Controversy in the Classroom

The Democratic Power of Discussion

Diana E. Hess

~~ ~~o~;!:n~~;up
NEW YORK AND LONDON
hr~! puhli~hed 2009
hy l~tmtlcdgc
270 Madi~on Ave, New York, NY 10016
Simld!;ttlt'tlUSI)' 1mhlbhcd in till' UK
hy Routlt'llp,t•
2 Pouk Square, Millon Park, Abingdon, Oxnn (lXI•I •IRN
Nmlll!'dgt' i.' 1111 impri111 tJ{Jiw Tnrlor C:~ J!mn(i.' C;mup, 1111 iii/Pmm/JmitwH
"· 21Hl9 T.1ylor nnd hand~
Typeset inlv1inion hy
Swales & Willis Ltd, Exeter, llcvon
Printed ;md hnund in the United State~ of Amt·rir;l, on .Kid fret• p.lpcr, hr
Fdwar&.llmthcrs, Inc
AI! rip,hb n·serwd. No p.nt nfthb huo[, m••Y 1w rt'printt·d vr reproduced or
utili1nl in <111}' form nr by ,my dednmic, 11H'dl.llllt>ll, m o\hl·r HH'.\lb, now
km1wn tu· hneafter inVl'nln\, indudinp, phtlhKnpying .md m:onling, tlr 1n
,\!1>' infnrmatiun .~lnr,J~t· or n:lrit•val.~y.-.lt:m, without pt·nni\~ion in writing
fmmthc puhli~hcr.-..
Trademark Notice: Prmlud or rorpma\t' n,HJH'~ m.1y hl' tr.l{k'nMrk~ w
regblt'red tmdcm.1rks, .1nd an· u~t-d only li1r idcntificalitlrl .u1d expLl!l.llion
without i1Hcnttn infrinp,~·.

h/muy 1•)" c~m1grc.1.' L'lrltllogiug iu 11u/lliu!lillll I Jot11

! lc.~~. Diatla E.
( :onll"tlVl'rsy in tlw tla\HtH!Ill: the tlt•mtltLJtic ptl\l't'r u! tll~nl~~inn/
\li.m.l E. J lev•.
p. un. (Critk;ll.~<Ki,llthnughl)
!tKiudc~ bi\lliogr,lphical rdCrelllt'\ ,1m! itHk\.
1. i:duralion Currkul,1 Politi~_ a] ·hJWCh Unitl'd St.lll'\.
2. l>cmw:rary ;1nd nlttl<ltinn l!nitnl St.l\l'\. ~- At.akmiL fn•t•tllllll
United St.l!L"~. I. Titk. I I. Snic·~.
L<JW.!I·I.1200<J
J71J,I'S.'i den

JSiiN JO:(hhk)ll~41:'1 %22H 5

ISBN IO:(pbk)ll··4!S 96229 .1
ISBN JO; kbk) tl--20.H~7HHH-•l

ISBN IJ: (hhk) 97R·-O~·II :l ·9h22H

ISBN 13: (pbk) 978-0-4 I 5-·%229 2
ISBN Li: (ebk) 97X-il-2tU-H7HRH-IJ
 7
Teaching in the Tip
Controversies About What
Is Legitimately Controversial

One of the most controversial aspects of teaching controversial issues revolves

around differing opinions of what is controversial in the first place. This plays
out in the differing opinions regarding how a question is taught-is there one
;mswer, o1· arc there multiple and competing answers? It is this issue to which I
now turn. The reason this is so controversial in schools is because there is often
fl!rocious debate in the world outside of school about whether something is
fcgiti11wtdy controversial, especially when an issue is tipping. Tipping refers to
a number of processes by which topics (which luwc managed to get into the
curriculum in the first place) shift back and forth between their status as open
questions (for which we want students to engage in deliberating multiple and
competing answers) and closed questions (for which we want students to build
and believe a particular answer).
To elaborate, imagine the curriculum as a box. Often the first step for
advocates of a topic, or series of tOpics that represent a particular political
perspective, is simply to get inside the box (Zimmerman, 2002). Consequently,
many of the controversies surrounding the social studies curriculum emanate
from this desire for inclusion (Binder, 2002). Decisions about what will be in
the curriculum are significant. For example, when schools include previously
forbidden topics in the curriculum, they send a message that legitimizes the
topic; this is cultunllly significant given the ways in which schools arc reflective
of society writ large. Even more important, what students learn in schools is
related to the content of the curriculum. I know this point seems self-evident,
but I am struck by how often curricular battles are really proxy wars for adults'
political disagreements-and what gets lost is the very real impact that different
curricula have on what students believe (Thornton, 2003).
Once a topic is put into the curriculum, there is often controversy about
whether it should be treated as open or dosed. Tims, a "tipping"' process often
begins. The box can be tipped so that the issue is "open," meaning thal the issue
is indeed controversial and worthy of discussion, as is, for example, the current
issue of capital punishment in the United States. However, the box could also
be tipped "closed," as would be the case with an issue such as women's suffrage

