PDK International | Phi Delta Kappan: Westheimer V87 N8 April 2006

Find more Kappan articles in the
searchable PDK Publications Archive

Subscribe today to access complete current issues online!

Patriotism and Education: An Introduction

That patriotism is a complicated concept became clear in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Mr. Westheimer, the guest editor of this Kappan special section, poses the question of how schools should approach the tension between loyalty to one's country and the importance of dissent.

By Joel Westheimer

A CARTOON published in the New Yorker in October 2001 shows a couple in a New York apartment entertaining friends. As the hosts clutch each other's hands, the woman confesses to their guests, "We're still getting used to feeling patriotic." Another New Yorker cartoon shows a policeman walking away from a car. Inside, reading the newly issued ticket, the driver asks his passenger incredulously, "Flagless in a patriotic zone?" In a third cartoon, an elegantly dressed woman hands a pile of expensive dresses, a fur coat, and her credit card to a sales clerk and says, "This isn't for me -- it's for the economy."

New Yorker cartoons are hardly a barometer of national sentiment about patriotism following 9/11, but the magazine has a distribution of over 800,000 -- a large percentage of which are subscriptions in the city where the Twin Towers fell -- and its authors, cartoonists, and even advertisers reflected a mélange of conflicted feelings about loyalty, solidarity, and the right to dissent in a democracy. Editor David Remnick was initially criticized for censoring authors and capitulating to pressure from the Bush Administration to lend support to military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere, but the magazine also was where Susan Sontag furiously observed that "the unanimity of the sanctimonious, reality-concealing rhetoric spouted by American officials and media commentators in recent days seems, well, unworthy of a mature democracy." Perhaps the contributor who most plainly captured the confusion of the months to come was cartoonist Victoria Roberts, who drew a middle-aged husband and wife sitting down to dinner. Both look slightly perplexed as the husband says simply, "Who ever thought patriotism could be so complicated?"

The complexity of patriotism is further reflected in the great many ways it has been represented by politicians, the media, authors, critics, and religious leaders. Each has shaped various ideas about patriotism and its importance to national unity and sought to advance particular notions of patriotism over others. Nowhere are the debates around these various visions of patriotic attachment more pointed, more protracted, and more consequential than in our nation's schools. As several authors in this special section make clear, patriotism is highly contested territory.

The articles here explore the relationship between patriotism and education. Pedro Noguera and Robby Cohen ask readers to think about what educators' responsibilities are in wartime. Digging deep into the nation's past, they present provocative historical examples that do not lend themselves to facile analysis or pat good-guy/bad-guy stories. They ask whether, in an era of educational accountability, we are not ignoring our responsibility to students to present clear and accurate information on varying viewpoints about the "war on terrorism." "Given that our nation is at war in at least two countries," they ask, "shouldn't educators be accountable for ensuring that all students have some understanding of why we are fighting, of whom we are at war with, and of what is at stake?"

Diane Ravitch challenges us to think about what schools actually do to encourage students' appreciation of U.S. culture. She points out that educators stand strong in their belief that children's self-esteem is linked to knowledge and appreciation of their ancestral culture but not to that of the United States, where they live and will one day vote and raise children. "How strange," Ravitch muses, "to teach a student born in this country to be proud of his parents' or grandparents' land of birth but not of his or her own. Or to teach a student whose family fled to this country from a tyrannical regime or from dire poverty to identify with that nation rather than with the one that gave the family refuge." Critical of jingoistic conceptions of patriotism, Ravitch nonetheless calls for attention to traditional respect for and celebration of the nation's heritage and democratic principles and ideals.

Michael Bader offers a provocative contribution to our section on patriotism in education. A clinical psychologist, Bader asks readers to consider the psychological needs served by various expressions of patriotic fervor. He examines from a psychologist's perspective the collective responses both to 9/11 and to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. In a compelling analysis of the links between our need for security and protection and our early life experiences at home, Bader suggests that patriotism can be a force for good or evil, but that the key to understanding our own motivations is to understand their emotional and psychological roots in the universal need for attachment and affiliation. He draws on 25 years of clinical experience to show that patriotism often offers a symbolic resolution to longings we all experience for both safety and relatedness. Bader shows how both the political Left and the political Right "seek to link their partisan agendas to the evocation and satisfaction of these frustrated longings."

Gloria Ladson-Billings shares a deeply personal exploration of what it means to be a patriotic African American woman in the United States. "I am a patriot," she flatly declares, adding, "To most people who know me that statement probably comes as a surprise." Ladson-Billings, who is currently president of the American Educational Research Association, takes readers through her experiences growing up as an African American in the 1950s and 1960s and deftly examines the effects of those experiences on her thinking about the United States and about her patriotic attachments. How are we to understand patriotism, she asks, in a country where African Americans could be excluded from attending schools that white children attended or where "a 14-year-old boy from Chicago could be killed (beaten, lynched, castrated, and drowned) for whistling at a white woman"? Many members of Ladson-Billings' family served proudly in the military -- in segregated units. Criticizing the "vacuous speeches" and "empty rhetoric" that politicians employ when they talk about what it means to be patriotic, Ladson-Billings reclaims the noble call to patriotic action on behalf of all U.S. citizens and those who are powerless around the globe.

In "Patriotism, Eh?" Sharon Cook adds a Canadian perspective on patriotism and education. As anthropologists know well, one's understanding of one's own culture is greatly improved by the study of another. My current country of residence, Canada offers a starkly different perspective on U.S. notions of patriotism. Canadians, Cook argues, have pride in peacefulness, in welcoming new immigrants (at a higher per-capita rate than virtually any Western nation), and in caring for the nation's citizens and other residents. By analyzing key historical events, Cook plumbs the significance of Canada's relationships to England and the U.S. She explains that national patriotism in Canada (though it too has had its excesses) is generally of a mild-mannered kind, perhaps because a more jingoistic form "seems unnecessary if one already finds inclusion in the family of a respected imperial power."

Patriotism and war have been intertwined in complex ways since the dawn of the nation-state. Many readers may know that the No Child Left Behind Act includes a provision that requires high schools to turn over personal information on students to military recruiters. In addition, the Pentagon now maintains a database of some 30 million 16- to 25-year-olds, including their names, ethnicities, addresses, cell phone numbers, family information, extracurricular activities, and areas of study (for more information, watch the 11-minute video at www.LeaveMyChildAlone.org). In "Hearts and Minds: Military Recruitment and the High School Battlefield," William Ayers tracks the recent explosion in the military presence in schools and classrooms throughout the U.S., paying special attention to Chicago. Ayers notes that Chicago has the largest JROTC program in the country and, according to some, the "most militarized" school system in America. His powerful stories of recruits, veterans, and Purple Heart recipients are as emotionally wrenching as they are deeply hopeful. What's more, his topic has important historical antecedents. For example, in 1911, Katherine Devereux Blake, a New York City elementary school principal, predicted an upcoming struggle in public education between those who advocate a greater military presence in the schools and those who want students to learn peace. "They are organized for war," Blake proclaimed. "We must be organized for peace."1 In this article, Ayers details the heavy incursions those "organized for war" have made.

Joseph Kahne and Ellen Middaugh provide a systematic and sobering examination of high school students' attitudes toward patriotism. They surveyed over 2,000 seniors in 12 California high schools and conducted 50 focus groups to learn about students' patriotic commitments. Regardless of your beliefs about the importance of teaching patriotism in schools, it's reasonable to ask what should be taught about patriotism and what students already think and know. Kahne and Middaugh's findings are likely to challenge your assumptions. For example, although a majority of high school seniors believe that "if you love America, you should notice its problems and work to correct them," only 16% of high school seniors express consistent support for what the authors see as a democratic vision of patriotism. Moreover, most students do not necessarily see any connection between patriotism and civic participation.

Finally, my article, "Politics and Patriotism in Education," explores the ideological battles that are being waged in the name of patriotism in the nation's classrooms. Like Kahne and Middaugh, I suggest that patriotism and democratic ideals are not inherently at odds with one another but that a democratic form of patriotism is far from inevitable. To the contrary, there is much cause for concern over a far more dangerous brand of patriotic sentiment that is better described as "authoritarian" and that is widely on the rise.

This special section also features a series of Point of View opinion pieces. Nine prominent educators and public figures from a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives have provided short responses to the question "What should children learn in school about patriotism?" The answers are as diverse and fascinating as the contributing authors. After reading responses from Studs Terkel, Cindy Sheehan, Maxine Greene, Bill Bigelow, Walter Parker, Joan Kent Kvitka, Chester Finn, Denise Walsh, and Dean Wiles, you are unlikely to think about patriotism and education in precisely the same way as you did before.

Before I turn readers over to the contributing authors, let me return to the realm of comics, since they capture so well the mix of public sentiment around deeply complex political issues. A high school social studies teacher I know developed a curriculum for her students that would engage the full complexity of issues that arose following the U.S.-led war in Iraq. Frustrated with the lack of curricular resource materials available, she found, through the Rethinking Schools website, a suggestion to use political cartoons to examine the contentious issues arising from the war. Enthusiastically, she put together several lessons that would allow her students to examine critically all sides of the debates about the war by culling cartoons from across the political spectrum. But when two of the cartoons she used raised the ire of a parent of one of her students, her principal requested that she discontinue the lessons she had planned.

