Faculty return to the classroom to engage in immigration discussion
Earlier this semester, more than 20 St. Olaf College faculty members participated in a three-day seminar where they grappled with the complex question of immigration.
The topic of immigration is incredibly nuanced, and the seminar co-leaders, Assistant Professor of Education Jill Watson and Professor of Religion and Philosophy and Morrison Family Director of the Institute for Freedom and Community Edmund Santurri, worked to help the group delve deep into questions, compare perspectives, and share disagreements and insights.
Santurri built a reading syllabus that touched on multiple perspectives and inspired thoughtful conversation — including works by such authors as American studies and ethnicity professor Natalia Molina, law professor Jan C. Ting, sociology professor Jane Freedman, author Michael Lind, and political commentator and journalist Peter Beinart, among many others.
Watson, who specializes in refugee-immigrant education and recently taught the education course, Who is My Neighbor? Ethics of Refugee and Immigrant Education, was pleased with the tenor of conversation among her peers. With the readings in hand, “the discussions were heartfelt and engaging with a very wide range of viewpoints expressed,” she explains.
Associate Professor of History Jeane DeLaney found that the syllabus and subsequent discussions spurred more questions. “Are we a nation defined by a common culture rooted in our Anglo/European past into which immigrants must assimilate, or are we a nation defined by a common set of political values and loyalties that can tolerate a great deal of cultural and ethnic diversity? Which definition one embraces very much shapes one’s views on immigration. Immigration is a complex topic that strikes at the very heart of our national identity,” she says.
Associate Professor of History Jeane DeLaney
Are we a nation defined by a common culture rooted in our Anglo/European past into which immigrants must assimilate, or are we a nation defined by a common set of political values and loyalties that can tolerate a great deal of cultural and ethnic diversity? Which definition one embraces very much shapes one’s views on immigration. Immigration is a complex topic that strikes at the very heart of our national identity.
Insights like these can be difficult to process in a vacuum. The diversity of academic departments represented at the seminar aided in unpacking these interdisciplinary questions. For instance, when considering the economic impact of immigrants, DeLaney was grateful to hear from economists in the room. “How this is measured, who benefits and who loses, is complicated,” she says.
Santurri agreed. “I appreciate that faculty brought to bear their own diverse normative and disciplinary perspectives in vibrant, earnest, respectful conversation and debate over the issues,” he says.
As anticipated, the variety of opinions present in the room inspired participants to shift their perspectives on immigration and question easy answers. “My own liberal tendencies were tested and challenged,” explains Professor Emeritus of Religion John Barbour. “I now have a better understanding of why it is so difficult for various positions to compromise on immigration issues. In my view, this seminar realized well the purpose of the Institute to promote civil dialogue and fair-minded assessment of contentious issues.”
These types of conversations are the essence of the Institute’s mission. Established at St. Olaf in 2014, the Institute for Freedom and Community encourages free inquiry and meaningful debate of important political and social issues. The faculty seminar is hosted by the Institute and tied to the Institute’s spring public program of guest speakers, which works to explore the theme “Who Is My Neighbor? Immigration, Freedom, and Community.”
Watson acknowledged that talking about immigration is not easy. “Good, intelligent people have a range of views on immigration, and, in some cases, are seeking a way to express feelings of American nationalism without xenophobia,” she observes.
We are all better situated than we had been to comprehend the strengths and weaknesses of the various positions in the debate and thus better situated to orient our students’ reflection on this exceedingly difficult social issue.Morrison Family Director of the Institute for Freedom and Community Edmund Santurri
“It was a rich experience for me and, I trust, for all the seminar participants,” says Santurri. “We are all better situated than we had been to comprehend the strengths and weaknesses of the various positions in the debate and thus better situated to orient our students’ reflection on this exceedingly difficult social issue.”