Print
PDF FormatCivic courage is not to be confused with rudeness and rough behavior. In most cases they are not only dissimilar, but antithetical in nature; for many are those who cloak their fear with brazenness, and their lack of moral courage with vulgarity of spirit. Nations have been extinguished because they were not educated in civic courage. We are daily witness not only to the tremendous diversity in what different people think, but also to the gap between what people are willing to say openly and publicly and what they truly believe. There can be no doubt that the magnitude of this gap is a gauge of the civil condition of every society, no less than a person’s body temperature indicates the state of his health.
Over sixty years ago, Menahem Ussishkin visited the Hasidic rabbi of Kapust, told him about the Hibat Zion movement, and asked for his help. The rabbi listened to him attentively, and then asked: “The things you say—do you really believe them? If you want to influence me, then say what is deep within your heart. What is your ultimate goal, truly and sincerely?” When Ussishkin replied that Hibat Zion is like the manna from heaven, because “everyone tastes in it what he desires,” the rabbi said to him: “I wish to know what it is that you taste in it, truly and sincerely, because then I will be able to judge you and the movement.” We must be zealous in reflecting on the significance of this “truly and sincerely,” again and again. Schools must teach students to think for themselves and express what they believe freely and directly, modestly and politely, but extremely clearly. This is a form of training for civic courage.
We should also think of ways to test students in this area. This is not merely a subject to be studied, but a principle, a method, a path. It is not right that the problems of the state and society are not examined in school. We should not ignore these problems, but we should instead study them, as one way of educating citizens.
We all read the newspapers; the students do as well. No one will claim, I think, that our newspapers are generally of a high quality, and that reading the newspaper, in and of itself, is necessarily educational. Newspapers can be read, however, in such a fashion as to make them most educational. Thus, for example, students could be required to read two or three newspapers regularly, and each student assigned to closely follow the development of a certain topic in two newspapers. No doubt the student will soon realize that there are certain facts that are not mentioned in any of the newspapers, and that certain newspapers ignore certain facts. Sometimes a newspaper headline stresses one point, while the text of the article says exactly the opposite. This is not always due to incompetence. Frequently it is done artfully, on the assumption that many readers pay attention only to the headline, and thus they can be influenced in a particular direction, for even if they read what is written, they will not always notice the contradiction. There can be no doubt that the level of journalism reflects the intellectual and civic maturity of the educated public in Israel. Raising the level of citizenship education will ultimately bring about a change in journalism. The student should therefore be taught how to read critically, and how to examine public issues through methodical and responsible study.
Take, for example, one issue that caused a public furor recently: The question of free, compulsory kindergarten education. The government decided to cancel free schooling for five-year-olds, and this provides us with a good opportunity for educating the public. The problem is clear and evident. The students should address the issue as if they were members of the government, members of Knesset, the prime minister, the ministers of education and finance, and so forth. What was the previous state of affairs, what changes were instituted, why and how did this issue come to the fore? What were the arguments in favor of the change, and what were the arguments against? How would you resolve the issue? Would you act as the government did, or differently? Why? Three important objectives can be attained through such a course of study: An awareness of the state and its problems; the development of a sense of responsibility and the capacity for independent analysis and discussion; and mutual understanding and tolerance towards the views of others.
The only way for students to develop an understanding of the state is through a thorough investigation of some of its problems. Students can study the problems involved in balancing the budget, in the relationship between the state and local authorities, in the integration of the immigrant communities. They can examine how free compulsory education is carried out in various countries, the differences between these countries and us, and so on.
A sense of responsibility means being willing to undertake tasks that are not necessarily popular, but which one judges to be necessary for the good of the country at a given moment. Actions which earn the approval of others or of the public do not necessarily reflect moral courage. The courage of a citizen or of the public as a whole is measured by their ability to accept things that are unpleasant and even harmful, if they are indeed essential.
This kind of in-depth study will promote tolerance as well. Mean-spiritedness and intolerance for opposing views, and the unwillingness to consider another’s perspective, are clear signs of a society in decline. A chronic lack of concern for one’s fellow in a society leads to the sharpening of differences of opinion on secondary and even trivial issues, thereby deflecting attention from shared concerns. We all were moved by Yehuda Leib Gordon’s poem “In the Lions’ Jaws,” in which he describes regulations such as “one may not read, nor may one search for lice,” during the siege of Jerusalem. I remember being profoundly impressed by a Byzantine historian’s account of the increasingly intense bickering among the wise men of Byzantium, which disrupted the high society of Constantinople before it fell to the Turks. The argument, concerning the issue of the resurrection of the dead, turned on the question of whether the deceased would return to life with or without their fingernails. But the real question at that time was whether the citizens of Byzantium would live or die. This is something that has repeated itself throughout history, demonstrating the extent to which the instincts for survival are dulled in a society in decline. The sharp differences among us also include a good number of disagreements over such “post-resurrection fingernails,” and I say this without exaggerating.
In this way it will be possible to educate students towards a mutual understanding that will be the product of a more thorough knowledge, and towards a tolerance, conscientiousness, and public integrity that stem from a sense of responsibility and obligation. These are the foundations of civic education, which require that citizenship be taught not merely as a subject of study but as a principle, which guides and educates through personal identification and through engagement in current affairs.
Of course, educating for citizenship also means teaching a particular subject of study. The goal of study is obviously knowledge, a deep and broad-based knowledge which leads to education. Knowledge in this context means, first and foremost, a knowledge of the State of Israel and its problems. Such a knowledge entails being versed in the territory and borders of the state, with all their accompanying difficulties; knowledge of the establishment of the state and its standing in the world; knowledge of the institutions and structure of the state; knowledge of the nation that dwells within it, in all its communities and sectors; knowledge of its legislation, its most important constitutive laws, which have defined the character of the state; and so on.
Knowledge also means a thorough familiarity with the country, a familiarity that leads to identification. Only such knowledge is likely to impart a sense of duty and an awareness that the citizen is an integral part of the nation and cannot be separated from it. If, for example, the student experiences the problem of the country’s frontiers, and understands the concerns of the border settlements and those in the Negev, then when he is later assigned to teach in one of these places in the Negev, the Galilee, or some other frontier area after completing teachers’ seminary, he will not see this as punishment or internal exile. Some thirty years ago I sent one of my students, a graduate of the teachers’ seminary, to teach in the Jezreel Valley. His father, whom I knew from Russia, and who was a good Jew and a Zionist, complained to me bitterly that I had sent his son to ׂSiberia.׃ Thirty years have elapsed since then, yet it seems to me that we still hear this grievance at times from representatives of teachers, in one form or another. This year, in all of Israel I was unable to find anyone to teach the upper grades—and this was with regard to the schools in Geva, near Afula, not merely the Negev or the western Galilee!
