Politics in the classroom: Can teachers teach the election without bias?

Teachers shouldn't teach about the presidential election, argues Daniel Buck, an assistant principal and commentator, on The Hill. He is "skeptical that our teaching force is capable of covering the election without bias and with equal respect to all sides of the arguments."

In a tweet, he called for students to study history, literature and more to become "more astute and thoughtful in their political activity. . . Focus on contemporary politics and they'll become either cynical or partisan."

That set off a debate on X with many teachers defending their ability to discuss politics without partisanship.

Current events should be part of social studies and civics classes, writes teacher Lauren S. Brown in response. She recalls teaching about Andrew Johnson's impeachment as Bill Clinton was impeached and teaching a unit on the Cold War days after Russia annexed Crimea.

But teachers have to be careful, she writes. "The day after Trump’s State of the Union speech in 2020 my students were jubilant describing Nancy Pelosi ripping Trump’s speech up." She asked them to imagine watching a Republican rip up a speech by President Obama.

"If we teach in a community whose political leanings mirror our own, it is incumbent upon educators to point out how different the reactions and discussions are in other classrooms around the country," Brown writes. "Asking students — gently — about their sources, playing clips from video that demonstrate opposing takes on an issue, and analyzing headlines are but a few strategies I’ve used."

Like Buck, she worries that students can't discuss political issues in any depth because they lack background knowledge.

Teaching history is the best way to teach civics, writes Natalie Wexler. "The human brain is hard-wired to take in knowledge more easily through narratives, and history provides the narrative that makes civics knowledge meaningful."

Discussing past issues rather than hot-button politics can teach students how to disagree civilly, and help students "understand points of view they find alien," she writes.

In a American Historical Association report, history teachers said "they strive to teach in an even-handed way that brings in multiple points of view," writes Wexler. But, "if instruction is delivered through an ideological lens that everyone agrees with, no one may complain—and teachers may not even realize they’re using a particular lens."

She notes that 13 percent of all teachers surveyed identified “seeing the role of God in the nation’s destiny” as one of their “learning goals,” and that rose to 36 percent in three Southern states.

The report didn't provide a left-wing counterpart, but Wexler recalls an Education Week article about "state legislation prohibiting the teaching of 'divisive concepts,' including that anyone is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive by virtue of their race or sex. One Oklahoma teacher protested that teachers weren’t trying to make anyone feel guilty but only trying to teach 'that the laws and systems of our country were purposefully developed to elevate white, cis males'."The teacher added, “That is the truth.”

These teachers don't think they're indoctrinating students, writes Wexler. They may get no pushback if their biases match their community's norms. But they're teaching disputed views as "gospel."

I took AP U.S. History in 1968, a volatile year. Our class was divided into four to research the political campaigns of Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, George Wallace and Fred Halstead, the Socialist Workers' Party candidate. I think the students sitting in the front right of the class got first pick. I was in the last seat on the back left, so I was on the Halstead team. I wasn't impressed by the SWP, but my two best friends dropped out of college to join -- or was that the Socialist Labor Party? -- and devoted themselves to organizing the proletariat for the revolution.