Academic Rigor Manifesto

 As a teacher, I have certain obligations to my students to provide the desired and sometimes paid-for education at a level of quality they can respect, as it becomes part of their professional identity. As a college undergraduate, I struggled to respect my education, and therefore I understand the harm that such flaccidity enacted upon the institution and myself. Institutional respect should not be based solely on tuition costs or enrollment standards; the first of these criteria being more or less arbitrary (although rates of professor pay will make noticeable differences in a field overall), and the latter being frequently restricted by familiarity with western cultural norms and neurotypicality.

The other primary tensions on traditionally defined rigor are kindness and inclusivity. I believe rigor and kindness are interrelated, and are ultimately a false dichotomy.

Academic rigor comes from holding students' work to unconditional standards reflective of their scholastic experience, standardized appropriate to the class topic and section. Teachers are obligated not only to hold student work to such standards, but to provide theoretical information and opportunity for praxis before making assessments of student work (except for purposes of gathering information about student preparedness, to be more efficient and for institutional assessment).

Courses with a physical component (such as dance, music performance, drama, practical agriculture, medicine, veterinary sciences, etc.) pose similar questions when it comes to student diversity of talent and experience. Is the purpose of the class exposure, or rigor? A ballet class, for instance, may require a student to successfully perform a double pirouette in order to achieve an A, or it may instead require x number of classes attended, and x number of independent hours in front of the mirrors or memorizing and mastering routines. A double pirouette requires rigor, while attendance provides exposure. The teacher or department may select either option depending on the purpose and prerequisites of the course. I hypothesize that courses expecting more diversity (general education, or introductory courses, for instance) should focus on exposing students to the discipline, and funnel talented students towards courses which emphasize rigor. But since attending a college or university assumes some level of previous education, all courses may comingle exposure with some level of rigor.

To accomplish academically rigorous tasks, a student must do a certain amount of intellectual work, and intellectual work should be expected of every student in every academic course. Each student may accomplish various tasks with differing levels of intuition, and should be prepared to interact with others whose instincts differ from theirs. Teachers naturally also expect their students to embody a variety of talents and experience. As rigorous standards are unconditional, these differences do not alter the standards to which their work is held, though it may become visible in the student's success at specific tasks. Talent and diversity may make certain tasks easier or more difficult for certain students, but it should not have quantitative effect on the academic rigor expected in a particular curriculum.

Absolute limits of academic rigor begin with and include physical disability accommodation. Disabilities Services offices provide the technological support and teacher training necessary to give any instructor a strong beginning toward making their course inclusive for visible disability, such as deafness, blindness, injury, etc. Invisible illness and neuroatypicalities are still essentially physical and sometimes require tutoring help or able-bodied assistance, but teachers should never diminish the rigor of the course for such accommodations. Teachers still provide the same information, and assess all student work on the same rubric or scale.

Mental disability may preclude a person from attending college or university, or from excelling in certain fields, in the same way that being in a wheelchair makes a ballet career. . . unprecedented, at best. Each individual must by nature of existence (adversity and agency being constant) choose where to concede and where to make a stand for their place in society. Teachers who value and uphold rigor should not compromise their standards for disadvantaged students, but may need to provide individualized mentoring or collaborative problem-solving, if possible. If it is not possible, that student should be referred to specialized professionals.

In the "mental" category, issues of emotional well-being with formalized diagnoses can also require accommodation through disability offices, but may be triggered, episodic, or temporary rather than chronic and consistent. World, national, local, or family events may compromise a student's ability to function at their accustomed quality or efficiency. Students may suddenly struggle to prioritize, may lapse in self-care and begin spiraling, or might experience brain fogs, various kinds of fatigue, sleep disorders, or addictions. Acknowledging and adapting to such events does not necessarily diminish rigor. Many stressors of new adulthood and traditional education are unnecessary or maladaptive. For example, the pressure to fill student's homework time with the expected "three hours per credit hour per week" can lead teachers to assign a quantity of work that does not proportionally improve the students' work quality. 

A positive example of pedagogical kairos (fitness for the situation) might be that an early-morning class with a strict attendance requirement might adapt to a serious cultural stressor like Daylight Savings by going online for one or two days, allowing students to complete work on their own time and get a little extra sleep until they're better able to cope. In making such accommodations, a teacher should be careful of two things: firstly, such accommodations should apply to all students in the section, so that each student is held to the same standards as their cohort; secondly, the teacher should articulate the purpose and scope of the adjustment (preferably in writing) so that all students are able to decide how best to take advantage. Transparency and vulnerability in class discussions can aid students in articulating their needs.

Individual students may need to make difficult decisions about their time and energy resources that may ultimately compromise their grades, or they may resort to dishonesty to preserve their GPA while compromising their integrity. Such prioritizing is a life skill. Younger students especially, but all students may require mentoring from teachers in skills adjacent to the topics articulated in the course syllabus. These skills may include ethics, teamwork and social interaction standards (avoiding the frequently weaponized "professionalism"), mental discipline, prioritizing time and energy resources, or self-care. Teachers may advise or mentor students, but teachers are not ultimately responsible for another adult's decision, even slightly. Teachers should strive to prevent disappointment and frustration from reducing academic rigor overall. If a teacher is open to the possibility that their curriculum might be "too difficult" or "too simple" for their students, reliable feedback is available through department support, peer mentoring, and teacher training. Some departments may also offer "grade norming" workshops or syllabus critiques. There are also always professional groups on all social media platforms that can offer valuable informal information about standard teaching practices at various institutions.

I can fairly maintain academic rigor and the value of assessment scores by thoughtfully choosing tasks students are required to accomplish, and skills they are required to demonstrate mastery of. I can keep up-to-date on sociological and pedagogical studies on effective techniques in order to better prioritize which tasks can be adapted, and how. I can formalize my assessment methods in a syllabus and rubrics, and be open to transparency and adaptability about such decisions. I can articulate to students in private conversation and email that they are not an exception and that I apply all the same standards to all my students.

I can alleviate unnecessary anxiety among my students by being both consistent in my standards, and adaptable in my methods, and by transparency about my reasoning. I can consistently scaffold my pedagogy with reminders about the encompassing goals of the course, the university, and education generally.

These concepts demonstrate an uncompromised dedication to academic rigor, which is itself a form of kindness. And yet our level of knowledge about mental and emotional illness and the rippling and multi-generational effects of trauma call for attention at all levels of the institution, from accreditation agencies to this morning's writing session with my seventeen attending students. I am responsible for my own kindness alone, and I can maintain my character, my integrity, by loving, by listening, and by growing into my knowledge and my vast desire to do right by those I serve. In the end, no amount of self-righteous academic rigor will save me from hell if I am not also kind.