For anyone old enough to remember the movie “The Paper Chase” (I admit only to having watched it on tv well after it's original release), the concept of professor as ultimate authority reigning over the classroom is indelibly imprinted on our minds. Those of us that made our way to law school despite that image found ourselves indoctrinated into a model where we were expected to be spirited, yet compliant, students and we existed within a structure that was exceptionally clear with well-defined roles.
The classroom for us looked much like a regime in which the (more often than not) benevolent professor set forth demands that we either met or failed to meet at our own peril. We were expected to demonstrate our knowledge in a respectful (read "deferential") manner and only when we were asked to do so. We were allowed to argue that established thinking wasn’t the right thinking on a particular topic (I remember some especially spirited debates with philosophy and sociology professors at Brandeis, and with Civil Procedure and Constitutional Law professors at Suffolk Law School) but we could challenge only up to a point. At some point in the dialogue we were informed – whether explicitly or by a sudden chilly silence, a change in tone or a raised eyebrow – that the debate had ended and that we were to resume our positions as passive followers of an omniscient leader.
To those familiar with this model of learning, none of this comes as a surprise. To younger generations, however, how I've just described the classroom setting is either laughable, horrifying or a bit of both.
In my work on college campuses I’ve seen examples where students and professors work together to create inclusive, collaborative environments that work for all different types of learners. In those classrooms, input from both students and professors is valued and differences of ideas and ideologies are handled as learning opportunities for everyone in the room.
More often, however, even the best-intentioned professors and students are finding themselves in classrooms where a generation of outspoken “clap back” students clash with professors that either experienced first-hand The Paper Chase model of learning – along with its expectations of deference - or who were themselves educated by a generation of teachers that passed along that model to them.
For those unfamiliar with the "clap back" a little history. The term derives from a 2003 Ja Rule song, with that title which describes what Ja Rule and his crew intend to do to rappers that disrespect them. Going back further to the ‘90’s it’s suggested that the term refers to a sudden blow and possibly the sound of gunfire. In current usage, to clap back is to “respond to a criticism with a withering comeback.” “Not to be confused with a garden-variety diss, a clapback is deemed by most as a targeted, often viciously acute comeback intended to place someone in much-needed check.…The goal of the clapback is to Shut. It. Down." Aaron Edwards & Ira Madison III, BuzzFeed.com, 2.18.15.
Despite what appear to be shades of negative meaning, clapping back has had positive social value. It’s been used to call out racism, misogyny, bullying and other areas where bright lines need to be drawn in the protection of self or others without negotiation. Clapping back has not only integrated itself into our online culture and on social media, it has become a part of in-person interactions as well.
“You know, a lot of people look down on our clapback culture. However, I feel that sometimes it is warranted. Sometimes folks do things that are so obviously and inherently wrong — those people (like Donald Trump) deserve all the clapback they get.” Asamia Diaby writes. Indeed, it has become a generation’s form of civic engagement, in a sense the civil rights fight of their time, that has helped facilitate the rise of movements like Black Lives Matter and #MeToo. Clapping back means real-time reckoning with institutional biases that won't be ignored and will no longer be allowed to remain in darkness or be left unaddressed.
That having been said, there are definitely ways in which clapping back can, and has, gone too far. Even proponents of the awareness it can create recognize that
“sometimes clapback culture is so malicious, unnecessary” and that it can be misused solely to find fault and heap shame on even well-intentioned engagement.
This culture clash has landed squarely in the classroom where even the most progressive and liberal institutes of higher learning are struggling to balance engagement that is uncensored, honest and challenging with concepts of structured learning, appropriate discipline and respect. Understandably, both students and faculty are experiencing a mixture of frustration, confusion and occasional hostility. Imagine a highly respected, academically accomplished Paper Chase professor who inadvertently uses an outdated term and has a socially-aware 18-year old student fresh out of high school who is accustomed to vocalizing their opinions without censorship clap back at them in front of the rest of the class. It’s not a pleasant environment for either teacher or student and it’s certainly not an environment that's conducive to collaborative, engaged learning.
Telling students they must accept behavior they perceive as disrespectful and shutting down speech isn't an option; neither is expecting professors to teach effectively in an environment where - fearful of a clap back - they feel disempowered and disengaged from students. So where do we go from here? As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote, we can go either to chaos or community. My strong (and some would say overly optimistic) belief is that by recognizing this clash for what it is – a difference in ideas about the norms of engagement that’s intensified by the speed with which culture is changing around, through and with us – we can go mindfully towards community.
The first step as I see it is for both faculty and students to be willing (and if not willing, then I would urge strongly encouraged and supported by campus leaders) to create a new and inclusive learning environment where expectations about engagement and exchange are openly shared, defined and followed. In this environment, building trust on both sides is key and therefore intent and impact in engagement - on both sides - must be clear. Where there is intended hurtful impact in communications that must be acknowledged and addressed appropriately. But for trust to build, the default assumption - again on both sides - must be that the negative impact is unintended and therefore the hurtful impact will be pointed out with the goal of educating everyone. It is, after all, a learning environment.
The hope behind these mindful (and at least initially uncomfortable) exchanges is that students, eager to feel included and participate openly in their classrooms will recognize that cultural change is slower than they’re accustomed to things moving and that they need to play an active role in increasing not only accountability but also understanding during this change. Faculty in turn will recognize their need to learn a new and continually developing language in order to best engage intense students. Both faculty and students will need to utilize conflict management skills and view each other as active partners in the classroom, sharing equal responsibility for creating a collaborative, honest and supportive environment.
Once it happens in the classroom, it can spread across campuses. Students, faculty, staff and administration can create new norms of communication – respectful and honest, free and well-intentioned, even if opposed, and flexible enough to continue evolving. It won’t be easy, but I think it will be worthwhile and ultimately will help us create community in the midst of what feels to many like chaos.
What's Negotiation?
Simply put, negotiation is a conversation to get our needs met. If it's that easy to define, why is it so hard to actually do? It doesn't have to be.
Comments