I like the idea of "a modest and critical approach to inclusive teaching" but I don't see why the "potential language shifts around inclusive teaching" needs to be so much longer and wordier than the alternative language it's replacing. I mean, I get that we probably shouldn't say "we are inclusive" or "we are a leader in x group inclusion". These presume that we have been successful in our efforts, when in all likelihood there have been exceptions to that success. But a modest attitude doesn't have to mean a verbose attitude. Why not say what we do instead of what we are?
Today: 0 Total: 1152 [Direct link] [Share]
