Education Week - November 14, 2018 - 32

COMMENTARY

26
THE DIGITAL ASSAULT
ON COGNITION

26
THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES OF
'SCHOOL SAFETY'

27
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Getty

What Is
K-12's
Role in
Civic
Debate?

By Andy Smarick
he parlous state of civic
debate today is making
it increasingly clear that
America needs to rededicate
itself to the beliefs and habits necessary for sustaining
a democratic, pluralistic nation. This includes fostering
empathy and strenuously condemning language that incites violence, such as the monstrous event in Pittsburgh last month. But
it also means protecting the vigorous exchange of divergent, even provocative, views.
In recent years, debate has arisen about the
state of free speech and free inquiry on college campuses, the training grounds for
many of our future leaders. Every new example of safe spaces, trigger warnings, and
bias-response teams and each new viral
video showing undergraduates disrupting
professors or invited speakers raises questions about higher education's commitment
to fostering the productive exchange of different views.
What is the role for K-12 education in all
of this? Secondary schools are the pipeline
for higher education, so America's high
schools could-maybe even should-be part
of the solution.
Those engaged in the effort to foster and
protect viewpoint diversity in higher education, however, have focused on the campuses
themselves instead of looking upstream.
Outside groups pressure colleges to adopt
policies protecting free exchange. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
(FIRE), which defends First Amendment
rights at colleges and universities, publicly
reports on campus policies and practices
that inhibit discourse. Heterodox Academy
(a coalition of 1,800 professors and graduate students), which promotes viewpoint diversity and constructive disagreement, has
produced a guide detailing which campuses
are best for students seeking exposure to
different perspectives.
A number of colleges are, themselves,

taking important steps. The University of
Chicago issued a 2015 statement declaring
its commitment to protecting speech, which
several dozen other colleges adopted. Princeton assigned a book about free speech as a
pre-read for the incoming class of 2022. Policymakers are not far behind. Multiple states
have recently introduced and passed laws
protecting expression on public campuses.
The education committee of the U.S. House
of Representatives held a hearing in September titled, "Examining First Amendment
Rights on Campus," and there are proposals
to withhold federal research funds from colleges that don't protect free speech.
Such efforts could safeguard debate and
thwart the "heckler's veto." The hope is that
by creating environments that protect expression, heated but productive discussions
will ensue, and students, coming face to face
with those holding differing opinions, will
grow as a result.
But that forecast may be too sunny. Simply
making space for contentious conversation
may not be enough because many students
are unprepared for contentious conversation. If a campus is stocked with free-speechhostile students, administrators could suspend those who disrupt a lecture, but other
equally indignant students could disrupt the
next one. Administrators might be prohibited from punishing a student for making
provocative arguments, but her classmates
might castigate or shun her. Conditioned
to shame dissenters and feel shame when
dissenting, otherwise ambivalent students
might reflexively join shunning sessions and
learn to silence themselves. In essence, campus policies could throw free-speech parties,
but few students might show up.
We should recognize a significant part of
the problem is students arriving on campus
lacking an appreciation for the value of free
inquiry and the skills to productively engage
in the give-and-take of a pluralistic, democratic society. A 2017 Knight Foundation/
Gallup survey found when students were
asked which was more important, promoting an inclusive society that is welcoming

32 | EDUCATION WEEK | November 14, 2018 | www.edweek.org/go/commentary

to diverse groups or protecting free speech,
a majority chose the former. Students were
divided between favoring and opposing
discussion-limiting "speech codes," and 61
percent believe their campus climate prevents some people from saying things they
believe because others might be offended. In
fact, as Jonathan Haidt, an NYU professor
and co-founder of Heterodox Academy, and
Greg Lukianoff, CEO of FIRE, argue in The
Coddling of the American Mind, campus climates have become more unwelcoming to
ideological diversity in the last few years.
Young people appear to be increasingly overprotected, unpracticed at debate, and likely
to associate words with violence.

Instead of dealing with the
symptoms we see on
campus, colleges should
work with K-12 to address
the underlying problem."
Instead of dealing with the symptoms we
see on campus, colleges should work with
K-12 to address the underlying problem. Colleges should change their applications and
admissions processes to explicitly prioritize
the beliefs and skills necessary to engage in
a community of differing perspectives. This
could include prospective students responding to essay prompts related to viewpoint
diversity; demonstrating knowledge of the
First Amendment's provisions, history, and
importance; and/or signing an assurance related to free inquiry and open debate.
Higher education has an outsized influence on what high schools teach and what
educators and parents encourage. Students
and adults focus on AP courses, GPAs, SAT
and ACT scores, and extracurriculars largely

because college admissions offices make clear
they care about those things. Were college
presidents to announce they will only admit
students who value the First Amendment,
believe in viewpoint diversity, and want to
have their own opinions challenged, admissions officers could immediately influence incoming classes. But the ripples would swiftly
reach secondary schools, affecting course offerings, out-of-school programming, and, most
importantly, history and civics standards,
curriculum, and assessments.
Because of state and federal laws and
a constellation of advocacy groups, high
schools are constantly pressured to prioritize
different things. A recommitment to teaching the virtues of viewpoint diversity might
not happen absent instigation from colleges.
Secondary schools might well prove a receptive audience to this nudge. A recent Education Week survey found that more than half
of principals and administrators believe
schools aren't focusing enough on civics.
Another survey found that citizens are not
so confident that students are learning the
civics topics that citizens believe to be most
essential. Reform-minded college presidents
and/or their governing boards should publicly
declare that their campuses require curious,
open-minded, politically tolerant, and emotionally robust students, and that admissions
practices will be adjusted accordingly.
Parents and secondary school educators
want to prepare their students for success
after graduation. Campuses simply need
to be explicit that "college ready" includes
a commitment to sharing, protecting, and
learning from different points of view.
Higher education: Help secondary education help you. n
ANDY SMARICK is the civil society, education, and
work director at the Washington-based R Street
Institute. He's the former president of the Maryland
State Board of Education, New Jersey deputy
commissioner of education, and deputy assistant
secretary for planning, evaluation, and policy
development at the U.S. Department of Education
under President George W. Bush.

http://www.edweek.org/go/commentary

Education Week - November 14, 2018

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Education Week - November 14, 2018