The first thing I would tell your students when they ask this question, is that as citizens of the United States of America, we don’t have one single thing that binds us all together except our Constitution. We are not a single ethnic group, we are not a single religious group, and we don’t have a very extensive history as a people.

I would also tell them that throughout history, it is the exception, rather than the rule, that individuals of different ethnic and religious groups can live together peacefully. But our Constitution enshrines the principle that government exists to protect the rights of all citizens, and has no legitimate power to deprive any citizen or class of citizen of their rights without due process of law. Our country, under the Constitution, has been more successful than most in allowing individuals of different ethnic and religious groups to live together peacefully; and when we have failed, it has been because of the failures of citizens to respect the equality of all under the Constitution, or the failures of public officials to respect just limits on power.

Finally, I would tell them that in a country as large as ours, it is literally impossible for any one individual, or agency, or government to know all there is to know in order to ensure the safety and happiness of the people. Our Constitution recognizes this, and therefore guarantees the principles of individual liberty, limited government, and federalism. Federalism simply says that we trust the people in the states to govern themselves, but our national government should have the power to do things that states could not do on their own – like defend from foreign invasion or establish and regulate a national currency and otherwise make it easy for people to do business with one another across state lines.

The principles of individual liberty and limited government mean that there are certain areas of human activity that belong to individuals to decide, and that government should leave alone – either because no just government should have power over those areas, or because government could not make those decisions effectively. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights do not allow government to control what political opinions we express – though tyrants in many nations around the world routinely imprison their political enemies. Our Constitution does not allow government to be in the business of making cars or computer software or smartphones, because it is not the place of government, and we all know they wouldn’t do it right! Innovators like Henry Ford, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs have benefited from being in a country where government has not stifled their natural creativity or entrepreneurial spirit. We all benefit from being in a country with a dynamic economy, a rising standard of living, and the ability to share our own political, religious, and other beliefs with those in our community.

These are the places I would start with students in communicating the importance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Certainly the Constitution and its framers were not perfect, but I feel very fortunate to enjoy the freedoms we enjoy under the Constitution. I also hope that your students come to understand that they have an important role in making sure these freedoms are passed on to their children and future generations.

What other things have you shared with you students to help them appreciate the Constitution?

Philadelphia –

As September began, the Convention had made remarkable progress toward drafting a new Constitution, but many questions had been left for later. The delegates agreed “to refer such parts of the Constitution as have been postponed, and such parts of Reports as have not been acted on, to a Committee of a member from each State….” The “Brearly Committee,” chaired by David Brearly of New Jersey, reported back its suggestions for how to address difficult issues related to the powers of Congress and the shape of the Executive branch.

One issue that touched on the relationships of the states to one another and to the national Legislature was the full faith and credit clause. The Articles of Confederation had such a clause, though it applied very narrowly to state courts: “Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.” The Brearly Committee report recommended expanding the scope of this full faith and credit to legislative as well as judicial proceedings, and granting the national Legislature a new power to enforce compliance. Delegates settled on the language we now read in Article IV, Section 1: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

The Brearly Committee also made recommendations regarding the powers of Congress over commerce and finance. Congress, it was agreed, could “lay and collect taxes duties imposts & excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence & general welfare, of the U. S.” Congress would also be given the power of regulating relations with Indian tribes, of making laws to govern federal lands, and of granting patents to protect the rights of inventors and authors of property in their ideas.

Finally, delegates had already agreed to give Congress – as opposed to the Executive – power to “declare war”. The Brearly Committee’s report led to the granting of two new powers to Congress that minimized the Executive power over war.  First, Congress, and not the Executive, was empowered to grant letters of marque and reprisal, which effectively deputized private vessels to capture vessels suspected of piracy and bring them for trial. Second, Congress was empowered “to raise and support armies” but it was stipulated that “no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.” These powers, among others, reflected a general wariness among the Convention’s delegates of granting too much power to the Executive branch. This wariness is also apparent in the Convention’s inability to settle on the Chief Executive’s powers, mode of election, and term of office, until very late in the Convention. That debate will be the subject of our next post.

