At different times in American history there's been a little more room for for controversial
discussion, and then it's been constricted, like in a staccato rhythm, like an accordion.
So in the progressive era that preceded the First World War, there was a little bit more
discussion and controversy in schools.
This was the era of the current events lesson, when the newspaper industry actually promoted
it, the lesson -- you'd cut out an article from a newspaper and come in and discuss it.
But then the United States entered World War I, and there was a rapid and massive constricting
of discussion.
Because during wartime, historically in this country, speech has been limited, and it was
extremely limited in schools.
And then, in the interwar period, that is, in the '20s and '30s, there was a little bit
more wiggle room.
During the Second World War and Cold War, much more constriction.
In the '60s and '70s, during the Vietnam and civil rights era, opening up a little bit,
but then starting in the '80s, constricting as well.
And there are different reasons for this across time.
But one of the through lines that we find is that during war especially, or times of
national crisis, the school boards and school officials are much more wary about allowing
teachers and kids to say what they think.
There is controversy in a democracy, if you haven't noticed, especially now.
And if our teachers aren't leading kids in discussions of controversies, the kids aren't
going to be educated in how to have a discussion.
I think especially at this moment, you turn on the TV, and you're told that after the
commercial break, there's going to be a debate about some subject -- immigration, health
care, whatever -- and then you watch what ensues, and you see four people shouting at
each other or past each other, really a set of sequential rants.
That's what our kids are going to think politics is unless our schools teach them how to engage
controversial issues in a fair-minded, tolerant, and reasonable way.
That's very difficult, and people won't learn to do it unless they're taught to do it.
If our teachers avoid controversial questions, our kids won't get the needed experience of
how to engage those questions.
If you interview American school teachers about their pre-service training, and you
ask them, 'As part of your preparation to become a teacher, did your teachers or your
university engage you in the question of controversial issues?
That is, were you taught how to teach about them?'
Most say no.
And I think that anybody who's going to be a teacher should have thought about, discussed,
and addressed precisely what we're talking about right now.
So I'm not saying there should necessarily be, quote, "a class" on how to talk about
controversial issues.
But I think all disciplines are defined by controversy.
English class is defined by, you know, what's love really?
History class is defined by: What is a democracy when you get right down to it?
These disciplines are defined by controversies, and I would say, rather than having a special
class on controversy that our teachers should be prepared to engage it as it arises in the
disciplines that are defined by it.
I do think that there's a danger whenever you engage in a controversial question of
indoctrination -- that is, of the teacher foisting her or his opinions on the student.
And frankly, this is another reason why we have to prepare teachers in this realm, because
they are the adult in the room, and I don't think they have to remain neutral, but I do
think that when they profess a political opinion, they have to identify it as such and also
make clear to the kids in the room that the kids are not enjoined to share.
So I think it's fine for a teacher to say, 'Look, I'm a political creature.
Just like everyone else in America, I have political attitudes.
But when I share them, I don't necessarily expect you to share them.'
I think that's another way, frankly, of modeling what it means to be a democratic citizen.
I have opinions.
I am not a neutral person.
But I also should not and do not demand that you share those opinions.
My job is to help you formulate your own.
I think it's happening at every level of education.
And I think one reason why in higher education we see so much self-censorship and so much
fear about engaging in controversial issues, which I think is really what the safe space
doctrine is about, it's about fear.
I think one reason is that people come after 18 years of schooling, right?
They've already had experiences -- or not -- surrounding these subjects, and it's more
not.
That is, they haven't been prepared in their K through 12 education in how to engage controversial
questions in a mutually respectful way.
So, in fact, we shouldn't be surprised that at the university level a lot of people simply
avoid doing that.
It's weird and scary, and it has the potential of blowing up into some social media screed
or attack.
Who wants that?