Prince, Gregory, S., Jr. (2008). Teach them to challenge authority: Educating for healthy societies. Reviewed by Jennifer Mahon, University of Nevada, Reno

Prince, Gregory, S., Jr. (2008). Teach them to challenge authority: Educating for healthy societies. New York: Continuum Pp. 244         ISBN 978-0826-49138-1 Reviewed by Jennifer Mahon University of Nevada, Reno January 9, 2009 Teach them to challenge authority: Educating for healthy societies (2008) makes an impassioned and extremely important appeal to restore critical inquiry in higher education. Drawing on a 40 year career, 16 as President of Hampshire College, global models, and student perspectives, Prince warns that the spirit of risk and creativity, crucial to the academic tradition of the United States, is evaporating, and as a result threatens the democratic tradition of the nation. The book is divided into three sections. The first includes the foundations of the author’s argument, followed by examples of liberal education outside of the U.S., and finally recommendations regarding the engagement and instruction of students. The author acknowledges that the book, “equal parts argument and memoir,” was born from the sense that calls for “neutralism” were threatening to erode the academy’s ability to question and challenge authority which is admired and emulated around the world. Advocates for the neutral nature of higher education, charged that a liberal bias in the faculty was detrimental to students’ abilities to challenge authority. These scholars maintained that faculty’s proper role was simply to present two sides of an issue and let the students formulate their own opinions. Prince argues: If these advocates of neutralism – in and of itself a non-neutral position – succeed in transforming universities into neutral institutions, the will undermine the critical thinking they seek to support... Equally important is the idea that neutrality makes it impossible for universities committed to promoting civic engagement to become models of the behavior they seek to instill in students (p.xvi). To ground his argument, Prince has devised four basic principles. The first principle argues that the goal of education should be the creation of independent thinkers and communities that are “economically productive, culturally creative, socially equitable, and supportive of human rights” (p. xvii). Secondly, the essential prerequisite of any healthy society is its members ability to challenge and question authority in appropriate ways. Third, critical activities are achieved through democracy and freedom which in turn provides the glue for this healthy society; however, this is not sufficient in and of itself. Finally, the author posits that a strong society is predicated on the development, not merely the introduction of, critical thinking. Thus the job of an educator is to guide this development, and to teach students to use it “responsibly and effectively when challenging authority or convention.” Only in this way will universities uphold their charge to produce graduates who contribute to the betterment of the communities we inhabit. Maxine Greene (2002) believed that John Dewey saw the importance of this type of education because he advocated, …continuing and open communication, the kind of learning that would feed into practice, and inquiries arising out of questioning in the midst of life. Critical thinking modeled on the scientific method, activating and probing intelligence: these, for Dewey were the stuff of a pedagogy that would equip the young to resist fixities and stock responses, repressive and deceiving authorities” (p. 104). Yet with recent conservative political opinion, such as that espoused by vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, condemning the active engagement of the “community organizer”, it is easy to see that the position advocated by Prince has many critics. The first section of the book most fully develops the author’s argument by outlining the debate between academia and the neutralists. Chapter one begins with a historical look into Prince’s presidency, specifically the weekly breakfasts with students he instituted at the beginning of his tenure at Hampshire. It was at these breakfasts, he notes, that he was able to contrast knowledge that students had about their world with what critics of higher education said they had (emphasis added). Such critics included the failed Supreme Court nominee, Robert Bork, conservative scholars such as Dinesh D’Souza, William F. Buckley, William Bennett and E.D. Hirsch. The list also included conservative commentators such as Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh, and Laura Ingraham. Bork’s views are highlighted to illustrate the conservative criticism of the lack of neutrality of education which the author argues against throughout the book. “Bork regards students just beginning their education as savages who need to be acculturated and civilized” (p. 12). He believes Bork is most dismayed by the idealism of higher education, noting, “Bork feels that ivory-towered intellectuals have extended the faith and optimism of religion into politics and into the classroom, generating an unrealistic, unsophisticated, and simplistic view of the perfectibility of society” (p. 12). Such an ideal apparently leads to the promotion of radical individualism that Bork contends is the catalyst for immorality and the eventual downfall of civilized society. Thus the fall of man is the responsibility of academics whom he deems as “barbarians.” Prince refutes such positions by noting the crucial distinction between the form and substance of an argument. He enumerates his own set of principles of discourse which he believes allow for the expression of opinion and critical thinking. Chapter two discusses the author’s personal experiences of legal actions mounted against universities thought to lack neutrality. Such advocacy was said to infringe upon student rights. One such instance was the debate over House Resolution (HR) 177 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which sought to create a Select Committee on Academic Freedom in Higher Education. The committee would be charged with ensuring that Pennsylvania state institutions would “not take advantage of their positions “to introduce inappropriate or irrelevant subject matter outside of their field of study” and that students