Ethical Issues for Esl Faculty

Social Justice in Practice

Johnnie Johnson Hafernik, Dorothy S. Messerschmitt, Stephanie Vandrick

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781135641634
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This book explicitly addresses ethical dilemmas and issues that post-secondary ESL faculty commonly encounter and examines them in the framework of social justice concerns. Ethics is defined broadly, to include responsibilities and obligations to students inside and outside the classroom, as well to colleagues, educational institutions, the TESL profession, and society as a whole. Scenarios in each chapter provide realistic and compelling situations for reflection and discussion. The authors then set out the issues raised, relate them to the classroom environment, and offer opportunities to examine them in a variety of contexts and to consider possible solutions to the dilemmas. Issues include testing, plagiarism, technology, social and political issues affecting students and the classroom, gift-giving, curriculum decisions, disruptive students, institutional constraints, academic freedom, gender, class, and power. Busy classroom instructors will find this book accessible, thought-provoking, and relevant to their daily work situations. It is not intended as a theoretical treatment of ethics and social justice in ESL, nor does it propose that ESL faculty teach morals or ethics to students. Rather, it is designed as a concise, practical introduction to ethical practice for both new and experienced ESL faculty in post-secondary teaching situations in the United States, for others interested in the ESL classroom, and as a text for TESL classes and seminars. Ethical Issues for ESL Faculty: *maps new territory in the field--ethical issues in TESL, particularly as encountered by post-secondary classroom teachers, are not often discussed in ESL publications;
*makes the complex issues of ethics in the context of social justice accessible to TESL practitioners; and
*includes useful resources, such as additional scenarios for discussion, an extensive reference list, and selected ethics-related Web sites.

CHAPTER

1

Introduction

The field of ethics is a complex one, with roots deep in human history and philosophy. Questions of ethics are complex ones. Philosophers and theologians over the years, from Plato to Kant to Rorty, have struggled with some of the following questions: Do human beings have free will and therefore the ability to choose their actions freely? Do humans make ethical decisions based on morality, or rather on biological and emotional imperatives? Does ethics concern itself with human intentions, or with the actual results of human action? Is the goal of ethics the achievement of individual happiness, or the welfare of humanity in general? Are ethical principles determined by individuals or by societies? Are ethical principles relative, depending on the society and the circumstances? Of particular interest to us is the last question, the question of whether ethical principles and systems are absolute or relative. We explore this question next.

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES AND SYSTEMS: ABSOLUTE OR RELATIVE

Fundamentally, ethics concerns itself with morality, right and wrong. Many philosophers use the terms ethics and morality interchangeably as we do here. Sterba (1998) described the connection between the two terms as follows: “Ethics is the philosophical study of morality” (p. 1). Ethics can be, but definitely does not have to be, connected to religion. A revered religious leader, the Dalai Lama (1999), asserted that “Religion can help us establish basic ethical principles. Yet we can still talk about ethics and morality without having recourse to religion” (p 27). In fact, the Dalai Lama articulates difficulties with advocating a religious approach to ethical practice. For example, if we tie our understanding of right and wrong to a religion, which religion do we choose? Do we then mean that people who are antireligion, or simply not religious, are immoral? Religious beliefs do not guarantee moral integrity, as history so clearly shows. Much violence, brutality, and destruction have been done in the name of religion.

In addition, ethical systems and decisions are sometimes relative, sometimes changing. In this postmodern age, where formerly widely accepted truths, principles, and standards are continually questioned and problematized, and where even the possibility of absolute truths and principles is under attack, it is harder than ever to know what ethics means and how it applies in one’s life. Although we understand the reasons for questioning formerly “absolute” truths, we argue that despite this atmosphere of uncertainty, it is not true or acceptable that “anything goes”; standards and principles still exist and are still important in guiding our behavior. How one determines those standards and principles, and how one determines when and how those standards and principles should be applied, are the major questions we explore throughout this book.

