by Nathan Zook
Educating undergraduates for citizenship or civic engagement is not the main focus of the discipline of political science. Early political science task forces sponsored by the American Political Science Association, however, criticized rote learning and instead recommended that government courses offer practical educational tools that allow individuals to develop as citizens.
Robert Walker, an early political scientist and proponent of citizenship education, declared that liberal arts education institutions had the unique function of preparing students for citizenship. The meaning of this citizenship education was qualified by later political scientists who issued a call for critical thinking rather than indoctrination in patriotism.
Every year, an undergraduate in my American National Government course will walk up to me, looking rather sheepish, and hang their head in embarrassment as they admit that they have never voted. Rather than encouraging them to vote and telling them they must get involved in this way, I simply tell them that there are many rational reasons not to vote and that I do not think any less of them for not voting. I think it should be the right of citizens to feel comfortable not voting. Life and politics are too complex for us to be satisfied with casting a ballot for the name of a person we may have never met.
Why put all of the emphasis in civic education on voting? Some voters seem to be deceived into thinking that voting is their only political tool. If their candidate loses, they seem to think their only choices are to either give up or wait four years until the next election. I have found that civic educators do a disservice to their students when they put so much pressure on them to vote. A freshman recently told me how he had gotten his hopes up so high in voting for John Kerry, that when this favored candidate lost, he was almost ready to give up on politics altogether. Voting should not be the way that educators measure citizenship responsibilities. Nearly 50% of the voters “lose” in any given election. Many of those that do vote believe they are only indicating which of the two similar candidates are the lesser of two evils.
As an alternative to a heavy emphasis on voting with all of its obstacles, losses, and irrationalities, I believe it is more effective to urge our students to learn about a wider range of political tools including protesting and community service. Rather than advocating that the world will be a better place if they engage in these activities, however, an educator must emphasize the importance of critically evaluating these alternatives to voting.
The real-world division between these two activities was never clearer than on a bright sunny Sunday in 1997, when President Clinton and former Presidents Ford, Carter, and Bush joined forces with General Colin Powell, Vice President Al Gore and numerous business, religious, and entertainment leaders to promote volunteerism. The Summit for America’s Future was held in Philadelphia on the weekend of April 27, 1997. Grabbing paintbrushes to remove graffiti from inner-city boulevards and tools to erect playgrounds, the various leaders sang the praises of volunteerism and discussed plans to expand mentoring programs. President Clinton declared that paying taxes was not enough; a citizen also needed to volunteer in their community.
On the same day, thousands of protesters gathered in Philadelphia to declare that volunteerism itself was not enough either. The protest, organized by the National People’s Campaign, declared that volunteerism would not address the underlying root causes of injustice in society, but would simply cover up plans to gut social programs.
While the debate surrounding volunteerism may rage in the public arena, the important lesson for college instructors is to encourage students to experience and critically evaluate the various forms of citizen participation, whether volunteerism or more political types of activism. As an educator, I encourage students to critically evaluate various types of citizen participation including volunteering for community service, voting, campaigning, attending town meetings, and protesting.
Rather than making students feel guilty for not participating in a political activity that may be irrelevant to an issue that concerns them, I encourage them to learn about each of the available tools at their disposal. I feel confident that, in the future, when an issue arises that excites their passions, they will be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the available tools and will choose the one most beneficial for accomplishing their citizenship goals.
Prior to the Civil War, slavery was a major issue. While the war and the elections that preceded it all played a role, some individuals engaged in other activities that had different advantages. Those who engaged in civil disobedience on the Underground Railroad had significant impact on the lives of individuals running from slavery and also illustrated their contempt for an unjust system. Pacifists who refused to take up arms, but instead prayed against slavery had an impact in the hearts of their enemies.
As a political scientist, it is difficult and simplistic to give credit to any one activity that generates change on different issues. In some cases, there may be many factors involved. In the previous example, many different components of citizenship participation had a role in seeking the abolition of slavery. Rather than limiting the creativity of students by focusing on the single activity of voting, it is important for civic educators to foster an awareness of the multiplicity of political tools at their disposal. This will lead to a more informed, and perhaps even more optimistic view of the potential for achieving change in government.
Dr. Nathan Zook is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin – Rock County.