would have “the opportunity to learn in a environment conducive to the pursuit of knowledge and truth” (p. 31). This example provided the author with the opportunity to expound upon Hampshire College’s Civil Liberties and Public Policy program (CLPP) as a rationale against neutrality and a model for universities to follow. Central to the argument is the concept of engagement, and the debate over whether engagement should be active or reflective. Prince acknowledges that an atmosphere of neutrality may engender reflective engagement so students can form their own opinions. He concedes that the risk always exists, in the face of the professor’s authority, that students will feel less inclined to engage in critical debate over their own positions, or even to entertain conflicting arguments. Here the author offers another viewpoint on disengagement, which, while it does reduce the risk of bias, “also increases the risk of undermining democratic civic culture by closing off opportunities for students to engage in real debates. That risk leads to serious consequences for our society” (p. 39). To try out and solidify their skills as critical consumers who contribute to the growth of society, students must have the opportunity to authentically experience opportunities to question and challenge authority (one assumes in this case the authority being their professor). In this way, students will gain first-hand knowledge of the type of activism necessary to further the growth and health of any community. Prince’s argument here might be strengthened by the inclusion of learning theory such as that advocated by Piaget, Vygotsky, or Bloom which demonstrates that advanced forms of thinking and knowledge acquisition require application, evaluation and synthesis of knowledge. Chapter three illuminates a consequence of the Pennsylvania hearing (which the author compliments as creating the opportunity for true debate) which was the strengthening of David Horowitz’s organization Students for Academic Freedom. Horowitz is the author of The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (2006), a listing of scholars purported to espouse “anti-western propaganda. His organization was the driving force behind the creation of The Academic Bill of Rights, designed to protect students from the liberal bias of faculty which created an inhospitable learning environment in its attempts to indoctrinate students. Throughout the chapter, the author deconstructs the arguments of Horowitz and other supporters of the bill, especially because such a document in its proposed application to all institutions of higher learning, fails to consider the broad range of missions of different institutions, ignores research on active learning and critical thinking, has a one-sided view of advocacy, and finally “patronizes students by assuming they are incapable of absorbing the advocacy of faculty members and developing opposing positions” (p. 51). This final issue appears to be the most egregious to the author, as the chapter concludes with his own version of a bill of rights for students that protect both the right of students to learn in a non-threatening environment while learning to challenge and question the positions advocated by professors and school authorities. Turning to the second part of the book, Prince is to be highly commended for the inclusion of a global perspective. Internationalization of higher education appears to be more the exception than the rule. For example Biddle (2002) in a comprehensive assessment of the internationalizing efforts of Research I universities completed for the American Council of Learned Societies advocated dispensing with “the rhetoric of the global citizen” as she found little evidence to support the preparation of such individuals. As I have written elsewhere (Mahon, 2007), I believe the omission of international perspectives, most especially within the field of education, hints at an underlying ethnocentrism. Prince, however, has extensively chronicled universities abroad which have adopted the “student-activist” paradigm which demonstrate “the obligations, power, purpose, and consequences of liberal education” (xviii). Examples are included from Africa, eastern and western Europe, and Asia. One criticism here, however, is that Prince asserts that such a tradition “originated in the United States” without giving any evidence to support such a point, nor does he consider Greek traditions of teaching using rhetoric, oratory, and the dialectics such as that advocated by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle (Lucas, 1994). This omission is odd as Prince himself remarks that liberal education is predicated on reflection, “the oft-stated examined life” (2008, p. 167) – a comment attributed to Socrates (Lucas, 1994). Prince might have considered even work by the Sophists as Lucas observed: Correlatively, the aim of human thought should be serve human needs; and only personal or individual experience was thought to afford a basis for achieving that aim. Each person therefore should be advised to rely upon his own powers and abilities to make his way through the world” (p. 9-10). These teachers “were willing to tackle social issues frontally, while attacking the conventions of the old order…proving irresistible to a younger generation” (p. 11). And finally, similar to the difficulties Prince enumerates, Greek educators also experienced the wrath of the established order as their questioning of authority. Just as Prince discusses Bork’s attack on today’s academics as proponents of radical intellectualism, so does Lucas explain the downfall of the sophists, explaining, “Not surprisingly, it was almost inevitable that the relativism, skepticism, and radical individualism of the sophists should have aroused strenuous opposition from guardians of the old order” (p. 12). Their work was marked as evidence “that the very foundations of Hellenic culture itself were under attack” (p.10). The final section of the book turns to recommendations for effective and appropriate teaching methods which challenge authority and protect the well-being of students. Shor and Freire (2002) note aptly that, “Education is politics and politics has educability. Because education is politics, it makes sense for the liberating teacher to feel some fear when he or she is teaching” (p. 486, emphasis in original). Perhaps recognizing