Should Civics Be More Than Activism?

Frederick Hess, the director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, has an interesting piece in this week’s issue of Time. He argues that civics instruction needs to encompass more than just encouraging students to be political activists. Hess is critical of the wave of renewed interest in civics education that swept America after Trump’s election in 2016. According to Hess, many civics teachers are now more intent on promoting political engagement than teaching the basics of how those political institutions actually work. In particular, Hess is critical of Action Civics, a philosophy that emphasizes activism over knowledge and responsibility. A recent Rand survey of Civics teachers supports Hess’s thesis: far more teachers think the purpose of Civics instruction is to promote critical thinking than to educate students about the operation of political institutions. In fact, as Hess notes in his piece, political education ranked behind environmental activism as the biggest function of civics in the minds of many teachers. Hess bemoans this over-heated focus on activism because he feels civic participation alone won’t safeguard our democracy. Instead, he feels civics teachers need to balance this mindset with that of teaching how things work. Many students today can barely identify the three branches of government, let alone describe how they work.

I think Hess is right in several respects. We do need to do a better job of informing our students how the government works and give them tools to be informed citizens. While focusing on activism is a good way to engage students, we have to be careful as teachers not to let that enthusiasm morph into indoctrination. Too many civics students are encouraged today to be social justice warriors rather than letting students’ political interest play out naturally. A Trump supporter should be encouraged to follow his passion just as much as a Black Lives Matter protester. Where I think Hess misses the mark to some degree is that our lack of civic knowledge is due just as much to societal and cultural factors as it is to misguided civics instruction. People generally have lost the ability to listen to and thoughtfully debate positions they disagree with. Obviously, this is not just due to poor civics instruction over the past few years. It stems from a much larger societal deficit, dating back to the rise of social media. Our students in class simply mimic what they see and read on a daily basis. We have become a country where tribalism is more valued than cooperation and compromise. And no wonder. When we see marginal politicians like Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert throwing monkey wrenches into the Speaker voting and gaining key concessions, our kids get the message that style wins over substance.

This loss of purpose in civics education knows no political boundaries. Teaching civics during the Trump presidency was a minefield. Assign an article even remotely critical of Trump and parents would react loudly, accusing you of being a Marxist. On the flip side, dare I assign an article critical of Black Lives Matter, and I would be subject to similar criticism from more liberal parents. Hess is right. We do need to do a better job of teaching how the government works. Yet, we also need to do a better job of teaching our students how to conduct critical analysis and construct well-balanced arguments supported by credible evidence. Civics is the perfect class to do this in. It is also a class where encouraging students to pursue their political interests and passions outside the classroom walls is appropriate. The key is to balance all of those interests to produce civic-minded students who can participate intelligently in a democracy.