|
Resistance in the Diverse Classroom: Meanings
and Opportunities Contrapower
Harassment and the Professorial Archetype: Gender, Race, and Authority
in the Classroom Sidebar:
Challenging Contrapower Harassment Resistance in the Diverse Classroom: Meanings and Opportunities Ximena Zúñiga Jane Mildred Faculty who analyze systems of power and inequality when teaching about women, racial-ethnic, and religious minorities and other historically disadvantaged groups face significant challenges. While cultivating student engagement with diverse perspectives has made teaching both more exciting and more demanding, an increasingly hostile political, cultural, and fiscal environment may, at times, make a complex task even more challenging by increasing levels of resistance in the classroom. However, a review of feminist and multicultural pedagogy literatures and our own teaching experiences suggest that there is much faculty can do to reduce, address, and even embrace students' resistance to our messages and our methods.
Student resistance may reflect a number of different issues. Social relations and conditions in the larger socio-cultural environment may be significant factors, but issues related to course content, design, or instruction and to students' emotional or cognitive readiness also may be important considerations. In addition, resistance is increasingly being understood as an opportunity for growth and learning. Actively resistant behaviors (such as repeatedly challenging or arguing with others in the classroom, verbally and/or nonverbally communicating dislike, or openly expressing contempt or condescension) and passively resistant behaviors (such as whispering to neighbors while the instructor or other students are talking, openly doing non-course related work, or refusing to engage in group activities) may be triggered by course content, but they also can reflect social and interpersonal dimensions of the classroom, such as composition and climate issues, group dynamics, and issues related to leadership. Courses that address issues such as sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism, and other forms of oppression are affected by the same kinds of problems that produce resistance in other types of courses, including the instructor's lack of clarity about expectations and disjunctions between teaching and learning styles. Students also may appear resistant when their ability to understand and work with abstract concepts is limited, when they bring unresolved emotional issues to the classroom, when they lack confidence as learners, and when they have problems with authority. Scholarship on racial and social identity development has suggested that people are more likely to be resistant to social justice education in certain stages of these developmental processes (Tatum, 1992). Current social and economic conditions also are likely to affect students' perceptions about the potential consequences of social and economic justice. With a widening income gap and a loss in real income for all but the wealthiest, people from dominant groups may not see themselves as powerful or advantaged and may have reason to fear losing what advantages they do have. Under these conditions, it is understandable that some students might prefer to avoid engaging in the emotional consequences of exclusion and privilege. However, the presence of resistant behavior does not necessarily mean that something is "wrong" with the course or that students are "stuck." Resistance often serves as an indicator that students are interested and are taking the issues addressed in the classroom seriously enough to struggle with them (Davis, 1992). When resistance reflects engagement or strongly held convictions, it can provide an opportunity to address conflicts and concerns and create movement in the classroom (Goodman, 2001; Williams, 2004). Faculty who are aware of their own attitudes and beliefs, who understand and can work with classroom dynamics and their reactions to them, and who take responsibility for acquiring knowledge about the social identities and experiences of their students may face less resistance (Bell, Washington, Weinstein & Love, 1997). Course designs that include clear structure and expectations, peer learning, information gathering, assignments that offer students an opportunity to succeed, and activities such as experiential exercises, experiments, and participant observations may help to decrease student resistance (Goodman, 2001), though at times efforts to engage students more actively may at least temporarily cause students to resist (hooks, 1994; Maher & Tetrault, 1994). Faculty also can build trust and a sense of safety by assuring students that grading will be based on the quality of their work, not on the "correctness" of their ideas, and by establishing "ground rules" for classroom interactions. IIt is also very important for faculty to solicit, respond to, and act upon student feedback (Chan & Treacy, 1996). Students are less likely to feel overwhelmed by courses that focus on sexism, racism, and other forms of oppression when faculty appeal to people's commitment to democracy, fairness, and equality. It is important for faculty to identify advantages of change for students from dominant groups and provide historical and cross-cultural examples of successful interventions and social change movements (Davis, 1992). When resistance does arise, it is very important to acknowledge its "normality" and to address it directly. Many students, especially students of color, have legitimate reasons to be suspicious of teachers' motives after years spent in an education system that has silenced, pathologized, and attempted to colonize them (Gale, 1997). Approaches for working with resistance include affirming the students' right to resist, slowing the pace when discussion escalates into attack-defend behavior, changing the session plan to incorporate students' views and concerns, and making use of the resistance to illustrate course content or promote insight (Mildred & Zúñiga, 2004). When addressing or making use of resistance is inadvisable (such as when important content needs to be covered before an assignment is due, when there is insufficient trust in the group to address difficult issues safely, or when a resistant student is acting out personal issues in the classroom), a teacher may use "time outs" (stopping the process to allow students to write about what is happening) or use humor, music, or other media, to alter the mood in the classroom (Davis, 1992). A "process check" that encourages dialogue about the sources of resistance is another valuable method for identifying what students (and instructors) may be experiencing (Zúñiga & Chesler, 1993). While there is much that faculty can do to prevent, reduce, address, and make use of resistance, it is important to remember that the process of learning about issues of privilege, oppression, and discrimination can be disconcerting, challenging, and painful. What works with some students doesn't work with others, and some students and classes may continue to struggle despite the instructor's best efforts. Faculty who are addressing these issues in their classes need to be supported by educational institutions that recognize that faculty of color, women faculty, and lesbian and gay faculty are more likely to be challenged and evaluated negatively by students. We also need to support and learn from each other as teachers, scholars, and critical thinkers (hooks, 1994) because educating students about diversity and social justice can be intellectually and emotionally challenging. Resistance is not necessarily a symptom of inadequate planning, flawed teaching, or a hostile social climate, but rather a predictable and potentially valuable part of the educational process. In fact, resistance can become a catalyst for clarifying conflicting perspectives and examining power relations across social identity groups in the classroom.
