In today’s polarized political climate, TPS is no exception.
With the 2012 presidential election in the rearview mirror and the accompanying politically fueled emotions subsiding to a simmer on campus (albeit an audible simmer due to the recent fiscal cliff and gun control happenings), the community can now reflect on the political climate of the school with its zenith, an election year, in recent memory. Last semester there was no shortage of argument, finger-pointing, or pontificating, but what was the end-result of such dissonance that was commonplace on campus during the autumn months?
The school’s mission is to “develop individuals who will excel in college and in life, contribute to their communities, lead in a changing society, and grow spiritually.” Both presidential contenders acknowledged the change occurring in society, and the tools that individuals will need in order to meaningfully contribute to their communities as we move forward. With that in mind, the race for the White House provided an excellent backdrop for the discussion and dissection of those issues that people of all ages will face as America continues to evolve.
At a time for any school when learning and progress were possible, some students and teachers were only further alienated and disheartened by the discussions that took place regarding the future of this country.
If the community can’t agree to disagree, or open its eyes and ears to the precise reasons for disagreement, then how will its student members be prepared to excel in college and in life, or lead in a changing society?
Physics teacher Michael Arney described the school as “a politically interested campus, not necessarily politically educated,” noting that most of what he encountered during the election was “hyperbolic discussion.”
The fuel for such bellicose language is other bellicose language. The problem is that any inclination to fight back against the source of such bitter blabbing cannot be satisfied, for the orators are protected by the glowing screen. The greater access to information that the internet and television give consumers brings with it a greater access to skewed content. “Students really want to know the truth,” said Arney. “But in the information age, there is so much misinformation.”
Headmaster Craig Maughan also cited the times we live in as the culprit for the epidemic of misinformation. “Before, the print and news media were tightly controlled,” said Maughan. He noted that now, “news” sources are no longer filtered and consumers “can’t assume that any association is down the middle [of the political spectrum].” Prior to the internet, news was consumed strictly through television, radio, and print publications. News content was consistent on television regardless of the network. Fewer individuals had the ability to have their opinions heard by the masses. While television is still prevalent, the internet is one sword proving to be mightier than the pen.
According to a 2012 Pew Research Center poll, thirty-nine percent of people living in the United States consumed news online the previous day, and fifty percent consumed news digitally. Twenty-nine percent read a newspaper the day before, and only eighteen percent read a print magazine.
“Misinformation is a serious problem,” said civics teacher David Ballard. Most people do not consider the source of their information, and conclude that if the content is coming from a “news” program or website, then it must be news, and not just an opinion. “Too many people watch the ‘talking heads’ but don’t bother to fact check,” Ballard declared.
It seems that the “talking heads,” none of whom are David Byrne, are perceived as news sources when really they are commentators who, like their viewers, spin key information as they see convenient. Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s Hardball, has gained a reputation amongst his adversaries for solely citing racism and elitism as reasons for Republican disdain for Barack Obama, as opposed to the President’s economic, foreign policy, or legislative record.
Other television hosts such as Al Sharpton and Ed Schultz have received similar flack for the way they present their emotions to their audience. Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus said after an on-camera confrontation with Matthews that the television personality consistently “plays the role of being the biggest jerk in the room.”
Just as certain outlets have earned themselves the label of “lib media,” other sources have been known to favor the right. Hosts such as Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity of Fox News Network have garnered criticism for their interpretations of the news.
On Jan. 22, Hannity told viewers that there are 8.3 million fewer Americans working than when Barack Obama took office. According to Politifact.com, the actual figure is 358,000.
A former employee of the network said about its operation, “It is their M.O. to undermine the administration and to undermine Democrats. They’re a propaganda outfit but they call themselves news.”
Leading up to observing the right to vote, students do what they can to form an opinion that will allow them to cast an educated vote.
Unfortunately, the opinion of today’s electorate is not so well-informed. Maughan said that “to be educated today, you need to hear both points of view on an issue.” Only receiving information from one side of the political spectrum is how people dig themselves into a hole.
Refusing to expose oneself to certain viewpoints can bring on the label of “low information voter.” According to the Huffington Post, “low information voters are of two types. On the one hand, they are many of the high anxiety voters who only consume intake from the right or left.” Maughan pointed out how crucial it is to allow both sides to speak. If you look at the New York Times, he said, also check out the Wall Street Journal.
“On the other hand, they are almost completely disinterested voters who either use a party label, a wedge issue… or some idiosyncratic or personal preference to make their voting decision,” continued the Huffington Post article. “They are a ‘narrow band’ and easy to reach.”
