Critical pedagogy, ideology, and pragmatism in the teaching of writing

When choosing topics and desiging teaching units and assignments, should composition teachers address controversial topics (e.g. immigration, racial profiling, sexism, homophobia, proverty, the occupy movement, the death penalty)? Or should composition teachers steer clear of such topics?

Contemplating this question in light of Hariston's article and the responses it provoked has me wondering more about how to address controversial topics than whether to do so.  I think this whole debate is really fascinating and a little bit shocking, and I'm surprised to find myself in agreement with some of Hairston's points (though I equally enjoyed and appreciated the responses).  There is a lot that I would like to say about Hairston and my impression of her opinions.  She very blatantly and subtly addresses many layers of this pedagogical issue.  The heart of her argument though, seems to be that teachers do not have the right to "use classrooms as platforms for their own political views."  Though I'm in favor of addressing controversial topics in a writing course, I can't say I disagree with her on this.  

Hairston argues that controversial topics should not be teacher generated, but instead, such topics should organically emerge (for lack of a better word) from the students.  Her take on a multicultural classroom seems a bit idealistically stereotypical however, and surely teachers can provide topics without forcing their own personal views upon students.  I like the suggestion of having my students write about controversial topics which I might not already have strong personal opinions about, and while I believe that there are appropriate times for students to generate their own topics, sometimes specific prompts can be provided as well.  In a writing class, students should learn to communicate clearly about realistic issues, and in the real and academic worlds, sometimes we benefit from knowing how to write about issues we did not choose to face.  

My experience with controversial topics in ESL and EFL classrooms has always been really positive, as long as students feel safe and respected the classroom.  Frequently, while teaching abroad in a certain location, my students expressed opinions I strongly disagreed with (and actually perceived to be blatantly racist).  I always struggled with this, and still don't really know the answer, but on some level felt that I was there to teach students how to communicate and not what to communicate.  A grammar lesson was not my opportunity force my beliefs on my students.  

Interestingly, since reading this article, I've noticed that quite few teachers around here do use their classrooms (particularly grammar classrooms) as spaces to express (to put it lightly) their own political views.  Just yesterday in a class we were given a political speech as an example of content which can teach the present perfect tense, and I seem to recall a lot of tree diagraming that revolved around politics.  In both cases, the professors' political opinions were not exactly a secret.  I can't say I'm usually bothered by this though, and I think Hariston's opinions of students in terms of how they might be affected is a little condescending towards them.  That said, I don't feel that it is appropriate for a composition or ESL instructor to put a personal political agenda into a lesson which is meant to teach students how to speak for themselves.