In my Historical Methods class on Elections, most students are writing research papers on elections past. Some are doing papers on the historical roots of current issues like education and healthcare. So far all the topics look great, and I am hopeful that for the first time ever I can hand out "A"s in the course to all the students.
One student has chosen to write about the election of 1800. No doubt he has already consulted this fine article from History Now on this election in compiling his initial bibliography.
I tried initially to see if he wanted to write something more contemporary, something like the roots of 9/11 or the roots of the current Iraq War. He begged off. I can't really blame him; after all, these are very difficult topics. Maybe he just wants to slide by on his good looks and considerable intellect. (He is in another class of mine where he sits in the back corner mostly making time with the young woman sitting next to him.) Maybe he fears butting heads with me ideologically. Which he will. Since he lives in the next town from me, he already suspecting me of stealing the Bush/Cheney sign off his lawn. And I suspected him of stealing my beloved hat with the W with a slash through it. Well, I found my hat under a pile of laundry, so he is off the hook. (I am joking, btw, about these suspicions, folks.)
He has already proven this matter of ideology shouldn't be a problem, at least as far as his grade is concerned. The class watched The Fog of War and this student wrote an excellent paper drawing lessons from McNamara that confirmed the current Bush foreign policy. He earned an "A" for presenting his argument clearly and cogently, with ample evidence.
So I am still wondering whether I should push him again to try to take on the difficult issues of the War. He fears getting lost in all the information with no ability to figure out who is telling the truth. This, indeed, is very difficult. But it goes to the heart of what we do as historians. So this paper would present a great challenge to his abilities.
But might it also challenge too much his ideological certainties? Might he fear finding out some things that don't square with what he already believes, or wants to believe? Could that be what he is most afraid of?
I would be tempted to call him an "academic girlie-man," but that is not my style.
What do you folks think I should do?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think your hoping he reads this blog and gets annoyed enough at you to write the paper you wish to read, all for needling of his questionable habits in class, the proposed challange of his political views, and especially that girlie man comment. While I admire this humorous shot at getting him to do the September 11 paper, I also understand his fears about wading through new and therefore suspect material. I know that there is probably suspect material for the 1860 election paper too, but one would assume we also know more about this time. Working with this older, more plentiful, and truer material may bring a better paper to your desk. Therefore, ask again if he wants to do the Election paper, if he says yes, say OK and let him be.
ABT
I agree with the student that he could get bogged down in all of the information on the topic(s) you would like him to choose and it will be extremely difficult to weed out the truth at this point. While I sit by and listen to the banter, I am also disappointed that there are not 2 sides presented in class or in the blog, but merely the anti-Bush, pro-Kerry side. I say let the student pick his topic (and his battles).
Post a Comment