A teacher recently posted a Comment expressing concern about how certain students expressed homophobic/transphobic views in their written texts and also sexist/racially inappropriate /offensive comments in class discussions. She wanted to know if such expressions would affect marking in final oral and written exams. This comment raises a number of significant issues.

To start with, I have been unable to find any IB documentation which requires or specifies penalties in marking. I have rummaged around MyIB, but have not seen anything of the sort – has anyone else out there found anything? Certainly, examiners have a general instruction to report scripts which seem ‘suspicious’ – but this is usually considered to refer to malpractice of some sort, not to ‘offensive’ language and ideas. It is also worth noting that the Marking Criteria do not refer to any sort of ‘unsuitable’ ideas or expressions, and so marks cannot be deducted based on the criteria alone.

Behind the practical question of marking, there is the more profound issue of what we should do, as teachers of English B, when students express prejudiced and offensive ideas in speech or in writing. We would probably accept that the best way to encourage a good command of the language is to stimulate lively and free discussion in class, and expect students to ‘say what they mean, and mean what they say’. But are there limits, and if so, what are they?

What do we actually do if students come out with remarks which reveal nasty prejudices? Let us consider various options.

We can ban such expressions – “I don’t want to hear that sort of thing in my classroom”. However, banning will make the idea of ‘lively and free discussion’ seem hypocritical – students may think that ‘free’ means ‘saying things that the teacher likes’. In addition, banning actually excludes the issue from discussion, sweeps it under the carpet.

We can tolerate everything – “say what you like: you have a right to your opinions”. Maybe, but having the right to your opinion does not mean that the opinion has to be respected, and left unchallenged. Voltaire put it the other way around – "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" – but that does not include the notion of the duty to challenge offensive or dangerous ideas.

We can question such prejudices – “I hear what you say; so can you tell me exactly why you think like that?” This seems to me to be the most productive approach. It should start from initially conveying respect for the person: at least the courtesy of being interested in what he or she has said. This does not, of course, necessarily include respect for the ideas being proposed – but criticising the ideas should come later, after establishing an atmosphere of thoughtful dialogue. The approach of courteous questioning actually leads to the core issue: that prejudice is usually based on ignorance; and fostered by insecurities and fears.

We can start with ignorance: what does the prejudiced person actually know about the despised group? Do they know personally any homosexuals, for instance, or black people? And what do they know about the facts of such groups? These questions will first of all elicit stock, cliched answers, and these too need to be questioned and probed. Such questioning needs preparation – we will need texts which present different views: for instance, in the case of sexism, of how women see their position in the world. The value of texts and objective evidence is that it moves the discussion away from personal statements to win an argument, towards a more objective, outside view of the issue.

But what of the insecurities and fears which arguably form and drive, unconsciously, the formation of prejudices? Prejudices provide a distinction between the Others, who are foul and abnormal, and Us, who are cool and normal. This is a wide-spread human way of defining oneself, across the whole social and political spectrum. Can we address this sort of attitude in class? With difficulty, and only with tact and sensibility…if it can be done at all. You have to know a student very well if you attempt to intrude into personal insecurities – and if it is done publicly, there is the likelihood of simply starting a reaction in the sub-group which hold the prejudices as common belief.

So, while insecurity and fear may be the root cause, I would argue that the most practical approach is to improve knowledge – to put ideas and experiences in front of the prejudiced which should give them a wider, richer view of things. And that’s good stimulating teaching!