Senior Lecturer, Head of School of Education, University of Aberdeen
Graeme Nixon
Senior Lecturer (Education), University of Aberdeen
Jo Pearce
Principal Teaching Fellow, Institute of Education, UCL
Wherever you stand on Cliff Richard, his 1988 number one, with its message that “Christmas is love, Christmas is peace” and “a time to rejoice in the good that we see”, succinctly summarises the common festive view of Christianity. From Christmas music to cards to charity TV adverts, we are continually reminded at this time of year of the positive values that Christianity can promote: love, peace, giving, receiving – and seeing goodness in others.
Many people would argue, however, that it is wrong to think of Christianity or any other faith in such purely positive terms. Religion can surely be a force for good and bad, depending on the message and the messenger. It is perfectly possible to celebrate the virtues of Christian compassion while recognising problems with everything from creationism to some religious attitudes to homosexuality.
Yet according to our latest research, many religious education (RE) teachers in UK schools are encouraging pupils to take a similarly unbalanced view of their subject all year round. This is doing learners and the subject a major disservice, and needs to change.
Religion and danger
As RE teacher educators, we decided to find out how religion is understood and being taught in UK schools. We carried out the largest study of its kind, collating survey responses from 465 RE teachers in secondaries as well as primary, junior and middle schools across the country.
As part of the research, a total of 389 teachers responded to the statement “religion is dangerous”. The majority of respondents thought it was not dangerous: 37% selected “not at all” and 28% answered “slightly agree”. This was regardless of whether they believed in a god or gods, were agnostic or were atheist. Indeed, of 431 teachers responding about their beliefs, only 45% identified themselves as theist. Of the remainder, 18% were atheist, 31% agnostic and the rest described themselves as “other”.
From the 185 teachers who added comments, 39% implied that religion is in essence good – that is, to define “religion” in negative terms is wrong, for it cannot be other than positive. The following comment from a teacher in an English secondary academy sums up what was being said:
We teach general tolerance to all people, of all religions and that all religions teach peace, love and compassion, with the odd exception where there may be extremists who misinterpret their holy books, but that they exist within all religions and that they are not true followers .
It is worth reflecting on that view for a moment. It notes negative “extremist” aspects to some religions, but says that such followers are “not true followers”. Rather, they “misinterpret their holy books” – the implication being that a correct interpretation of the religious text can only result in “peace, love and compassion”. It is not religion that is dangerous, in other words; but people who are dangerous.
To quote a couple of teachers from English state primary schools:
All religions are peaceful. It’s certain extremist people who misuse/misinterpret religion to create barriers and hate amongst people.
I think that people choose to use religion in a dangerous way, to support their own beliefs, but that religion itself is not intrinsically dangerous. I cannot think of a religion that actively supports dangerous ideals.
Put simply, this is bad education – however well-intentioned. It sanitises religion. It cleanses it of negativity, destructiveness and anything antisocial, leaving it sparkling with ideals to which humankind can aspire. It also wrongly puts all religious expressions on the same footing – when in reality they are diverse and multifaceted. Pick any religion and you find a spectrum of practices and beliefs – and at times diametrically opposed understandings on everything from war to marriage to perspectives on what it means to be human.
It is wrong, for example, to imagine that terrorists have always “twisted” their religion from its “true” form. They follow a nefarious, destructive form of religion, but it is still religion. To imply otherwise presents young people with a view that doesn’t fully reflect how they experience religion in contemporary society – where it can motivate great acts of kindness, but also atrocities.
Alternatives
So what might RE teachers do instead? Some in the profession are already setting an example by avoiding expressions like “Hindus believe…” or, worse, “all Hindus believe…”, in favour of “while some Hindus believe, others…”, or “the majority of Hindus believe… while a minority believe…”. Teachers can also embed the concept of plurality within individual religions by using terms like “Christianities” and “Islams”.
It is also important to make sure that the diversity of religions is reflected in classroom displays and teaching aids. If possible, for example, invite several Buddhists rather than one to talk about the concept of “rebirth”. Avoid using stereotypical images, such as only showing Muslim women wearing headscarves, when it’s less common in the likes of Morocco or Jordan.
All religions have loving and hateful expressions: in history, Christianity has motivated great acts of human kindness, but has also been used to justify violence. Religion is no more good than bad, no more antisocial than prosocial. Young people need to be encouraged to develop a mature view which is able to encompass and reflect the best and worst of religious expression – and all the shades in between.
Yes, this makes the task for RE teachers more challenging – not least at this time of Christian “goodwill”. But it also reaffirms the educational value of the subject and its rightful place in UK curricula.
Professor of Education and Affiliate Faculty in Philosophy, University of Cincinnati
In scenes unprecedented in previous school shootings, the past few weeks have been marked by students taking to the streets, to the media, to corporations and elected officials in protest over gun practices and policies.
Responses to these teens have been mixed. Some have celebrated their passion. Some concluded that the students are immature and don’t yet fully grasp longstanding issues with the Second Amendment. Some questioned the voices and perspectives of the teens. Still others see the protests as an inappropriate use of time that might be better spent reaching out to loner students who may be prone to future acts of violence.
Some schools have even threatened to take disciplinary action against students for engaging in protests during school hours. This has prompted universities like my own to promise students that disciplinary actions that stem from peaceful protest will not be held against them when they seek college admission.
What schools should do
Immediately after the Parkland shootings, some scholars urged society to consider “the nature of
education and schooling in American society.”Indeed, we need an educational response to the shootings. This response should account for the purposes of our schools within American democracy and offer students opportunities to learn, even in the face of tragedy. As the author of a new book on how schools can get students to become more civically engaged, and a 2012 book on how schools can cultivate the skills necessary for political dissent, I contend that the student protesters that have emerged in the wake of the Parkland shooting offer insight into a worthwhile response.
While seldom acknowledged, students have a right to engage in political dissent and, more significantly, the entitlement to an education that nurtures their ability to do so. In the 1969 landmark
Tinker case, the Supreme Court ruled that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” But, the court held, it is reasonable to limit protest activities that interfere with the opportunity for others to learn. The right to dissent is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but rather is a civil right that arises out of how we understand good citizenship and thriving democracy. Dissent allows for a proliferation of views on the good life. It sparks conversation and ignites change to better align practices and policies with the wishes and needs of the people. It keeps democracy vibrant.
Dissent is an American tradition
Often, we think of student protest as a type of public self-expression that should not be hindered as long as it meets certain criteria, like not preventing other children from learning. In America, our democracy requires the consent of the
governed. Our Declaration of Independence even says that when we are not in agreement or when our well-being is in jeopardy, we have a duty to speak up. It’s the American way and has been from the time the nation began.
It is only with the opportunity and capacity to dissent that we can determine if our laws and systems guiding us are good or just. Further, in order to invoke our right to dissent, citizens have to know how to dissent, which calls into play the role of schooling.
As a scholar in the philosophy of education, I would argue that our children, as burgeoning citizens, are entitled to such an education in our schools.
There, they should learn the skills of dissent, including consciousness-raising, coalition building, persuasion, public demonstration and pursuit of traditional government avenues for change. This type of instruction is happening in some schools, but not systematically enough across all schools, as courses in civics and social studies have been cut in order to focus on testing and such. Students receive even less of this kind of instruction in poorer schools.
And, our students must learn about the responsibilities of citizenship that correlate with their right to dissent. This includes learning how to evaluate the justice of laws, how to distinguish effective dissent from simple rabble-rousing, and how to protest in ways that do not unduly infringe on others.
Teaching children how to dissent in response to a violent situation that they feel threatens their well-being is aligned with the purposes of democratic schooling. Indeed, a flourishing democracy depends on such an informed and active citizenry who will speak out when they find laws to be unjust.
