I'm glad that we're finally discussing reality in the writing room, and by that I mean: a situation we might actually run into when tutoring, unlike the other theories we've been reading. I mean no offense by this, I'm just excited to be discussing a controversial topic.
I do think that its better for the tutors to act as mild censors, becasue we can interact with the clients on a student-peer level. We have no more power than they do, but at the same time we are supposed to be representatives of the university, and are backed up by our training. To me, it seems like the student would be more inclined to pay attention to what we have to say rather than a professor, or the students in the classroom because there's always the suspicion that your peers in the classroom are just performing for the professor's approval. This way, its just one-on-one with you and the client, and I think this is the best possible environment for this sort of confrontation. I think the only 'censoring' duty that we have is to present the client with options: he/she can either develop a better defense of their opinion, or they can be told that their opinion may be met with a less-than-enthusiastic response, and either way their freedom of expression isn't being infringed upon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
BACKDOOR POLITICS JANON! By claiming the presentation of options as a form of censorship, you are in a subtle way, urging the client to maybe take a different step. If anything, the development of ideas is the best way to deal with a client who's opinion lies on the other side of the spectrum.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point Roger makes: I do think what you're suggesting plays into the subtle "morality policing" Sherwood highlights in his article. But I guess I'm not bothered by it, because I like where it's coming from. The idea is that, as a respected peer, you are someone the client should look up to; they should value your opinion, and they should hear what you have to say about their opinions.
ReplyDeleteI think we have to walk a fine line here, though. We want clients to come around to their own understanding, not simply to be little automatons who parrot back whatever we (the tutor) thinks or says. We want them to think for themselves. Is there a way to model the process of interrogating beliefs some people might find offensive without engaging in "back door politics"?
It's really difficult, isn't it? We should be peers that warn students about their grades, but at the same time we're kind of part of the "system" and have the job of trying to change--or at least challenge--students' thought processes. We want them to think for themselves, but we also don't want them to have hateful/hurtful beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI like your approach. Let them know what's up, and let them decide for themselves. It puts no real responsibility on you (and by that I mean it allows them to still completely own their paper) and allows the students the choice of allowing their beliefs to be challenged or to ignore it knowing full-well of the consequences.
I hope that I would be able to take the calm approach, and "present the student with options." However, I have a bad feeling I would react violently - smacking the student in the back of the head. On a serious note, I agree that with under our position, we must be careful in how we advise the clients.
ReplyDelete