Situation
Professor Quinn is an acknowledged expert in statistical methods for the social sciences. She is teaching both the undergraduate and graduate methods courses and has been doing so for many years. She feels that recent critiques of positivist methods on the part of cultural studies sorts, feminists and others, are invalid and that they will, in fact, destroy whatever credibility the social sciences have achieved as sciences. She extols the virtues of positivist methods in her classes and decries the onslaught of mediocrity represented by its critics.
Questions
- Does Professor Quinn have an obligation to learn and objectively present a topic or newly emerging approach with which she disagrees?
- Does Professor Quinn have an obligation to omit critiques of competing approaches with which she disagrees from her lectures?
Discussion
Instructors in Professor Quinn’s position might want to acquaint themselves with competing points of view simply to remain current in their areas of expertise. She might also want to consider whether, in teaching students as much salient material in an area as possible, she has an obligation to acquaint them with a competing point of view. If she decides that she must teach students about approaches with which she disagrees, she must also decide how to do so. She might have students read such material, but not cover it in class; she might cover it in class, but not have students read about it. If she does either of these things, she might consider whether or not she has done her best to convey the material to the students. There is also the issue of tone of presentation. Will she present the material dispassionately and without critique? Is this good pedagogy? Or, will she critique in as dispassionate and balanced a manner as possible?