Chan, C. S. & Treacy, M. J. (1996). Resistance in multicultural courses: Student, faculty, and classroom dynamics. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(2), 212-221. Davis, N. J. (1992). Teaching about inequality: Student resistance, paralysis, and rage. Teaching Sociology, 20, 232-238. Gale, X. L. (1997). The "stranger" in communication: Race, class, and conflict in a basic writing class. JAC: A Journal of Composition Theory 17(1), 53-67. Goodman, D. (2001). Promoting diversity and social justice: Educating people from privileged groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress. New York: Routledge. Maher, F. A. & Tetrault, M. K. (1994). The feminist classroom. New York: Basic Books. Mildred, J. & Zúñga, X. (2003). Working with resistance to diversity issues in the classroom: Lessons from teacher training and multicultural education. Smith College Studies for Social Work, 74(2), 360-375. Tatum, B. D. (1992). Talking about race, learning about racism: The application of racial identity development theory in the classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 1-24. Williams, L. B. (2004). Leadership, feminism, and classroom politics--or, how I gave up the fight and learned to love resistance. About Campus, 8(6), 18-23. Zúñiga, X. & Chesler, M. (1993). Teaching about conflict in the classroom. In Schoem, D., Frankel, L., Zúñiga, X. & Lewis, E. (Eds), Multicultural teaching in the university (pp. 37-50). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Contrapower Harassment and the Professorial
Archetype: Gender, Race, and Authority in the Classroom NiCole Buchanan's Personal Reflections Now that I am a professor, this segment of the student population continues to exist. When I enter the classroom, I can usually spot such a student immediately: as he realizes I am the professor, he leans back in his chair, crosses his arms, and puts his feet on the chair in front of him. This student will often give me "the look," the smirk or contemptuous stare that says, "This woman, this black woman, cannot possibly know anything. What gives her the right to evaluate me?" Whenever such a student appears in my class, I know that I can count on a difficult semester. I will likely face continual challenges to my authority. Even the simplest of assertions will be met with demands that I produce proof that what I say is not my mere opinion but is substantiated by legitimate sources of knowledge. His demeanor in class will often reflect defiance and condescension, which has the potential to infect the entire class. Such behaviors are designed to "put me in my place," remind me that I am merely a woman--and a black woman at that. His goal is to reinforce the long-held social hierarchy that places men, particularly white men, above all women, regardless of age, experience, or education. Harassment and the Law Sexual Harassment: An Occupational Hazard Theories examining why sexual harassment occurs have focused on power differentials between individuals both within organizations and in society. Many theorists have pointed to the influence of patriarchy and the role of male dominance in society as contributing factors. This is supported by findings that sexual harassment occurs most frequently when men have positions of social and/or structural power over women, when women enter occupations traditionally dominated by men, or when women challenge definitions of masculinity and femininity. Unlike the typical assumptions about workplace harassment--that it is often sexual and that it is perpetrated by those in power and directed toward subordinates--women with formal organizational power often face harassment by those they instruct, guide, and evaluate. Katherine Benson (1984) defined this form of harassment as contrapower harassment, which refers to the harassment of those with more organizational power by those with less. This definition has often been furthered by discussions of "formal" versus "informal" power in a particular context, which is influenced by societal norms. For example, while a female professor may have more formal power than a male student, because society still conveys more power and authority to men, the male student has more informal power due to his gender. Parallel situations can occur when discussing differences in race/ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, and social class. Contrapower Harassment in the Academy The most obvious examples of contrapower harassment are suggestive looks, body language, physical harassment, or verbal remarks directed towards a professor by a student. Covert behaviors can include a wide range of actions including anonymous, inappropriate phone calls or letters and negative verbal or written comments about a professor expressed to others, including her peers, superiors, staff, or other students. While the overt behaviors have been shown to be the most upsetting to victims in the short-term, the insidious nature of covert behaviors also have long-term negative emotional and professional effects. One of the most common and potentially damaging areas where contrapower harassment occurs is via anonymous teaching evaluations of instructors. Students' evaluations of women faculty are sometimes suspiciously low. Susan Basow's research has found consistent gender differences in student ratings of professors, particularly when male students rate female professors. Additionally, Caroline Turner has found that female faculty of color are frequently challenged by and negatively evaluated by students, regardless of teaching ability. These discrepancies make it appear that women are less capable instructors, the effects of which can persist beyond a single semester. For example, teaching evaluations are often the initial screening tool used to determine which faculty will be nominated for teaching awards. Professors with an established history of high average ratings are more likely to receive such awards, which provide the foundation for future career awards such as Distinguished