A defining moment in American history, but post election, entering the classroom again, what, if anything, has changed? The students, syllabus, assignments, are all in place. But approaching a classroom now, one difference stands out: I’m overwhelmed by the gap between the path to electoral success and the basic requirements for academic success.
One thing we require as academics is a careful collection and evaluation of evidence. The basic question, ‘how do you know that,’ asks for relevant support for a claim, it asks that research or experiment be conducted before any conclusion is reached. In our disciplines, advances are made on the foundation of confirmed evidence. And without that foundation—without accepting the evidence—the arguments can’t even begin. Yet now our electoral system has awarded our highest office to one who simply rejects any need for evidence and who regularly makes assertions that contradict all available evidence. It is now our responsibility to remind students of what might have seemed too obvious—you can’t make up your own facts and participate in any academic conversation.
Another academic expectation is that we conduct the conversation reasonably and civilly. To gain credibility, as we constantly instruct writing students, respect your audience, maintain a professional tone, recognize where they may disagree, and respond with respect so they may keep listening. Yet now in the most public arena for persuasion, ‘success’ came by a path of degrading, insulting, and dehumanizing treatment of a large percentage of the audience. And let’s not pretend that we get to decide which of our words matter. So I’m reminding my students now more than ever that words are all we have, and if they have no integrity, we can close the college doors and go home.
In academic work we must also recognize what counts as authority. We have credentials and accreditation, journals and reference works, and professional organizations to establish standards. Yet now a ‘successful’ candidate ‘won’ by questioning the legitimacy of a president, threatening constitutional rights and limitations, and by claiming the system is rigged. (We are trading a constitutional law professor for a reality TV celebrity.) Yes, this is part of a broader cultural dismissal of institutions, but it presents a challenge to us if we want to maintain the authority we claim for our institution. We must help students balance skepticism with a respect for actual authority, we must make clear how to evaluate sources but also to know when to accept some as reliable, and we should point to expertise and intellectual achievement not as signs of ‘elitism’ but as the highest aspirations of our work here.