Stanford seems to think so.
Purdue also has a Civics Literacy requirement for graduation. Started for the incoming class two years ago. I’m thankful our D’s history teacher in HS taught them how to have meaningful, respectful debate, how to go to source material, etc….HS debate classes can help with this too.
3 Likes
An interesting take. The article also derides the “free market approach” to education as well as the pre-professional orientation of many current students which has driven them away from humanities classes.
1 Like
I used to believe that reducing the prevalent historical illiteracy would help, but now I am not so sure. I agree that a universal solid liberal arts curriculum in K through 12 would help.
2 Likes
Civics is required in my state in high school. Unless the author is suggesting a universal curriculum for colleges and universities I think requiring Civics in college is a non-starter (as is a universal curriculum in college).
1 Like
I think requiring a civics class for every entering member of the Senate, House, White House staff and members of the Supreme Court would go a long way towards reducing the inanity and stupidity we hear from our elected representatives-- which is fueling the culture wars. This is a bi-partisan issue IMHO.
I have a family member in federal law enforcement. There is an ethics officer on speed dial-- which the team consults frequently- on matters big and small. There is NO way that accepting private plane rides, vacations, etc. from a private citizen- however innocuous- would pass the sniff test in this particular branch of government. There are regular in-service days and sessions to review “what does it mean to swear to uphold and protect the Constitution”. These are “regular” people- sworn officers of the court, who have to abide by a significantly higher ethical, practical, and legal set of rules vs. our elected officials.
I say- give them ALL a civics class. Many of them have NO idea what the first amendment is talking about, and a good chunk are clueless on the rest of the Bill of Rights.
7 Likes
It’s incredibly appealing to think that there could/should be a set of shared values or thoughts or ideals that we can all agree to use to guide our behavior and to create a sense of national community. But I have to side-eye the suggestion that the Western Civ-type classes mentioned by the authors ever actually provided that. I think that the shared experiences that the authors are wistful for may have come more from the fact before around the mid-60s, universities mostly catered to wealthy, straight (at least outwardly so) white men (and women, but mostly in single-sex schools) who were allowed to take for granted that their ideals were universal and were rarely asked to contemplate – much less tolerate – any alternative.
But in a weird, funhouse-mirror kind of way, the authors’ thesis – that there’s too much individualization in college curricula these days and that a single homogeneous course (or set of courses) would be preferable – echos what I hear week after week at my local school board meeting from people who want to control the curriculum, the books allowed in the library, and which kids are allowed to exist freely at school. An idea I have heard stated repeatedly is that the kids they want excluded from schools make up such a small percentage of the population that it’s unreasonable for those kids to ask “everyone else” to recognize them or to treat them with the same basic courtesy that’s extended reflexively to any member of the majority group.
As far as civil discourse goes; factually, I think the authors are wrong. At least at our local school board meeting, the angriest speakers seem to be between 45-75 years old (very few actually have students in our public school system; several are grandparents). If Western Civ and similar courses disappeared largely between 1995 and 2010, most of these folks would already have been through college by then. And any skill they had ever learned for civil disagreement seems long forgotten (I cannot stress enough how very uncivil the behavior is at our local meeting).
6 Likes
At least at our local school board meeting, the angriest speakers seem to be between 45-75 years old (very few actually have students in our public school system; several are grandparent.)…(I cannot stress enough how very uncivil the behavior is at our local meeting).
[/quote] Do we live in the same place? Although the incivility has toned down somewhat (no more screaming), there is still hostility, insults, and meetings can still run very late because of over 50 public speakers. And the hostility isn’t just from the public – SB members get nasty to each other at meetings and on social media. The latest school board meeting on record was not that many months ago – I believe it ended at 2:30 a.m. (started at 6 p.m. the previous day).
1 Like
It’s the same at our local school board meetings and it’s revolting. In some cases it seems to be people full of hot air who just want to get attention…
I do not think requiring a civics class would change the acrimony and nastiness in our society. Everything has become casual… no more decorum in a lot of settings, people can dress, say, and do whatever they feel like with no repercussions. The standards that existed 40-50 years ago are gone; and on top of that, most people get their news from Tik Tok, Instagram, or Facebook. “Network News” trying to keep up has leaned hard into tabloid reporting. At one time no one could tell what political affiliation a news reporter or anchor had… not the case any longer. Unfortunately, I am not sure how to put the genie back in the bottle.
1 Like
Some politics were violent 40-50 years ago… no surprise that these included politics of race and ethnicity. (photo from 1976)
Yes, the tendency of people to get instant “news” (really opinions) from social media and cable “news” (really mostly opinions) channels is likely the biggest factor.
But another big factor is that politics is more about race, ethnicity, and religion than before. When people feel attacked (whether it is actually true or not) on the basis of unchangeable or difficult to change aspects of themselves, they are likely to react more strongly about it.