113
114 • Controversy in the Curriculum

because it is no longer controversial. While it is relatively easy to identify capital

punishment as an open issue and women's suffrage ;:Js a closed issue within the
context of contemporary United States, teaching becomes more precarious
when an issue has not tipped, but rather is in the process of tipping-moving
from open to closed or dosed to open. lnevitnhly, there will he those who feel
that the issue is closed and therefore not open for discussion in public schools,
while there will be others who believe that the issue is very much still open and
in need of discussion. Thi!i is what makes the teaching of controversial issues so
controversial.
Before a teacher can engage her students in controversial issues discussions,
she must first identify if the issue is closed, open, ot tipping. I fit is closed, there
is no need for discussion in the form of a controversial plllitical issues
discussion (which is not to say that the issue should therefore be left out of the
curriculum). hu· example, in the case of women's suffrage, many teachers
include lessons or even units about how women gained the franchise and why
it was such an important step in U.S. democracy. Or they may even engage their
students in a discussion tint places them back in time to deliberate the issue in
the historical context.
Conversely, issues that arc open in contcmpormy society are the kinds of
controversial political issue that teachers, like those show-cased in Chapter 4,
often include in their curriculum. If the issue is tipping, there is also room for
discussion, but teachers must be sure to take into account the controversial
nature of the controversial issue while designing and implementing the lesson,
and recognize that the decision they make about whether to treat an issue as
open or closed will undoubtedly be one that sparks some degree of controversy.
To more fully illustrate the concept of tipping, the remainder of this chapter
looks first at the construction of controversy, followed by four examples of
tipping. I then address how it is decided if an issue is open, closed, or tipping
and ask who should be making this decision? Finally, I condudc with n
discussion of implications for teaching in the "tip."

The Construction of Controversy

Topics arc not controversial by nature. Instead, they are socially constructed in
ways that cause them to be more or less controversial. This is why it is common
for issues that are considered closed in one nation or region to be controversial
in others. For example, the question of whether evolution (or other ideas about
the origin of life) should be taught in schools is a matter of bitter controversy in
some parts of the United States but docs not generate the same level of contro-
versy in much of Europe {Hess, 2006). Similarly, in many parts of the world,
hcalthcare is considered a basic hum<ln right that governments should provide
their citizens, and thus the basic question of whether people have a right to
hcalthcare is a "dosed" matter and is taught as such in schools. In other nations,
such as the United States, this question is controversial and is taught that way.
 Teaching in the Tip • 115

But justns questions arc controversial in some places and not in others, over
time issues can move from being closed to open and vice versa. For exnmplc, as
mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, at one time the question of
whether or not suffrage should be extended to women was conlrovL•rsial in
many democratic nations, while now women's suffrage is widely recognized as
a bask right (though not, of course, in alln<ttions). Although it currently would
not he controversial in nwny nations for tL•achcrs to present women's suffrage
as il dosed matter, imagine what it was like for tcm:hcrs when society was
"tipping" from viewing this issue as controversial to one that w;ts settled. This
tipping process is a major reason why one scholar deemed the teaching of
controversial issues "a multiRrisk business" (Cuvct, 2007, p. I). Much of the
conllict thnt arises from the teaching of controversial issues in schools is rooted
in disagreements about whether or nul a tcnchcr (or school, or curriculum
material) communicates the right decision about which side of the "tip" to
prnmlltc (Camicia, 2007; Hess, 2004a). This is a key point because the decision
about whether to construct an issue ns open or dosed is, by definition, a form
of positinnRtaking on the p;lrl of the school and teacher, and therefore,
controversial.

Examples ofTipping

Teachiug Japanese Internment and Evolution in the Classroom:

Tips of tile Pnst
To illustrate how tipping works, it may be helpful to analyze a concrete exampk•
of a topic that has tipped since I began teaching in 1979: the internment of
Japanese Americans during World War II. As a high school history, govern-
ment, and law teacher in a submb of Chicago, I was inculcated into J social
studies department that believed it was essential to engage students in discus~
sions of highly controversial issues in social studies courses. Consequently,
infused throughout all of the required courses and many of the electives were
contemporary topics that were quite controversial. There was also <1 marl<ed
distinction between the liberal pulilit:s of the majority of social studies teachers
and the political values of the larger community, which at the time was nne of
the most solidly Republican areas in the United States.
ln the school's required U.S. History course, we showed a movie about the
internment of Japanese Americans that was tnuted as "balanced" because it
gave equal time to what were then widely considered two legitimately opposing
views. One Vil'W held that the internment was justified because of military
nccessily (or at least that people at the time had good evidence to believe Lhat
to be the case). while the other position was that it was an egregious viola-
tion of civil liberties that was driven by racism i.lnd the desire to steal land.
The textbook we used also presented competing views about the internment,
116 • Controversy in the Curriculum

