Homosexuality is not banned in China today, but gays and lesbians maintain a low profile except in some cities. Free political speech is not encouraged in China, but the needs and desires of the people in the growing capitalist sector demand some exchanges of ideas. That is the context in which the first gay studies course in China is being offered at Fudan University in Shanghai. (Thanks to today’s Chronicle for the original tip). There is certainly interest in the student body. Several hundred students have attempted to register.

The stated purpose of the instructor, Gao Yanning, is activist. He hopes to provide students" a proper view about homosexuals. . . ."We will give students an equitable judgment on homosexuals and help eliminate students' discrimination."

In the States, such activist scholarship is widely pursued but also widely questioned. Sometimes I am among the questioners. In providing a “proper view” of a group, where is the line between enlightening and indoctrinating students? To what extent can a noble goal—and I consider gay and lesbian equality such a goal-- subvert good scholarship and, therefore, put dishonesty in the service of Truth? And when that happens, I wonder at the cost.

I do not know enough about this scholar and this course to make any judgments here. His scholarship may well be good and his teaching honest. But if I did try to judge, should the context of this course—a country that does not have free speech, a country in which entire groups of people can be banned--be a part of my judgment? Or should any such judgment be based on ideals good teaching and scholarship that transcend the time and the place?

Irfan Khawaja - 8/4/2006

I understand Oscar's discomfort, but the problem seems less daunting to those of us in fields like philosophy, where advocacy of positions is both par for the course and considered compatible with scholarship.

There's a happy medium between indoctrination on the one hand, and a false neutrality on the other (pretending that, say, homophobia and its rejection are pedagogically equiavalent). I call it advocacy. One first presents positions in a relatively neutral way so that everyone is on common ground in purely informational terms. Then one gauges the students' capacities for independent thought, and carefully advocates one's own position while allowing them to air their agreement or objections or questions (or whatever).

The key is that no activist program can really succeed by stifling the autonomy or intellect of its audience. Activism need not descend into indoctrination so long as activists realize that dissent is valuable for promoting activist goals. (Paradigm texts: chapter 2 of Mill's On Liberty, or Locke's letter on toleration.) But I agree that it's often hard to draw the relevant lines.

Hugo Schwyzer - 8/23/2005

I'll agree with Irfan and Oscar here. When I teach my gay and lesbian history course, I make clear that it is open to all --including those who oppose the extension of equal rights to GLBTQ folk. At the same time, the fact that the course only exists as a result of advocacy and struggle can't be ignored.

When we teach courses like this, we can't go too far into a "triumphalist mode" that only celebrates the achievements of one much-maligned group. At the same time, it's fair to make clear to one's students that one's motive for teaching is to enhance understanding, toleration, and appreciation for the struggle of GLBTQ folk now and in the past. If wanting that kind of appreciation and comprehension is activist, so be it.

Jonathan Dresner - 8/23/2005

What makes a scholar an "activist"? If teaching something unpopular and against the conventional wisdom is enough, I'm an activist scholar, too. If wanting students to absorb something resembling legitimate scholarship instead of myth is activist, I'm definitely one of those. If organizing students and movements outside of class is what it takes, I'm not, and neither, I imagine, is Prof. Gao.