Political polarization is on the rise. Civility is on the decline. Political rhetoric is inflammatory, often devoid of substance, and seeks to undermine the character of an individual, rather than their arguments.
When the upper echelons of political society propagate this destructive behavior, do they consider the example they are setting to the nation’s youth? Moreover, how can we work to reverse these alarming trends?
Though it is tempting to engage in finger-wagging and give sarcastic suggestions that our leaders need to return to the playground for a re-education in the first-grade principles of respect, responsibility, and moral choices, the true solution may actually lie within our schools.
Schools have always been engaged in the process of educating students for democratic participation. Their original existence was predicated upon a need for this type of instruction. Education for democracy takes many forms – from teaching about our founding principles, original leaders, mainstay institutions, and various presidencies to encouraging civic participation through service and political engagement.
Education for democracy in the 21st century, however, is becoming less about teaching the facts of history, civics, and government – though fundamental understandings are undeniably necessary – and more about teaching how to engage in meaningful civil debate about these past, present, and future issues.
To that end, teachers at the middle and high school levels should begin explicitly teaching students how to engage in structured, evidence-based debate. Not merely limited to social studies classes, debate has a role wherever controversies have been, are, or will be present.
Teachers could first use the most recent presidential debates as an example of what not to do in terms of civility, lack of evidence, and ad hominem attacks. They then could assign students perspectives on an issue that corresponds to their particular curricular area and teach the Lincoln Douglas debate format. The advantage of the Lincoln Douglas format is that it forces students to specifically define the criteria for which they are arguing and to use evidence to make their arguments and rebuttals.
In a 12th grade English course, a debate after reading Macbeth could center around the statements: “Ambition leads individuals to their destruction” or “Guilt for crimes is always shared.” Students would create affirmative and negative cases using evidence from the text. The benefit of preparing arguments from both sides, which the Lincoln Douglas format requires, is that students are forced to understand the evidence and arguments of their opponents. They cannot simply pick the side easiest to argue, or that which aligns with their preconceived notions about what they feel the answer should be.
Today’s debates (in politics and the classroom) tend to stagnate because they turn into a clash of opinions. The nature of an opinion is that it makes a judgment, but often we jump into these judgments without first examining the facts. Insofar as there is no external standard by which to measure some opinions as “better” than others, the debate cannot proceed and no “truth” or conclusion results. Moreover, our opinions are equated with our identity (i.e. what I think/believe makes me who I am), so disagreeing with someone’s opinion actually means protesting the person’s character.
Structured debate challenges students to leave the nebulous, cushy world of opinions and beliefs to foray into the more rugged territory of hard-hitting, evidence-based argument.
Our nation’s civil discourse would be well served by trying to do the same.