Professor. Therefore, the systemic bias in teaching evaluations can dramatically reduce the number of women eligible for prestigious career awards in the future. In addition to averaged rankings, written comments on evaluations often reveal active misogyny and harassment. To demonstrate this point, several students in a Multicultural Psychology course at a Midwestern university examined the content of anonymous student comments on a Web site accessible only to other students within the institution. The purpose of the site is to provide more detailed information on specific courses and instructors to inform students as they select courses. The results were profoundly disturbing. Female professors were criticized as being "ugly," "dorky," or "frumpy" in their dress and appearance. Other comments were often filled with sexual images, fantasies, and explicit comments regarding sexual acts students wanted female professors to perform. In hostile student commentaries, the words "bitch," "whore," and other derogatory names were commonplace. In some cases, students wrote detailed fantasies of how they would like to hurt or kill their female professor. The students found no similar examples of comments wishing harm or violence against male faculty. In fact, while men were occasionally described as "jerks" or "assholes," the vast majority of explicit sexual comments and derogatory names were directed toward female faculty. Specific to teaching evaluations, Michael Messner found that while men are evaluated for their skills and abilities as instructors, women are first evaluated by their gender performance and then by their teaching performance. He analyzes this phenomenon by examining comments about female professors' clothing and found that women are caught in a catch-22 whether they dress more or less formally. For example, if a woman tries to assert her authority in the classroom by wearing more formal attire, she may be seen as being less feminine and, therefore, not performing her appropriate gender role. As a result, students are critical because she is not conforming to their stereotypes of women as feminine, not authoritative. However, if she dresses informally, it contributes to the image of women as unworthy of the same respect and status afforded to male faculty, no matter what their attire. Regardless of why and how it occurs, contrapower harassment has a
severe impact on the psychological and professional lives of women
faculty. Many faculty who experience contrapower harassment report
heightened levels of depression and anxiety, and severe cases of harassment
can lead to traumatic stress symptoms. There are also negative job
consequences. Some women's interest in teaching decreased as a way
to avoid harassment. For those who remain, negative class ratings
and skewed peer or supervisor perceptions can influence tenure and
promotion decisions for female faculty, resulting in fewer women achieving
positions of power within academic institutions. Another suggestion for combating student bias in teaching evaluations is to get independent evaluations of professors' teaching effectiveness. For example, many institutions have instruction consultants who will not only help faculty with their teaching but also will observe them in the classroom and provide written feedback. This feedback can be used to improve teaching, regardless of one's current abilities. Perhaps more importantly, such evaluations can provide independent verification of a professor's teaching skills, which then can be used in conjunction with student evaluations for tenure and promotion decisions. Michele Paludi and colleagues suggest that the best method for combating the negative career impact of contrapower harassment is implementing policies and training to educate people, especially other professors and university officials about its prevalence and consequences. Many successful anti-harassment and anti-discrimination programs already exist that can be used to create training and educational programs specifically addressing contrapower harassment. It is important to include those who make tenure and promotion decisions in such workshops. Because of the complicated nature of contrapower harassment and the entrenched social hierarchy and power that cause it, easy and quick solutions do not exist. We remain hopeful, however, that actively addressing contrapower harassment with policy and training initiatives will decrease its prevalence and its consequences on the career trajectories of women in the academy. References Basow, S. A. (1998). Student evaluations: The role of gender bias
and teaching Buchanan, N. T. (2005). The nexus of race and gender domination:
The racialized DeSouza, E., & Fansler, A. G. (2003). Contrapower Sexual Harassment:
A Survey of
National Center for Education Statistics (2002). Digest of Educational
Statistics, Nelson, C., Trzemzalski, J., Malkasian, K., Pfeffer, K. (2004, April). Expressions of incompetence, sexual fantasies, and sexualized hostility toward male and female faculty: A Qualitative Analysis of student comments on an anonymous faculty evaluation website. Presentation at Multicultural Psychology (Psy 493W/Psy 992), Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Paludi, M. A., DeFour, D. C., Roberts, R., Tedesco, A. M., Brathwaite,
J., Marino, A. Turner, C. S. (2002). Women of color in the academe: Living with
multiple marginality. Turner, C. S. (2003). Incorporation and Marginalization in the Academy:
From Border Further Reading Caplan, P. J. (1995). Lifting a ton of feathers: A woman's guide
to surviving in the Toth, E. (1997). Ms. Mentor's impeccable advice for women in academia.
Philadelphia, Defour, D. C., (2003). The interface of race, sex, sexual orientation,
and ethnicity in McKinney, K. (1992). Contrapower sexual harassment: The effects of
student sex and Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., & Nawyn, S. J. (1998). Doing power: The confluence of gender, race, and class in contrapower sexual harassment. Gender and Society, 12, 40-60.
|
