Mark James | University of Chicago (original) (raw)

Papers by Mark James

Transformations: The Journal of Inclusive Scholarship and Pedagogy, 2017

Methods and Texts Abstr act This article focuses on the attacks on "political correctness" and "i... more Methods and Texts Abstr act This article focuses on the attacks on "political correctness" and "identity politics" and the way they are deployed to hinder more thoroughgoing investigations of and challenges to white supremacy on college campuses. Self-proclaimed liberal educators who wish to appear "objective" or "neutral" in the classroom inadvertently reinforce systemic oppression out of a fear of being charged with "liberal bias" or impeding the "free speech" of reactionary speakers. The article explores the author's experience of "teaching while black" at a small, relatively conservative institution on Long Island, New York. He also describes how it feels to directly address white supremacy in the course material and in the classroom setting itself, particularly when coteaching on this topic with white colleagues. The first time I ever canceled class for what is sometimes called a "mental health day" was November 9, 2016, the day after Donald Trump secured enough electoral votes to become the forty-fifth president of the United States. Although I was disappointed in the results of the election on a personal level, that was not the primary reason I could not bring myself to go to campus. As I watched the news all that day, I dimly understood that the foreseeable future was going to be one long, difficult, teachable moment in the struggle for social justice, and even for democracy itself. The days, weeks, and months since that day have only confirmed my hunch, but what I didn't anticipate was how all of this would highlight and accelerate a growing shift in my own pedagogical assumptions and practices. Since my pedagogical assumption has always been that the students in my courses have different and often competing ideas of how we can live together as Americans and as citizens of the world, I have actively sought to facilitate discussion of these differences of opinion. However, over the last couple of years and particularly in the last few months, I have been reminded that our campuses and

This roundtable consists of humanities faculty from a range of small colleges and universities, s... more This roundtable consists of humanities faculty from a range of small colleges and universities, spanning from Massachusetts to New York, and Ohio to the Tri-College area. The panel’s familiarity with blended learning ranges from enthusiastic to skeptical. Each panelist will begin with brief remarks about his/her background in blending learning and also introduce a critical question for discussion that is informed by that background. For example, one panelist might ask: “Does blending the humanities compromise valued in-person relationships with students?” Another panelist might begin with the provocation: “How can blended learning and assessment practices pose unique challenges for humanists?” While each panelist will introduce one question for discussion, the goal of the panel is to facilitate a larger dynamic conversation about our various experiences (some wonderful, some yet still unknown) with blended learning. The roundtable panelists will engage the audience in leading a critical conversation on the practical, ideological, and pedagogical consequences of centering technology (including DH and blended learning practices) in the humanities classroom. It is our hope that we can continue this candid conversation on our individual campuses as each of us experiments with blended learning and also addresses some of our disciplinary reservations for doing so

Transformations: The Journal of Inclusive Scholarship and Pedagogy, 2017

Methods and Texts Abstr act This article focuses on the attacks on "political correctness" and "i... more Methods and Texts Abstr act This article focuses on the attacks on "political correctness" and "identity politics" and the way they are deployed to hinder more thoroughgoing investigations of and challenges to white supremacy on college campuses. Self-proclaimed liberal educators who wish to appear "objective" or "neutral" in the classroom inadvertently reinforce systemic oppression out of a fear of being charged with "liberal bias" or impeding the "free speech" of reactionary speakers. The article explores the author's experience of "teaching while black" at a small, relatively conservative institution on Long Island, New York. He also describes how it feels to directly address white supremacy in the course material and in the classroom setting itself, particularly when coteaching on this topic with white colleagues. The first time I ever canceled class for what is sometimes called a "mental health day" was November 9, 2016, the day after Donald Trump secured enough electoral votes to become the forty-fifth president of the United States. Although I was disappointed in the results of the election on a personal level, that was not the primary reason I could not bring myself to go to campus. As I watched the news all that day, I dimly understood that the foreseeable future was going to be one long, difficult, teachable moment in the struggle for social justice, and even for democracy itself. The days, weeks, and months since that day have only confirmed my hunch, but what I didn't anticipate was how all of this would highlight and accelerate a growing shift in my own pedagogical assumptions and practices. Since my pedagogical assumption has always been that the students in my courses have different and often competing ideas of how we can live together as Americans and as citizens of the world, I have actively sought to facilitate discussion of these differences of opinion. However, over the last couple of years and particularly in the last few months, I have been reminded that our campuses and

This roundtable consists of humanities faculty from a range of small colleges and universities, s... more This roundtable consists of humanities faculty from a range of small colleges and universities, spanning from Massachusetts to New York, and Ohio to the Tri-College area. The panel’s familiarity with blended learning ranges from enthusiastic to skeptical. Each panelist will begin with brief remarks about his/her background in blending learning and also introduce a critical question for discussion that is informed by that background. For example, one panelist might ask: “Does blending the humanities compromise valued in-person relationships with students?” Another panelist might begin with the provocation: “How can blended learning and assessment practices pose unique challenges for humanists?” While each panelist will introduce one question for discussion, the goal of the panel is to facilitate a larger dynamic conversation about our various experiences (some wonderful, some yet still unknown) with blended learning. The roundtable panelists will engage the audience in leading a critical conversation on the practical, ideological, and pedagogical consequences of centering technology (including DH and blended learning practices) in the humanities classroom. It is our hope that we can continue this candid conversation on our individual campuses as each of us experiments with blended learning and also addresses some of our disciplinary reservations for doing so