<1:-> did the many supplemental curricular materials that were disseminated to
teacher:;.
In our history classes, students were asked to deliberate about which position
had the strongest warrant~ 1 recall these discussions as spirited and intcnsc.l had
il :->trong position on the issue, but at that time I did not question whether or not
fnuning the internment as a controversial issues topic was in any way proble-
matic. In fact, we thought we were being hip and edgy in comparison to what
some of the veteran teachers in the department told us about how the
internment had been tre;ttcd in the curriculum in the past. In their experience,
this topic was either ignored (kept under the historical rug, so to speak) or
presented as a military necessity. Jn other words, it was treated as a closed issue,
and the correct understanding of the internment was that is was justified. By
approaching it as a controversial issue, we were recognizing that a "tip" had
occurred, which seemed like a progressive move.
In 1987, I left high school teaching to work for the Constitutional Rights
Foundation of Chicago. While there, I was exposed to a wide array of curri~
culum materials, and I routinely talked with authors of history textbooks. I
began noticing that the curricular treatment or the internment was changing.
Another tip was occurring-perhaps in response to a national commission that
had issued a blistering 1983 report criticizing the internment as a racist travesty
of justice (Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians,
1983). Now it was less likely that students would be asked to deliberate about
whether or not the internment was justified, and much more likely that students
would study it as a case of the government denying the civil liberties of citizens.
The clear intent of this approach was to close the issue so that students would
Jearn that the internment had been wrong. It is important to note that the tip
was occurring as the govemment officially recognized that the internment was
a clear violation of civil liberties. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988, a federal law
signed by President Ronald Reagan, declared in part: "The Congress recognizes
that, as described in the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment
of Civilians, a grave injustice was done to both citizens and permanent residents
of}apanese ancestry by the evacuation, relocation, and internment of civilians
during World War 11" (The Civil Liberties Act of 1988).
Even a cursory analysis of social studies curriculum materials developed
since this law passed shows that students are much more likely to encounter the
issue of Japanese internment as closed rather than open and controversial {e.g.,
( :ayton, Perry, Reed, & Winkler, 2005, pp. 858-859), This is not to suggest that
thl'l'l' is 100% agreement about how the internment should be taught. Camicia's
(.~007) study focused on <1 vocal minority in one community that challenged a
,-urrkulum that it perceived as biased because it did not treat the topic as a
\ nntroversy. However, this is not the norm; even in the community Camicia
'>ltulinl, it was a clear a minority of people objected to the curriculum. The
k.lt hing of the internment of Japanese Americans has tipped-twice-from a
 TcachinginlhcTip • 117

closed quc:;tion {lhc internment was necessary) to an open qucstion (was

the internment justiflcd?) to a dosed question (the internment was a grave
injustice).
While the example of teaching the Japanese internment illustrates how an
issue can tip from open to closed! the example or teaching evolution illustrates
the possibility of the opposite tip-from closed to open. This phenomena of
tipping (from closed to open) can he attributed in part to the rhetoric of
openness that is deeply embedded in American classrooms: both sidi!S of :111
issue should be taught. Advocates for the inclusion of evolution in the school
curriculum more than 80 years 01go made the argument that evolution should
at least have equal time in the curriculum as creationism. The Scopes trial was
set up as a way to teach evolution alongside creationism-not in its stead
{Larson, 1997). This is not to suggest that advocates of evolution did not
ultim<~tcly want to see it taught as the right answer to a scientific question, but
they used the appeal of equal time, which has so much J:1ec validity, to at least
open the issue.

Current Issues iu the Tip-Same Sex Marriage and Global Warming

Attempts to open a previously closed issue create enormous controversy, and
this is happening today with the next example of tipping-same sex marriage.
Until very recently, the question of whether or not the government should
legalize marriage between gay people was absolutely dosed in most curricula and
classrooms (in the same way that the question of whether inter~ racial marriage
should he legalized was closed for so long). Between 1979 and 1995, not once did
I hear a social studies teacher talk about engaging students on this topic as an
open question. That is, students were not asked to deliberate whether marriage
laws should be interpreted to include same~sex couples. There was plenty of
attention to marriage in the curriculum, especially in personal economics classes
where a common simulation involved a faux marriage between two classmates
(always a male and female pair), who were sometimes even assigned an egg to
care for. While this simulation was ostensibly designed to impress upon
teenagers the economic challenges of marrying and having children at a young
age, it always communicated powerful messages about which lifestyle was
"normal"-and hence preferred.
Increasingly, there are movements to include the topic of gay marriage intlw
curriculum. When the topic is induded in the curriculum in public .school-.,
which is still rare in many parts of the nation, it is most likely as an open i:-.·;ut·.
While some individual teachers may present same-sex marriagr <1:-. <1 llu·.ni
issue, supporting the position that it should be legalized, curriculum HLIIt'l i.d·.
on the topic almost always position it as a controversial issue with nJllhlf'lc .11111
competing positions, with the exception of materials from gar rirdll• nq:-111
izations. While advocating for the inclusion of gay marria~t' a.~ <Ill oj ••·n 1·.·.(11 111
118 • Controversy in the Curriculum

the curriculum often provokes tontrovcrsy, advocating for the position that
supporting g<1y marriage should he treated as a dosed issue is evt'll more con~
troversial.
This next cxampk· of teaching in the tip focuses on glob..~! warming. I haw
included it because I hdicvc it masterfully illustrates the contrnvcr~y that arises
as an issue goes through the process of tipping, as it is in the case of global
warming, from open to closed. 1 side with the scientific community and
consider global warming to he a dosed issue-that is, much discussion could
and should revolve around policies concerning global warming, but global
warming itself is no longer debatable. However, it became apparent through a
tcaclwr's response to a column I wrutC for Social Education in spring of 2007
(Hess, 2007b) that not all educators agree with me, and our difference of
opinion is what complicates the tenching of controversial issues.
My column addressed the usc of documentary films in secondary social
studies courses. In the ,C..'ocial h'dumtion column, I wrote:
While the high rate of documentary Him mmgc by social studies teachers
indicates thnt they arc amenable to bringing new films into their
clo1ssrooms, we also know that some films can provoke uproar in some
communities. This is more likely to occur when the film is cutting edge-
whether it's ahead of the mainstream consensus on what is considered
school knowledge, perceived as taking a position on an issue that is highly
controversial, or about a topic that some parents or other community
members consider taboo. In these cases, detractors tend to claim thutthe
objectionable film is biased, Underlying this charge is an assumption that
mnteriuls used in courses-including documentary films-should be
unbiased, objective renditions of reality. Just as some people advocate
that teachers should keep their politic<Ji views to themselves, some nrgue
that people who make documentary films should do the same. Failing
that, their films should no! be used in schools.
Perhaps it's the word "documentary" that causes people to think that
such films should he "objective." Documentation implies a neutral
process-unearthing evidence rather than making a story out of it. Films
that arc judged to fail the objectivity test arc suspect. When this occurs,
accusations crup't that the film lacks "balance," and if shown, must be
censored or countered with equ;llly powerful portrayals of competing
perspectives.
As a case in point, teachers in Federal Way School Disu·ict, south nf
Scolltlc, were criticized for showing All IIICOili'enicnt Trw/! (a 2006
documentary, featuring AI (~ore, on the perils of global warming)
because, as one parent argued, "Condoms don't belong in school, and
neither does AI Gore. He's not <I schoolteacher." Charging that the tllm
was biased, one parent, Frosty Hardison, said, "The information thnt's
 Tenching in the Tip • 119

