Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    Hands-On Career Preparation
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    Alternative Pathways
Sign In
Commentary

Two Professors, One Valuable Lesson: How to Respectfully Disagree

By Mel Seesholtz and Bryan Polk October 25, 2009
Two Professors, One Valuable Lesson: How to Respectfully Disagree 1
James Yang

In what many people consider the glory years of Saturday Night Live, one of the most memorable sketches was “Weekend Update,” which, during the 1977-78 season, featured Jane Curtin and Dan Aykroyd. An especially popular segment was “Point-Counterpoint,” in which Curtin and Aykroyd parodied the stodginess of network news anchors and commentators. At some point every week, however, Aykroyd, totally frustrated with Curtin’s point of view, would intone, “Jane, you ignorant slut.” Curtin remained unperturbed and ended the segment with a smile.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

In what many people consider the glory years of Saturday Night Live, one of the most memorable sketches was “Weekend Update,” which, during the 1977-78 season, featured Jane Curtin and Dan Aykroyd. An especially popular segment was “Point-Counterpoint,” in which Curtin and Aykroyd parodied the stodginess of network news anchors and commentators. At some point every week, however, Aykroyd, totally frustrated with Curtin’s point of view, would intone, “Jane, you ignorant slut.” Curtin remained unperturbed and ended the segment with a smile.

What back then was nothing more than parody has far too often become the norm in today’s on-air social and political commentary. That is true at both ends of the political spectrum, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly on the right and Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher on the left. Because belligerency is seen as a legitimate form of debate, many college students today cannot separate loudness from logic or histrionic ad hominem arguments from substantive, issue-centered discourse. That seems particularly true in courses that deal with contemporary social issues, politics, and religion. Critical thinking is often drowned out by bombast and bluster.

Faculty members in the humanities are acutely aware of this trend. The two of us were sharing misery stories about the state of classroom life one day and decided to find a way to improve it. Our idea was to team-teach a course, “Religion in American Life and Thought,” with both of us in the classroom for every class meeting. The experiment was approved, and we began preparing for something that had never been done before on our campus: two faculty members teaching in the same classroom every day, both fully compensated as part of our regular teaching loads.

We could not be more different. Mel Seesholtz has a reputation for criticizing the dogma-based sociopolitical agenda of organized religion; Bryan Polk is the chaplain at Abington College. Mel is a James Joyce scholar; Bryan prefers to study Neolithic stone circles in England. Although we both teach English classes, Mel focuses on literature and courses on science, technology, and society; Bryan teaches religious studies and mythology. Mel is a laid-back facilitator of classroom discussions; Bryan is a more formal lecturer. Mel is a vegetarian (heading toward vegan); Bryan is a gourmet cook who enjoys virtually every kind of meat.

Students who knew both of us could not envision the two of us working together, but that did not stop them from signing up for the course. In fact, it may have prompted them to do so. Perhaps they were expecting another point-counterpoint slugfest. What we hoped to deliver, however, was a model of respectful disagreement on a host of sensitive topics.

The first time we taught the course, in fall of 2007, we often entered the classroom with only a vague idea of each other’s thoughts on course topics such as religion and education (with a special focus on the teaching of intelligent design in public-school science classes), religion and social issues (with an emphasis on the gay-rights debate), religion and politics (the forthcoming presidential primaries were in the headlines), and evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity (with an analysis of the 2006 documentary Jesus Camp). Several guest speakers—from representatives of mainstream religions to a Scientologist and a scientist who advocated intelligent design—added another layer of complexity.

Our students reveled in the surprise that registered on our faces when one of us voiced a point of view that was unexpected. For instance, during a class discussion of the debate over the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, Mel suggested that the phrase turned the pledge into a public prayer. Bryan then opined that, for him, the problem was not with the word “God” but with the word “under,” because it privileges faith systems that believe in a masculine, sky, warrior deity. The students immediately picked up the “aha” expression on Mel’s face, and his “I never thought of it that way” restarted the dialogue with a different focus.

