TEACHING TOLERANCE

IN A SUBURBAN PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL

by

Dan Gilleran

A MASTER’S PROJECT

For

ED 7999

Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies,

Graduate Division of Wayne State University

Detroit, Michigan

In partial fulfillment of the requirements

For the degree of

MASTER OF TEACHING

June 2002

MAJOR: SOCIAL STUDIES EDUCATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I CHAPTER ONE – Introduction 1

II CHAPTER TWO – Review of Related Literature 2

III CHAPTER THREE – Methodology of the Study 8

IV CHAPTER FOUR – Findings 12

V CHAPTER FIVE - Conclusions and Recommendations 16

VI REFERENCES 19

VI APPENDIX A – Tolerance Survey 20

VII APPENDIX B – Results for Heard/Respond Questions 22

VIII APPENDIX C – Results for Political/Social Questions 24

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

The Situation

Deadly shots ring out in the school cafeteria. A gay man is beaten and left to die. Epithets are spewed at Arab students. Unfortunately, these incidents are becoming more commonplace as lives are shattered by intolerance in our society. Often students are caught in this cross fire of ignorance and bigotry.

Since the purpose of schools is to educate our children, what are we teaching our students regarding tolerance and acceptance of others? Furthermore, what is the role of the educator in this pressing social issue?

The Need

The Teaching Tolerance program developed by the Southern Poverty Law Center states in very clear terms “In an era of increasing diversity and divisiveness, how do we help young people both to affirm their own individual and group identities and to respect and appreciate the identities of others? The future of our democracy hinges on our success at getting along.” (2001, p.2). Fortunately, research indicates “education is the best antidote for intolerance” (Godwin, 2001, p. 543). Research also suggests that “adolescence is a critical period during which students develop support for democratic norms and negative attitudes toward non-conformist groups in society” (Jones, 1980 p.191.)

As Adrian Davis, President of the National Council of Social Studies, explained in the Social Studies Professional Newsletter, “One important purpose of social studies is helping young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world “ (2002, p. 3).

As social studies educators, we must look for ways to create greater acceptance of social, political and racial differences. We need to promote the important concept of diversity, not just in our words but also in our actions. As a result, our curriculum should reflect these goals.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is twofold. First, it is designed to examine whether awareness of derogatory comments will increase after the completion of a unit on tolerance. Also, it will see if students express greater support for diverse viewpoints on political and social issues upon examination of the their own views and potential biases.

Students completed a questionnaire (see Appendix A) prior to the unit on tolerance. They were asked if they heard or used a derogatory comment in the past month. They were also asked if they responded to the comments in a negative manner either through words and/or body language such as a frown. In addition, they expressed their views on four politically divisive situations in order to gauge their overall support for inclusive values.

Significance of the Study

This study should be of potential interest to all social studies educators if we are truly committed to creating positive, supportive classrooms for all students regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation or other differences. Social psychologist Gordon Allport (1954) states, “human nature, on the whole, prefers the sight of kindness and friendliness to the sight of cruelty” (p.12). Examining whether we can foster greater tolerance in our society is an obligation of everyone who is in a position to influence others, especially young people.

Population

The project was conducted at an affluent suburban high school located outside of a large Midwestern American city. Nineteen upperclassmen (11th and 12th graders) in an introductory sociology course participated in the study. The majority of the students participating in the study were of Western European background. There was one Asian American student and no African American students in the class. There were eleven girls and eight boys. The study was conducted in March – April 2001.

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

This chapter contains a review of literature related to the concept of teaching tolerance and the issue of support for democratic norms. Several areas are explored such as the development of political tolerance in adolescents and the differences between public and private schools in establishing tolerance among its students.

Theoretical Bases

Americans overwhelming support democratic principles such as freedom of speech, yet a glaring paradox develops when asked about specific situations. Studies show little support for the impartial application of these principles to groups that express unpopular ideas. “Less than 30 percent will support the rights of free speech and assembly when asked about whether the Ku Klux Klan can appear on public television or Communists can hold a march in their neighborhoods” (Gibson, 1988, p. 516). This disconnect from the abstract ideals of democracy to the practical application is one important component in the study of tolerance. Corbett (1991) concluded:

While democratic political principles are taught, they

are taught as slogans rather than applications. . .

Children are not taught to apply these principles to

actual situations. . . As a result. . .the typical American

adult is not very supportive of specific applications of

democratic principles (p.213).

In addition, the curriculum guidelines adopted by The National Council of the Social Studies (1989) states that free speech, religious freedom and democratic decisions making are essential to human dignity. However, “the traditional civics curriculum does not engender a strong commitment to tolerance, particularly as it applies to unpopular ideas and groups” (Avery, 1992, p. 401).

A group of researchers from the University of Minnesota examined political tolerance in adolescents. Avery, Bird, Johnstone, Sullivan, and Thalhammer (1992) defined political tolerance as “the willingness to acknowledge the civil liberties of those with whom one disagrees” (p. 387). Their findings suggest that increases in political tolerance are due to a greater awareness of individual rights and decreases in tolerance may be attributed to a heightened concern for public safety. This conclusion appears to be accurate and timely considering the recent terrorist attacks in the United States and the willingness of some people to surrender civil liberties in the name of safety.

A four-week curriculum unit was designed to engage students in the active exploration of issues associated with the freedom of belief and expression. Students participated in a program called Tolerance for Diversity of Belief. In it, they examined “the ways in which the legal and constitutional framework of our society directly embodies the norms of freedom of speech and minority rights” (Avery, 1992, p. 403). A series of vignettes encouraged students to decide for themselves what limits, if any, should be placed on freedom of expression in a democratic society. This curriculum did seem to increase students’ level of tolerance toward disliked political groups. Their work suggests that such a reconstruction of civics curriculum might engender a greater tolerance for diversity of beliefs.

In 1992, a study conducted by researchers at The Center for the Study of Education Reform examined differences in public versus private schools in the development of interethnic friendships and support for democratic norms. A written questionnaire measured the student’s sense of perceived threat, support for democratic norms and political tolerance. “Students chose the political group that they liked least from the following: the American Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, advocates for the rights of people of color, Christian fundamentalists, atheists, advocates for abortion rights and opponents of abortion rights” (Godwin, 1992, p. 543). Students then indicated their willingness to allow members of that group to make public speeches, to hold public demonstrations, and to teach in public schools. Also, measured was the perceived threat of their least liked group.

Past research has shown that “individuals who perceive less threat from their least-liked group are likely to be more tolerant” (Godwin, 1992, p.545). When the socioeconomic and demographic variables are controlled, they found no differences in the levels of perceived threat between public and private school students. Surprisingly, their research showed that greater classroom diversity actually increases rather than decreases the perception of threat. The suggested cause is the increase in overall tension in the school due to fights among different groups. Also noteworthy, they found that ethnic diversity does not increase support for democratic norms, however, interethnic friendships do have that effect. However, “private schools are less ethnically diverse than public schools and private schools report a higher incidence of interethnic friendships at their schools” (Godwin, 1992 p. 546).

Summary

It is clear that a properly designed curriculum can motivate students to examine their own views regarding tolerance. Once students realize that different does not mean dangerous, we can work with students to become more tolerant and accepting of others.

This research has also shown that diversity is an important element of a social studies education and this need for greater understanding is an obligation of all citizens. Ultimately, we want to encourage more interethnic friendships as they appear to provide an excellent opportunity for increasing tolerance.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

Introduction

This chapter provides the setting, population and hypotheses involved in the project. It is divided into three sections. The first section describes the two hypotheses being explored. The second provides a description of the students, school and the community. The third describes the various procedures used to accomplish the project.

Hypotheses

1. Students participating in a unit on teaching tolerance will become more aware of derogatory comments as measured by a questionnaire given before and after the unit.

2. Students participating in a unit on teaching tolerance will express greater support for diverse democratic viewpoints as measured by a questionnaire given before and after the unit.

Sample

The study was conducted in a school district in a suburb of Detroit, Michigan. The high school has approximately 1300 students, ranging in grades nine through twelve. The ethnic makeup is roughly 90% white and 10% black, Asian, and students of Arabic descent. Of the 19 students who participated in the study 15 were seniors and the remaining four were juniors.