being presented is a very cod<cyed view of what the truth is ... The Bible
:;ays that in the end limes everything will burn up, but that perspective
isn't in the llVD" (McClure & Stifller, 2007). While the School Board did
not bow to Mr. Hardison's wishes to ban the him, il decided that if
teachers want to show the film they must get the permission of the school
principal nnd make sure that n "credible, legitimate opposing view will be
presented.~~ liivcn that virtually all scientists now believe that global
warming is a well~warmntcd reality {as opposed to one side or a con~
trovcrsiul issue). linding evidence on the "other side" that is equnlly
crcdiblt~ as what the film presents maybe the rule thnt swallowed the tllm.
As a staff member of the National Science Tcnchers Association stated in
response to a query about how to teach the opposing view {that global
warming is not manmade or that its effects are not damaging), "I
wouldn't even know where to find someone, to be honest."
It is not surprising that showing An IncotiJienieut Truth in schools has
created controversy. Although there is agreement in the scientific
community about the veracity of Gore's central claims, this consensus
does not exist among the general public. The latest national survey on the
beliefs of adult Americans nbout glohi:!l warming shows that while 77°Al
believe it is occurring, tCwcr than half say it is caused by human activity,
and most do not say it is a top primity issue that deserves national
attcntion. 1 In the case of A11 Iunmvmieut Trwh, then, the dispute about
whether the film deserves airtime is a classic example of how ideological
baltles in the world outside of school enter the classroom doors. But even
if we accept the veracity of his two central claims, his fi.lm is not objective.
It is a rallying cry1 a call to arms. It is designed to convince viewers that
global warming is a tremendous problem and that we need to act on it
immediately or our collective future is in peril. 1

The remainder of the column did not focus on global warming or AI Gore's
film; 1 had simply used this particular film to make a point about the perils of
viewing documentary films as "objective" sources. I did not encourage teachers
to show the film to their students, nor did J intend to explicitly stake out a
position about whether global warming should be treated as a live controversy
or as a question for which there is a right answer.
Regardless, a few months after the t.:olumn was published, I received a
message from the journal with the news that a teacher had written a strong Jetter
critiquing the column. I was invited to write a response to the letter, and bolh
would be published in a future issue (l.aviano, 2007; Hess, 2007b). The ktt.·•
was entitled "Duding documentaries available on man-made global warminr.
debate":
After reading "From Ba11ished to Brother Outsider, Miss Ntll'llifl 111 :\11
I11convenient Truth: Documentary Films as Perspective~Lad~·n N.1rrat lv.·-, ··
120 • Controversy in the Curriculum

'from the May/juJw 2007 issue of Soria! Edumti(ln, I became disheartened

when the author did not mention the extraordinary 2007 British docu-
mentary that directly challenges AI Gore's claim that global warming is due
to man~ made causes.
High school students in my contcmpor<H)' issues course investigate the
international debate over man-made versus naturally occurring climate
change. As in any controversial topic I COV(T, the students begin by
gaining a solid foundation of the neutral facts followed by the debatable
viewpoints each side nf the issue provides.
In the case of the man-made versus naturally occurring climate change
ticbatc, l show AI Gore's All lllCOili'Cilient Truth to present the man-made
CO~ argument. To balance out this debate with a "dueling documentary"
I show the opposing British documentary video from Channel 4 called
Tile Great Global Warming Swindle. The documentary's website is
http://www.channd4.com (click documentaries) and can be downloaded
for free from vidco.gouglc.com. This documentary asserts that our
changing climate is ultimately controlled by sun spots as opposed to man-
made C0 2 emissions.
What astounded me in this article was that a staff member of the
National Science Teachers Association "didn't even know where to find
someone ... " with an opposing view since I was informed about this
opposing mainstream video from an economics teacher! For those who
like to teach controversial issues, don't dismiss the cause of global
warming as a closed case; use both of these engaging documentaries to let
your students decide.
Michael Laviano
International Baccalaureate Teacher
Erwin, Tennessee

fn response to Mr. LlViano's letter, I wrote:

