The ethical failure of the swearing professor
The recent removal of Prof. Michael Persinger from his psychology class at Laurentian University is an interesting case study of the rights — and responsibilities — of university teaching.
Persinger was pulled from his class after requesting that his students sign a contract agreeing to his use of vulgar language. Is this simply a case of “salty style,” as the Star described it, meets political correctness? Likely not.
First, Persinger is not alone in his use of expletives, nor is he the only professor to teach controversial material.
Across Canada, university students study the human condition — war, hatred, poverty, sexual assault, environmental degradation and disease, and faculty regularly create thoughtful, productive spaces for students to dialogue, where there are no inoffensive facts and no easy solutions.
What exactly do I mean by thoughtful and productive? Professors must be thoughtful, so learning for all students can be productive.
If Persinger warns students he will use words like “fag” and “pussy,” for example, clearly this will affect some more than others. And herein lies the responsibility that comes with academic freedom. My own university’s statement on freedom of speech suggests the balance that must be struck:
“The essential purpose of the university is to engage in the pursuit of truth, the advancement of learning and the dissemination of knowledge. To achieve this purpose, all members of the university must have as a prerequisite freedom of speech and expression, which means the right to examine, question, investigate, speculate and comment on any issue without reference to prescribed doctrine, as well as the right to criticize the university and society at large. The purpose of the university also depends upon an environment of tolerance and mutual respect. Every member should be able to work, live, teach and learn in a university free from discrimination and harassment.”
Professors can be provocative, so long as they do not compromise a commitment to mutual respect. This is not about political correctness. Many professors take pride in being out of step with the politics of the moment and challenge their students to explain and defend their commitments.
This is about creating a learning environment in which students can participate on equal footing because no one is being targeted, and because faculty-student power imbalances are not being exploited.
Most of us know almost nothing about Persinger’s case, but what we do know from his classroom contract suggests two useful conclusions about the university classroom: Classrooms aren’t gangs: Persinger claims his classroom prepares students for the “real world” because he doesn’t protect them from “real” things like offcolour language and epithets. This kind of logic is a cloak that hides the power professors wield when they create emotionally intense experiences “for students’ own good.” University is not a gang initiation in which students are punched to prepare them for the cruelty to come, or where some are targeted as an object lesson for others.
When people in positions of power engage in shocking behaviour, they often inspire loyalty through emotional intensity. Real life can include being manipulated, but professors need not model it. Students can’t consent to toxic classrooms: Professors regularly advise students about the content of their courses. This, however, is different from asking students to sign contracts agreeing to the use of derogatory language.
Laurentian’s faculty association president rejected the criticism of Persinger’s contract, arguing it had no legal weight and could not be used to prevent students from taking the class or speaking up in it.
Such a defence is gravely naive. How many contracts do we sign in “real life” that hold no obligations?
Persinger’s contract baits students, arguing if they cannot withstand his jokes, they are pawns in a politically correct and boring world. By signing, students agree not to question what he says even if it violates university codes of behaviour — because they were warned. Professors have academic freedom, but students? Not so much. This imbalance may be a real life lesson, but again, a deeply unfortunate one.
Teaching is a privilege. It is a privilege to hear from a new generation of young people, to expose them to ideas and give them tools.
Academic freedom rightly attends that privilege so that unpopular and challenging ideas remain part of the innovative work universities foster. With these privileges come responsibilities. Professors should not play games with students’ trust, make use of common chauvinisms to titillate and create intimacy or ask students to sign away their ability to critique, even implicitly.
The world university students currently face is sufficiently challenging without such “real life” psychological games.
Persinger’s contract baits students, arguing if they cannot withstand his jokes, they are pawns in a politically correct and boring world