It is not like other forms of education that teach specific content and skills that have an obvious value in the marketplace. Instead, it teaches content and skills that are necessary for our society to continue to function in ways that we take for granted. In other words, we can only really know the value of civic education when it is not being done right.

This problem is certainly not news to civic educators, who have increasingly seen resources steered to literacy and STEM education at the expense of civic education. For my part, the potential consequences of this problem seem much more urgent to me following the recent riots carried out in London by a class of disaffected and disengaged young people.

One British commentator trying to explain the riots observed that this class of young people has “no skills, education, values or aspirations…. Nobody has ever dared suggest to them that they need feel any allegiance to anything, least of all Britain or their community…. Not only do they know nothing of Britain’s past, they care nothing for its present.” Perhaps this explanation oversimplifies, but the overwhelming sense I got from reading accounts of the rioting was simply that these young people saw no reason NOT to run roughshod over the lives, liberties, and property of their fellow citizens. Another way to say this is that these young people failed to uphold their part of the social contract that allows us to live in a free society. They failed liberty. At the same time, we can only conclude that those responsible for teaching them to live in a free society failed liberty as well.

Failing Liberty 101 is the title of a new book by William Damon, Professor of Education at Stanford University and director of its Center on Adolescence. Prof. Damon has spent decades researching the psychological development of young people, and he concludes that young people cannot develop into flourishing adults without the right kind of education – especially without the right kind of civic education.

Damon observes that America today is characterized by “a decline in civic purpose and patriotism, a crisis of faith, a rise in cynicism, self-absorption, ignorance, and indifference to the common good….” These factors are particularly hard to process for young people – “who are in a formative time of life typically characterized by idealism, hopefulness, and elevated ambition.” Young people are looking for purpose in life. Yet if they find “nothing positive to believe in, they drift in unconstructive and sometimes destructive directions.” Given this, Damon finds three dimensions of civic education that he believes are vitally important components of a civic education that will help young people flourish: education for virtue or character, a proper grounding in the American tradition, and an appreciation for America’s promise.

Damon acknowledges the challenges faced by educators trying to teach virtue – particularly in public schools. Yet whether schools are ready or not, Damon argues that the breakdown of the family and other institutions where young people have learned virtue and character gives the public school an increasingly important role as teachers of character or virtues. Further, Damon argues “the question is not whether a school chooses to provide its students with a moral education. All schools do so, whether they know it or not. But will a school do that well…?” Damon is particularly concerned that schools undermine the teaching of virtue or character. He points in particular to the potentially destructive effect of teaching that denigrates patriotism. For Damon, patriotism rightly understood is a vital civic virtue, not to be confused with “the kinds of chauvinistic and militaristic passions that were fomented by totalitarian ideologies….” Indeed, Damon sees patriotism – in the sense of a “positive emotional attachment to a community” as being “a necessary condition for sustained engagement in it.” He appreciates the importance of constructive criticism of our civic institutions, but argues “this capacity must build upon a prior, sympathetic understanding of that which is being criticized.”

For this reason, it is critically important for Damon that young people are given a sympathetic introduction to the American political tradition. A young person’s disposition toward their political heritage is an important factor in how that young person begins to identify him or herself; young people, Damon writes, “need to care about their society if they are to dedicate their concerted efforts toward citizenship.” Damon is therefore highly critical of the bitterly pessimistic formulation of the American tradition advanced by Howard Zinn. In addition to criticizing Zinn for imposing on readers an “epic feat of negativism,” he recalls his own conversations with Zinn about the effects of that negativism on young people. Zinn reported a letter from a high school student who said, “I read your book…. [Now] how can I keep from being thoroughly alienated and depressed?” We should ask, with Damon, whether a student who is alienated from and depressed about his heritage as a result of an unduly critical teaching about it will ever be able to appreciate that which is good about his tradition, or make a positive contribution to that which should be improved. At best, that student will withdraw, at worst, that student will seek to destroy that tradition – the good with the bad.

