Making the old new (?)

This morning I found a well-timed little reflection in the NYT. Will Okun (guest-blogging for Nicholas Kristof in the Times) gives an "on the ground" perspective of the usefulness of teaching classics in the urban high school classroom. I'd recommend reading the post, but I'll comment on a couple of points he makes. Here's his opening salvo:

Of course, it is my responsibility as a teacher to engage the students in these classics so they can understand, analyze and appreciate the writings of our greatest thinkers. But I cannot. I have tried strategy after strategy, sought advice upon advice, and still, I am unable to spark sustainable interest in the vast majority of my students. Few students do the readings and even fewer seriously consider the ideas or themes presented in these writings. The class discussions are disgracefully unanimated and the student essays are dull, tedious and impersonal. For most students in my class, the months dedicated to the canons of Western literature are a dreadful waste of time. And yes, I know, this failure is mostly my fault.

Okun continues by explaining that his students are moved by authors that speak more directly to their situation, which by all accounts is determined by ethnicity and economic standing - instead of, say, Hardy (sorry AV) they are motivated by Wright or Angelou. He seems to salvage the class discussions and sleeping students with authors generally marginalized by the canon (although he doesn't say how he makes this transformation ... a miracle!). He all but leaves the classics to the "miracle workers" and runs by a mantra of "if it doesn't motivate student discussion, then why are we teaching it?"

Okun concludes:

The books I hope will foster the students’ love of reading are well written, intelligent, thought-provoking and clearly relevant. If these books produce more response, thought, engagement, learning and other academic results from the students, shouldn’t these writings form the backbone of my literature class? Considering my abilities as a teacher and the personal and academic interests of my students, I believe I am better serving the present and future needs of my students by offering more accessible readings that will hopefully ignite a lifelong passion for reading. After all, isn’t it better to have read and learned, than never to have read at all?

I can sympathize with Okun here, because - believe it or not - making texts relevant to students is something that rings true with every philosophy teacher out there, unless they don't care.

I mean, how do you make epistemology interesting and accessible to the freshman intro student without sticking Descartes in the stove, or giving some discussion about Hume's turban, penchant for backgammon, Kant's precise 3:00 walk, etc. etc.? This may sound like a stupid lesson, but it's one I learned early on last semester - these little trifles are good for a chuckle, but they don't make philosophy any more accessible, and they don't make it any more substantively interesting, either (although we may all pause to wonder in amazement that these trifles remain really important to me).

Also, a lot of what's out there and "relevant" (at least by Okun's lights) in my discipline is potentially too difficult to hand to the introductory student without the requisite background. Part of what makes Franz Fanon or Simone deBeauvoir interesting is the context they're reacting against - to appropriate philosophy for your group or your gender is to say hey, Descartes was wrong and here's where he falls short. I don't get this sense of context from Okun, and missing context is a big problem when it comes to teaching out of books. I guess what I'm puzzled by is Okun's insistence that all one can do is read the classics and teach only old lessons from them. Isn't the fundamental challenge of teaching in the liberal arts and humanities (especially) taking the classics and seeing lessons that fit our world?

There's really no reason to bulldoze your students with the idea that the "seminal texts" are that for a reason and are not to be challenged, and must be taught no matter what. In other words, the CANON (at least in philosophy) might be a dang myth, perpetuated by people who are intimidated by - or can't teach - the "classics." That's a bold statement, but I think we'd do better to think and teach in terms of a continuum, rather than a canon, or an atomistic approach dictated solely by social factors. That's my training though - the teachers who I hope to emulate have approached books - philosophical, historical, literary, or otherwise - in this way.

Anyway, it was a provocative little article.