In another class, when Mel proposed that organized religion necessarily leads to a dogmatic institution with an agenda of social control, Bryan’s eyebrows went up, and he asked, “Do you really think that?” Mel’s affirmative response coupled with a cogent rationale for his point of view elicited several impassioned responses from students.

That type of ad lib interaction between us became a mainstay of the course. Another instance occurred early on, during a discussion of the origin of the universe. The two of us had never discussed the topic outside of class, so when it came up, we did not know we had such divergent points of view. The students’ response was astounding. As one student put it, “I think I learned the most when you guys would debate back and forth, … like the disagreement you two had over the Big Bang theory.” That was exactly what we’d hoped to accomplish: modeling how to engage in a civil debate with the goal of advancing understanding of another’s point of view, the validity of that viewpoint, and the new perspectives it opens.

Our former associate dean of academic affairs called our team-teaching experiment “brave.” Every day in the classroom together, our pedagogical strengths and weaknesses are exposed. We have learned from each other, and that learning has inspired our students. As one student put it, “You guys learn new things from each other every day, so it is like you are learning with us. And that creates a good atmosphere in class.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Even after four semesters of team-teaching the course, we continue to learn from each other and with our students. At the end of each semester, we ask them for suggestions for improvements. Based on their recommendations, we have expanded our list of guest speakers to include elders from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a Young Earth creationist, a secular humanist, and a Christian Scientist. We also engage in unscripted discussions and debates on topics suggested by the students, such as the nature of God and religion, how the founding fathers saw religion interacting with politics, and how contemporary political and religious leaders may have strayed from those founding principles. The content is always new because each semester brings a new group of students with new questions and concerns, along with new developments in the always-evolving relationship between religion and American life.

Students have consistently commented how much they enjoy getting two faculty points of view on virtually every issue, and their in-class contributions to the discussions and their written work show that they can internalize our methodology and model it themselves. In their evaluations, the students wrote variations on this theme: “It’s important that we can see that people with two different opinions can respect each other’s opinion and still get along and work together.”

But our version of team-teaching is expensive. Do its benefits outweigh its costs? Aside from students liking the approach, clearly it has helped them understand how to disagree without becoming inconsiderate, ranting bloviators. Based on student feedback and evaluations, campus administrators have agreed to continue the course for at least another year, and in response to student requests, we are writing a textbook that presents the material in a framework reflecting the modeling goals that inspired the course.

Our classroom has become an arena for the free exchange of ideas in which everyone’s opinion is welcomed and respected. With today’s call to make universities more student-centered, perhaps our version of team-teaching is not that expensive after all.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Marva Johnson is set to take the helm of Florida A&M University this summer.
Leadership & governance
‘Surprising': A DeSantis-Backed Lobbyist Is Tapped to Lead Florida A&M
Students and community members protest outside of Coffman Memorial Union at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, on Tuesday, April 23, 2024.
Campus Activism
One Year After the Encampments, Campuses Are Quieter and Quicker to Stop Protests
Hoover-NBERValue-0516 002 B
Diminishing Returns
Why the College Premium Is Shrinking for Low-Income Students
Harvard University
'Deeply Unsettling'
Harvard’s Battle With Trump Escalates as Research Money Is Suddenly Canceled

From The Review

Glenn Loury in Providence, R.I. on May 7, 2024.
The Review | Conversation
Glenn Loury on the ‘Barbarians at the Gates’
By Evan Goldstein, Len Gutkin
Illustration showing a valedictorian speaker who's tassel is a vintage microphone
The Review | Opinion
A Graduation Speaker Gets Canceled
By Corey Robin
Illustration showing a stack of coins and a university building falling over
The Review | Opinion
Here’s What Congress’s Endowment-Tax Plan Might Cost Your College
By Phillip Levine

Upcoming Events

Ascendium_06-10-25_Plain.png
Views on College and Alternative Pathways
Coursera_06-17-25_Plain.png
AI and Microcredentials
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin