Controversia Issuesl

Keith Benson Civics, Citizenship, and Social Education 11.21.2006 Dr. Beth Rubin How do we prepare students to tackle controversial issues? Is it possible to foster critical dialogue in the classroom without offending anyone? As a current coach, and overall fan of all things basketball, I know that it is impossible to prepare for future games without practice. Practice prepares individual players and the team as a whole, for what is expected comes game time. And, during the hot summer months, when school is out and the official scholastic basketball season has long concluded, basketball players around the country can be found inside gymnasiums and outdoor courts exerting maximum effort to sharpen their skills for the returning basketball season in the winter. Players and coaches alike know practice builds physical strength, increases muscle memory and bolsters players’ intellectual capacity in the sport. And, as no team in the country competes in a game without practicing before and often, the same rule should apply toward preparing students to confront contemporary controversial issues. Without practice there can be no preparation – for anything. In an era where parents seem increasingly concerned with protecting children from everything that may be challenging, difficult and controversial subject-matter that challenges children are also being avoided. In Melinda Fine’s, “You Can’t Just Say That the Only Ones Who Can Speak Are Those Who Agree With Your Position”, she writes “Conservative activists attacked the Facing History and Ourselves program precisely because it encourages adolescents to reflect critically on current social issues.” The Facing History and Ourselves program, as Fine describes in her essay, is a curriculum that examines historical events and draws comparisons to more current events and issues.

The goal behind this program is to make students aware that past events that seem completely irrelevant to their present lives, are much more connected and tangible than they appear. Further, students are to focus on these controversial issues and arrive at their own conclusions and value judgments, communicate them, and hear other student’s views. And in hearing other student’s opinions, while holding their own opinions, students will learn to validate their own conclusions while being able to accept opinions that may differ. What this program sets out to do, is something that presently is not done enough in schools – engage young people to think about, and support, their views. Levels of controversy, especially in issues dealing with sex, race, and religion are indeed more elevated than the usual milquetoast subjects covered in traditional classrooms and textbooks. But the reaction of sheltering students from difficult subject matter due the potential of frustration and discomfort does not seem to be the answer. Fine writes, “Students are most certainly able to handle discomfort, disagreement, and heated discussion in the learning process and are more resilient than most adults believe.” If we look at students’ lives, holistically speaking, we can recognize that students have some experience in many of the subjects from which adults try to shelter them. For example, it is very possible students in any classroom have been victims of racism or discrimination, or experienced some form of abuse. Class discussion about these issues, while potentially heated and possibly difficult to facilitate, can be a valuable experience for all involved. Fine writes, “One cannot possibly avoid bringing into the classroom issues over which society is still divided because students themselves are well aware of these issues and hungry to discuss them with their peers.”

Also, it seems too much emphasis is placed on arriving at the right answer; or arriving at some form of closure. Students are taught from the beginning of their school experience that there are always right or wrong answers. Contrary to prior classroom norms, oftentimes there is no one singular answer or valid perspective concerning controversial current issues; Gaudelli discusses this at length. Furthermore, I do not believe students should walk away from controversial discussions with the perception that the teacher’s view or class’ view is the one that should be adopted. Students should be made to feel confident in their views, so long as they are factually grounded as views always differ from person to person. Even among people who agree with one another, there may be degrees in their respective agreements to which they may not see eye to eye. So far, in my classroom, I have held class discussions on welfare, gay marriage, illegal immigration, legalization of drugs and abortion. While I, personally, have my own views on these issues, I believe it is important for students to communicate their views in an unbiased, “safe” classroom atmosphere. Classroom arguments rarely result in this environment, but what is gained is a broader perspective communicated and received by the students, and the teacher. Many times students will argue vociferously for an opinion they hold, but when challenged as to their opinions’ origin, rarely is it factually based, but more observatory. Teachers have the opportunity, not to change a child’s mind, but provide a context or explanation for what the student believes he/she is witnessing. For example, during the discussion of illegal immigration, a few of my students said, “I hate Mexicans.” Instead of saying, “It’s wrong to hate”, or something comparable to that, I responded by saying,

“Why do you hate Mexicans.” That put most students off when they were asked to explain the origins of their hate. Some said because, “They play their music in their cars loud. They’re taking our jobs. They all think they’re tough and they stink.” To me, these were very immature responses to say the least, but in their minds, valid reasons justifying their hatred for Mexicans. Then I asked them, a class of black, Puerto Rican, and Dominican students, “You mean to tell me, black and Spanish people don’t go around thinking your tough? You guys don’t play your music loud?” And about the grievance of taking of jobs I said, “If you all have families, and your family is struggling in America, and you know that in Canada, more opportunities exist for you and your children, you mean to tell me, you’d stay here and suffer instead of moving to Canada?” The class unanimously responded, “I’m going to Canada”. Obviously, hating a group of people is not a good thing, or the right thing. But by reframing the focus of the class’ view of hating Mexicans to examining the origins for their feelings, students then evaluated the accuracy of their observations, and thus, the accuracy of their opinions. This was done without communicating my own values and opinions. The Socratic method of teachers asking students questions are a useful tool in eliciting student conversation and promoting openness within the classroom. Students will not get the impression that teachers or students are coercing them into conformity if questions are asked rather than the teacher making statements. Gaudelli, comments that within the classroom, the teacher has the most power. The power teachers have in manipulating the flow of discussion is real. And it is important teachers are aware of this and wield their power with caution. While the opportunity for students to feel offended at

times is present, from my observation, students rarely have negative reactions to heated discussions. Classroom discussions, especially in instances where students feel strongly about an issue, can be wonderful opportunities to foster understanding and sensitivity.