The school’s party platform presentation assembly prior to the election, sponsored by the TPS Libertarian club, was designed to provide for an objective presentation of both candidates’ views. It was intentionally formatted to avoid the yelling match that the school’s 2008 debate spiraled into. “Four years ago when we did have that student debate, I was puzzled as to what I sat through,” said Ballard. “It showed [the students] that it was okay to verbally assault the opponent.” Ballard noted that the aggressive nature of the event was particularly deleterious to middle school students, who are still very much in formative years.
Maughan explained that prior to the most recent political assembly, there was hesitance among the administration as to whether or not it could be done in a civil manner.
The proclivity to immediately try to cut down the opposition is “the negative nature of politics today,” he said. The headmaster felt that the event was successful because it provided a role model for the students on how to approach the issues in a civil fashion.
While the administration may have been pleased with the assembly, some students were not. “I think they underestimated our self-control,” said junior Austin Martin, president of the Young Democrats club, regarding the format of the event and the lack of any debate or contention of the ideas presented. Because of a lack of argument and defense of each idea, the event “didn’t change anyone’s ideas,” said Martin. “People will present ‘facts’ all the time. It’s what people do with them.”
Senior Corey Burns, president of the Young Republicans club, feels that the misinformation among the students on campus is due to a lack of desire to be properly informed. “Most students don’t care because they don’t have to worry about anything,” said Burns.
Considering the level of enthusiasm and rhetoric on campus during the election season, students showed that in some way or another, they do care. Their grip on the facts is related to what is required of them as students. Maughan refuted the stereotype that young people are apathetic, saying, “It’s a simple factor that kids have a lot on their plates already.” Many of the curriculums are so demanding that to dedicate a large portion of class time to current events would hinder the completion of the necessary course work.
Burns and Martin feel that there’s not a lot going on around campus to aid in the political knowledge of the students. “We have forensics and speech assignments,” said Martin, “but we’re not educated on how to deal with things when we’re offended or when we disagree.”
Burns stated, “I wish we had better political education in high school. Kids don’t learn much.” The senior noted that his most enriching learning experiences during his high school career have occurred outside of the class room during personal conversations with teachers.
What exactly should be the school’s role in developing its students political knowledge? According to the administration, challenging the students to think for themselves is paramount. Maughan assured that the school as an organization does not take stances on the issues at large. Rather than providing defined views, “the role of education is to ask students why they believe what they do,” said the headmaster.
The educators don’t take their responsibility lightly. History teacher Sam Stewart said that in the classroom, “I try to get people to constructively discuss the issues.” He said he hopes to make his students just uncomfortable enough to seriously reflect. The main question is, “do you really understand how this works?”
Social sciences teacher Michael Vigars explained that he makes an effort to infuse current events into his classes with the limited opportunity he has. “I think there is a role for current events in other courses without there being a standalone class. For instance, as presidential candidates debated tax policy in 2012, my Honors Economics class analyzed the impact to different taxpayers of different Obama and Romney proposals,” he said.
In a subject such as politics where little if anything is black and white, there are clear-cut ideas that every student should walk away with after a political discussion in the classroom. Ballard set the criteria: “Did the kids learn that it’s okay to agree to disagree? Did they learn to present ideas, discuss those ideas, find differences, and determine what’s true and what’s not?”
Ballard echoed Arney in his solution for the rampant uncivil discourse that was seen during the election. “Search for the truth,” he said. “If you’ve got the truth, there’s not much discussion.”
While it may not be evident to the students, the headmaster pointed out that students are always being prepared to be good decision-makers as adults. “It’s done all around you and you might not really realize it,” he said. Maughan cited the English and social sciences curriculums for their exploration of ethical issues that are debated today on the political stage. He also noted the numerous leadership opportunities in on-campus clubs and in student council.
During the past election the school’s political climate reflected that on the national stage—a climate of uncertainty, ambiguity, and hissing at the other side.
No matter how armed with facts any group or party is, politics is unavoidably dominated by opinions.
Elected officials and candidates do their best to convince the electorate that they have the best opinion, and then however many people they convince set out to convince even more undecided minds.
If Republicans are too staunch to budge on the issues and Democrats are too forward-thinking to put a finger on the issues, society will continue to change but there won’t be anyone there to lead.
Former president Bill Clinton remarked, ” The purpose of politics is to give people tools to make the most of their lives.”
Clinton’s predecessor George H.W. Bush said, “I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don’t always agree with them.”
Ballard said that in today’s heated political climate, “every person needs to have an opportunity to reply, and every person needs to realize that everyone’s opinion is valid.”
Indeed, everyone’s opinion is valid because that’s all it is—an opinion.
