Emily Robertson - The case for contention : teaching controversial issues in American schools

In 1947, the California State Senate considered a measure that would have barred the teaching of controversial issues in public schools. No publication of a sectarian, partisan or denominational character... shall be used or distributed in any school library, the measure declared, nor shall any sectarian or denominational doctrine or politically controversial subject be taught in any school. The proposal generated an amusing satire by San Francisco Chronicle columnist Royce Brier, who imagined a future class called Skipping Around American History. Its teacher began by asking the class about George Washington; in reply, young Johnny noted that Washington was the richest man in America, or almost. That earned a rebuke from the teacher, who warned Johnnyand his friend Maryto steer away from potentially divisive subjects:

TEACHER: Johnny. We dont use the word rich here. We certainly dont discuss the social status of heroes like George Washington, for that would be controversial.

MARY: He won the Revolution.

TEACHER: Thats right.... But be careful of that word. Lets call it the War of Independence. Independence is something everybody wants, and not controversial.

JOHNNY: I think slavery was race prejudice, dont you?

TEACHER: Around here, its a ticklish subject, and I would advise you not to think about it.

MARY: Woodrow Wilson sure stopped the Bolsheviks.

JOHNNY: If he did, whats Harry Truman doing still trying to stop them?

TEACHER: Children, this is a wholly improper discussion of modern history. If you continue thinking along these controversial lines you will never grow up to be intelligent American citizens.

The joke, of course, was on proponents of the measure, which threatened to inhibit the true skills of intelligent citizenship: debate, deliberation, and discussion. It also came on the cusp of the Cold War, which placed severe restrictions on expression and dissent across the American polity. Today, our societyand our schoolswould appear much more open to debate about controversial questions. Cable-news channels and Internet chat rooms blare with discussions of every conceivable public issue, from same-sex marriage and human-made climate change to gun control and police brutality. Meanwhile, many school districts and state education agencies have official policies that seek to promotenot to preventclassroom instruction about controversial issues. Indeed, controversy has become a central hallmark of modern America. We live in a roiling, rough-and-tumble political culture marked by endless debate and discussion. And we ostensibly prepare future citizens for that dialogue in our schools, where there is a strong consensus in support of teaching about the questions that divide us.

But a closer look clouds this sunny picture. Too many of the debates on our airwaves devolve into screaming matches in which combatants exchange insults rather than ideas. In our school classrooms, meanwhile, controversial issues arise far less frequently than our official policies and prescriptions would suggest. Part of the problem lies in the lowly status of American teachers, who often lack the professional trainingand, in some cases, the legal protectionto engage in discussions of hotly contested public questions. Nor do they have much time for these discussions in their daily routines, which are increasingly dominated by test preparation and the other demands of federal and state accountability laws. Despite our overall consensus on teaching controversial issues, moreover, we have little agreement on which issues are legitimate topics for school classrooms. Should we debate recent religious freedom initiatives that would give citizens the right to discriminate against gay coupleseven though some students might have gay parents, or might be gay themselves? Should we ask whether human activity alters the earths climate, when nearly every known expert on the subject confirms that it does?

This book frames a case for teaching controversial issues in schools, and for excluding those issues that are not truly controversial. To merit discussion in the classroom, we argue, an issue must be the subject of conflict among knowledgeable persons, and it must matter, deeply, to members of the general public. As public opinion changes, so do appropriate topics for instruction. In 1947, when California considered barring controversial issues from its schools, the question of state-sponsored racial segregation was hugely controversial; today, it is not. No reasonable teacher would engage students in a discussion about the moral legitimacy of segregation, and no decent community would countenance it. But we do have a widespread debate over same-sex marriage, especially the question of whether laws that recognize gay marriage might inhibit the religious liberty of objectors. Recently, states have passed or considered measures to allow florists and other businesses to deny services to gay couples on religious grounds. Public perceptions of same-sex marriage are changing rapidly, and we might soon reach the point that Americans view discrimination against gay couples as the moral equivalent of discriminating against racial minorities. But we have not reached that point yet, as recent legislative debates confirm. So religious objection to gay marriage needs to be discussed in our schools, which are charged with preparing intelligent American citizensas Royce Brier called themwho can arrive at their own reasoned opinions about contested public questions.