1. Deliberating in a Democracy A Model For “Deliberating” Controversial Issues Hate Speech 7.2011 “Using Controversial Issues in the Classroom” is a program of the Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago. Any ideas or opinions expressed at this institute do not necessarily reflect the views of the the U.S. Department of Education or the Constitutional Rights Foundation. http://www.deliberating.org/

2. Objectives Promote the discussion of controversial issues within the classroom. Examine various methods for the effective teaching of controversial issues. Apply acquired information, ideas, and skills to different contexts (G.L.E./ C.L.E./D.O.K.).

3. Why teach controversial issues? Missouri Performance Standards Goal 1: All students in Missouri public schools will acquire the knowledge and skills to gather, analyze, and apply information and ideas. Students will demonstrate within, and integrate across all content areas, the ability to:

4. 1.Develop questions and ideas to initiate and refine research. 2. Conduct research to answer questions and evaluate information and ideas. 3. Use technological tools and other resources to locate, select and organize information. 4. Comprehend and evaluate written, visual and oral presentations and works. 5. Discover and evaluate patterns and relationships in information, ideas and structures. 6. Evaluate the accuracy of information and the reliability of its sources. 7. Organize data, information and ideas into useful forms (including charts, graphs, outlines) for analysis or presentation. 8. Identify, analyze and compare the institutions, traditions and art forms of past and present societies. 9. Apply acquired information, ideas and skills to different contexts as students, workers, citizens and consumers.

5. What Research Tells Us About Students Deliberating A Topic Prepares students for their role as citizens in a pluralistic democracy. Develops critical thinking skills. Students improve cognitive skills, such as constructing hypotheses and collecting and evaluating evidence. Students gain insight by sharing information with their peers. Improves interpersonal skills. “The main task for democratic citizens is to deliberate with other citizens about the nature of the public good and how to achieve it.” (Newmann, 1989)

6. Definition of Controversy 1.A discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views 2.QUARREL, STRIFE, DISPUTE Definition of Deliberation 1.A focused exchange of ideas 2.Any method used to weigh and examine the reasons for and against a topic

7. Market Place of Ideas When discussing or teaching issues which may be considered controversial, it is always best to engage in a strategy of deliberation which focuses on enlightenment and knowledge. Deliberation does not result in a “winner or loser”, but rather a clearer understanding of two sides of an issue.

8. Deliberating An Issue Defined as a reflective discussion among students, or between students and teachers, about an issue on which there is disagreement. Typically a discussion is sparked by a question or assertion made either by a student or teacher. The discussion allows for presentation of supportive evidence, comments, and expression of differing points of view. By nature, the discussion is interactive, and requires listening and expression of ideas. The goal is a clearer understanding of an issue.

9. Dealing With Controversial Issues Requires… Balance, "neutrality,” and control, and must be adjusted to your audience. Focus on inquiry with a focus on understanding and seeking knowledge by questioning. Open discussion without coercion, peer pressure, or indoctrination of others. Honesty regarding the objective of the discussion. No attempt is made to alter or change one’s social, political, or religious views. Closure! Do not let the students leave the room without a summation of the activity and objective.

10. Ground rules The purpose of establishing ground rules is to enable the free flow of ideas in a safe, non- threatening environment, with the goal of having students think about and question their assumptions, while listening to others.

11. Rules of Academic Engagement (Posted around the room) You may only make statements about an issue and not make comments regarding another person’s personal beliefs or customs. Think carefully before you speak and refer only to facts. Rudeness, prejudice, and personal comments will not be tolerated. Cite evidence to support your point of view. Two other students must have spoken before you speak again. Everyone will have a chance to speak. You may not cut another person off when they are speaking.

12. Rules for Civil Conversations (1) Read the text as if it were written by a highly respected person. (2) Everyone in the group should participate in the conversation. (3) Listen carefully to what others are saying. (4) Ask clarifying questions if you do not understand a point. (5) Be respectful of what others are saying. (6) Refer to the text to support your ideas. (7) Focus on ideas, not personalities.

