Today’s news cycle is more negative than it has ever been. Whether it is international relations or the daily work we do right here at home, our conversations have grown terser, less empathetic, and more focused on denigrating one another than reaching common ground. For many of us, the tone of these collective interactions is reaching fever pitch, and there is growing concern that we can do little to end this vicious cycle. Poll after poll suggests that American’s feel more polarized than ever - and that our political conversation have grown far more divisive.
But as it turns out, we can find reason for hope in an unexpected place. Education, it might seem, is hardly a bastion of civility. At the local level, education debates about whether school should begin at 7:05 or 8:00am draw as much antipathy as the perennial rivalry between the Red Sox and the Yankees. And yet, over time, despite acrimony and politics, we have witnessed shifts that give good reason for optimism.
Consider this: in 1980, Ronald Reagan included among his presidential platform planks a controversial plan to eliminate the U. S. department of Education. By the end of his term, the Gipper wound up expanding the role of the department by adding new funding for science and mathematics initiatives.
When the first charter school laws were passed in the late nineties, charters were quickly defined as a fringe, right-wing strategy for undermining urban school systems. Within a decade, a Democratic president won a solid victory on a platform of education reform - and built into his signature reform effort, Race to The Top, strong incentives for states to lift starter school caps.
Even the infamous Reading Wars have apparently reached detente. As recently as ten years ago, academics waged a fierce battle over whether the best approach to teaching literacy was through phonics or whole language. The pinnacle of the debate was the shouting match in Congress over the now defunct Reading First program. Today, with little fanfare, ardent educators and academics on both sides tend to espouse a more balanced approach to literacy.
Nevertheless, our approach to communicating with each other today does not inspire much optimism. Our current form of argument is stating, shouting, and screaming one side of an issue and not just denouncing the other side, but demonizing both the idea and the one who espouses it. In short: ‘not only am I right, but your side is both wrong and evil.’ And this style of non-discourse has promulgated deep distrust and fracture in the very way we go about providing the once unifying concept of a free public education to every child. This will readily move us to a less perfect union and quickly.
Americans, it seems, now believe they must agree before they can discuss an issue of any civic importance. When there is difference or disagreement, the conversation doesn’t seem worth having because those wrong-headed others aren’t worth the effort. Conversation is about reinforcing ‘my point’—not about learning and considering other viewpoints.
The very problem with approaching discussions from the perspective that agreement is a necessary condition for civil discourse is that it creates a corrosive environment that directly undermines civil discourse. First requiring agreement means we never have to face or question our presumptions and too easily subscribe to a politic of hatred. We will never make progress if we continue to operate this way.
Part of the solution is to understand the significant power in transforming divide into difference. Difference is the starting point for learning, whereas divide is the starting point for destructive behavior. Behaviors based in learning - that derive from difference rather than destruction require civil discourse. And the very act of civil discourse sports the journey of understanding difference and seeking solutions. This type of behavior bridges divide.
To actually bridge divide, we must become more proximate to those we differ with and engage in true civil discourse. It requires the act of ‘sitting with contradiction’. Getting close to difference is a risk, although the risk of not doing this is far greater and puts the very foundation of these United States in peril.
In a new issue of The Line, which attempts to bring difference into close proximity to promote learning, former Governor Jeb Bush writes,” Choice is not an attack on public schools, as those vested in the status quo claim. Instead it is a recognition that parents without choice are parents without power.” Lily Eskelsen Garcia, president of the National Education Association, took an opposing view, making the case that so-called “choice” options not only reduce traditional public school resources, they also present a false sense of choice for those who need it the most. Neither side may convince the other, but within the pages of The Line, they are sharing perspectives in a way that demonstrates commitment to their core values and also empathy for those who might not see things as they do.
They are engaged in the act of bridging political and ideological divides by becoming more proximate to those with different views and engaging in the very act of civil discourse. They are sitting with contradiction.
Governor Bush and Ms. Eskelsen Garcia’s approach to communication may be atypical in a national construct typified by not just denouncing the other side, but demonizing it as well. But as adults working in education, we must find ways to model this by consuming news that comes from we might consider biased, seeking out insights from those with whom we believe we disagree, and practicing the work of exercising empty for others’ positions - even if we ultimately fail to reach rapprochement.
It starts with those of us on the front lines in our communities across our nation. We must strive for a productive conversation about our differences and opportunities in education, social justice, and entrepreneurship. Realizing the dream of a better future for all demands that we lead by example.