GUEST COLUMN
OPINION: Why are students self-censoring in civics class
New Mexico鈥檚 high school civics standards are unusually clear about what civic education should accomplish. Students are expected to analyze the Constitution and its founding principles. They are also expected to participate in 鈥渃ivil discourse to promote greater understanding鈥� and to apply civic dispositions and democratic principles 鈥渨hen working with others.鈥�
That is a serious conception of civics education. Students need to know how government works. They also need practice at what citizenship requires: making an argument, listening to an opposing one and working through disagreement.
The second part depends on whether students are willing to speak.
This summer the Sandra Day O鈥機onnor Institute surveyed recent high school graduates around the country about their civics classes. Fifty-eight percent said they had self-censored rather than say what they really thought about a political or civic topic because they were concerned about how others might react.
Most were not describing classrooms where they felt unable to speak. Seventy-three percent said they were generally comfortable sharing their honest views. Yet 51% of those students had still occasionally self-censored.
The most striking finding was whom students worried about. Among those who self-censored, 91% cited classmates as a concern. Forty-one percent cited the teacher.
That matters because civic discussion is citizenship practice. A view that never enters the conversation cannot be examined, challenged, defended or revised. The student misses the chance to make an argument, hear a competing one and decide whether the evidence changes anything.
Students may respond not only to what classmates actually believe but to what they think classmates will tolerate. A quiet classroom can be easy to misread, and a few visible reactions may not represent the broader room.
Teachers are central because they shape the conditions in which this peer pressure operates. Fifty-three percent of respondents said they had sometimes or often seen a teacher avoid, cut short or shut down a political or current-events discussion. Last year, nearly 80% of civics teachers we surveyed said they had themselves self-censored because they feared pushback or controversy.
The goal is not to make disagreement easy. Serious civic discussion will sometimes be uncomfortable. The goal is a classroom where a student can make an argument, hear criticism and even lose the argument without losing social standing.
Because students are concerned about each other, they should be part of the solution. One approach is for teachers to ask them anonymously whether a hypothetical classmate who voices an unpopular opinion should still be treated with respect, then ask whether they think most classmates agree. If students are more accepting of disagreement than their peers assume, showing them the results may help correct that misperception.
Schools can also lower the initial social stakes without lowering the standards. Assigned positions and anonymous opening responses give students practice before disagreement becomes personal. Teachers need support to keep difficult discussions focused on ideas, protect space for minority views and recover when a discussion goes badly.
And because 26% of those who self-censored worried about being talked about or posted about on social media, structured discussions should carry a clear rule: Classmates鈥� remarks are not recorded, posted or circulated out of context.
New Mexico asks students to practice 鈥渃ivil discourse to promote greater understanding.鈥� That cannot happen if students decide the social cost of speaking is too high. The state has the right goal. Schools should make sure students get the chance to practice it with one another.
Liam Julian is chief of programs and public policy at the Sandra Day O鈥機onnor Institute. The Institute鈥檚 new report, Why Are Students Self-Censoring in Civics Class?, is available at .
