Of the myriad injustices folded into university “diversification” strategies is the very, very bad idea that the exclusions and erasures performed by the inherited canon can be rectified simply by adding new voices to it.
I mean, in addition to the way this approach ignores the power dynamics of discourse, consequently reproducing forms of marginalization within the expanded “conversation,” it also leads to syllabi that are just too fucking long to be adequately engaged.
I’ve been in a messy wrestle with my “Foundations in Cultural Studies & Critical Theory” syllabus, and I for one could really use a collaborative workshop in Decolonizing the Syllabus where we discuss strategies for actually remaking the discursive foundations of these fields.
First principle: Excessively long required reading lists are bad pedagogy.
(I say that as someone positively addicted to excessively long reading lists. No shade to the utopian promise of endless reading.)
(I say that as someone positively addicted to excessively long reading lists. No shade to the utopian promise of endless reading.)
Principle two: Framing work by scholars from communities traditionally excluded from or marginalized within academic institutions as perpetually “responding” to those who have enjoyed academic status is bad pedagogy.
Principle three: New scholarship that stages a meaningful intervention isn’t “building on” what came before, it’s remaking it. Our “foundations” courses in particular should be constantly changing.
Principle four: Adhering to these principles as a matter of routine course prep is challenging and crucial labour that should be considered standard for anyone teaching university courses—a standard that should be recognized through adequate training, job stability, pay, time.
Etc.
