The Elephant (and Donkey) in the Room: Should Teachers Talk Politics?

On November 6th, a wide range of reactions to the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election were on display at Needham High School. Most visible were the reactions of students on the two opposite ends of the political spectrum. Students were overheard chanting “USA!” and seen sporting MAGA gear at the November 8th Friday night football game. Conversely, quiet classrooms were punctuated by sarcastic, defeated remarks. Many students expressed feelings of disbelief, confusion, and fear. No matter the political affiliation of the students, the air in the classroom was undeniably awkward as teachers attempted to address the results of the election, leaving space for students to express their feelings or ask questions. Given the weight of the election and its impending influence on the lives of women, LGBTQ+ Americans, immigrants, and other marginalized communities across the country, it seemed difficult for teachers to remain neutral in their acknowledgement of the election results. Teacher statements generally leaned toward accommodating the disappointment and fear that many students were feeling. 

History teachers are tasked with the brunt of addressing current events in school-–if they so choose. When asked, several teachers said that they do try to maintain a nonpartisan perspective when teaching current events, but that it becomes more difficult as human rights are politicized. Mr. Ames, a U.S. History teacher, says that careful wording is key to remaining neutral. When discussing current events with his students, he speaks in third person to identify social and political groups and what they support or oppose. When it comes to human rights, he presents the facts and their repercussions against different communities, which can sometimes be misconstrued by students. He recalls, “When we were talking about the debate with Harris, I mentioned that Trump’s dog-eating comments were a lie. As a result of that lie, the Haitian community in Ohio faced serious consequences. One student said, ‘Well we know how you’re voting.’ I’m not taking a stance, I’m holding a candidate accountable for their actions.” When teachers face scrutiny from students, either for the way they teach current events or for their choice to not speak about them, the question of whether or not to speak at all becomes more pressing. Mr. Starr, an AP Psychology and World History teacher, says, “I am of the opinion that human rights is not a partisan perspective. To say that Black lives matter, that no one is illegal, that ‘love is love,’ and that we should believe survivors of sexual assault, is not a political statement. If what I say validates human experience, I have no problem saying it, and I expect to be supported by the school for doing that.”

There is a difference to be noted between explaining current political events and disclosing personal political beliefs in the classroom. Many teachers believe that it is not appropriate to express ideas such as who they voted for or which politicians they personally support. “It’s unprofessional-–maybe even illegal,” says Mr. Ames. Other teachers find that it is a more complicated subject. According to Mr. Starr, “The notion that a history course could be taught without political bias is a fallacy.  Every lesson, every primary source analyzed, event discussed, explanation given, homework assigned, is a political choice.” He believes that when it comes to subjects that invalidate the lived experiences of students (for example, the pressure for other U.S. schools to remove slavery from history curriculum), teachers should feel free to express their own beliefs, with the intent of helping students understand how the world works.

Both Mr. Ames and Mr. Starr believe that it is the responsibility of teachers to inform their students on different political perspectives as a part of the context and understanding of U.S. History, with an emphasis on understanding. A lot of students choose not to engage in these class discussions, largely for fear of being judged by their peers. Mr. Ames says, “When we have a discussion, people of good faith don't always have the right words. When people use words that might not be the best, we shouldn’t just punish those people. Jumping down people's throats is not going to teach them anything.”

When having political conversations in the classroom, we must be willing to deal with discomfort. People will have different perspectives, and the classroom should be the place where students are allowed to make mistakes as part of the process of forming their own opinions. In the case of human rights issues, many feel as though they should not have to entertain political opinions that are generally associated with denying the rights of others, even if specific members of those parties don’t agree with those beliefs. Andrew Stein, a member of the Queer Student Union at Needham High School summarizes this perspective: “I think that even if you don’t consider yourself in favor of transphobic or homophobic policies, it's not a dealbreaker for you.” The idea that “we can all be friends regardless of our political affiliation” is becoming less relevant and more ignorant as right-wing politics become increasingly intertwined with anti-queer rhetoric.

The bottom line is: current politics must be taught with the intent of understanding the world we live in from an objective point of view. Political conversations should not serve as a way to alienate students or polarize the student body at large. “More than ever, we need to practice empathy when talking [about] politics,” says Stein. The people and policies we vote for affect all of us, and the more that political conversations are posed as “us vs. them,” the further we stray from making positive progress.