Rethinking Civics Education at a Time of Civics Fragility

Guest Blogger

This post was prepared for a roundtable on Civic Education, convened as part of LevinsonFest 2022—a year-long series gathering scholars from diverse disciplines and viewpoints to reflect on Sandy Levinson’s influential work in constitutional law.

Martha Minow 

In tribute to Sanford Levinson and LevinsonFest 

While no task is more important to any society than educating each next generation, this task is crucial for a democracy. Self-government needs people equipped to govern—equipped with knowledge, motivation, and ability to pursue their own interests while also recognizing and caring about the rights and needs of others. Under the best of circumstances, democracy demands hard work and lots of time. It often produces poor bad policies. Playwright George Bernard Shaw was not stretching the truth when he gave one of his characters these words: “Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.”[1] The work of democracy produces conflicts and stalemates. It leaves us with few to blame but ourselves.[2] That’s in good times.

We are not living in good times. Existing democracies are fragile.[3] That includes the United States. Despite record-breaking voter turn-out in 2020 and 2022, we all witnessed the precariousness of the actual electoral system. Rancor continues. New voter suppression laws work through state legislatures; and for the first time in six decades, Congressional district lines are being redrawn without federal limits set by the Voting Rights Act because of a closely divided Supreme Court decision. Only 4.5% of the world’s populations live in full democracies. Leaders in China and Russia consolidate their power and it remains to be seen what the effects are for the people. Hungary, Myanmar, Poland, Turkey, Tunisia, Venezuela are just some of the nations where democracy is teetering and may not prevail.[4] Large majorities of Americans believe American democracy is at risk—but they also disagree sharply about why.[5] 

Risks come here and elsewhere as politicians appeal to the fears and hatreds of masses of people—at the expense of minorities, truth, and reason—and gain supporters while undermining belief in equality, tolerance and the rule of law. Perhaps people can always be tempted to surrender their power to others. Add the pandemic, global economic insecurities, digital disinformation, dire circumstances of poverty, hunger, violence: these are conditions particularly made for fears, rumors, blame, and division. And 42 states within this nation are considering or have adopted restrictions how teachers can teach about American history, racial justice and injustice.[6] And efforts to secure a federal constitutional right to education, including civic education, have been rebuffed.[7] 

Political divisiveness and political leaders feeding fears also jeopardize global engagement which fundamentally demands openness to others. Disdain for human rights and anyone critical of leaders, manipulated mass media and election confusion, spreading corruption—these are the exactly the elements Yale professor Timothy Snyder identifies as predicates for tyranny and reasons to learn lessons from history.^[8] 

So, what, now, should young people learn about civics, constitutional democracy, and the rights and duties of members of society in the United States? What should social studies and history classes involve, now that a number of states seek to or already forbid teaching that “leads any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress” on any issue related to race?[9] Of course, the process of learning often brings uncomfortable and even troubling experiences? That is why we call it “stretching our minds.” Education allows each of us to see ourselves in contexts beyond what we learn before schooling—and that can be disorienting.[10] That is why it cannot be left entirely to parents, although when it comes to preparing their children for civic participation, parents have rights and duties as well.[11] Fear of discomfort from learning is no more sensible than is blaming others for challenges we all face.[12] 

In honor of Sandy Levinson, however, way forward is to proceed with ideals, boldness, and refusal to curb truth for fear of controversy or opposition. This means that schools, libraries, and digital resources must now more than ever equip young people to bridge the distance between the promise and reality of American constitutional democracy.[13] Debate and disagreement relevant to Justice Thurgood Marshall once explained, “A child born to a Black mother in a state like Mississippi... has exactly the same rights as a white baby born to the wealthiest person in the United States. It's not true, but I challenge anyone to say it is not a goal worth working for.” That means examining gun rights versus public safety, and personal privacy versus security afforded by digital and surveilling technologies. And the practices of police, courts, and prisons and the treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers reflect the tensions between ideals of individual dignity and equality and claims of community safety and security. 

Lessons from historical struggles and attention to current contexts are essential starting points for strategies to bridge the distance between the ideals and the reality. When celebratory narratives of social movements and courageous leaders depict ever-expanding circles of inclusion for American rights, they must be met with sober study of set-back and backlash. Yet no less important to include is evidence large bipartisan majorities of Americans who want to protect the voting rights with legislated improvements to facilitate early voting and reduce voting restrictions.[14] Supermajorities of both parties want independent commission to determine the map of legislative districts rather than partisan gerrymandering. Americans overwhelmingly want sharp reductions of unregulated money in election campaigns, with federal enforcement of rules and disclosure of all donors to campaigns. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has issued decisions making any such reforms difficult to adopt and enforce. Similarly, a substantial majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in at least most cases if not always and are more concerned about policies making abortion too difficult to obtain than policies making it too easily available, despite Supreme Court decisions proceeding in the opposite direction. A supermajority of people from both major political parties who responded to a survey endorse limits on gun sales through gun shows without private background check. Accountability by police for violent or unlawful behavior, independent review of complaints of police misconduct garner overwhelming public support. Leaders and voters in both parties want greater protection for personal privacy and security of personal data in this digital age. No one better than Sandy and his co-author, Cynthia Levinson has exposed the undemocratic features of the constitution’s structures, explaining this disjunction between people’s preferences and what law can enact.[15] 

One question that should animate contemporary civics education class is how, despite such majority and super majority views, such policies are ensnared in political opposition. The thundering demand to guard personal privacy and ensure security of personal data echoes in responses of Republicans and Democrats who share desires to halt the sharing of disinformation by social media platform companies and reverse the jeopardy to democracy. This means asking whether there are defects in our constitutional design greater attention and if so, how could they be changed. And no less relevant would be addressing whether there are systemic failures in our civic culture, and whether, for example, more attention to responsibilities for individuals, corporations, nonprofit entities, and governments should infuse civic ideas and actions. Vigilance, engagement, critical thinking: these seem as crucial as reversing the growing percentage of young adults who think military take-over is acceptable if the government is ineffective and in the two-thirds of Americans who cannot name the three branches of government.[16] 

Nothing in documents and institutions of democracy and human rights guarantee the preconditions for their success—notably, respect for the dignity and rights of others. Democracies presuppose and depend upon tolerance, humility, management of fears and anger, curiosity and openness to others, empathy and practice finding commonalities despite differences, and interest in evidence and willingness to consider views other than one’s own. They work only if losers accept losing. And democracies also work best when people can imagine a common good and take responsibility even when we do not see ourselves as causes of the problems around us. This “ability to respond” expresses generosity toward others and humility to know we too could be in need of others’ help. Openness, empathy, tolerance, generosity are essential ingredients for democracy, respect for rights, engagement with others, building ties, and making peace. The most beautiful constitution does not by itself cultivate what is needed. 

The founders of the United States understood that “an ignorant people cannot remain a free people and that democracy cannot survive too much ignorance.”[17] Even more important than passing on knowledge content is the work of education preparing and equipping people to listen, to analyze, to debate, and to collaborate. Respectfully discuss difficult issues; come to see another’s point of view; imagine possibilities beyond our own short-term self-interest. This work develops skills needed in any work with other people—including creating political and business deals that benefit entire communities, brokering agreements across rival gangs, and negotiating peace between nations. 

Martha Minow is the 300th Anniversary University Professor at Harvard Law School. You can contact her at minow@law.harvard.edu.