Difficult subjects in teaching – what is a teacher allowed to say?

Text Mai allo images getty images

english translation Marko saajanaho

“Something changed after 2010.” This sentence is repeated by several researchers. The year differs slightly depending on the speaker – 2015 and 2016 are also heard in responses.

This is about university atmosphere, or what one is allowed to say when teaching and ask when researching, and what opinions should be expressed over coffee.

An educator with a university career spanning decades speculates this amorphous change was felt especially strongly in female-dominated fields:

“Students somehow became more sensitive than before. University pedagogy course participants would ponder if you can say something in a certain way or if someone might get offended. Signs and notifications about non-discriminatory zones started to appear. Then came safe spaces.”

ETHNICITY, GENDER, POLITICS…

Ethnicity, gender, sexual ethics, and politics emerged as sensitive subjects, as indicated by Jenni Marjokorpi’s and Mikko Puustinen’s studies. Both are educators and researchers at the University of Helsinki.

And this is not just about conservative viewpoints not being accepted. A secondary school teacher has had to avoid talking about evolution after students or their parents disclosed their creationist world view and offending them was not appropriate.

In their recently published book Erimielisten tila (“Divided Space”), Puustinen and Marjokorpi go over different university and primary and secondary school teaching scenarios: how should a teacher react when a student says in history class that the Holocaust is a lie?

Puustinen and Marjokorpi state that the teacher should not moralise or get agitated in such a situation. The facts are enough, meaning that the teacher supports their claims with facts such as documents and explains how information is built in this field. They can also ask the student to argue their position – however, this should be done without the adult embarrassing the teenager.

According to Puustinen and Marjokorpi, difficult subjects should not be avoided or dodged.

“This is because the knowledge and ability to discuss with absolutely everyone is an essential foundation of maintaining and strengthening democracy.”

It is fairly safe to assume that anyone at any university accepts Puustinen and Marjokorpi’s opinion. Their book does, however, also note that some difficult issues are questions based on values. These do not have correct solutions. They are not found through facts or scientific methods in general. As such, there is no consensus on values – and perhaps there should not be.

For example, the acceptability of abortion, or whether climate change is humankind’s biggest or only third biggest problem, or what would be the best way to combat climate change are questions that will always divide opinion despite the facts being the same for everyone.

TEACHING INTERFERENCE FROM LEFT AND RIGHT  

Values and world views have always conflicted, even at campuses. Professor of Dogmatics Olli-Pekka Vainio, one of the authors of Erimielisten tila, sees this as a positive. At the university’s events, Vainio has talked about the need for “dangerous spaces” at the university.

“The university is exactly the place to be exposed to your own views being questions or have to argue those views to others. However, this can and must be done without insulting your colleagues or conversation partners”, Vainio says.

He worked as a researcher in the United States in 2008 and 2016–2017, during both President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump’s respective rises to power.

The atmosphere at US campuses during the Obama era became orders of magnitude more heated than it did in Finland slightly later. Banned words and hushed-up subjects emerged in increasing numbers, as did lecture and book boycotts – all in the name of tolerance and liberalism.

Even at the time, some researchers voiced concerns about the censorship mentality, warning that when the regime changes, the opposite side may use the same methods or even worse. And this has come to pass, Vainio says, referring to the spreading of Trumpian ideology and ban lists that are the exact opposite of their left-wing counterparts.

Vainio does not see such strong polarisation in Finland. He himself only teaches a limited amount at the moment but says that based on his gut feeling, for example, the murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk does not really elicit any reactions among Finnish students.

CAN A PHYSICIST AVOID TABOOS?

The authors of Erimielisten tila are primarily historians, sociologists, and educators. Why are natural scientists conspicuous by their absence?

University of Helsinki Chancellor Kaarle Hämeri is a physicist whose job involves being in charge of a space full of thousands of people with differing opinions.

“Maybe teaching scenarios at least are a bit more straightforward in natural sciences”, Hämeri reckons.

“It may also be that students oriented towards mathematics have a more uniform or clearer idea of their future field than humanists when they start their studies.”

Let’s return from the main building to the departments once more to ask if education, for example, has topics or opinions that may not be researched or used as a thesis subject despite the fact freedom of research is in the Universities Act?

The distinguished educator sits silently for a moment, looks the inquirer in the eye and then leans back in their chair.

“Yes. Yes, we have… shall we say… undesirable subjects.”

“What are those?”

Another momentary silence precedes the reply.

“I will not say.”