Lund University “HT samtal” podcast on “teaching sensitive topics”

I finally managed to listen to Lund University’s “HT samtal” podcast episode on “Teaching sensitive topics“, where Dean Sara Håkansson talks with four teachers from the Humanities & Theology faculty at Lund University. Below, I am summarising the points that stood out to me, unfortunately without acknowledging who made them, because I was so focussed on listening to the content that I did not pay attention to who was speaking…

In their conversation, they distinguish between situations where the teacher knows that topics will be controversial and/or emotional and can therefore prepare, and unplanned situations.

For “planned” sensitive discussions, I like how de Novais (2023), in “Brave Community: teaching and learning about racism in college”,  introduces the concept of academic grounding: “the interrelation between academic content and the academic culture that is required when learning about racism” (But I am sure that would work equally well on any other sensitive topic). Academic grounding needs to happen at the very beginning of a course or session, be connected explicitly to the content — this is why I choose this exact material for us to work with and combined it with these methods (including being respectful in discussions, etc) — and be authentic. In that context, teachers can then demand “bravery” and confidence to engage with uncomfortable questions and comments, because it is for the explicit purpose of learning.

According to de Novais (2023), one skill to practice in such conversations is “resilient empathy”: Practicing empathy even when someone “raises our blood pressure”. In the article, a teacher is quoted saying (on a discussion about what means are allowed in the fight for good) “I know this is really hard. But the fact that it is hard doesn’t mean we stop. It just means we work harder. The reality is we often want our revolutions to be neat, to be without violence, and they’re just not. These questions that raise our blood pressure are the point of this class.”

Also on the podcast, they strongly recommend starting planned controversies from clear structures, e.g. making it clear that if you, the student, feel uncomfortable, this is what you can do! Here are multiple steps, multiple entry points: Come to me, write it down here, … This helps to make everybody comfortable to express themselves if they want to.

But also explicitly addressing how do we listen, how do we respond in this class. In one case, it means exploring the concept of “civil engagement”: active listening, emotional recognition (I’m feeling emotional, that is going to influence my point of view and how I speak), … And discussing the value of diversity of opinions! This can even be practised explicitly through role plays where participants take on different roles (in the podcast, the examples are a mother of a child in Gaza and mother of a hostage, ouf!) which students research, and maybe even switch roles. Of course a risk is that roles are being interpreted in a too simplistic way, but that be partly avoided by providing some of the background reading and not leaving everything open for students to research themselves.

When we choose materials, it is also important to explain why we chose those and not others — related to the intended learning. Students often expect to be presented with “objective knowledge”, but often we want to explicitly bring out different views on the same topic. An open question here was whether we should then also disclose where we, ourselves, stand on an issue. The best answer is probably, as often, “it depends”… At the same time, the guests on the podcast were positive about teachers showing emotions; acknowledging that we are not robots, that some things really are horrific. Then we can also use the classroom to practice empathy that students bring back into society later, to practice how do we engage with people we don’t agree with in a civilized manner.

A really important learning outcome, also mentioned in the podcast, is that people are multidimensional, complex beings. Just because someone has one opinion on something, does not mean that they necessarily also have a set of stereotypical, fixed opinion on all kinds of other issues. We are all learning all the time, hopefully changing our opinions and behaviour all the time, and putting people in boxes and assuming we know all their opinions on all the topics because we know one opinion on one topic does not help constructive discussions.

There is also a very brief discussion of “safe spaces”, with a quick mention of the distiction between dignity safety and intellectual safety. If we show students that we are prepared for discussing sensitive topics, that we have a plan, that we have considered that this might be uncomfortable and how to deal with it in the best way contributing to learning, students can concentrate (better) on being curious, on learning.

But what if unplanned controversy happen, on topics we did not think would be controversial or on topics students bring up unexpectedly? One advice that I thought was great was to set time limits! You have this amount of time for this topic (either as a group, or per speaker), and then we continue talking about it after class, and who wants to join then can join. That way, the topic isn’t dismissed, but it also does not take over all the available space and time, and can be picked up again later. The goal (which is probably good to make explicit) is then not to agree on one common opinion, but to understand what is going on. It is always a different balance for teachers between just walking in, giving your lecture, and walking out on the one end of the spectrum; and on the other end getting involved in anything that students want to talk about and completely giving up on what they had planned themselves. But being aware that this is something that you will have to balance, and then having a trick (like setting a time limit, or the goal of not necessarily finding consent) up your sleeve can be really helpful.

A third case came up in the discussion, that I also thought was very interesting. Not everything happens as an open controversy in the classroom, sometimes people are boiling inside but nobody else notices. This might come out later, when students approach the teacher or through some other ways, or not. This is the recommendation I mentioned above to have multiple ways of addressing issues available. I personally am a fan of the “things I didn’t get the chance to say” method, to include missing voices maybe not at the exact time when others are talking about a topic, but at least in the next session.

Also, if there is complete silence on a controversial topic, that tells you that there is something going on in the group where people are not willing to share their opinions, so that is something you probably need to address.

And then, in the podcast, they made the really important point that there is a life after class! How do students engage with each other then? Do they have friendly relationships, do they carry the conversations with them and continue out of class, can they carry the rules of discussion from class into that different setting, can we encourage relationship-building outside of class to support learning?

I relly enjoyed listening to the podcast, so many inspiring colleages at Lund University that I would love to connect with!

Featured image: Yesterday’s icy morning before my dip…

Janine de Novais (2023) Brave Community: teaching and learning about racism in college, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 36:9, 1795-1808, DOI: 10.1080/09518398.2021.1942302