Methodology

In March through April 2001, students participated in a unit that examined several components of tolerance. It was designed to include a variety of activities to engage the students beyond the traditional rote memorization of facts. As research has shown, students can and will be motivated to actively participate in the curriculum if it is designed to provoke them out of their slumber. The unit consisted of:

q The viewing of The Shadow of Hate video that examines our country’s history of intolerance. It is produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Teaching Tolerance program. Activities included a discussion and a reflection on how core democratic values were or were not violated throughout history? What should the role of the government be in promoting tolerance? Finally, there was an active discussion on why these events are not taught in our social studies classes.

q The causes and effects of prejudice in our society. Through lecture and discussion, students explored who benefits from discrimination and why.

q An examination of racial issues in Detroit including a thorough discussion of the 1943 race riots and racial segregation patterns in our city. Through a video (self produced), newspaper articles and their own reflections, students explored race relations in the Metropolitan Detroit area, including a look at the history of Henry Ford and the Jews.

q How gender roles are established and maintained. We examined society’s current definitions of masculinity and femininity.

q The future of affirmative action in our country. Emphasis was placed on the on-going lawsuits regarding the University of Michigan’s admission policy. Students discussed the subjective nature of college applications and whether special treatment is given to other groups such as athletes.

Data Collection

Before beginning the unit, students completed a questionnaire (see Appendix A) asking them to answer eight questions on a range of topics regarding their support of core democratic values and their views on current social issues.

The first four questions required a written response. Students were asked if they heard or used a derogatory comment regarding a specific group of people. As a follow-up, the students were then asked if they responded to the comment. While distributing the questionnaire, the definition of a response was explained. This included any type of negative response to the initial derogatory comment whether it is expressed through body language (such as a frown or shrug) and/or words. The responses were totaled for each question.

The second set of questions asked students to express their views on four situations using a scale of 1-5. A lower score indicates greater support for diverse viewpoints. The responses were totaled and a class average was compiled for each question.

Once the unit was completed, the students filled out questionnaire again. The results were tabulated in the same manner as the pre-unit questionnaire. The changes were analyzed and the differences were recorded.

Students were aware of the nature of the project. There was concern that their responses would be skewed based upon the perceived need to be politically correct. However, it was stressed that the surveys were anonymous in an effort to ensure an honest response.

Summary

The previous chapter is designed to give an overview of the methodology used in the study. The two hypotheses are stated and the sample of students is described. Also, included is a detailed account of the various components of the curriculum analyzed in the unit on tolerance.

CHAPTER FOUR

FINDINGS

Introduction

Students completed a two-part questionnaire (see Appendix A) prior to the unit on tolerance. The first four questions asked if they heard or used a derogatory comment in the past month and their response to it. The next four questions asked them to rate their views on four controversial situations including the right of the Neo-Nazis to march in Jewish neighborhoods, the right of gay couples to marry, whether it is constitutional to burn the American flag and whether minorities are gaining too much power in the United States. A complete discussion of the findings is provided.

Hypothesis 1

Students participating in a unit on teaching tolerance will become more aware of derogatory comments as measured by a questionnaire given before and after the unit.

Table 1

Number	Pre- Heard Comments	Pre- Respond Comments	Post Heard Comments	Post Respond Comments	Change Heard Comments	Change Respond Comments
19	49	20	63	30	+14	+10

The results of Table 1 demonstrate that students did become more aware of derogatory comments after completing the unit with an increase of fourteen additional comments heard. In addition, students responded in greater numbers to those comments with an increase of ten.

Please see Appendix B for a summary for the responses of the individual questions.

Hypothesis 2

Students participating in a unit on teaching tolerance will express greater support for diverse democratic viewpoints as measured by a questionnaire given before and after the unit.

Table 2

Number	Average Pre Unit Score	Average Post Unit Score	Difference
19	11.59	10.41	-1.18

Based upon the scale used in the questionnaire (1-5) a lower score indicates greater support for diverse viewpoints. The results of Table 2 show a decrease in the overall average score (-1.18). This demonstrates more of a willingness to grant political and social freedoms to certain groups and individuals upon completion of the unit on tolerance.

Please see Appendix C for an item analysis of the results.

Summary

Comparing responses to the questionnaire before and after the unit, one can clearly see that students did become more aware of derogatory comments and they responded to those comments in a negative manner.

In addition, it appears students are more accepting of diverse viewpoints and more willing to grant political freedoms to various groups after studying issues of tolerance and diversity. It should be noted that this was not a significant change but shows movement towards a more inclusive attitude on behalf of the students.

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of the study was to investigate whether tolerance could be increased by exploring the complex issues involved with the support of democratic ideals and the practical applications of these to our current social setting. A pre and post unit questionnaire was conducted asking students to respond to a variety of political and social situations.