this, Prince advocates that faculty must strike a balance between advocacy and respect for students. By employing a spirit of negotiation, faculty can learn to listen to students as well as create a learning environment which promotes the sort of active, collaborative engagement previously discussed. When faculty and students work with each other, he suggests, “…faculty bring knowledge and experience, bring the power of their fresh worldviews” which he believes is “creatively explosive” and energizing (p. 206). No matter what, students must be respected for their abilities to be critical consumers of the information they are being taught, not as entities which need shelter from knowledge. Shor and Freire (2002) would also add that a professor must meet a student at her point of understanding, noting, “If you go beyond student desire or ability, or if you work outside their language or themes, you see the results, their resistance. Your approach was not systematically rooted in the real potentials for change” (p. 482). Prince should also be commended for considering the responsibilities of the academic community and professors themselves for protecting academic freedom. First, he cautions the academic community against a growing trend of indifference to attacks on critical thought and academic freedom. Such incidents, he believes, have gone “relatively unnoticed” citing as an examples the attacks on affirmative action which purport to condemn university use of the practice as a quota system rather than a way to achieve diversity of thought. He also discusses a Pennsylvania school district which prevented adoption of the international baccalaureate program because it was “pro-Marxist, anti-American, and anti-Christian” (p. 185). He laments, The silence was alarming because the issue itself is so important, because the silence encourages further attacks on principles critical to the academy, and because tertiary education failed to come to the defense of a group of teachers who had created a high school program recognized nationally for its quality and their students access to the kind of quality education society needs. I worry this attack went unchallenged because too many were too preoccupied with issues closer to home to realize the urgent need for a diversity of international and multicultural perspectives in the classroom. (p. 185). Professors have a responsibility to engage with the community and with students. Prince never shrinks from the neutralist’s admonishment that faculty positions can alienate students. However, he persuasively argues that when done correctly, when “teachers can create an atmosphere where it is safe to ask questions, and where it is okay to be uncomfortable” they are achieving the balance of challenge and respect to which students respond, and from which they learn to be the kind of activists that contribute to the healthy growth of society. Teach Them to Challenge Authority is an important book. The author has taken pains to include multiple perspectives, and he should be commended for not only his inclusion of a strong international perspective, but also his devotion to treating students as individuals who come to us with knowledge to be harnessed and who deserve our respect. It is a dense compilation of detail, some which readers may find extraneous. Further, its title is somewhat misleading, as readers will find it less an instructional manual on approaches to a critical pedagogy in higher education as a rationale for it. Readers would be better served by the inclusion of an index, as it was difficult to ascertain whether the author even uses the term “critical pedagogy” to advocate this type of education. It seems to be absent from the work, and one wonders why, as the author clearly speaks to the tenants of this critical method of teaching. However, the imperative of heeding Prince’s argument cannot be ignored. As Greene (2002) warns: He shows how the power of the presidency can advance the mission of a university to critically question and better society. In doing so, he also reminds us of our power as professors and citizens. Yet further he reminds us that our responsibility extends to ensuring an educated citizenry capable of the abilities to question and challenge authority, to engage in the democratic duty of dissent to ensure a healthy, fully-functioning society. Shor and Freire (2002) ask, “Are people so socialized into fearing punishment that we censor ourselves in advance of becoming an effective opposition, or even before attempting opposition? (p. 480). He makes a sound and reasoned plea why academic freedom and the spirit of active, critical engagement must be protected from the attack it is surely undergoing. As Maxine Greene explains: We sense people living under a weight, a nameless inertial mass. How are we to justify our concern for their awakening? Where are the sources of questioning, of restlessness? How are we to move the young to break with the given, the taken-for-granted – to more towards what might be, what is not yet? …These are dark and shadowed times, and we need to live them, standing before one another, open to the world. (p. 97, 112) If we as members of the academy do not act to defend this freedom, to open this world, who will? References Biddle, S. (2002). Internationalization: Rhetoric or reality? American Council of Learned Societies, ACLS Occasional Paper, No. 56 Horowitz, D. (2006). The professors: The 101 most dangerous academics in America. New York: Regnery Publishing. Greene, M. (2002). In search of a critical pedagogy. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano & R.D. Torres (Eds.). The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 97-112). New York: Routledge. Lucas, C.J. (1994). American higher education: A history. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin. Mahon, J. (2007). A field of dreams? Overseas student teaching as a catalyst towards internationalizing teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, Winter, 167-189. Shor, I., & Freire, P. (2002). What are the fears and risks of transformation? In A. Darder, M. Baltodano & R.D. Torres (Eds.). The critical pedagogy reader (pp. 479-497). New York: Routledge. About the Reviewer Jennifer Mahon, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Sociocultural Education Department of Curriculum, Teaching & Learning University of Nevada, Reno