This story was born from a series of “toots” on Mastodon
18 August 2026
I’ve been teaching English almost exclusively online now since 2020. At first, it was a little challenging to adapt all of the classroom activities my students were used to, but pretty soon I found a rhythm that worked. I’d find a news item, text- or audio-based, look for interesting language in it, write a few activities with it, then have the class read or listen to the original and discuss it before writing something in response. I never wasted time explaining the directions for a complicated activity, and our 90 minutes always passed at a good clip.
In one case, however, things did not go smoothly once I got deeper into writing the lesson.
This was going to be a reading-centric lesson. I had selected something from Annalee Newitz, whom we had actually seen in a video clip the other week. It’s about the abandonment of proto-urban settlements in the deep past and how it may mirror our relationship with the internet today. I wanted something related about social collapse for the video.
Hmmm…social collapse…deep history…who could possibly…
This looks like a job for Jared Diamond!
Duh!
I found a short interview with Diamond conducted by noted historian Bill Gates (yes, that Bill Gates) for audio content. Afterward, I hopped over to Diamond’s Wikipedia page to learn more about his book. There I was surprised to learn that this book, “Upheaval,” was heavily criticized. In fact, critics took up equal space with a summary of the work. I recognized one of the critics, Anand Giridharadas, and clicked on his piece from The New York Times.
According to Giridharadas, Diamond’s book is filled with factual errors and simplistic thinking. He liberally treats the populations of countries as homogenous entities, neglecting to mention dissent regarding issues such as racial segregation in Australia. His basic conceit is also somewhat laughable: can the techniques individuals use to navigate crises be applied to countries? Diamond says yes, while Giridharadas sighs and rolls his eyes.
Worst of all, Giridharadas shows that there’s something wrong in publishing more broadly when Diamond can get a book riddled with problems published while other scholars struggle. Indeed, he asserts that younger and minority historians wouldn’t be given the same deference for such sloppy work that Diamond has been.
Here is a work peddled in airports around the world, one where Diamond neglects to mention the perspectives of whole ethnic groups, to say nothing of women, just at a moment where more diverse perspectives are not just available but necessary.
It was hard to argue with that.
I went back and removed the Diamond (and Gates) interview and looked for a different voice. I ended up selecting an interview with American historian Jill Lepore, whom Giridharadas actually mentions in his review. I built my lesson around that. The class went well. My students may have even learned something!
She wrote it.
What’s for sure is that I did.
I don’t teach English, or sociology, or anything else for love of the subject. I teach for the sake of expanding students’ minds.
I was happy with this wrench thrown into my well-oiled curricular machine. It was extra work, yes, but it was also a reminder of the kind of habit of mind I want to encourage in others.
Don’t settle for what’s easy to access and believe.
Don’t trust the authorities that look like the authorities.
For the learner, and even more so for the teacher, take every claim to task.
It’s our job.