“I did teach a class here [at the University of Cincinnati] and all of the grading was pure bluff,” he continues. “I even told students at the New School for example… if you don’t give me any of your shitty papers, you get an A. If you give me a paper I may read it and not like it and you can get a lower grade.” He received no papers that semester."--Eugene Wolters quoting Slavoj Žižek at Critical Theory. [HT John Protevi on Facebook]
What I find most dispiriting about this annecdote, if true, is that the students at even the New School are so lacking in spirit that they opted for the (relatively) easy A* rather than have Žižek, who can be a very careful and insightful reader of others, read their stuff. I have learned much from reading his writings on others, and would be thrilled to have his considered judgment on mine--even if I probably would not like much about what he would have to say about me or my writing/views.
Perhaps, Žižek is really as irresponsible at his professional duties as he wishes to convey. (We all know that there are some philosophers who think they can enhance their status by transgressing norms of propriety and professional-ness.) So, perhaps the students were right to shy away from submitting papers. But there is also a sense in which his offer taught his students to scrutinize themselves and they discovered their inner-careerism, which values security, rather than (modest) courage to face the unknown and uncertain.
It does not follow that I am inclined to give Žižek a pass on his behavior (as if he cares). Even if he secretly thinks that he is acting like a great teacher and educator, perceptions matter--and the message that he is conveying is that there is no nobility in the classroom. It's swell that he has discovered that teaching is not for him (other professional philosophers also see it is as a necessary evil); but why make teaching seem like something ridiculous (grading as bluff, etc.)? I am not against flaunting elitism, but if that elitism becomes an excuse for a crass lack of humanity ('some idiot'/'stupid' etc.) and a disdain for the fragility and vulnerability of others, then why not follow Nietzsche and retire to a quiet spot in the mountains? The answer, of course, is that Žižek cannot do without the system he despises.
*Maybe class participation was so demanding (or terrifying) that only As is justified.
Comments