John Fletcher Moulton (cited in Kidder, 1995) struggled with the issue of relativity in ethics, usefully defining ethics as “obedience to the unenforceable” (p. 66). Moulton explains this definition by pointing out that between the domains of law and free choice lies

a large and important domain in which there rules neither positive law nor absolute freedom. In that domain there is no law which inexorably determines our course of action, and yet we feel that we are not free to choose as we would. … It grades from a consciousness of a duty nearly as strong as positive law, to a feeling that the matter is all but a question of personal choice. … [I]t is the domain of obedience to the unenforceable. That obedience is the obedience of a man to that which he cannot be forced to obey. He is the enforcer of the law upon himself. (pp. 66-67)

This, then, is the realm of ethics: not the law, not matters of individual preferences, but the middle area where individuals make decisions stemming from their sense of duty, their sense of whether certain behaviors are right or wrong. Note that even the law is not an absolute moral guide, and at times civil disobedience has been the greater ethical choice, as leaders such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., have shown.

Kidder (1995) argued against

ethical relativism that insists that all ethics flows out of, and is bounded by, the situational specifics of a particular case. … Carried to an extreme, it insists that you and I have divergent ethical standards simply because we are individuals.… Such a thesis, refusing to acknowledge any common ground of shared values, guts the potential for building consensus. … (p. 189)

The many important and complex questions alluded to will certainly not be definitively answered here; in fact, we do not believe that there are always “correct” answers to these questions. The Dalai Lama (1999) warned that

No one should suppose it could ever be possible to devise a set of rules or laws to provide us with the answer to every ethical dilemma, even if we were to accept religion as the basis of morality. Such a formulaic approach could never hope to capture the richness and diversity of human experience. It would also give grounds for arguing that we are responsible only to the letter of those laws, rather than for our actions. (p. 27)

There are too many variables, including the variables that come with different cultures. But we do believe that there are certain ethical principles that can guide us. Again, the Dalai Lama (1999) gave some guidance about searching for principles; he stated that though we can’t set out a specific set of rules,

establishing binding ethical principles is possible when we take as our starting point the observation that we all desire happiness and wish to avoid suffering. … Accordingly, I suggest that one of the things which determines whether an act is ethical or not is its effect on others’ experience or expectation of happiness. (p. 28)

Putting the question of ethical principles in an even broader context, Machan (1997) suggested that the focus of ethics can perhaps best be expressed as the question: How should I live?

Giroux (1992), like many scholars writing about critical pedagogy, stated that ethics must always be a central concern in pedagogy. In this book, we explore questions of ethics and pedagogy, along with the many relevant variables, in the context of postsecondary ESL settings. We proceed with the belief that individuals can and do make decisions about ethics, about the morality of their actions. We know that often people have some kind of system of ethics, but would have trouble defining or explaining it, and are not quite sure where their ethical systems came from and how they developed. We believe that the very acts of thinking about, talking about, and reading about ethical issues are helpful.

We also struggle specifically with the question of how much of ethics is universal and how much is specific to one’s culture or society. Particularly as teachers working with students and sometimes colleagues from all over the world and from various cultural backgrounds, ESL instructors are frequently faced with dilemmas regarding differing cultural beliefs that have ethical dimensions. Teachers want to respect all cultures, and people from all cultures, yet sometimes they disagree with certain practices or approaches because they involve ethical decisions that they are not comfortable with. Some of the discussion regarding these kinds of cultural–ethical dilemmas has focused on such issues as the treatment of women around the world, and specifically on such practices as domestic violence, genital mutilation, and forced child marriages. A person from one culture who objects to such practices is often told that she has no right to criticize the traditions of another culture. Furthermore, the person herself often questions her own right to make such judgments.

Nussbaum (1999) provided a useful way of thinking through this dilemma. She respects different cultures and understands why people—here she focuses on feminists, especially Western feminists—worry about being insensitive to different cultures and even, perhaps, acting in imperialistic ways toward women elsewhere. But she argues that, regarding human rights,

an account of the central human capacities and functions, and of the basic human needs and rights, can be given in a fully universal manner, at least at a high level of generality, and that this universal account is what should guide feminist thought and planning. (p. 8)

She also points out that we all understand that any culture has traditions that can be bad as well as good. In addition, she maintains that

traditions are not monoliths. Any living culture contains plurality and argument; it contains relatively powerful voices, relatively silent voices, and voices that cannot speak at all in the public space. Often some of these voices would speak differently, too, if they had more information or were less frightened—so part of a culture, too, is what its members would say if they were freer or more fully informed. When women are at issue, we should be especially skeptical of deferring to the most powerful voices in local tradition … that voice is especially likely to be a male voice, and that voice may not be all that attentive to the needs and interest of women. (p. 8)

Thus, Nussbaum argues, critique of cultural practices is part of a natural evolution throughout history. On the question of whether “tradition” should exempt countries or cultures from ensuring basic human rights for women, a recent United Nations (2000) report on the status of women stated approvingly that “there has been worldwide mobilization against harmful traditional practices” (p. 4).

Also helpful in thinking through the role of culture in ethics is the reminder that the very issue of “culture” is now being problematized, and it is important not to essentialize cultures. There is a danger too in stereotyping and simplifying the characteristics of a given culture; no culture is monolithic or static. There is danger too in looking at students mainly through the lens of cultural generalizations rather than seeing them as individuals with multiple and fluid identities and influenced by multiple aspects of those identities. Spack (1997) and Zamel (1997) critique the perpetuating of cultural stereotypes and myths found in some ESL scholarly publications and discussions; Spack stated that

when we talk about culture, there is a tendency to conflate it with the idea of difference, and thus, again … inevitably to identify U.S. culture as the norm from which students are deviating. It is a short step from that position to falling into the trap of developing and perpetuating stereotypes—and ultimately of underestimating students’ knowledge and their writing skill, (p. 767)

Further developing this point, Kubota (1999) used the example of Japanese culture to point out that authors of applied linguistics and ESL literature “tend to create a cultural dichotomy between the East and the West, constructing fixed, apolitical, and essentialized cultural representations such as groupism, harmony, and deemphasis on critical thinking and self-expression to depict Japanese culture” (p. 9). Kubota does not argue that there are no cultural differences, but she does argue that “a certain culture is not a monolithic, fixed, neutral, or objective category but rather a dynamic organism that exists in discursive fields in which power is exercised” (p. 11). Teachers’ essentializing students, however well-intentioned, may do a real disservice to students of any cultural background.

ETHICS AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

We believe that ethical questions are, very often, also questions of social justice. Thus we place our explorations of ethics in ESL in a context of seeking social justice for students and for all participants in the educational process. In fact, surely a sense of social justice, a feeling of obligation to respect and help others in society, is the most ethical stance possible; it could be argued that social justice provides the underpinning for ethical decisions. What is social justice but an ethical relationship with and toward others? With the increasing prevalence of English as an international language, the work of teaching ESL is by its nature global, and attention should be paid to global issues, including those of social justice. Teaching an international language has ethical implications. For example, when one teaches language, one also introduces others to the dominant culture(s) of that language; thus it is important to convey cultural information without implying that one language or culture is somehow superior to another. Of course students do not have to adopt the culture(s) of the language they are learning, but it is often difficult to separate the two, and may create a confusing and even painful situation for students.

The term social justice is sometimes construed to be one used only by political and social activists; it is sometimes associated with radical politics. However, we use the term in a broader sense, to describe a way of thinking and acting which can pervade an individual’s or a society’s attitude toward other people and other cultures. It is not associated with a particular political belief or stance; it can be subscribed to and used as a foundational attitude by people of all political, religious, or social backgrounds.

The connection between ethics and social justice has two distinct dimensions in the context of ESL. The first involves the way classroom participants treat each other: the way students treat students, teachers treat students, students treat teachers, and even the way teachers treat other teachers and colleagues. The second involves teachers’ exposing students to social justice issues, and developing their critical thinking skills.

