Westwood's 'controversial issues' policy goes too far. Why hurt students? | Mike Kelly

Westwood, New Jersey, which sits at the lush and prosperous heart of Bergen County and just a short drive from the pulse of Manhattan, is one of those towns that remind many of the best of America.

The borough's center is anchored by a park dedicated to military veterans and features an elegant gazebo, where bands perform summer concerts and kids parade in their costumes on Halloween. Nearby, commuter trains stop at a stately stone station. A monument with a large bell commemorates local firefighters. The business district bustles with life.

Politically, Westwood is a mixed bag. The mayor and most of the Borough Council are Republicans. Yet the town has favored Democratic candidates in presidential elections during the past two decades.

If you spend time in this community of 11,000 residents, you get a sense that life runs smoothly, without the kind of venomous discord that has poisoned so much of America.

Until now.

Westwood, sadly, has emerged this summer as yet another battlefield in our nation’s culture wars.

Just what is a 'controversial issue'?

The springboard for this latest culture-war chapter is a new regulation by the Westwood Regional Board of Education to require the local schools superintendent’s approval before any teacher can discuss “controversial issues.”

What’s interesting is that the new policy, spelled out in a roughly 500-word statement on the board’s website, begins with the stipulation that “the consideration of controversial issues has a legitimate place in the instructional program of the schools.” From there, the statement notes that “properly introduced and conducted, the consideration of such issues can help pupils learn to identify important issues, explore fully and fairly all sides of an issue, weigh carefully the values and factors involved, and develop techniques for formulating and evaluating positions.”

So far, so good, right? Isn't education supposed to be framed by debate? But consider the concept of debate against the backdrop of the Westwood board's effort to describe what "controversial issues” are. This is where things slide down a murky path that gets even murkier when it falls to the superintendent to make the ultimate decisions about what can be discussed and what needs to be tabled.

“Controversial Issues,” the board says, “are defined as topics that have competing values and interests resulting in strong disagreement about statements, assertions, or actions on which opposing points of view have been expressed and are likely to arouse both support and opposition in the community.”

OK, that makes sense — but only up to a point.

Is a science discussion about climate change a “controversial issue” because some students might strongly disagree with each other? Or how about an economics discussion of pay scales for men and women? Or the place of so-called legacy admissions for children of college alumni now that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a consequential ruling on affirmative action?

Those are just a few examples. And the variety of the sampling of issues that I’ve cited here offers a sense of the rhetorical Pandora’s box that has just been opened.

The Westwood policy goes on to point out that controversial issues are “often viewpoints that touch on some particular sensitivity — e.g. political or religious” and could “arouse an emotional reaction of significant academic, social, political, and ideological matters involving multiple perspectives which result in dispute and disagreement due to a difference of opinion.”

The policy further notes that “these topics may also relate to events in the past, to a current situation or to some future desired outcome.”

And finally there is this: “Controversial issues must be appropriate for the course of study" and "must refrain from being obscene, profane, doctrinaire, or grossly inappropriate.”

The obscenity portion of that instruction is obvious — and makes sense. Cursing is not a smart debating tool. But what exactly is “profane, doctrinaire, or grossly inappropriate”?

And, finally, why should a schools superintendent rule on these kinds of questions? In fact, how could a superintendent, without spending considerable time in a classroom, decide what is controversial or not? Don’t teachers have a role?

A version of these questions emerged at a recent meeting of the school board when this new policy was approved. But the board did not address this issue. In fact, the board did not even discuss publicly this new policy. Maybe the issue was too controversial. Who knows?

Our view: Westwood's new 'controversial issues' policy is an affront to free inquiry

Earlier: Discuss 'controversial issues' in school? Westwood board says you need approval first

A debate that's gone too far

But consider, for a moment, how ridiculous this whole debate has become.

Learning needs to embrace differences of opinion. That’s how schools teach critical thinking — perhaps the most important learning tool for students — and not just to those in high school advanced placement classes. Critical thinking pushes students to be curious. In a broader, idealistic sense, critical thinking opens up students’ minds, sometimes forcing them to make important discoveries for themselves and for society. Imagine Aristotle or Maimonides or Aquinas or Einstein without critical thinking.

With the Westwood board’s policy in place, would a high school history teacher need to stop a discussion about the Ku Klux Klan until the superintendent weighed in? How about a debate over the merits of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s strategy of non-violent protests during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s versus the calls for violence by other figures such as Malcolm X?