The two offending cartoons both came from the controversial comic strip "Boondocks," the brainchild of 28-year-old cartoonist Aaron McGruder. The strip stars Huey Freeman, a little African American kid living in suburbia who has attracted more than his share of controversy. The first cartoon the teacher used was originally published on Thanksgiving Day 2001, when polls suggested that President Bush's approval ratings were higher than 90% and when popular support for the war on terror was widespread. Huey is leading the Thanksgiving prayer: "Ahem," he begins. "In this time of war against Osama bin Laden and the oppressive Taliban regime, we are thankful that our leader isn't the spoiled son of a powerful politician from a wealthy oil family who is supported by religious fundamentalists, operates through clandestine organizations, has no respect for the democratic electoral process, bombs innocents, and uses war to deny people their civil liberties. Amen." The second shows Huey calling the FBI's antiterrorist hotline to report that he has the names of Americans who helped train and finance Osama bin Laden. "Okay, give me some names," the FBI agent says. And Huey responds: "All right, let's see, the first one is Reagan. That's R-E-A-G. . . ."

Students responded to these and the other cartoons used with an enthusiasm for debate that the teacher reported she had rarely witnessed in her classroom. She was careful to ensure that students received exposure to the broad spectrum of political perspectives, and, she noted, a vast majority of her students sported a plethora of patriotic symbols on their clothes and schoolbags during the weeks following 9/11.

Schools, of course, did not invent the brand of patriotism that involves stifling democratic debate. The same fear of dissenting viewpoints sometimes witnessed in schools can also be seen outside. It was not only the 16- and 17-year-old students of this teacher who were prohibited from debating McGruder's critique of the war. Some of the 250 newspapers that run the strip pulled it either selectively or in its entirety after September 11. Many noted that it was "too political." In what could arguably be a successful alignment, the school curriculum may actually prepare students well for the adult world they are soon to enter -- one in which, as McGruder observes, the media have "become so conglomerated that there are really very few avenues left for people to express dissent."

Indeed, there is some evidence that many are learning the lessons of my-country-right-or-wrong patriotism very well. In response to a "Doonesbury" strip critical of Bush Administration policies, some readers posted notes on the "Doonesbury" website. From Maurepas, Louisiana: "Your . . . biased state of mind has no place for a patriotic thinking America. Grow up. . . . We are at War!" From Melbourne, Florida: "Your disloyalty to our society and our country shine through quite clearly." In apparent confusion between former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and "Doonesbury" creator Garry Trudeau, one reader from Arkansas echoed the xenophobic sentiments so often part and parcel of jingoistic patriotic campaigns: "Why don't you go back to Canada, or even better France?" But perhaps Virginia Beach resident Stuart Schwartz best captured the attitude toward dissent shared by those who favor what I describe in my article as authoritarian patriotism: "Please do the public a service and die."

A Pew Research Center poll in 2003 found that 92% of respondents agreed either completely or mostly with the statement "I am very patriotic."2 However, as will become clear when reading the articles that follow, what it means to be patriotic is a matter of considerable debate. And it always has been. As far back as the 1890s, policy makers realized that public schools could serve as a "mighty engine for the inculcation of patriotism."3 But 116 years later, patriotism and its role in the school curriculum remain disputed territory.

This special section of the Kappan sets out to capture the controversies surrounding patriotism and education. Like the teacher who wanted to show a range of controversial opinions, the articles that follow express a healthy variety of viewpoints and approaches to the topic. In Spheres of Justice, Michael Walzer argues that the democratic citizen must be "ready and able, when the time comes," to engage in dialogue and "to deliberate with fellow [citizens], listen and be listened to."4 The contributors to this section of the Kappan write in that spirit.

1. Katherine D. Blake, "Peace in the Schools," National Education Association Proceedings (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1911), pp. 140-46, cited in Susan Zeiger, "The Schoolhouse vs. the Armory: U.S. Teachers and the Campaign Against Militarism in the Schools, 1914-1918," Journal of Women's History, Summer 2003, p. 150.

2. Pew Research Center, "The 2004 Political Landscape: Evenly Divided and Increasingly Polarized," November 2003.

3. George Balch, "Methods of Teaching Patriotism in Public Schools" (1890), cited in Cecilia O'Leary, To Die For: The Paradox of American Patriotism (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999), p. 175.

4. Michael Walzer, Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality (New York: Basic Books, 1984), p. 310.

JOEL WESTHEIMER is University Research Chair in Democracy and Education, a professor of the social foundations of education, and co-director of Democratic Dialogue: Inquiry into Democracy, Education, and Society at the University of Ottawa, Ont. (joelw@uottawa.ca). He wishes to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, and Democratic Dialogue at the University of Ottawa (democraticdialogue.com) for their support in the preparation of this special section. Karen Suurtamm, Democratic Dialogue's project director, provided research and editing assistance.