The first major dimension, the way classroom participants treat each other, is critical. It is both an ethical and a social justice issue to set up a classroom atmosphere of mutual respect and tolerance. The classroom should be a place of safety, a place where students can learn without being afraid of being attacked or belittled. This is true in a general sense, as well as in certain specific circumstances. For example, no student should feel vulnerable because of her or his race, ethnic background, religion, gender, ability–disability, or sexual identity. No student should feel vulnerable because of her or his level of knowledge of English; no student should feel shunned or laughed at because she or he is “behind” the other students, or “asks stupid questions,” or “doesn’t get it,” or “holds the class back.”

At the same time, a student should neither feel overwhelmed by other students who “take over,” nor be penalized because she or he is less comfortable speaking out actively. Teachers need to address these issues, cautioning students against, and guiding them away from, such behavior. A conundrum that teachers often face is how to reconcile students’ freedom of speech with other students’ rights not to be verbally attacked, and to feel safe in their classrooms. Thus the problem is how to assure these sometimes seemingly mutually exclusive goals. This is a problem that many schools and colleges are facing, as they attempt to allow and promote the free interchange of opinions, yet protect students against hateful and offensive speech, such as racist or anti-Semitic remarks, in class or on campus. There is no easy solution to this problem, but the answer starts with the instructor establishing an atmosphere of respect and support. In addition, the instructor needs to talk about these issues explicitly with the students, early in the semester. If a student does speak disrespectfully or slightingly about another student or her or his characteristics or background, the instructor should gently but firmly make it clear that such remarks are not acceptable. There are ways to express one’s ideas and views respectfully, and instructors should help students find and practice these ways. Such discussion can be part of instruction about making and responding to requests, asking for clarification, persuasive writing and speaking, distinguishing between fact and opinion, and other academic skills. It may be useful to take time at the beginning of a new class to set the tone for the remainder of the term. Some teachers, for example, now form a “covenant” with their students at the beginning of the school semester or year, outlining ways in which they will treat each other ethically and with respect. (These ideas are discussed in more detail in subsequent chapters.)

A closely related conundrum is that although students’ various cultures should be respected, sometimes it seems that certain values of certain cultures come into conflict with certain universal values which many believe should apply to all people, all cultures. These may include justice to all people, freedom from discrimination, and freedom from violence toward individuals or groups. As noted by Nussbaum earlier, the treatment of women is a case in point. Although it could be argued that the way women are treated in some parts of the world are matters of culture, and that to judge them negatively is ethnocentric or possibly Eurocentric, it could also be argued that there are certain basic human values that transcend cultural divisions, such as protection of children, and protection of one’s body and sexuality from violation. These are ethical questions as well as questions of social justice. At the same time, Western teachers need to be careful not to imply that Western values are in general somehow better, more universal. The West itself still has problems in the area of human rights. The French scholar Françoise Lionnet (1995), giving the issues of female genital mutilation as an example, pointed out that

to condemn excision as a violation of human rights is to presume that such a practice is the only culturally sanctioned form of violence that deserves to be denounced, whereas we know that many other forms of violence are not repressed by law in the Western context, and that some of our own practices are objectionable and shocking to Africans. (p. 160)

Lionnet agrees, as do we, that female genital mutilation must be worked against, through a combination of education and legislation. Her warning reminds Westerners, however, not to be smug since related forms of violence against women and other disempowered groups exist in the West as well.

Thus the question is as follows: How do ESL teachers help students preserve their own cultures and their own voices, yet adapt to Wes...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• 1. INTRODUCTION
• PART I: INSIDE THE CLASSROOM
• PART II: OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM
• PART III: THE BROADER CONTEXT
• Appendix A: Professional Guidelines, Codes of Ethics, and Useful Web Sites
• Appendix B: Additional Scenarios
• References
• Author Index
• Subject Index