Without this appreciation of what is good in our past, Damon concludes, students cannot have hope for the future. Damon reminds us that the notions of American exceptionalism and the American Dream are related – and that, rightly understood, they refer to far more than just material success. America is special in that it “offers every U.S. citizen a chance to strive toward the aspirations they hold most dear, whether material, personal, social, or spiritual.” American young people can and should aspire to be far more than merely part of an envious, self-absorbed, rioting rabble like those young people who destroyed their own communities in the towns surrounding London – and their teachers should encourage them to do so.

Yet as Damon found in interviews with high school students, some students do not get this encouragement. One high school girl said, “Last year, the history teacher told us that the American Dream was dead…. I just – I didn’t believe that at all. If we didn’t dream, then we wouldn’t be doing anything. We wouldn’t be advancing as a society.” Another girl was more pessimistic, saying “I guess I’m not a true US citizen, or what America wants me to be, because America doesn’t even abide by their own rules or their own expectations, so I don’t know what a US citizen is…. I don’t know what [the American Dream] would mean to me. I heard [the phrase] so many times. And it’s crazy, and I don’t know what it is.”

Regardless of the differences of perspective or of experience that separate these two girls, it is clear that both of them want to live in a country they can believe in. If there is something in our country that is worth believing in – and it is my deepest conviction that there is – it is our responsibility as civic educators to communicate that worth with all of the confidence and skill we have to offer. The Bill of Rights Institute is here to support you in that indispensable effort.

What barriers do you face in your effort to educate young people to believe in the America we both love?

This summer, the Bill of Rights Institute will be blogging the Philadelphia Convention of 1787.

Beginning tomorrow, May 25 – the date when enough delegates had arrived to give the Convention a quorum – the Bill of Rights Institute’s ”A More Perfect Blog” will give weekly accounts of the key actions and conversations of the Convention.

Whether you know the events or personalities of the Philadelphia Convention well or not at all, I hope you will make it a part of your routine this summer to relive the conversation at the Convention. I hope you’ll join us for a “Countdown to the Constitution.”

It was encouraging to see that the performance of fourth graders improved since 2006 – and that this increase was reflected through all demographic groups and all skill levels. It is also worth noting that teaching the Constitution and civics worked! Elementary students performed much better when their teachers made a point to emphasize the Constitution and our foundations as a nation, the role of citizens, and politics and government.

At the middle and high school levels, results were less encouraging. The performance of eighth graders has not changed since the 2006 or 1998 assessment – despite the fact that eighth graders report being taught more frequently about a wide range of civics topics, including the presidency, the judiciary, and political parties and elections. More disappointing, the performance of twelfth graders has declined – as has the amount of instruction they have received on the Constitution, among other civics topics.

This raises a question: Has a shift in certain civic education topics from high school to middle school failed to result in any educational benefit to middle school students, while diminishing the civic education of high school students? What other factors might be contributing to these disappointing results?  What remedies can you suggest to move policy-makers in the right direction?

Teachers, please weigh in on this important question.

Hoover’s arguments would not sound out of place at a Tea Party rally: “It does not follow, because our difficulties are stupendous. that we must turn to a State-controlled or State-directed economic system in order to cure our troubles. That is not liberalism; it is tyranny. It is the regimentation of men under automatic bureaucracy with all its extinction of liberty, or hope, and of opportunity.”

Roosevelt did not directly dispute Hoover’s caution about the growth of an administrative state, explaining, “Our task now is not discovery, or exploitation of natural resources, or necessarily producing more goods. It is the soberer, less dramatic business of administering resources and plants already in hand, of seeking to reestablish foreign markets for our surplus production, of meeting the problem of under consumption, of adjusting production to consumption, of distributing wealth and products more equitably, of adapting existing economic organizations to the service of the people. The day of enlightened administration has come.”

The difference between Roosevelt and Hoover, then, was over whether we should trust those in the private sector or those in the public sector to solve our problems. Hoover posed this question in a provocative statement that every educated citizen should have a reasoned judgment on. “The human animal. has two forms of greed – the greed for money and the greed for power. The lust for power is infinitely the worse. The greed for money can be curbed by law, but the greed for power seizes the law itself for its ends.”

Is Hoover right or wrong?