The primary focus of this book is to assist current and incoming academics in higher education with some practical techniques to advance classroom inclusion. Inclusion is here defined under a broad umbrella that includes using the term as it is in traditional cannons as well as expanding it to include differing voices both in the curricula and in student participation. Establishing the foundation for this broad use of inclusion requires that one begin with historical context. The scholarship discussed in this text is designed to allow the reader to become acquainted with the variety of voices that address inclusion issues. Understanding the terms and ideas at play is similar to studying works of art. There is an original construction, definition, or meaning and then there is the development of interpretations over time. The life of a piece of art, or a term, can change as the culture in which it was formed changes. The âafterlifeâ will change as interpretation shifts.1 The term âinclusionâ will, therefore, be expanded from a traditional use involving disability to include all dimensions of the human lived experience, including, but not limited to, race, class, gender, disability, decolonization, and sexuality. The choice of âinclusionâ over âmulticulturalismâ is in part to avoid the negative political associations with the latter, but it is also a means of inspiriting the use of âinclusionâ as a broadly encompassing and dynamic foundation for democratic university classrooms. Inclusion in the classroom establishes a pedagogy that includes multiple perspectives, narratives, traditions, and knowledge both global and historic. Inclusion further speaks to the idea of acknowledging and respecting all student backgrounds and perspectives as a means of fostering an open dialogue approach within the classroom. With a foundation in critical pedagogical theory, and with an eye to moving beyond critical theory, a democratic classroom is understood in this text to require an environment that encourages all voices to be heard, examined, and studied without any voice being given a position of âinnate superiorityâ. Such positioning does not mean that the democratic classroom is anarchy, although such a classroom might produce interesting outcomes. Inclusive democracy requires that no set of knowledge claims be automatically placed in a position of âauthorityâ or âhierarchical superiorityâ. A democratically inclusive classroom requires that all knowledge claims be subject to examination and evaluation without prior assumptions that may establish a given system to be preferable. If a preference ranking is possible, it should be established according to standards, agreed to by all parties, rather than arbitrarily imposed based on unexamined assumptions.
It is understood that the evaluative process used in the United States is a Western paradigm that privileges Western constructs. It is this position of privilege that has been built into the American model of education. The text will examine this position of privilege in such a way as to require Western knowledge to meet the same standards for legitimacy as is placed on non-Western knowledge claims. Position dominance or legitimacy will not be assumed as a matter of tradition or cannon. The use of Western logical methodology is twofold. First, the choice is dictated by the academy beginning with the pre-Socratics, canonized using Aristotle, and confirmed by the academyâs continued emphasis on these constructs as the standards by which knowledge claims are legitimized. Second, the majority of readers will be familiar with Western logical constructs, having been educated in Western and Western-colonized educational systems. The text does not affirm the superior positioning of Western logic or the preference for reason as the standard for human knowledge, but only to claim that the academy, by adopting these standards, must adhere to them. In other words, if the academy wishes to claim the superiority of Western knowledge and methodology, then it must establish superiority according to the rules of logic and proper argumentation. Additionally, the academy must then adhere to the standards set that claim no knowledge or methodological system can be rejected without sufficient evaluation and analysis. Therefore, no paradigm claiming a knowledge or methodological system, even if it is quite different from that of the West, can be dismissed as illegitimate simply because it does not âlookâ like systems established in Western tradition. What this means for inclusion is that the academy must give full admission and consideration to all knowledge claims until those claims are shown to be either invalid deductive arguments or weak inductive arguments. Chapter 6 will focus more on the topic of reason, logic, and methodology as a means of advancing inclusion. The text will present an argument that the methodology of Western academia itself establishes a strong inductive argument, if not a requirement, for the inclusion of global voices in the creation and implementation of democratic classrooms.
