An article about an MLA panel got me thinking again about common readings for our incoming students. From what I can tell, the panel primarily discussed the sort of common readings encouraged by administrations to enhance a sense of community among first year students -- and it seems to be something that's brought in from above and deliberated on by a panel. It's also something, at least at the institutions represented on the panel, that generally winds up tied to the first year composition courses. I don't have much more to say about the article itself.
But it does get me thinking about our first semester Critical Thinking class. Historically, the course had all the students read Mitch Albom's Tuesdays with Morrie (a holdover from the earlier Freshman Seminar days). I taught it the first year the CT program was fully implemented at the freshman year; Bradley and I also probably had a lot to do with why the book is no longer part of the curriculum. We left it, a few years ago, at "Let's drop this and figure out something else later." And we've never done that.
Now that I'm coordinating the program, I think it's time to bring the common reading back. While the students certainly (theoretically) are reading the textbook in common, it would be nice to have another work for them to read. And I think that we can actually have students read something more challenging than some of my colleagues presume (Incidentally, I don't mean to be negative, but I do think we sometimes underestimate our students at our institution. Yes, many of them are not quite prepared for college, and many do have difficulty with readings. But they're not going to improve if they're not given the challenge and incentive to improve).
I've got two books in mind right now: Tolstoy's novella The Death of Ivan Ilych and Rebeca Skloot's recent The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Both are extremely well-written and reflective (my primary objections of the Albom). Both deal with various themes that would be of use to our students -- and both have so rich that each instructor could draw on a whole host of themes for class discusion and activities.
Skloot's book demonstrates her own perseverance in the face of research struggles -- something that most college students have trouble with. She doesn't give up when she can't get information, something that's particularly true when it comes to some of Lacks' children who for a long time refuse to be interviewed. Skloot persists and forges relationships with people different from her, all in the search for understanding and reconciliation. She explains the science behind the story -- both to the Lacks family and to reader -- clearly and without condescension. She also deals, I think pretty sensitively, the tension of race relations in America, especially as they play out in her investigation of the HeLa cells. I think that this works particularly well -- and becomes less about "the white lady helping the poor black folks" than other narratives of this sort -- because she goes to the Lacks family seeking information for this book, seeking research. She needs them and she was clearly very reflective in her work about how to involve the Lacks family in the research -- and she has worked to set up a fund to help them educate their children. One of the points, I think, is that Skloot is aware of that potential "white lady helping black folks" risk. She genuinely wants to tell this story, from a scientific interest in HeLa cells; and she follows the research where it takes her. Additionally, Skloot is justifiably outraged by the treatment of Henrietta Lacks at Johns Hopkins University -- and that outrage translates into an explanation of how our medical system for so long failed minorities in this country.
I just see so much potential for this book with our students: it deals with the idea of research; it covers science in a fascinating and readable way (particularly for the nonscientist); it deals thoughtfully with racial tensions between African-Americans and whites; it deals with the historic oppression of African-Americans; it deals with issues of poverty; and it occurs primarily in Virginia and Maryland. These are all things of interest to our students. The book might be a little long for the CT course, but it is a compelling read.
Then again, I also think that Tolstoy would be worthwhile. I mean, it's Tolstoy.
In all seriousness, though, I think that Ivan Ilych deals with a number of themes that are important in instilling into our students a need for life long intellectual autonomy and an understanding that material wealth is not necessarily what should drive us through life. When listening to students talk about their goals 10 years from now, I hear completely unrealistic expectations (you are not going to be a multimillionaire media mogul and FBI agent at the age of 29); and I want to talk to them about what's important in how we live our lives. Many first year students -- and not just mine, I don't want to sound like that -- are so focused on the material, on the moment to "get famous" through their rap careers or their reality television careers.* And many more of our students are doing things simply because it's the thing to do at that time (get that job that's expected, get married because it's expected, buy that house because it's expected ... hang those curtains that everyone else has ...).
The course is taught by people all across the university -- we've got tenure track faculty members, instructors, adjuncts, coaches, student life people, chaplains ...
We'd need some work before the semester, because I'm afraid that the novella might intimidate some people. But I think we could do it, and I think that it could help us inculcate some of the values that we're aiming for in the course.
Of course, this brings me back to the Inside Higher Ed piece. One of the concerns implied (I think) in the summaries of the arguments is about who actually teaches that first year common reading. I think that there's some resistance to the idea that non-English faculty can teach pieces of literature -- and I know I certainly share in that to some degree (I get a little territorial on days when I fee like we're a less than valued department). But literature professors teach literature like, well, literature. Which isn't to say that other people can't talk about it. Literature is something that everyone should be talking about -- I think students aren't getting enough exposure to literature as it is.
In fact, as I think about it, perhaps that exactly why we ought to go with Tolstoy (though I'd count Skloot's book as a piece of literature as well). Having students read a piece of literature with someone other than a literature professor (since they'll get that in second semester) could help us break through the idea that this old stuff only belongs in the English classroom.
Okay, I think I've talked myself into this for absolute sure.
Anyway ... are there other books that I should be thinking about? I really ought to take these to my committee before being completely tyrannical about my own tastes.
*I once had a student, in all seriousness, tell me that her life goal was to be a participant on The Bad Girls' Club. Statements from students have depressed me more, but not by much.
0 comments:
Post a Comment