Apparently, a professor at Drew University in NJ is making voting in the upcoming election a course requirement. Is this a good idea? The blogger at Random Pens褳 says no, coerced voting is contrary to American values and ideals. The blogger at Simon’s World (er…presumably Simon) disagrees, arguing that voting is an “obligation” and part of the social contract.
I tend to come down on Simon’s side. While I prefer the words “responsibility” or “duty” to “obligation,” I do believe that voting is one of the things that we all need to do to ensure that our democracy is…well…democratic (something it sorely needs help with these days). The professor in question didn’t compel a vote for a particular candidate; only that the students vote. Even a write-in entry that amounts to “none of the above” is of significantly more value than a no-vote. If a demographic that historically trended toward light turnout (like, say, the group of 18- 21-year-olds) were to suddenly show up at the polls in large numbers —regardless of who they vote for— then the next election cycle all candidates would have to address that demographic as part of their strategy. So even if every college student in the country wrote in Jon Stewart because they felt that none of the candidates represent them, both Democratic and Republican nominees would have to pay attention to college students going forward as potential swing voters.
Not to mention the fact that if you bother to show up to vote in the first place, you might actually think a bit more about what you want and which candidate come closest to giving it to you.
Jay Shaw says
For a professor to make voting a course requirement is excrutiatingly stupid.
First, the requirement discriminates against students who do not have the right to vote, including citizens of countries other than the country of the class and those convicted of serious crimes.
In the United States for instance, a felon can run for and hold high office but cannot vote for any office, high or low. What happens to the no-vote students? Do they fail by virtue of passport or cleared history? What happens to the class culture when the division betweeen the voters and the voteless is made a marking issue? What would be the lesson there?
Second, the right to NOT vote is arguably a “pursuit of happiness” choice. It is not within the mandate of a school or a teacher, in loco parientis or not, to trample on such a right.
Finally, the highest purpose of teaching is to elucidate thought and the process of thinking, not to compel civic engagement. That step is for individuals to consider and make or not make on their own, in the cold light of their personal mornings.
If the professor cares about getting out the vote, she can go work on a voter registration campaign. The last thing in the world a teacher should do or be seen to do is abuse her position to force behaviours on the part of students simply because the professor thinks it might be a good thing.
That’s no good at all.
Michael Feldstein says
But what do you really think, Jay?
Seriously, with some qualifications, I have to agree with your first point. For example, while I have to assume that the voting requirement only applies to those who are eligible to vote, there is a strong related privacy issue. Should the professor require students to provide proof of the felony that makes them ineligible to vote?
The second point is weaker. To begin with, “pursuit of happiness” is actually in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. And even if it were, I think the application is trivial. You could equally argue that the right to not wear a seatbelt is a “pursuit of happiness” choice; yet nobody has successfully made such an argument in court. If you are a libertarian in philosophy, you may believe that freedom to not wear a seatbelt is “right” in the moral sense, but it certainly is not a right in the legal sense.
Regarding the third point about whether or not teaching entails an obligation to educate (opponents would say “indoctrinate”) students in certain civic moral values, that is a debate that has been waged for centuries. In fact, one of the decisive arguments that led to pervasive commitment to public school funding in the US in the Nineteenth Century was precisely that children growing up in the United States need to learn the civic morality that the Constitution embodies. Personally, I have mixed feelings about it, and I certainly grant you that, to the degree that it holds within public K-12 schools, it’s a much weaker case for post-secondary schools. I do believe, however, that teachers have a higher purpose than “elucidating thought and the process of thinking.” As William Goldman has slyly noted, thinking is not a hobby. It serves higher humanistic goals, some of which I believe are inscribed in our democratic principles of government. Teachers sometimes have obligations to take moral stands, even while balancing against the equally compelling obligation to give students the room to take their own moral stands.
Nevertheless, the privacy issue is by itself a compelling enough problem to cause me to reconsider my own position. If that weren’t enough Greg Glidden notes that line between compelling somebody to vote and providing a tacit compulsion to vote for a particular candidate is dangerously fuzzy. While I have no problem with a teacher using the bully pulpit of the classroom to encourage students to vote, I have to now agree that compelling students to vote steps over the line.
Thanks for the feedback.
Jay Shaw says
Dear Michael,
Thank you for your immediate, thoughtful reply.
To clarify a couple of points though. I did not say or imply that ‘pursuit of happiness’ choices were constitutionally or otherwise legally guaranteed. The legal issue is irrelevant. It’s about where you draw the line as a professional in a position of responsibility.
Your example about wearing seatbelts is actually a great case for why a teacher has no business enforcing behavioural standards outside the class.
It would be just as appalling if a professor made wearing a seatbelt a precondition for an ‘A’ in a class as it is for a teacher to force her students to vote. A teacher is not a cop, politico, preacher or parent.
To go further and make the general case, there are serious abuse of position issues that come up when teachers compel students to perform any non-class related activity in order to secure a higher grade.
Compelling outside-class action for class grades is an institutional trust breaker. What’s next? Community car washes? Mandatory volunteer days at the local hospital?
If that professor worked for me, I would at the very least stop the process, publicly admonish her for compelling student voting in return for a grade and demand that she apologize to all concerned. It’s way outside the pale.
As for highest purpose, I agree with you and Mr. Goldman: thinking is not a hobby.
But that’s a comment about thinking, not about teaching.
U.S. public school funding history aside (and that’s a story of political morass — not a morals discussion), at the end of the day teachers cannot think for their students and should not try to dictate what’s right for them.
Teaching, done right, helps people learn to think better.
Teaching is not and cannot be primarily about enforcing civic behaviours, no matter how useful the behaviours may seem to be for society and indivduals in the opinion of the teacher.
Compelling civic actions is not education. That’s indoctrination. I used to see a lot of that in Beijing.
It should not be allowed in America. Even China’s moving beyond that now.