November 21, 2003
Teacher training in English, contd.
In response to my post citing the blog of a conservative grad student in English, a reader writes:
As a fellow conservative--well, really quite moderate, but conservative in the eyes of the academy--graduate student, I thought I'd share this experience. I was a TA for a British lit survey class, in which we were discussing Milton. Of course, the only important thing about Milton was what a sexist he was, and we spent some three days of lecture looking at his negative depiction of Eve. For the most part, this consisted of looking at select passages and simply noting how sexist he was.Many students began asking questions about Milton's theology. The response of the professor was--I kid you not--that she was a post-Christian, and that she didn't think a discussion of Christianity was important to an understanding of Milton.
Students were shocked. Not surprisingly, most of the other TAs were not. I suspect most were relieved that they wouldn't have to talk about something they knew absolutely nothing about in their discussion sections.
Like I said yesterday, you don't have to be a conservative to be appalled by either the ideologically-driven non-teaching described here or the blatant anti-intellectualism that accompanies it. The two often go hand in hand, and I am convinced that a major reason why there is so much add-water-and-stir, race-class-gender "theorizing" in literature courses is because teachers who don't really know their stuff think it offers them protective cover (it doesn't, as the reactions of the students who couldn't get straight answers about Milton clearly show). Nevertheless, there are a lot of teachers out there who use "political" pedagogy in order to coast in the classroom. And there are plenty of future teachers who, instead of learning about literature, are learning the ways of teacherly bad faith in courses like the one described above.
posted on November 21, 2003 6:25 PM
![[Critical Mass]](/archives/cmlogo.gif)