Teachers, we know, arc powerful curricular gatekeepers who often

disagree about whether topics should be presented to our students ilS
matters of legitimate controversy or as questions for which there arc
correct answers. For teachers like Mr. Laviano and myself who engage
their students in deliberations about controversial issues, there is perhaps
no decision more important than determining whether a topic is a matter
of legitimate controversy in the first place. These decisions arc often
challenging because the nature of what is considered open or closed
often "tips'' over time, and during this tipping process there is signifi-
cant disagreement among the public and within our field about which
way to go.
Mr. Lnviano and I would make different decisions about how to pre~
sent the topic of global warming in class and whether tn usc the docu-
 Teaching in the Tip • 121

mcntary film '!'ftc C'reat Cllolwl \tl/ar111ing Swi11dlc as evidence supporting

nne side oft he debate. He advocates teaching global warming as <111 open
question nnd using the Jllmto balance Ihe claims made in All Jw:mtV£'1/iCIII
Tmll1. I disagree with him on both points. I don't think tlwt global
warming is a legitimate controversial issue that should he presented to
students as <lll open case. Jw;L tlw opposite: I think the issue has tipped
and is now one J(Jr which there is a right answer that should be taught to
students-especially since the stakes <ll't' so high.
While tlu.'rc nrc some scientists who disagree that global warming is a
reality that is caused by humnn behavior, the vast majority of them dn
not.-1 Keeping in mind that our understanding of what is scientificnlly
credible G.ll1 chnngc as new evidence emerges, it may be the case that at
some point in the future WL' need to rc~open global warming per seas a
controversial issue. But just because there is some disagreement about
whether something is scientifically accurate does not mean that it
deserves opcn~casc status in the curriculum. That said, I do think there
are tlltlllycontrovcrsial issues related to global warming that belong in the
curriculum-but they focus on policy questions about what we should
do to uddress the problem of global warming, not whether it is a problem
in the first place.
As an aside, The Great Global Warmirtg Swindle does not strike me as <1
particularly well~warranted source. Given the consensus that has emerged
in the scientific community about global warming, I think it would he
highly unlikely to find a source that presents a scientifically credible
opposing view-which may account for why the staff person from the
National Science Teachers Association was not aware of it. While Mr.
Laviano characterizes the film as a mainstream source, he may not be
aware that after it was shown on Channel 4 in Great Britain, there was a
storm of controversy from scientists (including some interviewed for the
film who claimed their views had been misrepresentcd); 1
What makes global warming so challenging is that there is a striking
difference between the consensus that has emerged in the scientific
community and the views held among the general public, especially in
the United States. Moreover, there is a significant difference in how
Republicans and Democrats view global warming, which helps explain
why the question of how to teach about global warming in schools is so
politically charged.'
As an educator who advocates the inclusion of controversial issues in
the curricuhun, 1 frequently encounter the view that all topics should be
presented to students as controversial so they can decide which view to
support. I find that view irresponsible. Our job a.s teachers is to make the
best judgments we can about the content of our courses.. It is a chnllcnging
task that will be done with more integrity if we make public our decisions
122 • Controversy in the Curriculum

about what quest ions we present as open or closed and the grounds on
which those decisions are based. Even better is to deliberate these qucs~
tions with our colleagues.
1 thank Mr. Laviano for his letter. As the graduate students enrolled in
a course 1 am teaching this semester on controversy in the secondary
school curriculum can attest, it provoked a spirited deliberation in class
about whether global warming should be presented as open or closed. As
readers can imagine, there was lots of disagreement. Students on both
sides of this issue made strong and compelling arguments. So while I
would make a different decision about how to approach global warming
than Mr. Laviano, it is clear to me that reasonable people c<Jn (and do)
disagree about this-and also that some of the most interesting
controversies in our field revolve around what we should teach as
controversial.

Issues and Implications

What all of the!ic cx<~mplcs have shown is that it is not easy to come to
agreement on the status of an issue as open, dosed, or lipping, and it is not clear
who should be making this decision. Furthermore, especially if this issue is
tipping, there are important considerations teachers must make as they include
the issue in their curriculum. In the last two sections, I will address each of these
issues in turn.

Who Decides?

Michael Hand (2008) provides a definition for teaching something as con trow
vcrsial:

To teach something as controversial is to present it as a matter on which

diffel'cnt views arc or could be held, and to expound those different views
as impartially as possible. It is to acknowledge and explore various possi~
ble answers to a question without endorsing any of them. The intended
outcome of such teaching is, at least, that pupils should understand a
range of views on a topic and arguments in their support, and at most,
thal they should hold and be able to defend considered views of their
own; it is emphatically 110t that they should come to share the view
favoured by the te<tchcr (2008, p. I).

Thus we arc confronted with the central question: Who decides if an issue is
indeed controversial? The global warming example above illustrates the many
different players involved in this decision-society writ large, political leaders,
specialized communities (such as scientists) parents, and inevitably, teachers.
M1·. Laviano believes that the question of whether or not global w<ltTning is
"manmade'' and caused, at least in part, by co~ emissions is a matter of
 Teaching in the Tip • 123

