oberlin, as at almost all other colleges I know of, this task is delegated to the professor. With Recent America, while David constructed the course's content and its structure he asked for our input more so than in any other class I have taken here. This privilege was unfortunately abused by some students, as discussion on the women's movement and the civil rights movement in post-war America flowered into an argument over the content of the syllabus and the instructor's interpretation of History itself. None of us learned much that class, except for the fact that some students still see their role not as engaged learner, but as agenda-setter and center of attention.
Yet, our voices must be heard, and in Recent America a tolerant atmosphere was built in which any opinion on the issues of the course could be articulated. When matters begin to get more personal, they become infinitely more complex. If we are to desire that students gain more input into the structure and content of classes, and that classes become inquiries into oneself rather than some esoteric study of out-dated ideas, we must have the ability to responsibly handle the freedom we possess.
In the case of our History class, I am decidedly in support of David's method of teaching, and in his discernible ability to relate with students. In the end, I am sure almost all of us at Oberlin prefer sincerity and tolerance to provincialism. If we are to take our roles as students seriously, we must be able to return the respect to the professor that he or she is faithful enough to show us.
Copyright © 1996, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 125, Number 12; December 13, 1996
Contact Review webmaster with suggestions or comments at ocreview@www.oberlin.edu.
Contact Review editorial staff at oreview@oberlin.edu.