The Politics of Education
By Michael Pearson
A recent Washington Post article highlighted how state laws are increasingly dictating school curriculums, with conservative states often limiting discussions on controversial topics while progressive states opt for a broader, more inclusive educational scope. This growing trend underscores the deep divide in how education is approached across the United States, reflecting a broader national conversation about the role of education in shaping young minds.
What are we to make of state laws that direct educational decisions? For example, Delaware, in 2019, passed a law “encouraging” education on the holocaust and genocide. The synopsis of the bill notes “the importance of Holocaust education because teaching the causes, symptoms, and lessons learned from the Holocaust and other genocides provides a context to learn about the dangers of hatred going unchallenged and indifference in the face of oppression of others…”
In April of this year, the Iowa legislature approved language, buried within an otherwise normal funding bill, banning “Any effort to promote, as the official position of the public institution of higher education, a particular, widely contested opinion referencing unconscious or implicit bias, cultural appropriation, allyship, transgender ideology, microaggressions, group marginalization, antiracism, systemic oppression, social justice, intersectionality, neo-pronouns, heteronormativity, disparate impact, gender theory, racial privilege, sexual privilege, or any related formulation of the concepts.” As of this writing, it remains to be seen whether the governor will sign the bill into law, but I find such broad language deeply troubling.
The growing polarization around higher education threatens to upend existing efforts within the mathematical sciences community to broaden access to STEM fields. This, coupled with the financial constraints many of our institutions face, a result of decreased public investment in education at all levels and changing demographics, amplifies the challenges we face. As leaders, we're tasked not just with recognizing this divide but with actively working to bridge it through open dialogue and a deeper understanding of the complex issues at play. Alarmingly, this divide is often fueled by groups more focused on maintaining their grip on power than engaging in meaningful conversation, eroding trust in our educational and governmental institutions.
A recent piece from Politico sheds light on how some conservatives feel that progressive ideologies dominate higher education to such an extent that diverse perspectives are no longer welcome. My experience suggests a more nuanced view. I’m much more inclined towards the view that we, as a society, are simply less willing to engage with groups whose cultural and political views differ substantially from our own – that we are continuing the trend of sorting ourselves into bubbles of like-minded people. For a discussion of geographic and ideological sorting, see, e.g., Ronald Brownstein’s note, America Is Growing Apart, Possibly for Good, from The Atlantic. The negative impact of this polarization, especially on initiatives aimed at enhancing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), has become increasingly evident. Courts and legislation are beginning to challenge, sometimes even obstruct, these programs, no matter the rationale behind them.
Education at its core should prompt us to question our ingrained beliefs and biases, exploring the rich tapestry of human existence. The debate around the aims of mathematics education, exemplified by controversey around the California Mathematics Framework, has unfortunately degenerated into personal attacks rather than constructive criticism. The tendency to dismiss and even demonize those with whom we disagree, rather than engage in productive debate and compromise, is in direct conflict with my own view that we should embrace a pluralistic and diverse society, and engage with different perspectives in order to reach compromises that allow us to improve the quality of life for all citizens.
This movement towards intolerance, the push to enforce a singular perspective through legal constraints, dehumanization, or threats, starkly contradicts the Enlightenment ideals upon which the United States was founded. Nearly 400 years ago, Roger Williams, founder of the state of Rhode Island, declared, “Forcing of conscience is a soul-rape.” Williams’s warning continues to resonate today.
In response to these challenges, our role as leaders is to foster an environment where understanding, dialogue, and respect for differing viewpoints are paramount. By advocating for these values, we can work towards healing the divisions within our educational institutions and society at large, paving the way for a more inclusive and equitable future in higher education and beyond. In this endeavor, we must be vigilant in our efforts to encourage open-mindedness and a willingness to engage with all perspectives, ensuring that education remains a beacon of hope and progress.
Michael Pearson serves as Executive Director of the MAA.