contemporary controwrsy and shnuld be treated as slu.:h in tlw school ~.:urrfcu~

lum. Although I dn not know Mr. Laviano,my hunch is that he realizes that there
is ct lively dispull: among the geneml public, political leaders, and educators
about whether or not global warming should be treated as a dosed or open issm·.
As I have already mentioned, I disagree. l sec the issue as closed.
If you imagine Mr. La via no and myself as proxies for n k1rgcr dispute, then
you can Sl'l' the consequences that teaching an issue that is tipping might hnvc
for teachers and their students. If a teacher approaches the global warming issue
ilS closed-as I recommend-then students would not engage in nn analysis of
the argutm.:nts supporting the opposing view. Instead, the baseline assumption
that frames curricular decisions about the topic would be that global warming
is a reality that might be tilught explicitly, particularly in a science class. This
docs nut mean that if global warming is considered a closed issue then it should
be taken nut of the sociJI studies curriculum.lnsh!ild, one can imnginc n soci;li
studies clnss thilt includes discussions of policies concerning what should he
donl' about global warming. A!:i an example, a class might delihcr<llc <lhoul
whether the federal tax on gasoline should be increased to discmtrage driving,
thereby reducing C01 emissions. Treating global warming ns i1 closed question
would mo!:il likdy be supported by teachers who l1avc become co11vinced that
the evidence supporting global warming is so overwhelming that approaching
it us a controversial issue in their classes is irresponsible.
Increasingly, there is a tendency in the United States to avoid making hard
intdlcdual decisions by "teaching the conflicts" as if there were no real
diffl•rcncl' between what is true and what is false. Under the banners of
"balance," fair play, and multiple perspectives,, teachers and curriculum
designers t:w.~ extreme pressure to bow to "public" demands (often orchestrated
by slick public relations campaigns) instead of milking curricular dedsions
hJstxi on disciplinary lmowlcdgc. Global warming is but one example of the
danger this path poses for people of ail political stripes because it means that the
t:onlcnt of the sd10ol curriculum is really just a mattt•r of who holds the reins
of political power at a given moment
And yet, with respect to most public policy issues, I generally agree with
President Bush's l'Xhortation that, "Both sides ought to be properly taught ...
so people can understand what the debate is about" (Baker & Slavin, 2005,
p. I). Moreover, it would be naiVe and undemocratic to suggest that the public's
views should not hnvc any influence on what is taught in the public's schools.
With all of this to consider, it is not easy to decide when "balance" is the
democratic approach to a matter of controversy or is simply a cop~out that
turns any notion of truth on its head.
So again, we must ask, who derides? Should it-and t.:ould it-be the general
public? ff there were widespread agreement amung the general public that
global warming is a reality, then treating this topic as a dosed issue in schools
probably would not cause much controversy. which is the case in many nations.
124 • Controversy in the Curriculum

Or should it be specialized communities, for exnmple, scicnti:>ls, who decide

because society trusts their expertise and it would be inappropri<1te to teach
something that has been determined fact as opinion?
Even though lhe in-print disagreement reprinted here W<lS- (ivil, it does not
take much imagination to envision a heated controversy provoked when the
public, parents, students, or other stakeholders in the schools find that Mr.
Laviano or Ms. Hess is teaching an issue as closed when they think it should be
open or vice versa. And yet, while it is likely that the general public, speciillized
communities, and parents will in some way shape the understanding of an issue
as open or closed, inevitably the decision about an issue's status, and the
resulting curriculum that surrounds it, will be decided by the teacher.
Educators arc often the "state actors" who make decisions about whether or
not a topic will be included in the curriculum, and once in, whether or not it
will be treated as open or dosed. Even in this era of standards nnd high~stakes
asscssnwnts, in most school districts individual teachers still h;wc the power
(and the responsibility) to make decisions about the content oft he curriculum.
Teaching controversial issues during the tipping process is tricky business and
accounts for m~my of the tl·nsions surrounding curricular choices in schools.
Complicating this is the fact that it is difficuh, if not impossible, to ascertain
rnecbcly when <111 issue has tipped, making it difficult for teat:hcrs to stay behind
the front wave oft he tipping process (Hess & Avery, 200H).

The Challenges of Teaching in the Tip

ln the preceding st•ctions, I have explained several different ways issues can tip.
The llrst is when a topic tips from closed {where one perspective is l<mght as the
answer) to open, ilnd then back to dosed (with the opposite position taught as
a right answer), as illustrated by the case of the internment of Japanese
Americans. A second way an issue can tip is from closed to open, as is the case
with gay marrh1ge. Finally, a third way an issue can tip is from open to dosed,
as illustrated with the global warming t.•xamplc. And we must also not forget
that even to get an issue in the curriculum box is controversial in and of itself.
This discussion is not meant to he an exhaustive inventory of the ways that
topics can tip in the curriculum, hut simply an illustration of the fact that there
is nu monolithic tipping process.
Understanding the different ways that issues can tip may help to shed light
on some of the challenges not only facing social studies teachers who work in
the realm of controversial issues but also teachers of other disciplines who
t:onfront serious controversy and controversial issues in their classrooms. I
often hear from teachers that treating a topic as controversial is simply too
controversial in itself. They are afraid to engage their students in talking about
n:al issues because they fear the emotions such a discussion may ignite among
their stmknts. They are also concerned about upsetting the community.
 Teaching in the Tip • 125

The four studies I haVL' conducted on controversii\l issues teaching and

matcri,ds sinrc II.JlJH (l-Jcss, 2002; llt•ss & Posselt, 2002; i·le.ss, Stoddard, &
Murto, 2008; I Jess & Canzlcr, 2007) howe led me to bdicvc that the tipping
process un help us understand why some topics and issues create so much
controversy, while others do not. While there is signiJic;lllt di!->agn:cmcnt about
whether or not a topic should be included in curriculum und whether or not it
should ht.• lrt.·ated as open or closed, there is lltll nil that mucl1 t:tJntroversy about
controvcrshtl issues teaching in general, unless the teacher is acntscd of giving
unhlir o1dvanlagc to <I particular perspective. This is not to suggest that
controversial issues teaching is happening in all classrooms, or that it docs nul
engender tontrovcrsy, but only that treating an issue <IS an bsuc lws become
almost mainstream osloug as tile issuf' is 1101 in the pmccss oftippillg. But leaching
during <tlip (oa·tcaching in the sc:rviCl' of" leading or preventing a tip} is much
more precarious for teachers bccnusc, by definition, there an: going to be some
people who support the tip and others who tin not. All of the "best pnKtices"
about controversial issues teaching will nut satisfy people who fundamentally
disagree with an issue's positioning. That is, having students engage in
thoughtful analysis of competing points of view on a topic is exactly what
people who advocate closing an open issue do not want (and vice versa).

