I agree with Mr. Dreyfuss' comment that we allow and share disparate opinion in our civic discourse in the classroom. However, when he heaps scorn on Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity and leaves out Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher, he loses all credibility. In an America where disparate opinion is shared, convservative as well as the liberal opinion must be permitted, and our educational leaders and faculty don't seem to want to allow that. Until conservative as well as liberal points of view are allowed in the classroom, the cynicism that Mr. Dreyfuss decries will continue, along with the political polarization of our society. Edutopia should consider printing viewpoints of conservative as well as liberal speakers, if its staff believes in the principles Mr. Dreyfuss has outlined in his article. If that ever does happen, I will have much more respect for the Edutopia staff.

There is one very basic flaw in Mr. Dreyfus's musings; our country is, in fact, not a democracy. In truth, the men that authored the most basic documents of our country's beliefs, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, went out of their way to avoid even the use of the word. Yes, we as teachers have the responsibility to teach our children to cherish this country and it's principles, but we should remain true to those principles and teach them as they stand, not as some would prefer them to be. Our Consitition does not even guarantee the RIGHT to vote to every citizen; the states were to decide who was to be a voter, the Constitition only puts limits on what reasons the states CANNOT use to decide who votes. It was never the intention of the Founding Fathers to allow "one man, one vote". Keep in mind why a true democracy doesn't work: a gang rape is a democracy in action...

It's interesting that Mr Dreyfus should mention Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity while leaving out a particularly hateful organization - Move On. I'd much rather my students watch the above mentioned political commentators than to think that what Move On does is OK when it comes to expressing politcal views.

While Keith Olberman and Bill Maher can get on their soapboxes, at least they do not make up facts or
take messages out of context. You do not have to agree with them, but I believe they make an attempt to be
fair. Bill Maher especially sometimes agrees or understands some conservative viewpoints.
We need to teach our students how to be critical thinkers. We need to teach them what is opinion, what is fact.
It is difficult when opinions or political agenda are reported as truth or fact.

It is detrimental to our students and our country to be led to believe that any political editorialist is delivering information
without a slant.

Argh, people like Marlene are completely missing the point of Dreyfus's essay. Getting students excited about the ideals of America requires work and effort, and this should be the goal of ALL educators and parents. O'Reilly and Hannity do not, in any way, positively contribute to this goal. They are entertainment, and, unfortunately, too many Americans have conflated the idea of political discourse with this kind of vile entertainment. The result? A lot of chest thumping and schoolyard posturing, a lot of light and no heat. And this false bravado wears the mask of enlightenment. How sad.

And Marlene's reference to MoveOn? This is a straw man argument, and has nothing to do with the essay. By drawing attention to the fact that Dreyfus referenced two bellicose conservatives in the media in his essay, Marlene is attempting to discredit the substance of the entire essay (a tactic, not coincidentally, used by Hannity and O'Reilly all the time). The rise of Olberman and Maher (in his current iteration) are a reaction to this very slimy rhetorical device.

Remember, MoveOn, Olberman and Maher only found their voices after the rise of Hannity and his ilk. Oh, yeah, and the former don't lie. And to think that an educator would rather have his or her students listen to Hannity and O'Reilly than to critically look at the aim, mission, and accomplishments of a grassroots organization like MoveOn that has registered thousands to vote, shed light on internet privacy issues and challenged/questioned President Bush on the war in Iraq (and questioning your government is not a right...it's an obligation) is frightening.

Thanks for including Dreyfus's essay in this edition of Edutopia. My students have read it, as well as the comments posted at the end.

I find it interesting that Dreyfuss' article and the comments as of this afternoon all omitted what to me is the critical point: that democracy cannot be adequately taught as a classroom topic. As President of the Center for Advancing Sudbury Education, it frustrates me greatly that we talk about the importance of instilling students with an understanding and love of democratic principles even as we educate them in very undemocratic settings.

In contrast, schools following the Sudbury model of education know that democracy must be lived if it is to be learned. These schools are working democracies in which all students and all staff have one vote in all matters, from rule-making and -enforcement, to budgeting, to personnel decisions.

Until our schools are themeselves run democratically, we cannot expect our children to know what democracy is truly all about.

Please explain this to me. After reading this I went to MoveOn's web site to find the hatefulness apparently inherent in its content. Marlene, please direct me to the items that are "particularly hateful." My guess is you won't, or can't. O'Reilly once referred to this group as "communist rat bastards", and I don't get that one either. Is it because they have different ideas than you do? Is it the grass-roots nature of this organization? Particularly hateful communist rat bastards sound pretty scary to me. How come I can't see through their thin disguise?

