The Mix of Politics and Teaching

I just received notice from the National Education Association (you know, that monolithic union/bastion of power bent on having its teacher members corrupt the youth of our nation with liberal ideas) that they are considering revoking my life membership. My crime? Apparently I have too many former students who have come out on Facebook as conservative in their politics.

Okay, there’s not one bit of the above paragraph that is true (and if you’ve ever seen the “herding cats” exercise that passes for a national NEA convention you already know it), although from what I’ve read over the years that misconception is seemingly widespread. I’m proud of my service in and to that organization during the first two-thirds (or so) of my career; the NEA (and AFT) advocated and fought for teachers at a time when no one else did. Teacher unions still represent the only organized voice for the teaching profession.

But that’s not the point of this piece. I would be interested in feedback from any of my formers who’d like to chime in, no matter their political leanings. I’m not sure it will matter in terms of how I will answer the question I’m posing, but I’m curious as to your thoughts. I hope that you always felt like I respected students’ opinions, no matter how wrong you were and still are.

Okay, seriously, here’s the question I’m presenting in my own meandering fashion. I will be doing a maternity leave sub job this spring (6 weeks, sophomores, mostly just regular classes, but one Advanced Placement). The subject? U.S. Government. Starting to see where I’m going here?

Government by definition has to veer into politics, especially in an election year, which 2016 finally is, even though it feels like we’ve been in an election year for over a year already. (Style note: the repetition of “year” is deliberate if questionably effective.)

I’ve never made any secret that I lean left politically. The question (“Finally!” you say) is do I tell students up front where I stand and (try to) assure them that I don’t care about their politics, only their ability to logically and rationally defend their positions? Or do I teach (as best I can) from a position of neutrality, knowing that my biases and beliefs will inevitably leak into the discussion.

I have always (well, at least since I got a clue about my craft) believed a teacher must teach who (s)he is, her/his personality and beliefs. Anything less is, again by definition, inauthentic and kids spot phonies and wishy-washies right away. My experience is that they WANT to know where you stand and don’t have a lot of tolerance for disingenuous fence-sitters.

Clearly I didn’t turn all my students into raving lunatic liberal socialists (I feel like such a failure!) even though they might think I’m in that camp. (I did have one student, very early in my career, tell me that her father thought I was a Communist; she made it clear she agreed with him. Pretty sure she didn’t become one, though.) Neither, as far as I know, did the few conservative Neanderthals/counter-revolutionaries who somehow snuck into the teaching profession turn students into wild-eyed fascists. I don’t really think it works that way.

    But I AM interested in what you think about the approach I will almost certainly take, which is to be totally upfront. I frequently tell kids, “I will never lie to you, but I may try to find a way to tell the truth that avoids bluntness or cruelty.” (“Johnny, have you considered Speed Bump as a career?” – see, I never said that, although I did create a list of “Careers for the Otherwise Useless” that I kept locked away in a drawer during my finale as Hancock’s guidance counselor, but that’s a topic for another day [if ever].)

The Ironic Argument of Birth

Let me be clear. I think Ted Cruz is something of an extremist maniac and would only vote for him in a forced choice between him and someone named Trump. Cruz is at least a more intelligent and less mean-spirited maniac.

I have always assumed the interpretation of the Constitution of “natural born citizen” to be universal and mean a person who was a citizen by birth. However, apparently there are some who question that, although it seems patently unfair and manifestly ridiculous to eliminate someone who was, for example, born to an American serviceman or woman or diplomat at a foreign hospital. It would also eliminate my brother (born in Belgium), although I think there are plenty of other disqualifiers in his case. But I doubt he would vote for me, either.

In any case, if this is the best shot Trump can take at Cruz (both being denizens of the same wing and attractive to [essentially] the same constituent demographic), he should bow out now, because it’s a weak argument, even if some Constitutional scholars argue to the contrary. 

But wait. If you agree that the birth argument against Cruz is bogus, but entertained that same argument (no matter how briefly) against Obama (even if he HAD been born in Kenya, an allegation disproved so often and thoroughly it’s absurd that so many continue to believe it over fact), check your irony meter.

Also, please note that the Constitution is now, and has always been, open to interpretation, from Day 1. Please keep that in mind when you start quoting Justice Scalia about “original intent.” Part of that brilliant document’s great strength is its flexibility as a living blueprint for our government, built to change with the times.  That, above all, in my view, is the supreme testament to the foresight of the founders who supported its creation.

You can’t have an argument both ways to fit your support of a candidate or issue, although I have no doubt some will try.