Does the problem originate in the nation’s colleges? I discuss this issue of American political ignorance in my community college Freshman Composition course. I raise the issue when I use the Declaration as an example of argument and require the first two paragraphs for a paraphrase exercise. Usually, USUALLY, my students have never read the Declaration before. They have heard of it, usually, but not always. Nearly all of my students come from public high schools. Some are as young as 16 years old, as we have PSEO students, but my oldest student was 59 years old. In a class with that range of ages, that none of them knew anything about the Declaration of Independence much less any of the other historical and documentary points of interest mentioned in this article.

So, I do my small part to address the issue. The best part of “Declaration as argument” is that I can discuss the arguments, political philosophy and history in the classroom. The best part of the paraphrase exercise is that we can discuss how very difficult it is to say something other than “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” We can discuss those words (as well as “consent of the governed” and others) as to their meaning in the historical political context and in today’s. What you can and cannot paraphrase is part of the point, but I make larger points, too. Most of my students love those two classes of mine.

Yet, they are ashamed not to know the document. I wonder how they get through public schools without such an encounter. How can they be able to tell me all about Earth Day and nothing about the documents of their nation’s founding? Something is distinctly wrong with public schools that do not teach something about those six points mentioned in that article. Civics ought to be foundational; not left to higher education.

I do not argue that this discussion ought NOT to take place in the college classroom. It ought not begin there. Didn’t Lincoln also say that mothers ought to be lisping such things in their babies’ ears? I suppose mothers have to have a clue, first.

My students become aware that the responsibility to know the USA in a larger way is theirs, now that they are adults. Sometimes they take me seriously. But really, this ought not be left to some English Comp. instructor. I am bailing the ocean with a teaspoon. Also, I am not talking about poetry in order to be able to discuss this. But somebody has to do something. It is appalling that America does not know itself.

Kate, at 9:10 am EDT on April 25, 2008

Becoming American

Texas is a state that requires college and university students to take courses in government. However, I am not convinced that graduates of Texas colleges and universities have any more knowledge of the Constitution, the principles of democracy, or the workings of government than college and university graduates in states where government courses are not required. It may be that the problem posed by the author of this article is either not a problem that needs to be solved or, if it is a problem, it is more likely a problem of American society and thus larger than the educational system. Many critics of American society are prone to blame what they define as wrong on either K-12 or higher education. There may be problems in the U.S.; if so, I am fairly certain they have not been caused by failures in the educational institution nor will they be solved by manipulating the curriculum.

Jerry Shepperd, at 12:40 pm EDT on April 25, 2008

The most rewarding courses in the two graduate programs (MBA, Humanities) that I have participated in have been Plato’s Republic, Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics and his Politics. Not only is the past prologue, but it is also essential for present day public discourse on democratic principles. In Lindsay’s article, Becoming American, he has wisely pointed out the necessary questions that would promote active intellectual discourse focusing on civic issues and political inquiry.

More importantly, the absence of a strong educational curriculum dealing with the political history of the United States ensures a perpetuation of the ignorance of core traditional American values and ideals. As Lindsay urges, a reversal of this unfortunate trend is a goal worthy of pursuing in a serious way. After all, how are immigrants to understand American democratic principles when the citizens themselves lack knowledge of such basic principles of freedom and equality? Lindsay’s host of subjects that include the Declaration, the Constitution, The Federalist, as well as representative men such as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Dr. Martin Luther King are, indeed, necessary for a solid foundational democratic education.

Aristotle once said that a citizen may not need to be an actual office-holder. The good person may turn down office to pursue intellectual activities, but one must have a deliberative share in his/her own city. One cannot have the shame of having its laws chosen for him/her. Without civic education, we might as well amass some statistics, take a poll, and collectively call that a choice of political preference. It is much harder and much more strenuous to reason and deliberate about serious political and social problems. What is worth the efforts of civic guidance is to promote a continuous dialogue regarding “the good life,” “the quest demanded by the desire to know ourselves,” and the awareness that making good choices will enhance and strengthen the very democratic principles we wish for our future generations.

Mary DiMaria, University of Dallas, at 5:55 am EDT on April 27, 2008

Education for Democratic Citizenship

Dr. Lindsay issues a much-needed call for American higher education to take seriously its obligation to prepare its students for reflective, and hence responsible, citizenship. America is committed to a variety of genuine but imperfectly compatible goods: democratic self-government, equality, and indidivual freedom. Understanding the tensions among these goods, the Founders sought to devise a complex system of government that could render them tolerably compatible, or that could balance their competing claims. Despite their undeniable care, and even their genius, in framing this system, it is of the nature of such a composite that it cannot be perpetuated automatically, without the thoughtful effort of committed citizens. Dr. Lindsay is therefore correct to suggest that America’s citizens, and especially those who attend college and will therefore have greater opportunities for leadership, need to be educated in the principles underlying America’s government and in the great historic debates over the meaning of these principles and what they require of us. Indeed, we can go further and suggest (as I think Dr. Lindsay’s piece implies) that a complete democratic education requires that students be educated in the tradition of Western political thought itself, including even the most penetrating criticisms of democracy. Such an education is a necessary first step to enabling students to think critically and independently about their own way of life and their country’s. This in turn is essential to a reasonable and effective cititzenship that is not rendered powerless to promote the good because it is blinded by the prejudices of the day.

