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 former player, current coach, and overall fan of all things basketball I know

that it is impossible to prepare for the upcoming game without practice. Practice prepares

an individual player and the team as a whole, for what is expected of them comes game

time. 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 first

practicing, and practicing often; the same rule should apply toward preparing students to

tackle controversial issues. Without practice there can be no preparation.

In an era where parents and guardians are concerned with protecting children

from virtually everything that may be challenging, increasingly, difficult and

controversial subject-matter that challenges children are 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 seen 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 would learn to validate their own

conclusions while accepting opinions that may differ.

What this program sets out to do, is something that presently is not done enough

in schools – challenge students to think and support their views. Levels of controversy,

especially in issues dealing with sex, race, and religion are indeed more elevated than the

usual 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, we can

recognize that students experience much of the subjects adults try to shelter them from.

For example, it is very possible students in any given class have been victims of racism

or discrimination, or have been abused. Class discussion about these issues, while

potentially heated and possibly difficult to undertake, can be a valuable experience for all

involved. “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

closure. Students are taught from they begin school that there are right and wrong

answers. And oftentimes, there is no one singular answer or valid perspective concerning

controversial current issues; Gaudelli discusses this at length. I do not believe students

should walk from controversial discussions with the perception that the teacher’s view or

classes 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, because views and opinions always

differ from person to person. Even among people who agree with one another, there may

be degrees to their agreement to which they may see eye to eye.

So far, in my classroom, I have held class discussions on the issues of welfare,

gay marriage, illegal immigration, legalization of drugs and “snitching.” While,

obviously, I personally, have my own views on the issues, I believe it is important for

students to communicate their views in an unbiased, “safe” classroom atmosphere.

Arguments rarely result in this environment, but what is gained is a broader perspective

received by the students, and myself, the teacher. Many times students will argue

vociferiously for an opinion they hold, but when challenged as to their opinions’ origin,

rarely is it factually based, but more observatory. Teachers can, then, seize the

opportunity, not to change a child’s mind, but provide a wider context or explanation for

what the student believes they are witnessing. For example, during the discussion of

illegal immigration, a few of my students said, “I hate Mexicans.” When I was faced the

opportunity to say, “It’s wrong to hate”, or something politically correct, I responded by

saying, “Why is that.” That put a students off a bit when they actually had to explain the

origins of their hate. They said because, “They play their music in their cars loud.
They’re taking our jobs. They all think they’re tough and they stink.” Very immature

responses to say the least, but in their mind, valid reasons justifying their hatred for

Mexicans. Then I asked them, a class of black, Puerto Rican, and Domincan students,

“You mean to tell me, you black and Spanish people don’t go around thinking your

tough? You guys don’t play your music loud?” And about the 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

reframing the focus of the class’ view of hating Mexicans, to examining the origins for

their feelings, allows students evaluate the accuracy of the observations, and thus, the

accuracy of their opinions. This is all done without communitcating my own values and

opinions.

And of the teacher asking the students questions is a useful tool in illiciting

student conversation and promoting openness within the classroom. Students will not get

the impression that teacher or students are attempting to coerce them into conforming to

their beliefs 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 discussions and it is important teachers are aware of this

wield their power with caution. Depending on the age of students, the possibility of them

becoming offended or hurt during these discussions is present. From my observations,

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.