In a journalism class on editorial writing that I took in graduate school, I sat in a weekly meeting to choose topics for editorials to be published in the university's city newspaper. One editorial, for instance, that was suggested—and later published—took a position in favor of taking the swine flu vaccine—thought to be a relevant issue because the swine flu posed a real and present danger to the community. Another topic that was put forward, an opinion about an event in the Middle East—I can't remember which one—was immediately discouraged and labeled "Afghanistanism"—journalistic jargon for topics that the local readers would find remote and irrelevant.
Since the events of September 11, many topics that once seemed distant to us have claimed our attention—from terrorism by airplane to anthrax poisoning to the hatred of an obscure madman and a frightening culture antithetical to freedom and human rights. What do we teach our students about these events? What will help the next generation understand the causes of, and prevent, atrocities against law and society? What do we tell students that will help them deal with their fears about life-threatening events?
Writing in Education Week, Diane Ravitch makes a compelling case for teaching democracy (2001). An advocate for adding more history to the curriculum, she writes What our schools must do is to teach young people the virtues and blessings of our democratic system of government. Our ability to defend what we hold dear depends on our knowledge and understanding of it. If we value a free society, we must know about its origins and its evolution. If we value our rights and freedoms, we must understand how we got them and what it would mean to live in a society that did not have them. (p. 48)
Not to be misunderstood, Ravitch disavows teaching "multiculturalism," believing that an emphasis on differences feeds racial and ethnic tensions. Efforts to understand why others in the world hate Americans illogically blame the victim, she writes, and I reject the view that the murderous behavior of terrorists was linked in any way to what our students did not know about the terrorists' worldview or culture. (p. 48)
Jay Mathews, an education writer for the Washington Post, reasons along some of the same lines, but then diverges. Describing his own disenchantment with what he learned in school about Mao Zedong, whom he once viewed as a romantic rescuer, he writesI still worry that good-hearted teachers like the ones who taught me about China . . . will not say enough about the political and social pathologies that have produced our terrorist adversaries. Having seen anti-Americanism abroad first-hand, I know its roots are often not in poverty and ignorance, but in the power-lust and fanaticism of political organizations for which the word "evil" is accurate and appropriate. (2001)
Mathews then pays tribute to his history teacher who wanted to hear the students' voices and who provoked his classmates into defending their viewpoints. "I started opening my mouth. To the distress of many who know me, I have not closed it since" (Mathews, 2001).
Teaching students to debate and reason about different worldviews is teaching democracy, possibly more so than simply teaching the rightness of democratic ideals or an endorsement of patriotic verities. Just as we cannot go back to the naïveté of labeling what we do not understand as "Afghanistanism," we cannot accept a political correctness that stifles controversial views on topics that we wish students didn't have to think about.
This issue of Educational Leadership offers educators information about the law and its effects on school policy and practice. In a separate section, authors discuss how to teach students about the law and how to encourage civic participation. Judith Torney-Purta (p. 45) describes a survey of teens in 28 countries concerning their attitudes about government. This international study provides concrete evidence of the importance of a democratic atmosphere for discussion in the classroom. It is challenging to expect teachers to conduct controversial discussions while maintaining a strong content focus, especially in classrooms with students who hold different opinions and come from diverse backgrounds. But ignorance of the law is no excuse and can have devastating consequences.