Implications for Teachers Who Confront Controversial Issues in

their Classrooms
Consequently, it is incumbent upon teachers to make decisions about whether
or not ;.1 topic (such as global warming or gny rights) should be presented
as open or closed. My sense is that lcnchcrs arc much more likely to make
wise decisions about this if they arc conscious o1bout what critcrh1 they are
using when classifying topics ns open or dosed and if they dcliben:IIe these
choices with other teachers. It is dearly the case that the politicnl views or
teachers influence how and what they teach; rather than a problem to be
prevented, this presents a reality to be examined. This examination is more than
an intellectual exercise; it allows teachers to recognize both that this reality
applies to them and that they should become thoughtful about the ways in
which their views inform what happens in their classrooms. My experience has
shown that as teachers, it is easy for us to recognize how others' vil~Ws influence
their teaching, but much more difficult for us to recognize the impact of our
own views in our classrooms. Toward that end, I conclude this chapter with two
stories about how educators think about teaching in the tip, fu·st with an
explanation of howl try to address some of these issues in my own teaching of
preservice teachers and finally, with an analysis of how practicing tc<Kht.•rs an·
thinking about teaching a controversial issue that is currently in tlw pn1u~:-o~ 11/
tipping-intelligent design.
126 • Controversy in the Curriculum

Prcservicc Teachers

For the past sevcn1l years I have experimented with lt·ssons that help prcscrvicc
and practicing middle and high school social studies teachers investigate how
their poiit1cal views may influence their teaching. I have used thh; lesson in the
secondary social studies methods courses at the University of Wisconsin-
Madison and also ns part of short courses I teach on controversial issues dis-
cussions al other institutions.
The first class se5sion begins with a brainstorming exercise. I ask students to
list all the ways in which they think teachers' political views influence what they
teach, how they teach, and what their students learn. This task presupposes that
teachers' views inform their teaching. This may seem like a controversial
position for me to take, but it is one I arrived at through extensive practice,
research, and reflection. It highlights my view that teachers are political beings
and that teaching provides multiple opportunities for teachers' political views
to influence their worlc This is not to suggest that teachers should indoctrinate
students into particular political positiom;, but it reflects the reality that the
curricular decisions teachers make will, by definition, be influenced by their
own views. The fact that students have no trouble developing long lists during
the brainstorming portion of the class has convinced me that this is not an
aberrant view but one that is readily apparent to social studies methods
students. For example, one student remarked that teachers communicate their
political views by how much time they devote to particular issues, while another
observed that the posters on classroom walls could reveal teachers' views.
When the students have finished brainstorming, I explain that this lesson
will focus on just two ways in which teachers' political views influence their
teaching: how they conceptualize what is a controversial issue and teacher
disclosure (sec Chapter 6 on te<.1cher disclosure). At this point I explain to them
that I once thought that teachc1· disclosure was the primary and most important
way teachers' political views showed up in the classroom, but that the first study
I conducted on skillful discussion leaching changed my mind. In that study, I
asked teachers to explain what criteria they u::;cd tn determine if they would
include a controversial public issue in their curriculum, prompted by a list of
issues {on such topics as abortion, gay right;.;, etc.). I was stunned when it
becmne apparent that the teachers disagreed about whether some of the topics
were even issues in the first place {Hess, 2002). For example, one teacher argued
that gay rights issues were not controwrsial. Instead, he characterized them as
human rights issues for which there were answers he wanted his students to
understand and believe. The results of the study showed that well before
the disclosure issue even <-lrises, teachers make an a priori decision that is
undoubtedly as important as whether or not they share their own views with
their students. This decision is to determine whether a question is an issue for
which they want their students to examine multiple and competing views, or a
question for which there is a right answer that they want students to intcmalize.
 Teaching in the Tip • 127

After this discussion, I pass out a short article I wrott• for Soria/ l:'dumrio11
(Hess, 2005), which includes a typology of four ways in which teachers con~
n:ptualize what is a matter of"lcgitimatc" controversy and how they approach
issues with their students:

1. Denial: It is not a controversial political issue: "Some people may say

it is controversial. hut I think they arc wrong. Thcrt' is a right answer
to this question. So I will teach as if it were not controversial to ensure
that students develop that answer."
2. Privilege: Teach toward a particular perspective on the contmvcrsi<~l
political issue: "It is controversial, but I think there is a clearly right
<mswcr and will try to get my students to adopt that position."
J. Avoidance: Avoid the controversial political issue: "The issue b
controversial 1 but my personal views are so strong that I do not think
I can teach it fairly 1 or I do not want to do so."
4. Balance: Teach the matter as genuine controversial political issue:
"The issue is controversial and I will aim toward balance and try to
cnaurc that various positions get a best case 1 fair hearing.~~

