Richard Dreyfuss Gives Maher a Civics Lesson

Stolen from OO7's blog, I thought I'd post this here. Actor Richard Dreyfuss (Mr. Holland's Opus, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, etc) recently had a fantastic appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher that I thought could be instructive to the level of debate around here.

Dreyfuss, who is currently studying the teaching of civics at Oxford, gave a simple and powerful speech about the importance of a civic education. Here's a snippet of the transcript:

And part one of the video on YouTube

It's a long clip, but worth it.

Part two:

Actually, my mistake. It's all in the first clip. Also, there's some partisan stuff in there that may or may not be useful. What he says about civic education, however, is essential.

Yeah, I started watching the 2nd one and was wondering if it had anything interesting added in.

Great clip.

That was absolutely captivating. I don't know what to say, beyond that he's right. I've rarely seen the root cause of a problem so clearly and effectively stated. He's going to be one hell of a teacher, wherever he winds up.

I was and am also amazed at how quiet the other guests and Maher were, I mean I can see that it was edited but they were just listening for large chunks of time.

That was excellent. The responsibility inherent in representative democracy is so vital to its survival. I'm glad someone is reviving it. And Dreyfuss is so right when he points out just how young our government is. It's malleable with or without revolution, and anything we can do to remedy the apathy that runs so rampant in those who would otherwise be qualified to make those changes, is to be applauded.

I watched the whole segement on On Demand last night and what was apparent to me is how much Dreyfus gets it and Maher either doesn't or is part of the problem.

Although I have to confess, I found Dreyfus trying just a bit too hard to play the "elder statesmen" role for my taste. Though I give him much credit for putting his time in at Oxford and for spreading this message.

Most Americans have no clue how their government actually works, nor are they paying attention to what is happening in it. It is popular - and I am as guilty as any for it - to blame Bush for the fiascos of the last 6 years, but the fact is that we are to blame, because it is our government.

Word to Big Bird.

I saw him as lecturing a polity that needed lecturing. That's why I didn't have the same objections.

But that was the best part, its tiresome when someone is trying to make a point and they are constantly interrupted with comic relief. He did seem to slow himself down quite a bit when he realized he had the floor. I kept thinking to myself "go Richard go, were still with ya buddy".

he monopolised the panel?
you mean it wasn't 'fair and balanced'?


the horror

Hurrah for Richard Dreyfuss. It seems that there is a real *paranoia* about modern civics education (and, more broadly, about "news" in general) - so much so, that people avoid it because they believe it all to be "ideology in disguise." And I suppose, it *is* ideological, in the sense that it provides a certain bedrock of ideas and norms (discourse, civility etc) that everyone agrees to. It's like a kind of faux-sophistication about education run rampant that is distressing.

Dreyfuss was incredibly articulate. I was with him pretty much the whole time, until he went off about how people will "instinctively" bend to the will of a monarch directly after claiming that citizens are not born with civics. But that's moot.

On the question of civic education:

1) Who's responsibility is it to teach civics to the polity? My first instinct was the public schools. But there is something troubling about a state-sponsored program ensuring skills for proper citizenship. If it does become a public school issue, we're faced with the whole "monarchy" problem anyway if curriculum decisions are made on high and then handed down to classrooms: "This is what you will teach for your civics class, etc." What are the other options?

2) Isn't lecture-based education (what Mr. Dreyfuss is doing on camera) antithetical to his ideals of democratic education? Nobody learns how to use reason, be critical, enraged, and engaged by listening to somebody lecture. I'll forgive him, because he was on a television show, but I would be much more interested in hearing the entire panel debate about the issue rather than hear one man's well-versed theoretical take.

A book that I don't particularly like, but that does deal with this, is Amy Gutmann's Democratic Education. She picks up exactly the concern that you have. What she suggests is that you have a mixed approach - certain national standards for what citizenship is, input from local citizens, and finally the filter of professionals (re: teachers). So, you get a democratic education that itself incorporates democratic elements (local citizens making choices about what is included), but still meets some kind of professional standard. Though, even local civics still has to meet certain standards - notably being nondiscriminatory and nonrepressive (re: no banned books).

I'm really sympathetic to discussion as form part of learning (whoohoo Paulo Freire!). But, honestly, there's also a time and a place for a good lecture. Quite honestly, I don't think I should be allowed to saunter into a physics seminar and just expect my comments to be taken seriously b/c I'm part of the conversation. Sometimes we just have to be schooled in certain basics. At a later point, a more inclusive, discussion-based approach (which I agree is critical) can be introduced. Basically, you gotta crawl before you can walk.

Civics is as much about *skills* as it is about the content. It's about learning to listen to someone else, learning how to participate, how to think through a problem. I'm not quite certain that the "homogeneity" of being a good citizen is as problematic, from a democratic context, as say issues of the state forcing one interpretation of historical events on students.

Ok. So we scrap civic education all together because teaching the polity something homogenous (even if it is "reason, debate, critical thinking") from the get go is inherently un-democratic?

I guess that's really the main issue. I guess, if we are all subjected to the public school system anyway, I would prefer that the babies are taught how to be good citizens. As long as I approve of the types of things they're getting taught, it should be fine.

I see what you're getting at, but in theory the public school is the educational distillation of the ideas of the people, if you accept the idea that this government is "by the people". Thus, there could be less of a problem with monarchical edicts if you accept those ideas.

Agreed, though I don't know that TV is the proper format for the socratic method. And I greatly prefer a lecture than unmoderated (or moderated) rhetorical pissing contests.

re: SignalNoise
i. Ha! I was kind of thinking of the Gutmann and Thompson but couldn't really recall the specifics of how they solved this problem. G & T's strategy for democratic process for democratic education is really quite compelling. I don't remember: did they provide any examples of this type of model actually going down?

ii.This is also a good point. Though in Dreyfuss' case in particular, he wasn't giving the other panel members the opportunity to do much of anything, crawling or walking.

In general, especially on TV shows like that one, if the other guests feel they have something to say they pipe in and say it, Maher was certainly setting an example for them there. I thought it was a testament to the clarity of his point that they weren't speaking up, but I only watched the clip, I don't know what the topic for the episode was or how much information the other people had to offer.

re: Subrosa

i) By the people does have a nice ring to it doesn't it? I do, very much, agree with this in theory. In practice, however, the public school stystem is dictated as much by private interest (i.e., corporate greed and political power) as it is by any idyllic "public service for the public good" ethos. Ugh. Maybe I'm just too damn cynical and should embrace this "by the people" story.

ii) Indeed. Pissing contests are a bore. Why shouldn't TV be a proper forum for the socratic method?