Embracing Difficult Conversations: The Intersection of Ethics and Civics Education
A panel discussion highlighting PLATO’s 7th Biennial Conference at Tufts University (June 2025) convened five philosophers and educators. Their exchange focused on how we talk to each other about issues that divide us, both in and outside of the classroom. One overarching theme emerged: to engage in productive, meaningful conversations, conversations that broaden perspectives and sometimes change minds, we need to ask thoughtful questions, and to listen.
Jana Mohr Lone, PLATO’s Executive Director, focused on listening most explicitly. She quoted a Cuban proverb: “Listening looks easy but it is not simple. Every head is a world.” This eloquently explains that listening is not simply a skill or activity, but a commitment to an empathic, ethical orientation.
Paying attention is at the heart of listening well. We need to listen with openheartedness and generosity. To Jana, this means viewing we say to one another in the best possible light, summoning all the empathy we can, and refraining from making judgments. It also means holding our own opinions, or the rejoinders that come to mind, in abeyance. To attend to each other, we ask ourselves to be fully present.
Crucially, we need to make room for silence, even long, uncomfortable periods of silence. This allows the reticent to speak up and for the discussion to twist and turn in unexpected directions. We need to create a culture of listening, Jana concluded. Creating this culture in classrooms is deeply important to the health of our society. How we listen and to whom, she claimed, is where ethics and civics education intersect.
Allison Cohen, PLATO’s President of the Board of Directors, focused on asking thoughtful, purposeful questions. A veteran high school government teacher, she tries to diffuse contentious classroom discussions by listening to what underpins heated exchanges. Fear and anger result from feeling threatened, she explained, drawing on Buddhist teaching. It’s natural to react to threats by blaming others.
Suppose a student from a military family starts to make objectionable statements toward a classmate who defends flag burning. How to lower the temperature? Allison has found a pivotal question that works for her. At these moments. She intervenes by asking the aggrieved student, “What are you concerned about?” Listening carefully, she may discern that the student is upset about the classmate’s lack of patriotism and perceived disloyalty. Now the discussion can take a philosophical turn. Interrogating the meaning of loyalty –defining it, debating its applications and limits –is an impersonal discussion. No one is being accused. This tactic validates feelings while dissecting how we talk about our feelings. It also encourages rather than stifles discussions for, as Allison explains, most of us, students included, fear being misunderstood especially when delving into controversial subjects.
Winston Thompson, Professor of Educational Studies and Director of the Center for Ethics and Human Values at Ohio State University, also suggests interrogating the underlying feelings motivating contentious discussions. In and outside of classrooms, he contends, we all have to grapple with our identifies – the one we construct for ourselves and the identities according to which we are perceived by others. For example, in a diverse college classroom taught by a White, middle-aged man, who has what Winston called “testimonial credibility?” Whose experiences are dismissed, or refuted? And by whom? Winston focused on the ways social identities influence, complicate, and challenge us when we find ourselves in difficult conversations. It’s crucial, he maintained, that we keep in mind how the way we identify ourselves and others affects how others perceive, interpret, and evaluate us.
This goes beyond considerations of explicit bias; rather, it raises several deeper questions. To whom do we grant authority? To whom is authority and credibility denied, minimized, or distorted? Which arguments are accepted and which are challenged? Even more fundamentally – which arguments are allowed to be made and by whom? We need to ask these questions and attend to the answers. If we fail to account for our racialized, gendered identities, Winston claimed, we end up replicating the very inequalities that civics education seeks to ameliorate. To wrestle with these core questions is to promote what he termed credibility justice.
Sarah Stitzlein, Professor of Education and Affiliate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cincinnati, approached the intersection of ethics and civics education from a macro perspective, that is, from a systemic rather than interpersonal viewpoint. Concerned about the ways in which ideological differences among educators affect both curricular and pedagogical decisions, she an intensive review of the literature. It revealed stark differences.
For example, progressive educators tend to include time for student discussion in their lesson plans and encourage discussion when it arises; conservative educators prefer traditional, direct instruction that emphasizes factual information. Progressive teachers hope students will grow up to be independent, clear thinkers who are sensitive to nuances; their conservative counterparts hope their students will grow up to be loyal, proud patriotic citizens who celebrate America.
Given that close to 50% of the states have banned discussions of controversial subjects, how can progressive educators in those states accommodate the law without feeling as if they are capitulating? Sarah suggested four strategies. First, ground lessons in American principles, such as our longstanding commitment to equality and justice. Next, rather than discuss topics ripped from the headlines, use historical examples. As well, encouraging student-led inquiry may prove less contentious than teacher-led discussions. Finally, Sarah suggested that teachers emphasize the fact that all agree that we want our republic to endure and thrive.
Peter Levine, Professor of Political Science at Tufts University, approaches civics and from the context of policy and advocacy. He had recently returned from several weeks abroad, teaching a civics course in Ukraine to citizens eager to learn about democracy. He had also been invited to join an ideologically diverse panel of scholars and educators charged with drawing up a new approach to teaching history and civics. What emerged from their deliberations is Educating for American Democracy (EAD). Not a traditional, prescriptive curriculum, EAD is conceived of as a “road map” or general guide. The panelists identified seven sweeping themes and composed sets of paired history and civics questions for each theme. All are open-ended questions with no settled answers. (The project was originally supported by government funds but now relies on private financing.)
Concluding the first phase of its work, the EAD panel identified five “design challenges” that will more fully investigate unresolved tensions in American life. An example of one challenge is the fact that Americans both celebrate and criticize our ability and propensity to compromise. These challenges will be addressed at a later date. To conclude, Peter mused that although no philosophers were on the panel, they probably would have been very welcome!
You can listen to the entire PLATO panel discussion here:
