Nafees Alam

Abstract

A college course, Freedom of Thought, is designed to support students in understanding their views and others’ views, prioritizing understanding over agreement.

     There is a growing perception, among the general public, that education and indoctrination are becoming synonymous. In response, I designed an undergraduate course, Freedom of Thought, which is taught as part of Boise State University’s general education Ethics and Diversity sequence.The course addresses this negative public perception by encouraging students to respect their own views, as well as conflicting views, on a myriad of topics. I have presented and discussed with faculty colleagues my teaching philosophy, which is foundational to the Freedom of Thought course.

      In the class’s 15 sessions, we cover seven general topics (health, wealth, race, love, gender, sexuality, ideology) and subtopics within each. The course is designed so that through the combination of its elements – course culture, readings, class discussions, students’ self-videos, midterm paper, and final presentation, participants learn to value both their own and others’ freedom of thought. I have taught the course both in-person and online. When online, it is taught synchronously and we use Zoom for class discussions and verbal communications from me. Canvas is the course learning management system (LMS). On average, the class size is 30 students.

Diversity is acknowledged to go beyond…factors like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., aiming specifically to speak to diversity of thought. 

Course Culture

      To forward a course focus that is not on agreement, but understanding, the topic areas are taught with the underlying assumption there is no prevailing argument nor one right answer. Students are cautioned before registering for the course that choosing to enroll means understanding the classroom environment may not always be an emotionally safe space, but an intellectually brave space.

     Along with my words and tone, the course activities and assignments create a course culture of students understanding others’ views, while not necessarily being in accord. Attendance/participation in our class discussions, where students are guided to remain respectful, while a variety of views on contemporary topics are stated, is worth 20% of students’ overall grade. Students’ seven, one-minute self-videos that report on views and opposing views expressed in academic resources make up 35% (5% each) of students’ overall grade.The remaining 45% of students’ overall grade is determined by students’ midterm paper, in which students explore their views and counter views; and final presentation, where students reflect on the concept of freedom of thought. Students read a chapter entitled “Willing to Be Disturbed” in Turning To One Another: Simple Conversations to Restore Hope To The Future, by Margaret J.Wheatley (2012) and a report, Safe Spaces and Brave Spaces, by Diana Ali (2017) to help them stay clear, respectful, communicative, and on track throughout the course.

Class Discussions

     In our class discussions, which occur in seven of our fifteen class sessions and last approximately 45 to 60 minutes, students discuss their opinions on subtopics within the course topic of the week: health, wealth, race, love, gender, sexuality, or ideology. Students are asked to consider the credibility of opposing viewpoints before investing in their favoring viewpoint. Examples of subtopics we have discussed are: health at any weight (health), long-term/short-term investment strategies (wealth), Black Lives Matter/All Lives Matter (race), staying single/getting married (love), number of genders that exist (gender), ethics of polyamory (sexuality), and fair-share taxation (ideology). Subtopics are not predetermined. Rather from the larger topic, students’ comments organically go from subtopic to subtopic.

     Students are not supposed to counterpoint other students in-person nor on Zoom because that turns into a debate in pursuit of victory as opposed to a lesson in pursuit of understanding. A “brave space” is created where students with opinions on different ends of a spectrum can speak candidly and learn from one another. However, class conversations frequently involve polarizing subtopics that can split the classroom into several opposing factions.

     Keeping discussions civil. When discussions get off track or personal, my role as the instructor is to pause and remind students that our goal is intellectual growth, not emotional comfort. During a whole class discussion on the topic of love, students got a bit off track when a student stated, “Marriage is a scam, why would I tie half my assets to someone when I can have sex for free?” which quickly resulted in another student stating, “People who think like you are what’s killing marriage.” I raised my hand to indicate we would not be speaking for just a moment, pausing for a few seconds to help calm the triggered classroom environment before stating, “Remember, our goal here is intellectual growth, not emotional support.You are both passionate about your positions on this topic, so now I want you to counterpoint yourselves by explaining the basis for the other student’s point of view.” Each of the two students counterpointed themselves, without debating.

    Our discussions are structured as traditional participation, with students raising their hands, both in-person and on Zoom. Approximately 50% of class time is dedicated to class discussions with about 70% of students sharing their thoughts, in each discussion. Students are often surprised to learn how many people think like them, and think differently than them – a microcosm of the world at large.

Students’ Self-Videos

     Following each class discussion of a course general topic (health, wealth, race, love, gender, sexuality, or ideology) each student produces an individual one-minute video on a sub-topic of their choosing that is within that week’s class discussion topic.They video record themselves authoritatively reporting an academic resource’s slant on the subtopic and then authoritatively report a different academic resource’s opposing view on the same subtopic. Students are allotted 30 seconds to report on the first viewpoint, and 30 seconds to report on an opposing view. Students do not state which view is theirs.

     Students are not required to do their self-videos, which we refer to as VLOGs, on a subtopic discussed in class, rather they are welcome to to discuss any subtopic they choose, within that week’s general topic. For each video, a list of references cited is required.

     Students record and upload each video prior to the next class session, and they are expected to view all of their classmates’ videos within 48 hours after class.These self-video assignments help forward the process of learning, critical thinking, and communications by expecting students to provide an academic resource’s evidence for a view on a topic, and equal evidence for a counter view, from another academic resource.Viewing classmates’ videos, focused on a variety of subtopics with academic resources that express divergent views, is another way students expand their understanding of different perspectives.

    For our course topic, ideology, Emily, a Psychology major, in her junior year chose the subtopic of separation of church and state. Emily reported a view from an academic reference that supports religious establishments having a voice in law-making. Emily then reported on points from an academic resource that supports separation of church and state. Emily’s video is here. For our course topic wealth, Jordan, a sophomore who majors in Social Work and Criminal Justice, the subtopic of inheritance was the focus. Quoting from academic resources, Jordan reported on pros and cons of inheritance.

Midterm Paper

     Although the seven self-video assignments are not designed for students to state their current views on subtopics, the midterm assignment is.The midterm paper, worth 20% of students’ overall course grade, requires students to read the chapter, Willing To Be Disturbed, within Turning to One Another: Simple Conversations to Restore Hope to The Future by Margaret J. Wheatley (2012) and write a paper on how they intend (or don’t intend) to welcome ideas and ideologies different from their own on specific subtopics of their choosing, including rationale for their decisions. One student discussed her views on the topic of transgender athletes in women’s sports, and how she is “…willing to be disturbed in a conversational sense..” with those who hold views different than hers (see Appendix A).

Final Assignment

     For students’ final assignment, students read a report from National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) Research and Policy Institute, by Diana Ali (2017) entitled Safe Spaces and Brave Spaces: Historical Context and Recommendations for Student Affairs Professionals. Ali defines a safe space, as “….a space where students with different ideas can isolate themselves from those who disagree with them” (p.3).

     For a brave space Ali (p. 7), cites Brian Arao and Kristi Clemens (2013) thoughts that brave spaces have five elements: controversy with civility, where carrying opinions are accepted; owning intentions and impacts, in which students acknowledge and discuss instances where dialogue has affected the emotional well-being of another person; challenge by choice, where students have the option to step in and out of challenging conversations; respect, where students show respect for one another’s basic personhood; and “no attacks,” where students agree not to intentionally inflict harm on one another.

     Upon reading Ali’s report, students create and record a thirteen-slide, five-minute slide show considering the pros and cons of safe spaces in comparison to brave spaces. In the recording, the student’s slides are visible and their voice audible.This assignment is worth 25% of students’ overall grade, As a scaffold for their slide show, students receive a slide show template (see Appendix B).

Reflections

     The course challenges students’ values and ideas without intending to change them. Diversity is acknowledged to go beyond intersectional factors like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., aiming specifically to speak to diversity of thought. Freedom of Thought is designed to teach students that understanding one’s own views and views of others is applicable to opinion-based topics and to more academic, fact-based topics.

     Based on my observations of students from all my courses, I believe 30% of students come into class, respecting both their views and counter views. Based on assessment of students’ final presentations, 80% of course participants complete Freedom of Thought class understanding and respecting their own views, while understanding and respecting counter views.

     Student responses to taking Freedom of Thought have been generally positive, some quotes from three recent student evaluations include: “This class and the utilization of the point-counterpoint method have helped me recognize how to better identify where I truly stand in my beliefs and ideologies.” “I believe that challenging my own beliefs will help me to strengthen my beliefs and help me understand people who think differently from me. “I’ve learned to be more civil during debates and better empathize with those who I would normally never associate with.”

     Students’ self-videos could be enhanced by asking students to clearly state their current opinion on their chosen subtopics, along with references that support their view; instead of the current structure where students are expected to record their videos in such a way that viewers cannot tell where they stand. They would then state a view, different than theirs, on the same subtopic, along with relevant references. By requiring students to state their current views on the subtopic of their choosing, it would support students learning to speak authoritatively on their own positions, providing rationale; while also stating rationale for others’ views.

     The Freedom of Thought class’s activities and culture prepare students for industry and life, in general, as they will likely encounter ideas and ideologies that differ from their own in their professional and personal lives. With the goal of considering one’s own ideas and ideologies and those different from one’s own, the hope is students will grow into reflective, self-motivated, lifelong learners.

References

Ali, D. (2017). Safe spaces and brave spaces. NASPA Research and Policy Institute, 2, 1-13.

Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces. The art of effective facilitation:
     Reflections from social justice educators, 135, 150.

Wheatley, M. J. (2002). Willing to be disturbed.Turning to one another: Simple conversations to restore
     hope to the future. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koshler Publishers, Inc. Retrieved July, 14, 2012 from   https://ncs.uchicago.edu/sites/ncs.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/tools/NCs_PS_Toolkit_DPL_Set_B_WillingDisturbed.pdf

Resources

Alam, N. (2021, September). The point-counterpoint teaching philosophy. Oral presentation at the Center
     for Teaching and Learning Faculty Spotlight, Boise State University. Boise, Idaho.
https://www.boisestate.edu/ctl/resources/teaching-and-learning-spotlights/nafees-alam/

For Deeper Learning. (2021). Understanding diverse perspectives activity. https://fordeeperlearning.org/understanding-diverse-perspectives/

Appendix A
Midterm Paper Instructions and a Student’s Response

Instructions: Read Willing to Be Disturbed and write a five-page APA 7 style paper on how you intend to welcome or not to welcome ideas and ideologies different from your own, including rationale for your decisions.

Excerpts from a Student’s Midterm Paper:
(This student, a collegiate gymnast, discussed her views on the topic of transgender athletes in women’s sports.)

I personally believe that transgender individuals should not be allowed to compete in sports opposite from their biological sex.Taking Wheatley’s ideas on the idea that we should, “Listen as best you can for what’s different, for what surprises you” (p. 91), this is a topic I am willing to discuss and converse over, but I am not willing to live through.There are too many discomforts and unfairness that goes hand in hand with this developing idea.

As a young woman in sports at Boise State University, I am aware of the natural gender differences between male and females. It is genetically proven that males have the upperhand against women in a biological sense. With that being said I believe biological men should not be able to compete against biological women. College athletics is a huge dream and goal for many athletes, being given the opportunity to compete at this level is rewarding and should remain fair. We recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of Title IX which prohibits sex-base discrimination in education programs and activities. This was one of the most impactful legislations passed for women, especially in collegiate sports as females were now given the opportunity to compete athletically for a university. Women have worked for so long to be given equal rights, and this was a huge victory for females. By allowing men to compete against women, we are going backwards with our progressions as a society.

For a topic such as this, I am very open to talking about why this should be accepted and why this modification is a step in the right direction, especially since I don’t necessarily spend all my time thinking about something like this. Being informed and learning about a complexity such as this will help me gain new perspectives and it exposes me to a side I never would have seen unless I talked to someone. With that being said, I, once again, am willing to be disturbed when in a civil, learning conversation, but my limitations begin when it comes to accepting the idea myself.

Living in a sensitive world, I have been forced to accept the idea of pronouns and the ever changing gender identities. Since it is such a prevalent topic, the more information and differing perspectives I can gain, will help me understand people more and their identities. Although my opinions have not changed and will likely never change, I am willing to be disturbed in a conversational sense. I believe that people are genetically born either male or female, which is genetically proven through chromosomes and DNA. In a sense I see this subject as black and white, however, I am aware that there is a gray area. There is a fine middle in which you may identify as anything you wish to.

I am always creatively responsive to new beliefs. Curiosity sparks at the unknowns which is what Wheatley emphasizes as she says, “Curiosity is what we need. We don’t have to let go of what we believe, but we do need to be curious about what someone else believes” (p. 90). Curiosity is the reason why I wish to learn why people are able to and do identify as whatever they wish to. I would never adopt this idea, but I curiously wish to understand why. Why can a person identify as an animal? Why can a person be anything they wish to be? We’ve grown up in a world where we are told that anything is possible, we can be anything we set our minds to. And for some that may be their identities as humans or perhaps not humans. I wish to learn more about this developing topic, but I do not wish to indoctrinate myself along with the upcoming generations that this MUST be accepted.

Appendix B
Text on Slide Show Template

Nafees Alam, PhD is Assistant Professor, School of Social Work, College of Health Sciences
at Boise State University, Boise, Idaho. Nafees Alam can be reached at nafeesalam@boisestate.edu