Should Marriage Equality be Taught as Controversial Post-Obergefell v. Hodges?

Abstract

Background Having students engage with controversial issues is considered a hallmark of a quality civic education, in part because it requires students to interact with perspectives that contradict their existing worldviews, evaluate the legitimacy of positions based on evidence, and develop the skills and dispositions necessary for participation in an increasingly pluralistic democratic society. Most of the research on the teaching of controversial issues, however, has focused on how teachers and students respond to controversy as opposed to how controversy is framed. Teachers must determine whether an issue should be considered “open,” or controversial, or “settled,” or noncontroversial, in their classrooms, a decision that is both pedagogically important and often controversial. For issues that have been settled for some time, such as slavery or woman suffrage, the decision whether to frame them as open or settled is typically easy for teachers; however, issues that are in the process of tipping from open to settled, or vice versa, are more challenging and require that teachers make instructional decisions based on evidence and logical reasoning. Purpose The purpose of this article is to critically analyze whether the issue of marriage equality should be framed as controversial in the aftermath of the 2015 landmark Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage in the United States. In doing so, this article also offers several implications for the teaching of controversial issues broadly, particularly those that intersect with the identities of students and teachers. Research Design This article makes an analytical/theoretical argument using three commonly cited criteria for determining the openness of controversial issues: the epistemic criterion, the political criterion, and the politically authentic criterion. Conclusions/Recommendations After evaluating marriage equality using each criterion, I conclude that no rational reason exists for treating marriage quality as an open issue post-Obergefell. I also argue that the issue of marriage equality illustrates the need for teachers to be cognizant of how discussions of controversial issues that implicate students’ identities may impact students who may be marginalized by those issues. I recommend that when such issues have reached the point where subjective decisions must be made in determining whether they are framed as open or settled, deference should be made to framing those issues in a way that promotes public values as opposed to legitimizing private views.

Classroom Controversy in the Midst of Political Polarization: The Essential Role of School Administrators

“…For some hot button issues (e.g., climate change), however, the distinction is not so clear, and there is no "absolutely correct" way to determine openness. Yet, there are various philosophical justifications that teachers can use to make this determination in their classrooms (see Journell, 2017aJournell, , 2018aJournell, , 2021aJournell, , 2021b, for further explanation), and it is essential that teachers broach controversy with clear parameters to define openness instead of trying to make such a complex decision on the fly.…”

Teachers' Sense-Making About Political Disclosure in a Contentious Political Climate

“…Theoretical Framework This paper is grounded in literature examining teacher political disclosure, or teachers' decisions about whether, when, how, and why share their personal political beliefs and opinions with students (Hess, 2009;Hess & McAvoy, 2015;Journell, 2011Journell, , 2016aJournell, , 2016bKelly, 1986). Research has shown that much of the general public sees teacher disclosure as political proselytizing (McAvoy & Hess, 2013), and that social studies teachers' typical fear of indoctrinating their students and reprisal have led to a broad socialization towards political neutrality in the classroom (Journell, 2016a).…”

“…Scholars who have studied teacher political disclosure have also noted that the context of a given disclosure decision and the manner in which teachers disclose are vital to understanding disclosure as a pedagogical decision (Hess, 2009;Journell, 2016a;Swalwell & Schweber, 2016). In particular, disclosure in the literature is typically framed as a decision that takes place in the context of classroom discussions of controversial issues that are "open," or controversial and up for debate, or those that are "closed," or not controversial because the matter is settled (Hess, 2009;Journell, 2018). The findings in this study show that the contentiousness of the current political climate is complicating some of the assumptions within the scholarship on teacher political disclosure.…”

“…For the teachers in this study, political disclosure served a number of functions outside of those typically seen in the scholarship on this topic. The literature encourages teachers to disclose as a way of modeling political thinking, be honest about the subliminal ideology in the classroom, and encourage students to engage with ideas in a way that mimics adults' political behavior (Journell, 2016b). However, disclosure in these interviews was revealed to take on fundamentally different roles.…”

“…Secondly, this study shows that for many teachers, the literature's classifications for determining if an issue is open or closed are not holding. Scholars argue that controversial issue discussions in classrooms should examine issues that are, in some way, open for debate rather than those that are closed because there is either a commonly held opinion that is "right" or evidence that any other answer should not be deemed legitimate (Hess, 2009;Journell, 2018), though scholars disagree on exactly how to classify the gray issues that could be either open or closed. In these interviews, however, it became clear that while teachers certainly grappled with how to approach the open issues and those in the gray area in this political climate, even the closed issues demanded they make decisions about disclosure.…”