Teaching in a Time of War

A Rethinking Schools Editorial

Summer 2003

Teaching during a war magnifies a dilemma for educators: how to deal with controversial matters in the classroom. In the past few months, educators at all levels have grappled with this issue, and we at Rethinking Schools have received considerable feedback - both positive and negative - on the "Teaching About the War" emphasis in our spring issue and on our website (www.rethinkingschools.org/war).

Among our critics, some feel that schools should focus on the traditional curriculum and ignore world events. Others argue that controversial issues may be studied in the classroom so long as instruction is "balanced," and the teacher remains "neutral." Still others have suggested that certain Rethinking Schools editors should immediately quit teaching and move to Iraq or France.

Although the call for a "balanced" curriculum is seductive, it is not a helpful way to frame our responsibilities as educators. "Balance" is a term that conjures images of fairness, equality, and justice. But it incorrectly suggests a two-sided inquiry: "We need to expose our students to both sides of the issue," we recently heard one school principal say.

But which two sides are those? Reducing social conflicts to just two sides and insisting that educators' task is to even-handedly balance these two sides may be one route to avoid controversy, but it should not be our aim. Education is about making explanations - asking why things happen - and exploring alternatives, not about finding and then balancing two sides to an issue. Deciding in advance that every issue has two sides to "balance" is at best formulaic, at worst propagandistic.

For example, an investigation into the war in Iraq should begin with lots of questions. Teachers might ask: Who has supported this war and why? Who has opposed it and why? Historically, what has motivated U.S. policy toward Iraq? Are the stated reasons for the war - to halt the production of weapons of mass destruction, to liberate oppressed people from a brutal dictatorship, etc. - pursued by U.S. policymakers with equal vigor throughout the world? Does U.S. conduct match these supposed objectives? Who benefited from this war? Who suffered? What is the significance of oil in this conflict? How have different media "constructed" the war for the U.S. public?

A critical inquiry such as this does not fit neatly into the "both sides of the story" model. In short, our aim should be creating a pedagogy of questions that strives to promote a deep understanding of the world, not some abstract idea of "balance."

It's not surprising that the demand for our curriculum to be "balanced" resurfaces at moments when the dominant or traditional story is under attack. When social movements challenge bias, inequality, or war, school officials (and these days, right-wing radio talk show hosts) begin the balance mantra. It's often an attempt to silence criticism. By contrast, when is the last time someone in a position of authority demanded that military recruiters on campus be "balanced" by the presence of War Resisters League activists or that the Pledge of Allegiance be "balanced" by critical discussions of the Pledge's imperial and anti-immigrant origins in the late 19th century?

POLITICAL DECISIONS

The call for balance during the second Gulf War reflects a broader conservative vision that education should be neutral. But as historian Howard Zinn once wrote, "In a world where justice is maldistributed there is no such thing as a neutral or representative recapitulation of the facts."

Every curriculum begins from certain assumptions about the world, even if these may not be conscious. And, teachers make countless political decisions every day. For example, when a teacher puts up a Thanksgiving bulletin board instead of one that truthfully examines Columbus's encounter with the Taínos, he or she is making a political choice.

Virtually everything we do in our classrooms takes some kind of stance about the nature of our society. During a war that has caused thousands of deaths and serious injuries, massive property destruction, looting, and potentially frightful environmental consequences, it's impossible for our teaching not to comment - if only implicitly - on these events. If bombs - made in the U.S., and paid for by the U.S. - are tearing into communities half a world away, inevitably our teaching will encourage students to accept or question these policies and actions.

But acknowledging this inherently political nature of curriculum doesn't mean that teaching is simply propaganda. We need to present students with a variety of positions, not merely those we personally agree with. And we need to encourage them to question all view-points, including our own. The best way to develop critical understanding of social problems is through direct engagement with diverse ideas. Finally, it is absolutely essential that students feel free to express opinions on controversial issues without fear of teacher reprisal or student condemnation.

Does this mean that teachers should avoid sharing their personal view-points? We don't think so. Teachers who take pride in never revealing their "opinions" to students model moral apathy. How teachers react to the burning issues of the day is itself a part of the curriculum. And to be silent in the face of global injustice teaches profound, and harmful, lessons. Nonetheless, teachers need to be alert to the ways that their behaviors can squelch questioning or dissent in their own classrooms. And teachers also must read their own political environments to assess how much freedom they have to teach honestly and responsibly.

The kind of inquiry that we propose is not neutral, but neither is it biased. Teaching is biased when it ignores multiple perspectives and does not allow interrogation of its own assumptions and propositions. A social justice approach, on the other hand, invites diversity of opinion but does not lose sight of important aims of the curriculum: to encourage deep questioning, to alert students to global injustice, to seek explanations, and to nurture activism. This is the kind of teaching we work toward.

Summer 2003