13. Freedom Of Expression Hate Speech Student Objectives Discuss the fundamental role of freedom of expression in a democratic society. Appreciate the tension between the exercise of freedom of expression in a democracy and the protection of individuals and minorities or disfavored groups. Understand the concept of hate speech—speech that promotes hatred or violence against other persons or groups in society. Examine how democracies that share common principles and face similar problems can still develop very different solutions. Explore the influence of history on the specific balance of values and legal protections in different democratic societies. Analyze the reasons supporting and opposing the government’s permitting hate speech. Identify areas of agreement and disagreement with other students. Decide, individually and as a group, whether the government should permit hate speech; support decisions based on evidence and sound reasoning. Reflect on the value of deliberation when deciding issues in a democracy.

14. Question and Materials Question for Deliberation Should our democracy permit hate speech? Materials Lesson Procedures Handout 1—Deliberation Guide Handout 2—Deliberation Activities Handout 3—Student Reflection on Deliberation Reading Selected Resources Deliberation Question with Arguments (optional—use if students have difficulty extracting the arguments or time is limited)

15. Procedure Read the handout carefully and underline the facts you personally feel are important. List 3-4 facts on Handout 2, first entry. Divide yourselves into groups of 5-6 Discuss the “important facts and interesting ideas,” to develop a common understanding.

16. Procedure Continued 1.Divide yourselves into two teams; Team A and Team B. 2.Reread the article with Team A finding the most compelling reasons to support the deliberation question, and Team B finding the most compelling reasons to oppose the question. Record reasons on handout 2. 3.Team A’s spokesperson will explain the reasons they selected. Team B will listen, may ask for clarification on a point, but can’t argue. Team B’s spokesperson will now follow the same format.

17. Procedure Continued 1.Team B will now summarize the the main points made by Team A. When finished, Team A will summarize main points made by Team B. 2.The original groups will now drop their A-B team identity and begin deliberating the questions to formulate an opinion. 3.Reconvene the entire class, discuss “Yes” and “No” arguments (next slide)

18. YES—Arguments to Support the Deliberation Question 1. Hate speech is despicable, but it is not a crime. While certain words hurt and are hateful, they are only words—the pain they cause is a small price to pay for freedom. 2. Just because something is legal does not mean it is necessarily acceptable or desirable. A better way to fight hateful speech and ideas is through the use of free expression and “loving” speech, to promote the kind of society that people want. 3. Laws that prohibit hate speech will have the effect of “chilling” free speech. If the government has the power to punish expression, the definition of prohibited speech will grow. All governments resist giving up powers they already have. Governments should be permitted to control only what people can and cannot do, not what they say or believe. 4. In order for laws to be effective, they have to be workable. Laws that prohibit hate speech keep the government involved in making never-ending lists of “permitted” and “forbidden” expressions. That wastes public money and effort. The police and the courts can use their time better by prosecuting and punishing actions, not thoughts. 5. Expression is ambiguous. A symbol of hate for one group is a symbol of solidarity for another group. Government should punish only the actions people take against each other. Government should not punish how people think or how people express themselves.

19. NO—Arguments to Support the Deliberation Question 1. No democracies allow absolute freedom of expression. By defining hate speech as unacceptable, the government balances freedom of expression with other essential democratic values such as respect and tolerance for diversity. The balance is established through laws, which citizens in a democracy can always change. 2. Punishing hate speech provides equal protection for all persons in a democracy. Punishing hate speech helps to prevent unequal power relations from becoming overt discrimination. When hate speech is directed against weak or despised groups, such groups suffer not only from the hatred itself but also because they lack the power of the majority. 3. A message of hate, spoken once, can be more powerful than a message of tolerance spoken many times. The "chilling" effects of hate speech on other, more positive forms of democratic speech, should not be underestimated. 4. Throughout history, words have been used to identify persons and groups for persecution. By the time popular opinion or the legal process can act, it may be too late. A law that punishes hate speech sends the right message about society's real intentions. 5. Certain symbols and expressions are clearly hateful and have no meaningful social content. Like the Nazi swastika, these expressions are designed solely to create fear and to intimidate other people. Such symbols have no useful purpose. Society loses nothing by banning them.

20. Summation Deliberating Controversial Issues 1.Inform parents at the beginning of the year that issues of controversy are a natural part of social studies and the concept of democracy. 2.Create rules of academic engagement, be consistent and enforce the rules at all times. 3.Make certain you have adequately linked the topic and discussion to your lesson plan and objectives. 4.Leave time for closure and review the objectives and arguments for both sides. 5.Reinforce the concept that this activity is about enlightenment and understanding and not an attempt to change personal beliefs.