Monthly Archives: October 2013

All Together Now: Collaboration and Innovation for Youth Engagement

1377110_10151727004580748_1674310912_n(Washington, DC) Here I am at the National Press Club, releasing the report of the Commission on Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge, entitled “All Together Now: Collaboration and Innovation for Youth Engagement.”

Here is the text of our press release:

While the federal government is shut down, young people across America are required to study our system of government and how a bill becomes a law. Successful civic education is both more difficult and more important when Congress and other elected officials set such poor examples. Today, the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE)—the nationally recognized research center based at Tufts University’s Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service—released a groundbreaking report on how to educate young Americans for political participation in a time of deep polarization.

The new report, released this morning at a Newsmaker event hosted by the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., was written by the Commission on Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge and is entitled, “All Together Now: Collaboration and Innovation for Youth Engagement.” The report provides recommendations for educators, parents, and national, state and local policymakers on how to engage American youth.

The Commission on Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge is a distinguished, bipartisan group of scholars convened by CIRCLE to investigate exclusive data collected during and after the 2012 elections on issues such as civic knowledge, voting behavior, and the educational experiences of Americans ages 25 and under—a crucial constituency in electoral politics. The report is based, in part, on data collected for the Commission from more than 6,000 young adults and 720 high school civics or government teachers, and an analysis of all states’ voting and education laws. The research was funded by the S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, Robert R. McCormick Foundation, W.T. Grant Foundation, Spencer Foundation, and Youth Engagement Fund.

“Teachers face an inhospitable climate for civics: tests and standards that do not reward discussing current events, considerable resistance from parents to anything touching politics, and a national political climate that alienates young people from public life,” said Peter Levine, director of CIRCLE. “The research for this new report demonstrates the urgency of better civic education in schools and community-based organizations that include youth.”

Some highlights of the report’s findings released today include:

  •     Current levels of knowledgeable engagement by America’s youth remain too low. Less than half of young Americans vote, even in presidential elections, and just 10 percent of Americans between 18 and 24 met a standard of “informed engagement” in the 2012 presidential election cycle.
  •     Opportunities for civic learning and engagement are highly unequal. White, wealthy students are four to six times as likely as Hispanic or Black students from low-income households to exceed the “proficient” level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in civics. Only 7 percent of students whose parents didn’t graduate from high school and who are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch reached “proficient.”
  •     Civic education is increasingly viewed as controversial by the public. A quarter (24.8 percent) of the teachers surveyed by the Commission thought that parents or other adults in their community would object if politics was discussed in their course—even though they were asked about a course on government or civics taught during a presidential election year.
  •     Although highly controversial, voting laws have only small effects. Photo ID laws seemed to lower voting for young people who have not attended college. Same Day Voter Registration modestly, but reliably, boosts youth turnout. The overall effects of these laws are small compared to the larger challenges to engaging youth in democracy.

“Research shows that civics education works. Discussing controversial issues, engaging in service learning if it involves discussion of “root causes,” being contacted by parties and campaigns, and participating in extracurricular groups all predict good civic outcomes for students,” said Trey Grayson, former Kentucky Secretary of State (R-KY), Director of the Harvard Institute of Politics and member of CIRCLE’s Commission on Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge. “As a teacher we surveyed stated, civic education ‘is essential if we are to continue as a free democratic society’.”

“All young Americans should be informed and responsibly involved in politics and civic life. And engaging the next generation is the best long-term solution to problems of polarization, incivility, and dysfunction in national politics,” said Levine.

To break current patterns, the report recommends policymakers must embrace innovative and collaborative approaches to civic education. Examples of recommendations from the report include:

  •     Lowering the voting age to 17 in municipal or state elections so that students can be encouraged to vote while they are taking a required civics class.
  •     Policies that support teachers’ obligation to include discussions of current, controversial political issues in the curriculum. Assigning students to read and debate news in class and encouraging them to discuss with their parents and other adults who are important in their lives.
  •     State standards for civics that focus on developing advanced civic skills, such as deliberation and collaboration, rather than memorizing facts.
  •     Badges for excellence in civics. These portable, online certificates would demonstrate advanced civic skills, knowledge, and actual contributions.

Both a full list of the commission’s members and additional, detailed information about the commission, its mission and focus can be found here.

###

CIRCLE (http://www.civicyouth.org) is a nonpartisan, independent, academic research center that studies young people in politics and presents detailed data on young voters in all 50 states. CIRCLE is part of the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service at Tufts University.

The Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service (http://activecitizen.tufts.edu/) is a national leader whose model and research are setting the standard for higher education’s role in civic engagement education. Serving every school of Tufts University, Tisch College creates an enduring culture that prepares students to be lifelong active citizens.

