Cassandra Kobelski commented over the weekend on a recent post about one of the debates. I think she makes some really good points, and you should read her comment.
Anyway, I think we can make some valuable points with students that a lot of what this election has turned out to be is because of the fact that discourse in this country tends to be very limited. Students are not exposed to a lot of different views in k-12 or in college settings. There is a fear in k-12 of being accused of promoting any particular viewpoint. And, colleges do tend to ask speakers to come in who represent views they already have. Often, when colleges invite speakers with different views, there are protests until the speaker's invitation in revoked. This is all wrong.
There needs to be honest and open discussion of all views so that students can make up their own minds about issues, based on knowledge rather than mere opinion. This is difficult and requires a lot of planning on the part of a teacher/professor, but it sure would be worth it to have discussions based on the merits of any viewpoint rather than avoiding those conversations. This is also true with many of the ballot initiatives out there. I am no fan of legalizing marijuana or bringing in more charter schools, but I have researched both sides of each argument in preparing myself to vote. Are we doing enough of this in classrooms? Are we really looking at the real concerns of all sides in the presidential election and considering what each side really does want and why? If we do not, we cannot hope to heal this country afterward.
A real thought for me is that the whole process has gone a bit haywire. We have too many career politicians who are tied to their parties over the constituents. Something is wrong with that. Why do we have term limits for executives in government but not legislators? Are career legislators a good thing or a bad thing in a democracy? That would be a real interesting topic in a classroom.
No comments:
Post a Comment