Since this is to be a primer involving inclusion, it is understood that this text offers only one voice in the larger dialogue of pedagogical theory and praxis. The authors are not claiming a position of expertise beyond their academic experiences and research. Indeed, the authors hope to ignite the larger discussion already in existence by focusing on theory and praxis at the university level involving inclusion that goes beyond administratively focused works. The information offered in this text is not to be taken as a claim of âhow an individual or discipline ought to implement inclusionâ, but as part of a dialogue on how inclusion can become the standard in academia rather than the exception. The attempt is to reexamine cannons and traditions in a way that inherently focuses on all voices, rather than primarily representing the White male voice and adding in diverse voices if the semester permits. Global diversity should be the standard in the classroom experience, rather than relegated to supplemental material. Full inclusion cannot be a part of the classroom experience as long as knowledge diversity remains in this secondary, or inferior, educational position. As a means of embracing inclusion, this book is designed to show the differences as well as the similarities of the authors. Each of the authors represents a specific position involving cultural intersectionality .2 While both authors are female, one inhabits a position that includes thirty-three years in higher education involving Philosophy and Religious Studies with an emphasis on alternative epistemologies and minority issues. The second inhabits a position that includes sixteen years of university teaching in art history and has been dedicated to filling a need involving scholastic and student inclusion in the areas of visual culture. Additionally, the two have traveled divergent paths regarding age, race, economic, political, and family backgrounds, the details of which need not be discussed except to note that unique positioning and perspectives exist. The collaboration and dialoguing involved in the creation of this text often highlighted author differences. However, it also highlighted the commonality of purpose, which is to advance inclusion by representing and allowing the plethora of voices involving knowledge and issues to be represented and expressed in the classroom. The authors further recognize that students inhabit different positions, which requires classroom dialogues that involve issues and terms such as âintersectionality â and âcultural constructsâ as well as âdominanceâ, âenfranchisementâ, and âadvantageâ. Indeed, the recognition of a studentâs skill levels, when entering and participating at the university level, is imperative in order to consider historic and current intersectional positioning. The assumption that the playing field has been leveled for all students and that all students possess the same skills is both naive and detrimental to both students and the academy. Addressing the reality of difference and the political, social, and educational ramifications of difference in the United States is essential to the advancement of each student, but it is also imperative to the advancement of higher education in the current global marketplace, should one wish to place this discussion in an economic dialogue.
Methodology
It should be noted that this text is written from the perspective of the authors who are both grounded in the Humanities, and as such, the format and textual evidence encompass that which is used in these disciplines. It is not that the information cannot be, or has not been, used outside of the Humanities, but it is only to state that the authors are speaking from this section of the academy. The significance of this relates to the historic and current position of the Humanities within the university. Historically, natural philosophy was established in the intellectual traditions that flowed out of Greek thought and later became separated into the current academic disciplines such as Science, Sociology, Mathematics, Philosophy, Literature, and Art. Within natural philosophy, individual intellectuals may have favored one of these separate elements, but all were vital to the understanding of humanity and the production of a complete knowledge base. Once specialization became engrained in Western academics, different disciplines or colleges attempted to claim priority positioning, leaving other areas to suffer the lesser position in terms of both status and funding. The emphasis on and advancement of specific disciplines have been influenced by a great many social and political factors. According to Horkheimer and Adorno (2002), a major shift in academia involved the Enlightenment focus on quantification as the means to gaining knowledge legitimacy. Disciplines such as Science and Mathematics, which primarily focused on quantification , not only were given positions of prestige but also became the âlegitimizersâ of what was to count as academically sanctioned knowledge. Information deemed beyond the scope of quantification began to be viewed as suspect and, in many situations, dismissed as without value or as superstition (Horkheimer and Adorno 2002, pp. 62â93).
Horkheimer and Adorno (2002) further claimed that the legitimation of scientific knowledge at the expense of that which was deemed âunscientificâ would result in what Marx called the experience of alienation from nature and self, which would result in social and political tyranny. It can be claimed that the Marxist concept of alienation has been established on university and college campuses as the emphasis on quantification has become the gold standard beginning with entrance requirements, moving toward the focus on retention, and concluding with the establishment of assessment guidelines. All three areas are primarily ruled by quantified data. The alienation of disciplines that focus on qualitative methodology and examine issues involving beauty, ethics, and the larger questions of humanity and existence has given quantification -based disciplines the position of âpowered eliteâ in the academy. This dominance is witnessed in the current requirements within university assessment to legitimize success using quantitative methods and the unfortunate attempts of the Humanities to legitimize themselves using quantification and economic standards. Students are being pushed away from the Humanities in favor of more âmarketableâ disciplines, often leaving the students only partially educated and unable to participate in discussions involving issues of self and Other examined in the Humanities. So, students may be able to dialogue concerning the fact that one can indeed do x, but are unprepared to discuss whether one ought to do x. As Science, along with Mathematics, has become the default for what is to count as knowledge and what legitimizes knowledge, areas of study including Religion, Literature, Philosophy, and art have been given less status and funding. In large part, questionable assumptions and fallacious reasoning, including the emphasis on quantitative over qualitative analysis, have prompted the divestiture of resources and status. Such reasoning can be observed throughout university practices, but most especially in the assessment standards which help to determine personnel, faculty pay, and dep...