Students read the typology, and I briefly explain each category using examples
from the article. Then, I ask them to list issues 1 phrased as questions (e.g.,
shoul9 the death penalty be outlawed?), that they would put in each of the four
categories. Next~ each student discusses his/her list with a partner, with nn
emphasis on why he/she placed questions in particular categories. I then write
each of the four category labels on the board, and each student writes an
abbreviated notation for one item in each of the four categories. When students
return to their seats a~d look at the board, the first thing they notice is that
many of same issues are listed under different categories. For example, in the
fall of 2007, the Iraq War showed up multiple times and in each of the four
categories.
Next, I ask students to talk about what accounts for these ditl'erences in onJcr
to illuminate the criteria they usc to categorize issues. We then talk about the
criteria and how these criteria illustrate one way in which teachers' views inform
what is in the curriculum) how the topics are treated, and consequently, what
students might learn. I conclude this part of the lesson by explaining how
important it is for teachers to be aware of, and to reflect critically on, the criteria
they use to determine what is a matter oflegitimate controversy versus what is
a "settled" question. In other words, I do not suggest that it is a problem that
teachers' views influence these decisions. Instead, I try to help them understand
that people have widely disparate ideas about what constitutes a matter nf
legitimate controversy as well as what criteria should be used to make th<ll
determination. Just as importantly, I try to help my students see how signilil"illll
it is for teachers to make their decisions transparent and to cngilgl' in dis
cussions about them with their colleagues.
128 • Controversy in the Curriculum

Prncticing Teachers
This type of discussion is nlso important for ~mtcticing teachers. ln early
December 2005, I ran a session at the "Colol'ildo Deliberating About Democracy"
Conference about ;m l-;suc that is trying to make it into the curriculum box in
science-intelligent design. Much like the "equal time" argument used to get
evolution taught alongside creationism, there is an effort to have intelligent design
taught as an alternative explanation about the origin and development of human
life in sciences classes.
I wanted to know if the 65 teachers who attended my session thought this
issue (whether or not to teach intelligent design in science) should be discussed
in social studies classrooms. And if so, should be taught as controversial (open),
or not (closed)?
I asked the 65 teachers who attended to usc three criteria to consider the
following four lesson ideas that included intelligent design: ( 1) an inquiry lesson
asking students to determine what accounts for the increased interest in
teaching intelligent design in science courses; (2) a constitutional lesson asking
students to assess whether or not a school district's policy to include intelligent
design violated the Constitution; (3) a comparative lesson, directing students
to mmpare differing philosophies on the origin and development ofhuman life;
and finally (4) a lesson that would bring the teaching of intelligent design in
science into the social studies classroom as a controversial issue worthy of
discussion. The teachers considered this final lesson the most controversial by
far. A closer look at some of the teacher's comments ilJustratcs again the con~
troversial nature of teaching an issue whose own status of being controversial
(or not) is in flux.
Almost half of the teachers said they would not teach this lesson. for somt•
teachers, it was just not that important; their rationale for its exclusion was
simply based on the desire to spend class time on controversial issues they
deemed more important. For other teachers~ however, the issue was either too
controversial or not controversi<tl enough. In some communities, the policy
question about whether intelligent design belonged in science courses was
simply too hot to handle. One teacher commented, "I wouldn't touch that with
a ten-foot pole. There are already serious religious divisions in my school, and
I don't want to make them worse." Another teacher said, "This is a classic
lose-lose. Parents who have strong feelings about intelligent design in the
curriculum-on both sides-will wonder why this is presented as a controversy
when they think lhey have the right answer." One teacher asked her colleagues
a scrirs of difficult questions: "What evidence would kids use to make a decision
about this policy issue? Wouldn't they decide based on whether they think
intelligent design is valid science? And how would they know that anyway? And
given that I am not a .scicnrc teacher, how would I know how to help them know
that~" These questions, while challenging, did not go unanswered. A number of
 Tenching in the Tip • 129

lc<Khcrs who supported cng<1ging students in this policy deliberation pointt.:d

out that many public policy que.stions involve scientific is!-iue.s and that in a
democracy, non-experts weigh in on these issues all the time. Another te;Khl~r
pointed out that most legislators and school board members arc not scientists
tither, and we should be sca!Tnlding young people into the kinds of poli(y
decision::; that nn..• ht1scd on contl'Stcd intcrprctations of truth.
Some other teachers questioned whether or not they wanted to be seen as
taking a stand on the validity of thc controversy, when the majority of the
science teachers in their school view this as a question for which tlwrc is a right
answer. "Look," said one teacher, "virtually all st:icntists agree that intelligent
design is not science-why should I fan the flames of ignorance by i.ldvancing
this as a legitimate public controversy? I would prefer to stand in solidarity with
my colleagues who arc having a hard enough tim.c just keeping evolution in the
curriculum." For some teachers, then, the question of whether or not intelJigcnl
design belongs in the curriculum was not a matter of legitimate public con~
trovcrsy that deserved classroom airtime, but a closed issue, a question for
which there was already a right answer. Unlike the inquiry lesson that the
teachers viewed as having a veil of neutrality, the very act of presenting students
with this topic as a controversial issue sent a message that some te<~chers didn't
W<mt to perpetuate.

Conclusion
These examples highlight the critical aspect of teaching controversial issues,
particuhuly issues in the tipping process, which is that teachers should not shy
away from teaching such issues as long ;.ts they t.:ontinue to rctlcct upon the
curricular decisions they make about which issues to present, and whether to
present those issues as open or dost•d. ln sur6tcing those decisions, and the
underlying criteria used to make them, and in discussing thrir positions with
colleagues, teachers can find ways to continul' to bring vitally important i::;:-;ues
into the classroom-even during the tipping process.