There is a line in one of my favourite John Travolta movies, Phenomenon, that points out that essentially, people everywhere are made of the same basic stuff. If this is the case, then events that occur in one part of the world should affect everyone else. So why were the events of September 11, 2001 ignored in the class I teach? In contrast, a similarly shared event, the Y2K computer scare, was a much more constant topic of academic discussion in 1999 and 2000. My contribution to this issue of CORE outlines some of the similarities and differences between September 11, 2001, and New Year's Eve 1999, in the hopes of explaining why the former was neglected.
For the past three years, I have been a TA for a full-year fourth-year course in the Department of Psychology at York. This course is called "Advanced Research in Psychology." Students who wish to graduate with an honours degree in psychology must either complete an independent thesis, or complete this course. Although professors may vary how they design the course and the material they choose to include, the basic premise is to provide a class in which students may pursue a research topic and write a thesis. It is a challenging course, for the students, the TA, and the Course Director. In eight months, students must learn the basics of experimental methodology for psychology, review pertinent literature, design a study, create consent forms and ethics proposals, recruit and test participants, analyse data, and then write everything up according to APA (American Psychological Association) guidelines in the form of a thesis.
When I was a TA for this course for the first time, the Y2K computer scare associated with midnight, January 1, 2000, was looming in front of us. It was talked about in class, especially as the fall term was coming to a close. Since it was relevant to talk about computer problems as the students were entering data and writing their theses on computers, the topic was addressed several times throughout the term. Students would bring the topic up, wanting to know what more they could do to protect their work. There was a great deal of anticipation involved, as the timing of the event was, at the very least, predictable. The consequences did not seem as severe as death, since people could avoid taking a train or plane on the night of December 31, 1999 if they were worried. The media had spent time talking about the possible consequences, so people were informed about what they could do to prepare. Furthermore, emotions were not significantly involved, as the feared event had not yet occurred. Some students seemed more worried than others, but no one was missing classes or talking about it in an emotionally-charged manner.
Y2K was a shared event as all students in the class, as well as the TA and course director, might have been affected in somewhat similar ways. Further, it was a shared event internationally, with no specific geographical point on which to focus our collective attention. The forthcoming event was so interesting to one student in the class that she changed her thesis topic suddenly in December, in order to examine people's expectations and worries surrounding Y2K. The student collected all her data in a two-day span (before and after midnight on New Year's Eve) and submitted an excellent thesis.
So, in comparison, why was there an absence of discussion over the events of September 11th? Some people would argue that this event was much more important than Y2K. One of the most important reasons for the lack of discussion is that the event did not seem relevant to teaching the experimental methodology being covered at that time in the course. I had no idea how to bring the event into a discussion on sampling procedures or counterbalancing, for example. The students also seemed a bit relieved to not have to talk about it – they were discussing it with their peers in hallways, watching the news on television sets around campus, and in general, being inundated with discussions. Perhaps it was a relief to come to class and think about methodology rather than war. Not one student brought the issue into any class discussion. It was a very emotional event; some students seemed much more affected than others, and it may therefore have been a personal experience that students did not wish to share with a class. In general, September 11th did not seem to have the equally-shared effects of Y2K.
With September 11th there was a great deal of finger-pointing in every direction, with the target of the finger dependent on the student's feelings of allegiance. Instead of anticipating an event, all feelings were reactionary. The results of the event were serious, involving death, racism, the destruction of monumental buildings, and the invasion of Afghanistan. But still, no one chose to do a thesis study on the event. Perhaps no one felt emotionally ready to do an objective investigation of the event, or could figure out a way to avoid politics and instead construct a scientific inquiry.
There is also a personal reason underlying why I did not intentionally bring the events of September 11th into any class discussion. Humanity has a history of war. In the last decade, there has been war occurring throughout many parts of the world, involving death tolls far exceeding those of September 11th (in the east Congo, for example). I felt that if I talked about one event, I would have to talk about others, simply because to not do so would be placing more importance or higher value on the USA's situation. This discussion would have taken significant amounts of time away from the pre-planned discussions on experimental design, statistics, and similar topics, preventing me from fulfilling my role as a TA in psychological research methodology.
Perhaps a few readers of CORE will believe that I made a mistake by not addressing the events of September 11th and by not leading the class through a discussion. I would argue that I fulfilled my role as a TA to the best of my ability. Students came to class to discuss certain material, develop their critical skills, and learn about psychology. Since no student brought the event to any discussion, I do not believe that I should have done so, as it was likely that the students were processing the event, and thinking about it, at a very personal level. I think that as TAs we should not only teach content and critical skills, but also follow the lead of our students and become part of the discussion rather than always the initiator.