Abstract

This paper seeks to clarify the advocacy/neutrality debate and to defend a particular form of pedagogical neutrality. What is often referred to as “advocative pedagogy” is really a range of positions, some of which even conflict. Furthermore, there are at least two distinct models of neutrality in the debate. The author identifies and clarifies various models of advocacy and neutrality, arguing that the significant debate to be had is not between advocacy and neutrality generally, but between partisan advocacy and procedural neutrality specifically. The author defends procedural neutrality, responding to critics that hold it responsible for student relativism, skepticism, cynicism, and alienation. The author argues that procedural neutrality is desirable, despite not being perfectly attainable, and that it is even compatible with a certain type of advocacy.