public intellectuals

I’m being interviewed by email for a journal article, and the first question asks me to define a “public intellectual.” I’d like to avoid using that term (which originated with John Dewey and C. Wright Mills) to describe authors who are popular and accessible and reach large audiences. There’s nothing wrong with being a best-selling author or a TV commentator, but people who are attracted to Dewey and Mills have something else in mind.

Continue reading →

organizing for civics

I’m at the bucolic Airlie House retreat center in Northern Virginia, with a bunch of people who are trying to organize a lobbying/advocacy campaign to implement the recommendations of the Civic Mission of Schools report. My organization, CIRCLE, doesn’t do advocacy. We are a research center with a commitment to intellectual independence and to supporting a diversity of views. However, we didn’t want to issue a report and then see it sit on a shelf somewhere. Thus we helped to convene a group of practitioners who might organize themselves for advocacy. I believe they are making good progress.

After dinner, we heard from Leslie Harris, a public interest lawyer and brilliant organizer of advocacy coalitions, including the movement to pass the “E-Rate” provision (which pays to wire schools and libraries). I had suggested that she speak to the group of civic educators, because several years ago I observed her skillful work in organizing a coalition of media reform organizations. This coalition later mobilized mass opposition to the FCC’s media consolidation regulations. Tonight, she challenged leaders in civic education to develop “one big idea” that can motivate a coherent campaign. She also challenged the field the include youth in the development of its policy agenda.

Sunstein was right

I buy the argument in Cass Sunstein’s book, Republic.com. Sunstein predicts that the Internet allows people to choose news and opinion that already interests them, while filtering out any views and facts that they find uncomfortable. As a result, the population splits into small communities of like-minded people who reinforce their shared views. Another result is a widening gap between those who are very interested in public issues and those who are not interested. Motivated citizens benefit from the availability of news and opinion online. Unmotivated ones can ignore the broader world much more then in the past, when they relied on TV for entertainment and the newspaper for want ads and crossword puzzles. Whether they liked it or not, in those days they saw news on television and on the front page of the newspaper.

Continue reading →

exemplary projects in civic renewal

Dr. Henry Tam has just been named "Head of Civil Renewal"

in the British Government’s Home Affairs Department. He emailed a

list of people to ask their advice about excellent projects in the

US. I gave him my quick "top-ten list" of US projects

in civic renewal:

ideology and civic ed

The most passionately debated question in civic education is how

to present the overall story of American history in schools.

Is it a march toward freedom and democracy, a blood-soaked tale of

oppression, or something in between? I can see three ways to address

this question:

1. By trying to tell the truth. Some historical statements

are verifiable (or falsifiable); and we should only tell students

the ones that aren’t false. However, the debate is not about whether

particular facts are true; it’s about which facts we ought

to mention and emphasize. History is a "vast grab-bag" (as

Robert Weibe once said in my hearing); and one can choose which items

to pull out. As for grand assessments of the overall meaning of American

history—they aren’t precise enough to be either true

or false, I suspect.

2. By conducting a normative (moral) debate. How to present

American history is hotly debated because each approach seems to cohere

best with a different moral/ideological worldview. Modern conservatives

want to emphasize the degree to which our founding institutions have

served us well; some liberals want to stress the March of Progress;

and many modern leftists want to focus on violence, exclusion, and

resistance. There is nothing wrong with having this debate. However,

"is" never implies "ought." One could, for example,

take a very dark view of the American past and still believe that

students should love their country and its founding documents. Many

complex combinations of facts and values are possible.

More importantly, "ought" never implies "is."

It is intellectually dishonest to adopt a normative position and then

try to teach students a set of historical facts that support that

ideology, presented as the history of the United States.

If I wanted to help students think about moral and ideological positions,

I wouldn’t proceed by trying to present a brief version of American

history to them. I would teach them explicitly about conflicting values

and methods of normative argument.

3. By predicting the effects of each version of history on students’

attitudes and beliefs. Many ideologists in this debate assume

that particular versions of history will have particular consequences

for students’ psychological development. For instance, a "triumphalist"

narrative will create patriots—or will alienate students, especially

minorities. An emphasis on exclusion and oppression will create social

activists—or will breed despair.

There is not nearly enough research on this (empirical) topic. William

Damon of Stanford argues that young people must develop a positive

view of their nation before they can care enough about it to become

engaged critics. This theory rings true in my own life. I was a jingoistic

patriot at 10, only to become a critical activist by 20. However,

I’m not sure that trying to impart a completely positive view of the

Founders would work as well with young people of color as it did with

me. In any case, I would love to see more research this field, using

as many relevant methodologies as possible.