"The one thing you can never be wrong about is your own opinion. It's when you start giving your reasons that you lay yourself open." -- Roger Ebert
From a very good blog by Ebert about the film "Inception." Specifically, he addresses how various people are shaming those minority negative reviewers of the film. "How dare you dislike a movie I loved!", etc. Check it out here: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/07/the_myth_of_a_perfect_film.html.
I agree that you can't be "wrong" about your own opinion. That's the "your" part. The opinion part, however, is where "you lay yourself open" as he says.
But you can't very well share your opinion without explanation. Giving only your opinion without reasons is hardly accepted by those with whom you're having a conversation---especially if they're of the opposite opinion.
As I taught my summer school students when comparing FACT vs OPINION, a fact can be proven true, while an opinion cannot. Similarly, a fact cannot be argued, while an opinion can. Would we say that an opinion exists to be argued against? Might we say that an opinion doesn't exist unless there is some way you could argue against it?
* * *
I've had a blast teaching summer school these past few weeks. By focusing on writing a single persuasive essay, instead of trying to read and analyze a novel or memorize out-of-context vocab words, I've seen them reach some real depth of thinking instead of skimming on top of the learning surface. It was inspired for me to let them pick their own topics for their persuasive essays instead of assigning "Should your school get rid of the pop machines" or "What do you think about school uniforms" or, my favorite, "Recycling." Most importantly, those topics would bore ME, which boredom is painfully obvious if you try and teach through.
It's important for me to pick interesting things to teach so THEY will have interesting things to learn. I basically gave them half a day on the iTouch to muse around news sites online and find a topic that really interests them. They range from the existence of aliens to texting while driving to the legalization of marijuana to the fairness of Arizona's now-infamous new law.
I'm happy I didn't shy away from topical, relevant issue of immigration. I'd debated whether to bring it up in class but I knew they were all thinking about it - this was the same week "The List" came out (leaked list of 1,300 names, addresses, and SSNs of allegedly illegal immigrants in Utah). It was filled with mostly Hispanic names, and I have mostly Hispanic students. And they were worried. (I never asked if they were worried for themselves or for family members - I don't feel like it's my place to know, or even if it's legal for me to know, whether they are here within or outside the law. If they're in my classroom, I'm going to teach them.)
So I was pleased to see that they weren't scared of such a big topic, either. One student is writing on the treatment of immigrants in general; another is arguing that Utah should not adopt an Arizona-like law; and another narrowed the topic down to: Those 2 workers who leaked that "list" information should be criminally charged for violation of privacy laws.
It's still a question in my mind how much I let them know my opinion, and how much I stay neutral to let them form their own. Usually I'd bring up a topic---like "Should euthanasia on animals in shelters be performed by lethal injection or with poisonous gas?"---and discuss both sides, the facts and reasonings for both sides, and how each side might try to prove the other side false. Ultimately, the discussion will come to, "Well, what do YOU think, Ms Sheffield?' (The summer school people didn't get my new name in time.) I'll be honest - I usually hedge away from that question. I change the subject, or just say "That's not the question. The question is what do YOU think, and how can you back it up?" or "We don't have to pick a side. We're looking at the pros and cons of both." Am I pansying out? Or should I continue to stay behind a professional veil and not reveal my personal opinions?
And now we're back at the beginning. Because usually when I have an opinion, it's rooted deep in my religious foundation. So if they get my opinion, and they inevitably ask for reasons why.... well, I probably don't need to ask if I should share those or not. . . . Do I?
One last thought on the Ebert quote: You definitely need to have some kind of reasoning for your opinion. And to have considered both sides. One of my students wanted to write about the new Jazz lineup - specifically, how wrong it was for them to sign Raja Bell again. "He's a terrible player, we don't need him, they should've picked someone better" were some of his reasons. So I had him look up evidence, player stats and expert analysis, that sort of thing (that I could give more opinion on had I any lingering interest in pro basketball). The next day he raised his hand and informed me he was switching his topic. Now he's writing on why he supports the Jazz in re-signing Raja Bell. And he has the facts to prove it. I hope.
