As an academic, I am driven by the following commitments: liberatory knowledge, sharing power, and critical application. These values inform my teaching and relationship building with students. In the spring of 2023, as a PhD student, I was approached with the opportunity to teach sociological theory at a private Catholic university. I was both excited and terrified about the prospect. Throughout my academic journey, I have been intentional in selecting academic communities and spaces that value an emancipatory sociology. Therefore, I was a bit nervous, and had been warned by the department chair, about the possibility of pushback from students if I chose to teach “charged” theoretical perspectives such as critical race theory and intersectionality. Despite the warning that my pedagogical approaches might be “too radical” in the more conservative-leaning institution context, this classroom became a place of engaged and energized learning. I believe this was primarily the result of setting classroom norms of thoughtful disagreement and by creating opportunities for reflection and application. The students who I thought might push back against these charged theoretical topics, instead ravenously leaned in and engaged with them. 

On the first day of class, I conducted a poll with students asking them what they hoped to get out of the class. The overwhelming response from students was that they felt that theory was intimidating and complicated, so they hoped the class would help them understand theory in a more accessible and relevant way. While I had a syllabus crafted at this point, in honoring my commitment to sharing power, the students and I reviewed their feedback, concerns, and hopes for the class and made some changes. Through this first conversation with the students, we collectively set the tone for the semester, something that I believe set us up for success. 

One of the most pivotal conversations in this early discussion was on the purpose and presence of disagreement, both between social theorists and between the theorists and students’ lived experiences. In keeping with my values and commitments as a scholar, I included theorists who challenge systems of power, such as Frantz Fanon, David Roediger, Judith Butler, and more. I also chose several clusters of theorists who directly conflicted with one another. For instance, we spent several weeks discussing early racial theories in the U.S., comparing the Chicago School with the Atlanta School of Sociology and comparing Booker T. Washington with W.E.B. DuBois’ belief on racial progress of Black Americans. Through intentionally choosing theorists that were in conflict with one another, I was able to set the norm at the beginning of class that there would be disagreement. By setting and discussing this norm, I emphasized how conflict and disagreement has shaped the development of sociological theory. Once set and agreed upon, I wrote the following into our class policies:      

“This class covers topics which will challenge your thinking and ask you to critically examine society in new and different ways. You may find certain topics difficult given your unique intersectional identities and lived experiences. You certainly will not agree with all of the authors nor perspectives we cover in the class. My expectation is that you see the sociological perspective as a tool. It is an analytic and a framework that you are expected to understand and apply to various social problems.” 

In setting the expectation of disagreement throughout the course, I believe, students came in with an open mind, willing to challenge and be challenged. This disposition toward learning the sociological tools and engaging in thoughtful dialogue, allowed for immensely engaging, interesting, and passionate in-class discussions. Many students, energized by these discussions, shared that this space made them think differently about their own lives and the world around them. For example, one group, in engaging with Fanon, argued that gentrification is a form of colonialism, pointing to examples of it happening in the neighborhood around the university. 

Further, I wanted to pay the utmost attention to making theory learning public sociology. To me, theory is meant to help us solve social problems, and therefore the learning of theory should never be done in a classroom vacuum. In this course, I continually asked students to make connections between the theories and social reality. For example, in their final projects, students had to analyze two theorists/theories and apply their contributions to a social problem. In doing so, they also had to posit what these theorists might say are the merits and challenges to a potential solution. One student applied Horkheimer & Adorno and Herbert Marcuse to social media influencers, discussing that due to the lack of regulation and transparency around paid ad content, consumers’ needs and spending habits are manipulated. Another student in applying Patricia Hill Collins and Judith Butler looked at racialized gender bias in the legal profession and examined how a policy of universal pre-K might reduce discrimination for women of color. Through formal assignments and regular in-class discussion, I persistently emphasized theory’s role as both emancipatory and public.    

In this course, wanting to challenge the students to think differently and critically about their own privilege and the social world around them, I used much of the safety and privilege of my own identities to push students out of their comfort zones. For example, in multiple weeks of discussing race and decolonial theory, I challenged white students to examine the multitude of privileges associated with whiteness and recognize the current ways their own lives maintain racial capitalism and neocolonialism in the U.S. As a white sociologist, I believe it is my responsibility to challenge all students, but especially white students to think in this way. Given the surprisingly positive and engaged response of students in this more conservative institutional context, I wonder how often their worldviews have been challenged like they were in this class. 

Despite coming in with some fear and reservation regarding the student population and their reception to my teaching style and content, I was, simply put, blown away. The students engaged thoughtfully with the content, contributed very real and honest reflections of their own positionality, and applied their learning to social issues that mattered to them. In an end of course survey, I asked students to tell me one takeaway from this course. One student wrote, “this was my favorite class… I liked how comfortable the class felt to speak their mind. The classroom environment felt very welcoming and like there was no judgment. So, I felt challenged and learned so much and also, I feel like I can take what I learned and actually do something with it.” Thus, despite directly engaging with ideas which were politically charged and conflictual in nature, by approaching the class with an established norm of openness to engage in sociological inquiry through the conflict, students reported walking away with learning that was challenging and actionable.

Tess Starman (she/they) is a PhD Candidate in Sociology at Howard University. Her research specializes on intersections of race, gender, sexuality, and power at the nexus of religion and politics. She studies progressive Christian attitudes, religious exiting, and religion’s impact on political attitudes and engagement. Her dissertation, entitled, “A Corrupted Faith: The Role of Power in the Process of Christian Disaffiliation and Rise of the Religious Nones,” examines the religious exiting process and non-religious identity formation of ex-Christians. She serves as the Research Assistant for Howard University’s Initiative on Public Opinion. Tess is the co-chair of the American Sociological Association’s Student Advisory Board and serves on the Pedagogy Committee of Sociological Forum.