SPIRE: School of Politics, International Relations and Philosophy @ Keele University

Written by Professor Andrew Dobson

How can Politics lecturers be objective if they support a particular political party? This is a question that we are often asked – particularly by parents and guardians on Open Days. And I’ve asked myself the question a number of times, because I’ve been a member of the Green Party for a few years and wrote the Party’s General Election Manifesto this year. It’s hard to be more committed to a Party’s politics than that. (Although we must also remember our recently-retired American politics expert, Mike Tappin, who spent five years as a Labour Euro MP).


One response is to resist the premise of the question and ask: should we be objective when we teach? There is a school of thought which suggests that students respect lecturers much more when they (the lecturers) show their true colours rather than hide behind a pseudo-balanced façade. And most lecturers know that ‘taking a stance’ can be a useful pedagogic tool when challenging students into a response.


I don’t think this works as an argument – or at least not beyond the occasional tactical use of ‘stance-taking’. If all we did was promulgate the party line we’d be no different to a politician in the House of Commons or on BBC TV’s Question Time. Students rightly expect something different – a fuller, more balanced, more rounded account and analysis of the political options.


So the question remains: will students get this fuller and more rounded analysis from a politically-committed lecturer? To some degree the answer depends on the lecturer, but there’s nothing in principle that stops her or him from giving a balanced view. In fact I’d go further and say that the committed lecturer is in one of the best positions to do so.

This is because you only get to a committed view if you’ve carefully considered all the alternatives. In particular this involves confronting the very best arguments that ‘the opposition’ can put up. It’s a kind of dialectical process, and the strongest conclusion is the one reached after confronting the strongest arguments. Then it’s just a question of being honest in the classroom and making sure that every argument is given a fair run for its money.

We also have to remember that lecturers have authority over students in a way that politicians don't. Politicians are trying to persuade us that their view and only their view is correct whereas lecturers have to respect that students may have a different point of view to their own. Students look to lecturers as figures in authority wither expert knowledge, which puts a special obligation on us to respect views that are opposed to our own.


And, of course it helps to have a skeptical frame of mind (not the same as a cynical one). There’s no political position that’s unassailable, and it always helps to be on the lookout for flaws and weak spots in one’s own position. I think that ethos is the nearest we can get to objectivity in teaching.

Perhaps that’s the main difference between lecturing and electioneering: when you’re electioneering you hope you won’t be asked any hard questions, and when you’re lecturing you hope you will be. And the beauty of it is dealing with the hard questions in the seminar room or the lecture hall makes it easier to handle the ones thrown at you in election hustings.