What about a discussion of the films “Barbie” or “Oppenheimer”? Or the sexual impotence of the character Jake Barnes in Ernest Hemingway’s “The Sun Also Rises” — a staple of many high school reading lists? Or the question of antisemitism in Shakespeare’s “Measure for Measure”? And let’s not even consider what kind of “controversy” might emerge in a discussion of such authors as James Baldwin or Oscar Wilde.

In other words, welcome to the swamp that Westwood has created.

The truth: Controversy is inevitable — and a learning tool

Controversy can spring up almost anywhere. At any moment. From just about any student who might simply want to ask a question or two — or perhaps offer some criticism that could lead to a debate with other students.

Suppose a fourth grader innocently asked a teacher what “transgender” means? Or consider what a middle school music teacher might face in proposing to ask a choral group to perform a song by Michael Jackson. Given the allegations of Jackson’s sexual abuse of children, is singing “Beat It” too “controversial”?

Or how about the band performing Queen’s “We Are the Champions” at a high school football game? Was Queen’s lead singer, Freddie Mercury, too overtly gay for the students? And if just one student — or a parent — raises such an objection, should the entire band be stopped from playing the song?

And let’s not even try to imagine the debate that might ensue if a student in an art class objected to another student’s abstract painting of a nude scene. Or perhaps even more controversial: Suppose a student in a public speaking class wanted to describe why Adolf Hitler’s rhetorical style was so effective in Nazi Germany? And, finally, suppose students in a homeroom — or at the cafeteria — engaged in a discussion about bullying or suicide prevention? Does a teacher or even a lunchroom aide need to shut down the discussion because it touched on a "controversial issue"?

Where should educators draw the line with any of these possible “controversial issues”? And why have a superintendent as some sort of grand pooh-bah censor and verbal traffic cop?

What about teachers?

If you think these questions are unimportant, look at the advice from a recent report by the Harvard Graduate School of Education. “Consider your role as a teacher,” the report said. “Will you step in to play devil’s advocate if the class is showing signs of groupthink or jump in as an ally? Will you disclose your own stance? Consider the format of the discussion as well.”

In other words, teachers are often faced with having to provide on-the-spot guidance — or make decisions on the fly. But if the superintendent is the ultimate ruler, what should a teacher do if a “controversial issue” is raised unexpectedly by a student?

Another research paper, from the University of Michigan's Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, offers guidelines for teachers — underscoring the importance of in-classroom teachers. It says nothing about superintendents.

“Instructors can either work with students to generate ground rules or discussion guidelines,” the Michigan report noted, “or they can present a set of guidelines and then work with students to accept or modify them.”

In other words, teachers know their classrooms. Let them work with students on ways to discuss difficult topics.

In fact, the Michigan report said that developing ways to discuss such topics can, in itself, be a learning tool. For example, teachers can instruct students on how to “listen respectfully, without interrupting,” and to “listen actively and with an ear to understanding others’ view.”

More coverage: Westwood school district meeting becomes shouting match as LGBTQ allies, critics face off

Did the board think about pitfalls?

It’s hard to know if the Westwood Regional School District board considered any of these possibilities — or pitfalls. The board seems to have taken a vow of silence.

The board recently had to face a difficult decision about students who wanted to display an LGBTQ+ Pride sign outside the local middle school. Instead of turning the issue into a learning opportunity, the board shut down debate, banning the Pride sign and enacting a regulation to prohibit the display of any flag that was not the Stars and Stripes. Meanwhile, Superintendent Jill Mortimer offered a more nuanced view that confused the issue even more.

“Please note, I have no objection to the Pride flag, and I am in no way ‘banning’ it. That narrative is incorrect,” Mortimer wrote in a letter to the school community explaining her decision to fly only national and state flags outside school buildings.

“The High School displays a large Pride flag in the lobby of the school every June,” Mortimer wrote, adding that she based her decision on flags on legal advice from the board's attorney.

More perspective: Bergen educator: Westwood Pride sign mess should spur LGBTQ+ advocates. Here's why

Weeks later, the Westwood board adopted its policy to censor discussions of "controversial issues."

Sadly, Westwood’s board seems to have breathed in the toxic elixir of America’s culture wars.

The message being conveyed is shut up.

That’s not what America is about.

Mike Kelly is an award-winning columnist for NorthJersey.com, part of the USA TODAY Network, as well as the author of three critically acclaimed non-fiction books and a podcast and documentary film producer. To get unlimited access to his insightful thoughts on how we live life in the Northeast, please subscribe or activate your digital account today.

Email: kellym@northjersey.com

This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: Westwood NJ schools: 'Controversial issues' policy fails students