A Washington, DC area school cancelled a debate after parents complained some students were being asked to argue a pro-Taliban point of view. Eighth graders at Swanson Middle School in Arlington, Virginia had been researching various world conflicts, including Afghanistan, to prepare for their mock United Nations debate. But Principal Chrystal Forrester emailed parents this week to say Afghanistan would be dropped from the program.
Recognizing the pain that has touched many of our families and neighbors due to the terrorist attacks on the United States and acknowledging the sensitive nature of the conflict in Afghanistan involving many of our dedicated members of the U.S. armed forces, we have eliminated this topic as part of the U.N. unit of study effective immediately,” the e-mail said.
Washington Post Robert McCartney columnist says the decision to drop Afghanistan is a missed opportunity. “Some unknown but substantial part of the nation seems unable to grasp the idea that the educational system should teach young people to analyze differing, conflicting perspectives,” he writes.
Such narrow-mindedness is self-defeating for a country engaged in two wars in societies profoundly different from ours and halfway across the globe. The Pentagon and CIA spend a lot of time studying what motivates enemies such as the Taliban in order to defeat them. We shouldn’t balk at encouraging our young people to do the same.
I’m with McCartney Teaching kids to argue pro and con of a question is a good mental discipline and has been a standard debate technique for a long, long time. My sixth grade daughter’s middle school debate club recently argued the whether marijuana should be legalized, and she was assigned to argue the pro. It didn’t occur to me she might be indoctrinated. The real excitement surrounded 8th graders who were assigned to argue that kids shouldn’t be on Facebook.
I’m sorry, but given all the Army friends we know who have served, are currently serving, or will serve in Afghanistan, I *DO* find it inappropriate for kids to argue a pro-Taliban position. There are enough other topics from which to choose.
Comment by Crimson Wife — December 20, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
Perhaps if it been framed slightly differently: pro- or anti-military intervention in Afghanistan, for example.
Comment by Miss Eyre — December 20, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
I believe, based on other reports, that the exercise was a “model U.N.” which is a simulation in which the students play the role of diplomats representing various nations.
Comment by Robert Pondiscio — December 20, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
Then it really isn’t appropriate, is it, since the Taliban is no longer the recognized government?
I get what you’re saying, Robert, but this assignment makes me squeamish too. There’s something to be said for understanding where the Taliban is coming from, but I’m afraid of sending a message to children that might legitimize that point of view. We as adults are better able to freely discuss and debate the perspective of the Taliban and similar while simultaneously repudiating them. I’m not sure if all kids can make that distinction. Even if they can for themselves, they may not necessarily catch it coming from adults.
Comment by Miss Eyre — December 20, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
I am with Robert P. and Robert McCartney here. There is a big difference between learning an argument and embracing it. It is very important to learn the “other side” (the dangerous side, the taboo side, the enemy side) of an argument. Of course, students should have sufficient preparation in order to do this, and teachers should remind students of the purpose behind it–to understand the issues better, not to condone all points of view.
That said, I see many ways that it could go wrong. It has to be handled judiciously. In this case, the students may be too young to debate a topic of this sort. They are eighth graders. I have taught eighth graders, and in my experience they take things fairly literally and personally. Also, it’s unclear whether these particular students have studied much world history. Having them debate volatile issues they don’t understand (and won’t come to understand through a few Google searches) would indeed be unfair.
Comment by Diana Senechal — December 20, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
I have read the response from this and I am with the Roberts here: arguing with even indefensible positions is a great learning strategy. I am a little biased because I debated in high school and college and coached debate for 15 years but the reality is that looking at things from even hard-to-defend points of view is a critical strategy for learning to defend your own beliefs and argue with others. To claim that students shouldn’t have to defend either things they don’t believe in or hard-to-believe points-of-view limits their academic development.
And to Miss Eyre… I haven’t seen the specific assignment but there are plenty of non-government organizations that are relevant to the United Nations…
Comment by Jason — December 21, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
If this were a debate done by college students or possibly high school juniors & seniors enrolled in an honors/AP class, I could see the merit of including this topic. But I don’t think the typical 13-14 year old 8th grader has the maturity to be able to handle the cognitive sophistication required.
Comment by Crimson Wife — December 21, 2009 @ 3:15 pm
Working with 13-year-olds, I tend to agree with Crimson Wife. Only a few of my brightest students would be able to handle a topic like this. It’s not something, at the very least, that I would offer as whole-class assignment; it might be suitable for an independent study for a few very motivated and mature students, but not for a mixed-ability class of 13-year-olds.
Comment by Miss Eyre — December 21, 2009 @ 5:42 pm
From the news story, it sounds like that the teachers have considered the maturity of their students and it is a school with a more academic student population than most schools.
And given that in five years some of the students might be joining the military and wind up fighting against the Taliban, it does strike me as an important topic.
I’m also not sure how it’s unfair debating volatile issues that you don’t understand. Isn’t that part of the process for understanding an issue? Or at least for becoming aware that you really don’t understand it? How can anyone ever really understand a topic, or at least realise their own ignorance about it, if they don’t actively engage with it?
Comment by Tracy W — December 23, 2009 @ 5:33 am
As I said before, I support having such debates, but they should be handled judiciously. I’d much rather see students debate historical topics they have studied closely–but if these eighth graders had the knowledge and maturity to debate current topics of this kind, they should have been allowed to do so. There are levels of knowledge, of course–but yes, one does have to begin somewhere.
It works best if the teachers are highly knowledgeable of the topics and can challenge the students to articulate their views precisely. That may well have been the case here. I am wary of programs that encourage students to “engage” with “real-life issues” without demanding precision. I am not saying this school was doing that at all–but that was my main concern about such an activity in general.
As for the maturity, it does sound like these particular students could separate themselves from the positions they were arguing. But in many middle schools, a student who argued a pro-Taliban position might end up bloody by the end of the day.
Assuming this was all well considered and carefully planned, it is puzzling that the principal backed down and apologized. What went wrong there? Why wouldn’t the principal defend this activity? Couldn’t she explain that students’ positions in the debate were separate from their actual views–that the debate was meant to promote understanding of the issues? Did anyone try to speak with the concerned parents?
It appears from one of the comments on the Answer Sheet that students had the opportunity to choose their topic and maybe even their side. That could have something to do with it–a kid comes home and tells the parents that he or she chose to argue a pro-Taliban position. Maybe this particular family lost a relative in Afghanistan. The parents say “What?” and the furor begins. It might have made sense for the teachers to assign the topics (thus explicitly separating the positions from the students) and to make the purpose of the debate clear to the parents well in advance.
Comment by Diana Senechal — December 23, 2009 @ 1:16 pm