Tufts University (http://www.tufts.edu/), located on three Massachusetts campuses in Boston, Medford/Somerville and Grafton, and in Talloires, France, is recognized as one of the premier research universities in the United States. Tufts enjoys a global reputation for academic excellence and for the preparation of students as leaders in a wide range of professions. A growing number of innovative teaching and research initiatives span all Tufts campuses, and collaboration among the faculty and students in the undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs across the university’s schools is widely encouraged.

the case for active citizenship when government fails us

In Stockton, CA, columnist Mike Fitzgerald argues that his city needs civic literacy to address its dire economic and political condition:

For two decades, Stockton’s leaders overpaid public employees, subsidized sprawl and racked up staggering debt.

Few objected.

When the crisis hit, a reform council hired a competent city manager. Over the ensuing three years, leaders halted past excesses and put in place fiscal reforms.

But, dismayingly, many citizens seemed unable to distinguish between the reform council and the hacks of the past. They voted almost all reformers out of office.

A surreal procession of angry citizens came before the council to denounce it.

“There are reasons to be angry,” Levine said. “But a successful citizen needs to be able to make distinctions. To figure out who in charge is bad and who is good. And it’s very disempowering if you’re so distrustful that you can’t identify an ally.”

Inability to discern friend from foe explains the blanket anger. It’s a primal scream, as opposed to literate civic discourse.

Angry, unwitting citizens are part of an incompetence loop. They fail to recognize good service; they pelt all councils with hostility; which repels good leaders; which leaves Bozos; who govern poorly; thus further disaffecting the masses.

For some causes of civic illiteracy, such as poverty, there are no easy solutions. A couple obvious remedies are to strengthen literacy programs and civics classes.

Meanwhile, in the University of Florida’s student newspaper, The Alligator, I challenge students to get more involved in civic reform:

… We face profound problems the government isn’t addressing — persistent unemployment, climate change, violence and mass incarceration and the slow desertion of our great industrial cities, to name just a few.

Although we should expect more from the government and our political leaders, they cannot solve these problems on their own. People can solve even the most difficult problems if they are organized and active. That is not a wish — it is a finding of extensive research. But where are we going to get more active and responsible citizens?

morality in psychotherapy

A great issue of our time is the struggle between two ways of thinking about human behavior: a philosophical mode that uses terms like “moral” and “immoral,” “good” and “evil”; and a psychotherapeutic mode, which uses terms like “normal” and “healthy” to the exclusion of any moral vocabulary.

I am aware that professional psychotherapists hold various views of morality. (For instance, see William Doherty for a very interesting defense of moral language in therapy.) But I maintain that the mainstream, everyday practice of psychotherapy assumes one or more of these anti-moralistic premises:

  1. A psychotherapist (someone who has had a specialized training based on science) has no means of knowing the difference between right and wrong.
  2. The patient has a right to his or her own values and should not be influenced morally.
  3. Moral pressures are psychologically harmful and should be reduced.

Note that these premises are mutually inconsistent. For instance, #2 and #3 assume that the psychotherapist does know right from wrong–it is wrong to influence a patient’s values or to put moral pressure on her. But the three statements get mixed up because they support the same conclusion: Do not tell patients what is right.

To support my generalization, I offer sample questions from real tests given to clinical social workers.

1. From socialworktestprep.com:

A 32-year-old man is referred to a social worker after his children were removed by child protective services due to allegations of neglect. He tells the social worker that he is not sure that he wants to fight to get them back. He states he doesn’t think he wants to go through all the things child protective services wants him to do only to not regain custody in the end. Which response is the best thing the social worker should say to the client?

  • The correct response: “You are free to choose whether or not you want to try to regain custody of the children.”
  • One of the incorrect responses: “Your children will benefit from knowing that you at least tried to regain custody, even if you aren’t successful.”
  • Official explanation:

A core principle of social work is the client’s right to self-determination. The NASW Code of Ethics is clear that social workers should support a client’s right to self-determination, unless a client is posing a risk to self or someone else. Social workers should set aside their own values and encourage clients to make their own choices based on what they think is right for them. Although it may be appropriate at times to discuss the pros and cons of a decision, clients need to know that ultimately the decision is up to them.

2. From socialworkinfo.com

Mr. J, is referred to the Social Worker after he is released from his first psychiatric hospitalization. His hospital admission occurred sometime after his return from a trip to Rome, where he had gone to give advice to the Pope. His family knew nothing of the trip until the bills arrived. A salesperson, Mr J. had called strangers in the early morning hours seeking sales. He was described as euphoric in mood, but his family reported that be became irrational when his wishes were thwarted. Mr. J. experienced a reduced need for sleep and was described as talking non-stop for long period of time. Based on the above information, which of the following DSMIV TR diagnoses seems most probable?