Carson Holloway, Assistant Professor of Political Science at University of Nebraska at Omaha, at 11:15 am EDT on April 28, 2008

Thomas Lindsay articulates a strong case for a return to civic education and a serious study of the American founding in our educational institutions. As a high school educator, I would appreciate seeing his recommendations come to fruition in the K-12 curriculum as well. We cannot begin too early to instill in our children the importance of a foundational understanding of our nation’s political principles. So I must respectfully disagree with the spirit of Jerry Shepherd’s comments. Sure, Texas students take courses in Government (as students do in most states), but are these courses really the kind of curriculum Thomas Lindsay is proponing? Also, even if the failure of our citizenry to appreciate our democratic beginnings is not due to education, why shouldn’t our schools try to rectify that failure? The best educators are unwilling to shift the blame or the burden onto other cultural forces or institutions. Thomas Lindsay is correct that a renewal of citizenship education must begin with a re-evalution of our curriculum toward a deeper and more serious engagement with the American founding.

Rob Schebel, at 9:50 pm EDT on April 28, 2008

A Call to Our “Better Angels”

When Lindsay calls for the need for all university students to “undertake the serious study of the character and foundations of American democracy,” he calls for more than a reform in curriculum, he calls for a reform in pedagogy itself. And this reform, it seems to me, can only take place when we can learn and then practice — in what can pass for our collective consciousness – national appetites that reach higher than individual rights and liberties based on consumption. These higher virtues, I’d like to call them, can only be taught and learned (with all due respect to Mr. Shepperd), and there is no more critical need for a country such as ours — a collection of seemingly infinite classes and creeds — to be called, as a whole, to its higher nature in order to conduct itself with mutual respect and concern. Lindsay’s “core questions” give a wonderful entrée into some of the important issues that need to be analyzed and explored in order for us to begin to understand the nature of the political ideals that may provide the only access to a national identity available to such a diverse people. And in spite of the small-mindedness that results from the bureaucracy foisted upon our beleaguered high school teachers, and in spite of the unattractive posturing of cynical disdain that depletes the moral energy in many of our university professors, it is through our classrooms that we will collectively learn these virtues that Lindsay speaks of as rising robustly from our founding documents. To educate a whole people was never an easy project, and now it is more challenging still. Perhaps we should start by rejecting the tired yet still-popular notions disallowing us from engaging in open and honest inquiry and that require, instead, that we choose a battleground, like constant adversaries, to staunchly defend our cause. But this kind of openness will require teachers and professors, themselves, to recover or discover a sense of higher things, among them, the “self evident” and “inalienable rights” for which our Declaration pleads.

Claudia Allums, Director of the Teachers Academy at The Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture, at 10:25 am EDT on April 29, 2008

Thomas Lindsay’s eloquent and learned plea for civic education is a timely reminder that there are issues and subjects that need to be part of the the curriculum, particularly in an era when so many American college students do not read newspapers, get their political news from cynical comedy shows, and are less and less apt to read anything beyond what is assigned in a class (if that). Even our best students are often so focused on pre-professional courses and knowledge that they skimp or avoid confronting issues of democratic citizenship. Faculties that rightfully insist that students should learn a foreign language or understand the nature of scientific research or mathematical reasoning need to recognize the importance of exposing them to arguments about democratic citizenship.

Harvey Klehr, Emory University, at 2:45 pm EDT on April 29, 2008

Tom Lindsay’s piece

Professor Lindsay offers a profound alternative to the shallow, albeit well-intentioned effort called forth by Derek Bok, who was perhaps best known during his Harvard presidency for bolstering the university’s community service efforts —rather than the highest standards of liberal education. Lindsay’s call is all the more urgent in our era of instant communications when the truly important questions are often lost in the haze of the here and now.

Citizenship in our constitutional democracy means far more than mere voting or paying attention to the media. It requires seeing a median between mere self-interest and utopianism, qualities at times lost in our commercial age, which itself has spawned an idealism often distant and disrespectful of the forms and formalities of republican government. The education Lindsay proposes is a cure for these excesses and the first of many steps toward restoring a healthy polity. It is far more serious than the saccharin approach Bok champions.

Ken, at 4:15 pm EDT on April 29, 2008

In Responding to Dr Lindsay’s article, first an ideal must be established, the American Renaissance Man. An individual who at least flaunt in discussions of what would be a liberal (in the classic sense) Democracy, one who did not let failure stand in his way as an end to his service, one who simply understood ‘good’, not for himself, but for the public. One who set aside what could have been personal grandeur for that public good.

Two brief examples, each for different reasons but both virtuous: First, George Washington, not as we are taught in a cursory manner, but for what is less known. After his failure at Ft. Pitt, Washington did not shrink from public service, rather he studied tactics, he studied military doctrine, achieving if nothing else two of the most valuable lessons that found victory for the 13 Colonies. First to seek the counsel of others and then you do not have to win this war, you simply cannot lose by wasting or surrendering your army. Further, I would argue that Washington alone stands among Cincinnatus or Solon. Like each, when his service was complete he simply went home. Twice Washington could have either become a dictator or ask for and been given a crown. In each instance, the first when he spoke to his officers, he dissuaded them from taking the Army and marching on Philadelphia, and the second by only serving two terms as President.

