Haverford students were not alone in their required reading assignments this summer. Faculty also engaged in required summer reading, including “Thriving in a World of Pluralistic Contention: A Framework for Schools” which presents a unified structure for civil discourse in classrooms.
The Framework is written by John Austin, Head of School at Deerfield Academy, developed with support from the E.E. Ford Foundation and in collaboration with several school heads from independent schools around the country.
Head of School Mr. Tyler Casertano explains the thinking behind the faculty reading, saying, “[The[ point was to start a conversation with faculty for how we can be a place that invites students into difficult conversations, but in a way that allows them to explore a topic with curiosity and thoughtfulness.”
According to the Framework, independent schools have a different purpose than colleges and universities. “[Independent] Schools are not principally concerned with research and the production of new knowledge. Their purpose is more crucial: to introduce young people to the values, practices, and conventions of disciplined inquiry.”
U.S. History teacher Mr. Timothy Lengel agrees about the purpose of school. “This school does you a disservice if we don’t train you to become more thoughtful, more considerate, and more engaged citizens. One of the best ways that we can do that is by training in civil discourse,” Mr. Lengel said.
“Civil discourse is vital, but the main thing that keeps getting left out is discourse based in fact and evidence,” History Department Chair and Honors U.S. History teacher Ms. Hannah Turlish said.
According to the National Council for Social Studies, civil discourse is “a conversation in which there is a mutual airing of views without rancor.”
In this era of political polarization, where political and social discourse is viewed more as a zero-sum game than a conversation, where social media algorithms impact the development of critical thinking skills, can a framework for neutrality in the classroom encourage classroom civil discourse?
The Framework presents three pillars to help schools form students as distinct-thinking individuals: expressive freedom, disciplined nonpartisanship, and intellectual diversity.
In an interview, Framework author Dr. Austin said, “[Expressive freedom is] an essential precondition for robust inquiry—kids need to be empowered to speak and to listen deeply and thoughtfully. Kids have to be willing to listen to things they really find troubling.”
“I refuse to allow lies to be aired in the guise of truth.”
Ms. Hannah Turlish
The idea behind expressive freedom is that students need to be skilled in hearing and responding to views that may feel unreasonable or upsetting. Students need to be able to tolerate hearing views they don’t agree with and to engage with those views in a manner that is respectful.
While this may seem obvious, the current state of political polarization has led to a distinct lack of expressive freedom.
According to an article published in Inside Higher Ed, “Recent surveys show not only that many students find it acceptable to deny a platform to speakers they find objectionable; they are also unwilling to share their viewpoints due to fear of backlash from their peers.”
“We are in a place now where lies and fabrications are treated as truth, and to call out the lies is to be labeled as somehow shutting down a valid point of view,” Ms. Turlish said. “I refuse to allow lies to be aired in the guise of truth.”
Within the Framework, expressive freedom includes “fostering in young people the ability to respond to views that seem unreasonable and upsetting; creating a climate where intellectual risk-taking, mistake-making, and question-asking are cherished; and encouraging the broadest possible range of speech among students.”
There are caveats, however. As explained in the Framework, categories of speech, such as speech that is bullying, harassing, or threatening, are legally prohibited. Citing a 2014 University of Chicago report, the Framework explains that there are still limits on expressive freedom, “The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish.”
“The larger goal… is to get [students] to a) engage with fellow Americans as good-faith participants in an exchange of ideas, and b) ensure that everyone gets their voice heard,” Mr. Lengel said.
The second pillar of the Framework is disciplined nonpartisanship.
According to Framework author Dr. Austin, “The Framework… doesn’t say faculty are prohibited from expressing their own particular perspective or viewpoint in a classroom discussion, but it does say that faculty should exercise judgment and discretion when they do that, and they need to do it in such a way that it supports the autonomy of students.”
“[The Framework explains] that because of the power dynamics in a classroom between a teacher and students, when students think that a teacher has a perspective that they are trying to impose on a student, then the students will [usually] act in a way that aligns with that viewpoint because students are mindful of their grade,” Mr. Casertano said.
According to Mr. Casertano, “It is a teacher’s job to poke and prod students, to expose as many different viewpoints or angles of an argument as possible. That is one of the definitions of rigor in a classroom. It is absolutely a teacher’s responsibility to do that… for all aspects of an argument.”
However, not all teachers agree with the concept of nonpartisanship in the classroom. Some think that being exposed to teachers with a strong ideological stance can be beneficial for students. An article from the National Education Association, Teaching in an Era of Polarization, states that “Neutrality in the classroom is counterproductive if it prevents educators from correcting misinformation and calling out toxic, divisive and racist statements by political leaders.”
The third pillar of the Framework is intellectual diversity. “Exposure to diverse and heterodox ideas inoculates students against unthinking conformity and uncritical orthodoxy and remains a pre-condition for informed civic engagement… The goal of an intellectually diverse curriculum is not reflexive balance or even completeness but the intentional inclusion of competing arguments and theories.”
“Part of our job is to support [students] to embrace complexity to hold seeming contradictory ideas in mind at the same time, to listen to ideas that are new and uncomfortable and not simply agree or disagree with ideas but to take certain points and incorporate them to make your [own] argument more sophisticated.”
Mr. Tyler Casertano
Will this three-pronged Framework allow for more discussion in the classroom? Perhaps, but the Framework is not without criticism. One cited concern is that the individuals contributing to the document are primarily administrators; few, if any, are actively teaching or engaging with these issues in classrooms with actual students.
Additionally, the Framework is intended for schools and faculty and therefore does not address a key requirement for civil discourse in schools: willing students.
In this era of polarization, where social-media algorithms provide a daily dose of information tailored to one’s own biases, it also takes a commitment on the part of students to engage thoughtfully with controversial topics, even when that may not “feel” good.
“Part of our job is to support [students] to embrace complexity to hold seeming contradictory ideas in mind at the same time, to listen to ideas that are new and uncomfortable and not simply agree or disagree with ideas but to take certain points and incorporate them to make your [own] argument more sophisticated,” Mr. Casertano noted.
In Fifth Form U.S. History classes, the Haverford Assembly project introduces students to parliamentary procedure, which offers a structured and formal system for debating issues. Other humanities classes are less structured, and students themselves are responsible for how they choose to engage with controversial topics.
As the presidential election looms, the concept of civil discourse becomes even more important.
For Mr. Casertano, the school’s goals are clear, “What matters is that… we don’t allow the potential polarity and potential hostility of the election to create polarity or hostility here at Haverford. What matters most to us are the ways you all treat each other and the ways you all treat ideas.”
“So much of our preparation for the election is establishing frameworks and boundaries that give students access to the election, but in a way that upholds our standards of behavior and intellectual engagement here at Haverford[…], creating spaces for students to discuss the election but through the context of the Honor Code and Principles of Community.”
