Teaching Civil Disagreements Starts in the Classroom
By Emily Garrison
The first presidential election in which I was eligible to vote was in 2012, when Republican Mitt Romney challenged former President Obama for the office. Never one to pay attention to politics before, I remember the weight of this new responsibility guilting me into watching the presidential debate in October. I found it incredibly stuffy, and frankly boring, and barely made it 20 minutes before I opted for Gossip Girl reruns instead.
Today, my aversion to political discussions stems not from boredom but from a profound discomfort with the slander and mud-slinging that dominate our disagreements. As a teacher, I guide students through the complexities of argumentative writing and speaking. I help them build meaningful claims, consider opposing viewpoints, and support their positions with valid evidence. This process is crucial, whether my students are talking politics or dissecting the popular Kendrick v. Drake beef, because civil discourse is not an innate skill — it must be taught and practiced. A quick glance at any politically focused social media comment section reveals how rare it is to see a respectful disagreement.
We must promote, not shy away from, opportunities for our students to engage in civil disagreements, respecting and understanding opposing views. By focusing on this in the structured environment of a classroom, we can prepare students to step into the world as critical thinkers and informed citizens. The impact extends far beyond the school walls. We know that students who engage in structured debates in the classroom develop stronger critical thinking skills, greater empathy, and a deeper understanding of complex issues. Moreover, these students are more likely to engage in community and civic activities as adults, demonstrating the long-term benefits of civil discourse in the classroom.
As a model, I use lawyer Atticus Finch, an exemplar of civility in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird. Finch delivers a courtroom speech before an audience that largely disagrees with his decision to represent a Black man in the 1930s south. My students dig into his argument, looking for claims, evidence, and line of reasoning. I ask students to pay special attention to how Atticus discredits his opponent — with logic instead of slander. Another common text I have used is The Crucible by Arthur Miller. The play, set during the Salem witch trials, serves as an allegory for the dangers of hysteria and the breakdown of civility in the face of fear.
Characters like Atticus Finch and John Proctor attempt to navigate communities where reason has been overtaken by personal vendettas. Through their struggles, students can see the consequences of abandoning reasonable arguments in favor of emotional manipulation and personal attacks. The hard truth is that they don’t need to read classic literature to witness the abandoning of reason. Kindness must always come as a sidecar, and disagreements should never attack character, lifestyles, or appearance. Once that line is crossed, civility is lost. By teaching students to focus on the issue at hand, we help them develop the critical thinking skills necessary for constructive dialogue.
To foster this in my classroom — a social microcosm — I set clear expectations for discussions, emphasizing respect, active listening, and staying focused on the issue rather than the individual. I also model civility in my interactions with students; adults cannot be volcanoes under the surface while we expect our students to handle their big emotions with composure. We have to demonstrate the behaviors we want to see and I realize the weight of this skill, now more than ever in our political climate. Students need to understand how the principles of civil discourse can be applied outside the classroom in their interactions with others, and in their future roles as citizens.
Our classrooms are the first arena for structured and facilitated disagreements. There, we can cultivate adults who argue with vulnerability, perspective, and intent, seeking solutions rather than engaging in slander. This shift can lead to a political landscape where leaders focus on the needs of the people instead of the downfall of their opponents. Imagine a general population that sees through ad hominem attacks. Such a transformation could pull the focus away from the political boxing ring and back to the aspirations of the American people. In our classrooms, we can develop a shared humanity where tough conversations broaden the sensibilities of our democracy, where everyone has the agency to be heard.
Emily Garrison is a teacher in Arkansas. She is a Teach Plus Senior Writing Fellow.