From the results, the following conclusions can be made:

q Students can become more aware of derogatory comments.

q Students are more likely to respond to derogatory comments once they are aware of their existence. A response was defined as a negative reaction through a verbal response or body language.

q By examining their own opinions and biases, students can show more support for diversity.

Thus the following are recommendations from the study:

q Students and teachers need to have open and honest discussions regarding diversity, stereotypes and discriminatory behavior.

q Teachers need to move beyond textbooks and actively engage the students in real life situations. Abstract concepts (such as diversity and freedom of expression) become more concrete for students when asked to apply those ideals to the political realities faced by our country today.

q Additional teacher training is needed to ensure productive and constructive discussion of these important issues.

q Encourage the use of Teaching Tolerance materials produced by the Southern Poverty Law Center (www.splcenter.org) to assist in classroom activities.

q Promote interethnic friendships in academic and social settings throughout the school not only in after school clubs or athletics.

Personal Observations

Although it is very difficult to define tolerance and measuring its existence is problematic, I believe it is a worthwhile pursuit. Many students have very strong opinions and concerns about these issues and they feel the need to express them. I am grateful I could provide a venue for this discussion. However, at times, I felt ill prepared to handle the delicate and potentially explosive discussions. Very explicit ground rules for classroom discussions are required. For example, personal insults will not be tolerated.

If we as social studies educators can make our students more aware of negative comments, we are promoting the first step in overcoming bias and discriminatory attitudes. Students cannot overcome their biases unless they become aware of them. Simply put, this project was designed to do just that.

I am reminded of Martin Luther King’s quote, “We will not remember the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

References

Allport, Gordon. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.

Avery, Patricia. (1992). “Political Tolerance Among Adolescents” Theory and Research in Social Education. Volume16. 183-201.

Avery, Patricia., Bird, Karen., Johnstone, Sandra., John L.Thalhammer. (1992). Exploring Tolerance with Adolescents. Theory and Research in Social Education. Volume 20, Number 4. 386-420.

Corbett, M. (1991). American public opinion. New York: Longman. 210 –220.

Davis, Adrian. (2002, March/April). The Social Studies Professional. Newsletter for Members of National Council for the Social Studies. 3.

Gibson, J.L. (1988). Political Intolerance and political repression during the McCarthy red scare. American Political Science Review, Volume 82, 511 – 529.

Godwin, Kenneth., Ausbrooks, Carrie., Maritinez, Valerie. (2001). Teaching Tolerance in Public and Private Schools. Phi Delta Kappan.. 542-546.

Jones, R.S. (1980). Democratic values and preadult virtues. Youth and Society,

Volume 12, 189 – 220.

Teaching Tolerance. (2001). A Place at the Table video guide. Montgomery, Alabama.

Appendix A

Tolerance Survey

Tolerance Survey

1. Have you used or heard a racist comment in the last month?

Did you respond to it? Why or why not?

2. Have you used or heard a sexist comment in the last month?

Did you respond to it? Why or why not?

3. Have you used or heard an anti –gay or lesbian comment in the last month?

Did you respond to it? Why or why not?

4. Have you used or heard a comment demonstrating bias against a religious group in the last month?

Did you respond to it? Why or why not?

Consider the following situations and based upon the spectrum, mark the response that best reflects your view.

Neo-Nazis should be allowed to march in predominately Jewish neighborhoods.

1 2 3 4 5

Yes Maybe Never

Gay couples should be allowed to be legally married?

1 2 3 4 5

Yes Maybe Never

Burning the American flag should be protected by the Constitution?

1 2 3 4 5

Yes Maybe Never

Minorities are gaining too much power and influence in the United States?

1 2 3 4 5

No Maybe Yes

Appendix B

Survey results for the heard/respond questions

Appendix B

Pre-Unit Post Unit

Heard or used a racist comment? 16 17

Respond to it? 6 9

Heard or used a sexist comment? 14 16

Respond to it? 7 9

Heard or used an anti-gay comment? 15 15

Respond to it? 4 8

Heard or used an anti-religious comment? 4 5

Respond to it? 3 4

N= 19

Appendix C

Survey results for political/social situations

Appendix C

Pre-Unit Post Unit

Nazi right to march? 2.15 1.9

(1=Yes, 5 = Never)

Gay couples marry? 2.0 1.78

(1= Yes, 5 = Never)

Burn American flag? 3.5 3.10

(1= Yes, 5= Never)

Minorities too much power? 3.94 3.63

(1 = No, 5 = Yes)

Total 11.59 10.41