The second is John Quincy Adams, whose first service came as a child (I believe at 12 years old) when he accompanied his father to France because he was bi-lingual, teaching French on the voyage. In addition, not contesting the results of second Presidential election.

I mention Washington for his virtue, and Adams for his knowledge. I still find it amazing what can be achieved at such an early age if we but look back a mere 225 years. Where children (and I am aware this will invite the criticism that only the privileged and the males were offered these opportunities, I only mention these as proof of what can be taught) who did and could learn and achieve beyond what only a select few adults (of whom I am not one) achieve today after many years and Universities.

I can relate very much to Dr. Lindsay’s concerns. My first collegiate class that I taught was Constitutional Law (a degree produce institution). I was wide-eyed and full of things I wanted my students to learn. I entered the classroom with a plan for the semester, goals or benchmarks that indicated it was time for testing and the like. I only had three text we would go through together; the Constitution its amendments, and Federalist 10 and 51… I had thought if time allowed and matter progressed I would be able add lessons at the end of the term.

The first day and meeting along with explanation of the syllabus were met with, “you expect to do what?” Three tests; all take home, two-page essays explaining the material we had covered. By the time the second week had passed, I sensed that either I was not being effective, my students were not reading, or did not have the background to understand our lessons. As a check on learning/reading, I gave what most who will read think cheesy 10-point quiz. To my dismay, the highest score was five points. To check the validity of the quiz, I gave it to my wife, who had never once sat in my class. She scored eight of 10. Three points better than any student who sat in four lectures and had been assigned to read the material. (Note this was an objective multiple choice-T-F quiz)

We know what can be achieved and at what age, we can begin to measure this achievement. Where then have we failed? From my own experience, I can go back to Kindergarten. Miss Stienkamp was fresh from college with new ideas. These ideas included that we express our own ideas and that we should explore our imaginations. All well and good until we get to First Grade, the older Mrs. Button thought we should learn to read, to write, and know how to do arithmetic. What a change one summer had made, the distinction being ‘discovery of self’ (relativistism) as opposed ‘learning’ (more of a sense of what education was and ought to be about).

I make these distinctions because I believe these are at the heart of Dr. Lindsay’s argument. I fear that now 2 � generations have been so saturated in Miss Stienkamp’s thought process, we have much to fear. Maybe not to fear but to try to undo, the children who entered public schools in the ‘60’s think in this manner because they have never been taught to think otherwise. They are today’s parents, teachers, and some even grandparents.

To reverse this current paradigm, to again include the basic building blocks of education, to include Civics, would include changing the University requirements especially of teachers, students, and curriculum. In doing so, maybe those truths that make us Americans will again find their way into the Public Schools, in a generation or two, we as nation might find that National Purpose, that common identity that once made us truly United. I can speak of German born Great Uncles who when called served in the United States Army in WW I and an Uncle, who likewise served in WW II.

I fear that in an age where no one wins or loses (T-ball games without scores), where grades are either passing or marginal with no sense of failure without which there is no necessity of improvement; where we as a Nation are no longer 1st, 2nd, or 3rd generation Americans; where we have become African- or Mexican-Americans; where having to learn the language and heritage of the nation you immigrated to is an abuse or violation of your rights, we may have put our first, or maybe even our second foot upon that slippery slope of our demise.

When the minority’s opinion, though more important has become the law of the land, as opposed to the will of the majority, (coins without “In God We Trust”, no Baccalaureate ceremonies for graduation, The Pledge of Allegiance cannot be recited in full) all are indications that we are fast falling to the demise of our ‘more-enlightened’ European ancestors. One need not look far to find Paris burning because immigrant discontent. Alternatively, the demise of Denmark’s once ideal Socialist state, where immigrants now find easy living, without contributions.

In summary, Professor Lindsay has been warning his students and fellow academics for years. One respondent expressed that she too feels as though she is “bailing out an ocean with a teaspoon”. If the powers that be would be convinced to look beyond their own political efficacy and expedience, if as a nation we were to bare the burden again of truly teaching that which is truly important, the virtues given us by classics, not the ‘fast food mega meal’ stuff of today, we may yet find our way back to what once made us United.

kendall tack, at 5:55 pm EDT on May 1, 2008

Parakeet in the Mine

Dr. Lindsay has provided a sober and compelling case for why colleges and universities desperately need to revisit the question of the core curriculum. I fear, however, that the trend line is in the other direction.

One might hope that his analysis will prompt a serious debate as to what conjunction of forces is driving even elite liberal arts colleges into betraying the very ethos of their existence by moving into an open curriculum with more and more glitzy,marketable, service-oriented programming. The problem does not lie merely at the doorstep of activist faculty or diversity enthusiasts.

Robert L. Paquette, Hamilton College, at 10:00 am EDT on May 12, 2008