How to teach civics in uncivil election

Presidential elections can provide teachable moments in classrooms, but this year’s contentious campaign has prompted educators to revisit how they teach civics in an atmosphere that’s anything but civil.
Luverne’s Jason Berghorst first mentioned the struggle on Oct. 9.
“I came to the conclusion that it was probably not possible to teach this presidential election to my middle schoolers the way that I have in the past,” said Berghorst, who teaches in Adrian.
“I scrapped my usual plans for campaign research, posters and mock debates. I just didn't want my 11- to 13-year-old students, who are still trying to figure out how to treat others and how to talk about others, to emulate the candidates this year.”
He said his senior government classes are following the election as usual; it’s the younger students he is concerned about.
The Star Herald reached out to other local civics teachers about how they’re presenting American election processes to students this year.
David Rysdam, government teacher in Luverne High School, shared similar sentiments.
“The rhetoric within the debates, political advertising, and in the media is such that it is hard to have real discussions about the candidates’ platforms or what they represent,” Rysdam said.
“I actually had a moment before the second debate where I seriously questioned my insistence that the students watch the debate and come in the following Monday to discuss its contents.”
Berghorst shared similar sentiments.
“The normal rules that we teach for how to successfully run for president have been thrown out the window,” he said.
“Instead of using the issues and platform to attract voters, Mr. Trump has figured out how to benefit from his celebrity and his lifetime of experience building his brand and as a reality TV star.”
Berghorst said that’s what has influenced the campaign discussion, making it difficult to focus on platforms — and to teach about elections.
“He knew that the more outrageous his statements and actions were, the more attention he would get from the media to boost their own ratings,” Berghorst said.
“He has been able to bring what works on reality TV to the presidential campaign in a way that no one has ever even tried before. The problem is, these comments and behaviors that get attention are sometimes very difficult to talk about in a classroom.”
Rysdam said he at first looked forward to teaching about elections in a campaign with candidates that are “a Saturday Night Live skit writer’s dream.”
“I thought there’s no way this class would be boring or without conversation,” Rysdam said.
“For the most part, this interpretation has been accurate, but … the problem is that it is hard to have a meaningful conversation about the policies and platforms when there is so much negative in the media, whether it is questions about a track record and judgment, or the complete lack of a filter that most would call common decency.”
He said social media has compounded negative messages that used to air only on TV and radio.
“Memes, political ads, and mean-spirited tweets are all that seem to make an impression on the public at large, and they are divisive in their nature,” Rysdam said.
“These factors have curbed my ability to really pull apart an election that, in reality, may be more significant than any since the Great Depression.”
The Star Herald asked the teachers how future civics textbooks will describe the 2016 presidential election.
“This is hard to tell. It really depends on how the populace reacts to this election cycle,” Rysdam said, wondering if campaign laws might change (super-PAC funds, truth in advertising, etc.) “One certainty is that it will be the election where an individual was elected with the lowest popularity rating in the history of the U.S.”
Berghorst responded similarly. “This election will be remembered for being especially personal and divisive instead of being focused on the issues,” he said.