Len, the major difference between Bill O'Reilly & Sean Hannity on one hand and Keith Olbermann on the other is this: the Fox boys have been caught red-handed telling bald-faced lies and half-truths over and over. (If you want specific examples, I'll provide them. OK, here's one: do you remember O'Reilly quoting nonexistent statistics from the nonexistent "Paris Business Review"?)

But Olbermann uses something called "accuracy", a technique that jack-booted, right-wing extremists aren't familiar with. Olbermann checks his facts and doesn't make stuff up. Sure he's opinionated, but he doesn't lie to his audience.

Hermann Goering, Joseph Goebbels and Joe McCarthy would have loved an outlet like Fox Noise.

The fact that we have a republican democracy and not a democracy, pure, is a fine example of what I'm musing on. Why isn't that taught to our kids? It seems pretty basic, pretty critical stuff, the difference between democracy and representational democracy. And what world it came out of, not just the War of Independence. That we don't parse such a complex thing is the flaw I am asking to be addressed.
There are a large number of comments I've read referring to my remarks, which you should know is some one else's rewrite of what I said. Who did that or why I don't know, but it's fascinating that they had to have some transcript of my actual speech because all of it was rewritten into someone's rhetoric. The basic ideas I'll stand behind, tho.
Though I do think that all political shows are tainted by Television's unwritten rules and demands, and that Bill Maher would be able to produce a better show if he wasn't hamstrung by the Requirements of Punchlines and Short Answers, he is bright and basically unencumbered by Ideology and Incivility. He is not a simple person to compartmentalize, nor is our system so easy as not to need training and educating in order to maintain it.
Incivility is the sin of Fox News, where Demeaning and Bullying and Name-calling and Interrupting are the rule. It's our secret pleasure, like slowing at a car accident hoping to see something gruesome, knowing its not us who are dead. People aren't that rude and contemptuous in real life, are they? Bill O'Reilly calling me a Pinhead for asking him to promise not to interrupt me for 3 minutes; bet his kids don't act like that. Bet his kids, if they acted like that, would be reprimanded for that kind of behavior. Being rude to your guests is simply wrong, as Mike Huckabee said to me, who is the exception on Fox, a host's job is never to belittle his own guests; and Being Rude, and ridiculing, and holding your opponent in contempt makes it impossible to have a conversation devoid of melodrama, makes Substance and Context and Interesting Conversation Impossible. Do we really want Yelling and Screaming to be the norm of public discussion? Isn't that what little kids do, and when they do it we try to teach them not to? I'd love to hear some grown-ups from the right and left and center; that's what this Pinhead wants, anyway.
Civility allows for the sharing of space with those with whom you disagree. It's the oxygen democracies require, or they'll die. Fox should hire me; seriously, Roger Ailes should hire me because I want to introduce Good Talk without Contempt, because I think TV is a technology that is damaging without scrutiny, and because it would let Bill and Sean just stroll down to my office if they Just Had To Get Something Off Their Chests. But politely, which Huckabee thinks is the better way, and he's right.

I wish Richard Dreyfuss well in the task he has undertaken to teach civics and encourage civil discourse among our people. We sure as heck need it. After the last election where left wing fringe communities, the press and MSNBC seemed to be aligned with the Obama and right wing fringe communities, talk radio and Fox News seemed to be aligned with McCain, I couldn't take it anymore. Are we a people so infused with celebrity that we have forgotten what it means to be an American citizen. We have a Constitution which is the bedrock of our country and is the only place that we as a people can point to with a claim that we as individuals (not communities) have rights and protections under the law. Beyond that, I believed until recently that we had a national ethic that broadly asked for fair play and decency in the way we treat one another as individuals. As I watch almost any panel disscussion on television now, they all seem to turn into shouting matches. Communities of politically aligned individuals seem bent on defaming their opposition and killing what remains of America outside their community. It seems we have become a people that have clotted together into tribal membership in some politically active community. Nobody talks about how great it is to be an individual living in America anymore. Why can't we enter into discussions that use the term "I" instead of "we". When ACORN registers dead people and ficticious citizens to vote "I" am hurt because my vote doesn't count. On the other hand, when marriage is redefined by the gay community to include gay couples "I" am disappointed in the change to our traditions but "I" am not harmed by that decision. When a baby is aborted "I" am confused because the same people who would say killing an unborn child is just, might say that "I" am acting unjustly if "I" use a handgun to defend myself in my rural home against a violent home invasion by a teenager. I have quit all political alignments. I am not angry enough to join one. I will, however, try to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic in the only place left to the individual were the Bill of Rights still applies: my home and curtilage. From this castle I will live peaceably with my fellow man and let the communities duke it out until the last "I" is standing.