TIPSters:
I may regret posting this, but here goes:
In grading the papers for my graduate-level Counseling Theories course, I
have come across a paper from a student covering "Conversion Therapy." For
those not familiar with the term, it refers to one of a number of
therapeutic approaches with the aim of changing the sexual orientation of
homosexual individuals to a heterosexual one. As most of you are likely
aware, APA frowns on this practice, and the _DSM_ (from the "other APA") no
longer regards homosexuality as a psychiatric diagnosis.
The paper puts forth arguments to justify this form of therapy, on
scientific (to follow), religious, therapeutic, and moral grounds. Now, not
to begin a debate on homosexuality, or even political correctness, my aim
in presenting this situation is to ask about fellow TIPSters' experiences
in attempting to grade papers that induce your own "value conflicts," for
lack of a better term.
What I mean is that I find myself reacting rather strongly to some of the
assertions put forth in the paper. It is reasonably well written and
comprehensively argued, yet I find myself writing far more comments on this
paper than most. For example, the student asserts (and presents assertions
from the literature) that because scientific evidence has yet to COMPLETELY
(read: beyond a shadow of a doubt) support an exclusively
biological/genetic/it's-not-the-individual's-choice CAUSE for
homosexuality, there should be no such ban on conversion therapies. I
pondered this line of reasoning briefly, then wrote a rejoinder: "If there
no definitive answer to the question of a 'cause,' then wouldn't the more
conservative view be to hold off on instituting what could be an intrusive,
life-altering (for better or worse) 'treatment?'"
I catch myself wondering if I'm nitpicking, or arguing, simply because I
disagree with the student's points of view. Now, of course students often
express divergent points of view, and I'd like to think I grade based on
merit, not agreement, but this paper got me wondering about how y'all
handle these types of situations. Yes, I have attempted to define a
reasonably objective set of standards for grading, but let's face it folks:
there's always SOME degree of subjectivity, and whether we're Eurocentric,
ethnocentric, or just eccentric, some issues gnaw at us a bit (the recent
thread on spanking children is an example for some, perhaps).
Since I'm also a practitioner, I can call upon the two main points I would
when faced with a similar situation: self-awareness and consultation (i.e.,
I can self-monitor my grading and try to discern whether I'm being fair or
overreacting; and I can ask a colleague to grade the paper independently).
So am I opening a can of worms here (FYI: I'm not much interested in
initiating a discussion on homosexuality, or political correctness,
although others may be; please don't private post me on those issues), or
maybe just posing and answering my own question? (or avoiding the task of
grading for a few minutes?)
I guess I'm just casting about to see whether (and how much) others of you
struggle with value conflicts and attempting to be objective in your grading?
Verbosely yours,
David W.
David Wasieleski, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychology and Counseling
Valdosta State University
Valdosta, GA 31698
912-333-5620
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/dtwasieleski
"Then comes the day
Staring at myself I turn to question me
I wonder do I want the simple, simple life that I once lived in well
Oh things were quiet then
In a way they were the better days
But now I am the proudest monkey you've ever seen..."
--Dave Matthews Band
"Proudest Monkey"