  • Correct answer:  “Bipolar I Disorder, Single Manic Episode.”

Just to put my own cards on the table: I think the 32-year-old man has a moral responsibility for his children. That does not mean that he should fight for custody. The kids may be better off without him in their lives. But the main issue he must consider is their welfare; custody is either good or bad for that end. His happiness is also an issue that he may think about, but the children count for more because: (1) there are more of them than him, (2) they are more vulnerable; (3) they have more of their lives ahead of them; (4) he brought them into the world; and (5) we should generally weigh others’ welfare more than our own.

The man who rushed off to advise the pope is probably mentally ill and needs treatment. But I would like to know what he told the pope. Maybe he was right, in which case I would hate to see his inspiration and euphoria medicated away. He reminds me of Saul Bellow’s Herzog and St. Teresa of Avila. I think I can demonstrate that Herzog is a misogynist, but it would surely be reductive to treat him as manic. His unsolicited letters to world leaders are outpourings of the sensitive modern soul. As for St. Teresa–I’m afraid I cannot accept the metaphysical underpinnings of her thought, but she was a great leader, reformer, and writer.

W.H. Auden eulogized Freud as a moralist who “showed us what evil is.” It is “not, as we thought, deeds that must be punished” but “our dishonest mood of denial.” There was some truth to that: dishonesty and repression are evils. But they are not the only evils; some deeds ought to be punished or at least reproved.

(See also: “insanity and evil: two paradigms.”)

snapshots from America

With the government in shutdown, but TSA deemed “essential” so that people like me can keep burning carbon and racking up the frequent flyer miles, I have been traveling almost constantly, encountering a stream of strangers from Raleigh to Sacramento. Some faces and voices linger in my short-term memory:

The Massachusetts surfer-dude cabby, who tells me: Bro, I surfed Nantasket all day yesterday, and it was awesome. This comes in a strong Boston accent from a young dude with long blonde hair.

The two New Yorkers who board at Kennedy, never having met before, and quickly establish a rapport through kvetching. For the first hour, their conversation concerns irresponsible grown children. (Oy!) Then one of them starts explaining how George W. Bush planned 9/11 so he could pass the Patriot Act. (Otherwise, how could they be rebuilding the World Trade Center site so fast?–they must have had the plans ready.) Meanwhile, a Tchaikovsky Symphony is playing loudly. I assume it is Jet Blue’s background music, although it seems surprisingly bombastic. It turns out that the Truther’s cell phone is broadcasting the music–much to his own surprise.

A pastor, born and still living in North Carolina, strives to marry a same-sex couple in his congregation. He won’t cross a state line to do that. It would be a defeat not to marry them in the Tarheel State, which he expects to do.

A whole planeload of octogenarians with Minnesota accents, slowly boarding the pre-dawn flight from Sacramento to Minneapolis. Going home to the Mayo Clinic for Scandinavian-style care?

In Virginia and North Carolina, whole rooms of people tell me they are pretty confident about the values and facts that are relevant to the social causes they care about. It’s the strategies that baffle them. What can they do to make the big world better?

talking about the Pledge of Allegiance on So Tell Me More

At 2 pm Eastern, I’ll be on NPR’s “So Tell Me More,” talking about the Pledge of Allegiance. I don’t know where the conversation will go, but this is my usual line on the Pledge. Because it’s traditional, stopping it (or letting it lapse) is interpreted as a lack of concern for patriotism, for the flag, or for the God who is mentioned in the third clause. But imagine we had never had a Pledge in schools, and people wanted to do something to boost patriotism. Would they really invent a daily ritual that involved these characteristics?

1. Asking people who are too young to make a legal commitment to say something that sounds like a vow.
2. Asking people who have already “pledged allegiance” to re-pledge allegiance every day for 13 years? (I thought promises were for keeps.)
3. Asking children to say words like “indivisible” without studying their meaning.
4. Repeating the same activity every day from kindergarten to 12th grade without raising the difficulty or adding new ideas.
5. Asking students to say “liberty” and “justice” every day without making sure that they understand the live debates about what those terms mean.
6. In a 30-word statement that is meant to summarize the core, shared values of the republic, courting controversy by making it a pledge to a flag (considered idolatrous by some), citing a singular God (not recognized by many, and considered profane to name by others), and emphasizing indivisibility (which, I assume, is a rebuke to successionists).

Even if your fundamental goal is to inculcate patriotism, I can think of better means to that end.