Here is an op-ed piece in the WP that ties in with the dustup in Maine.
washingtonpost.com
Neutrality in The Classroom
By Jonathan Zimmerman
Monday, March 3, 2003; Page A19
Last fall the nation's largest state teachers union voted to denounce White House policy toward Iraq. Warning that President Bush "is seeking any pretext to overthrow the government of a sovereign nation," the California Federation of Teachers declared that an American attack on Iraq would squander "vital resources" in pursuit of a "destructive, senseless, and illegal goal."
Teachers unions in several cities followed suit. Here in Washington, for example, the local union urged members "to get involved with organizations working toward stopping the Bush administration's march toward war with Iraq."
The unions might be correct in their estimation of the president and his policies. As a teacher, however, I would never sign such a resolution. And if America does go to war, I would urge the unions to avoid any official statements -- negative or positive -- about it.
Why? The answer lies in the special role of teachers in a democracy. Quite simply, our job is to help people learn how to think. And we'll never succeed if we tell them what to think -- about America, Iraq or anything else.
This type of talk sparks high-voltage hyperbole among conservatives, who respond with charges of "anti-Americanism" and its close cousin, "relativism." Especially during wartime, the right says, schools need to ensure that students support the nation. And if teachers can't make any moral claims at all -- if all truths are up for discussion -- then America itself will sink into a quagmire of fear, weakness and skepticism.
But an honest, open classroom discussion hardly presupposes an absence of common American values. Rather, it requires these values -- especially reason, tolerance and a commitment to personal liberty. Indeed, the right-wing effort to restrict discussion clashes directly with our country's most hallowed traditions. You cannot celebrate America as a land dedicated to individual freedom of thought and then tell every individual what to think.
On the left, meanwhile, activists are more likely to invoke the rhetoric of discussion and deliberation. Even as the California teachers union attacked Bush's policies on Iraq, for example, spokesmen insisted that they only wanted to "get students thinking about the issue." But how can you get them thinking about a question if you have already told them the correct answer?
Remember, we're talking about children and adolescents here. They take their cues from adults -- especially adults with the authority to evaluate them. Once they sense the teacher's bias, any "discussion" will inevitably assume the same slant.
In their resolutions on Iraq, the teachers unions aimed to strike a blow against the right. Inadvertently, however, the unions showed how much they share with their conservative opponents. Neither side really wants students to arrive at their own conclusions; instead, both sides want to impose a predetermined conclusion on every student.
If the United States attacks Iraq, teachers will face massive pressures to support the war -- or at least to "support our troops." By condemning the war before it starts, however, the unions have made it even more difficult to maintain their neutrality during any conflict that ensues. Schools do not exist to promote war, peace or any other national initiative. Their first job is to help Americans analyze these choices for themselves.
The writer teaches history and education at New York University. He is the author of "Whose America? Culture Wars in the Public Schools."
washingtonpost.com |
