Exposure to a variety of viewpoints is seen as valuable to “foster individuals’ knowledge, ability to consider the perspectives of others, consideration of the rationales put forward by others, and tolerance for those with differing views” [1], and the Participatory Politics: New Media and Youth Political Action report “did not find that those who engage in participatory online activities are limiting their exposure to those with whom they agree.”

The 2013 “Report on the Commission of Youth Voting and Civic Knowledge” [2] recommends we: “Encourage parents to participate in civic activities within schools, e.g., by judging students’ portfolios or by joining discussions of current events.” however this does not leverage the more significant diversity that exists across school districts, state lines, and regional boundaries where perspectives and concerns may be significantly different than the ones students are exposed to via their teachers or parents, regardless of how well informed and well intentioned those may be.

Enabling these types of cross-cutting connections is exactly what the internet is good at, technically speaking, despite not always being leveraged for such goals. [3] Given the existing free tools for text, audio, and video interaction, the internet could be used to connect geographically disparate students and help them engage in challenging, yet considered, healthy debate that benefits both participants.

Imagining such a tool, one can anticipate that the logistics of creating valuable discourse will be more challenging than the technical aspects of creating such a system. It would be of no use, or potentially even damaging or further polarizing if the conversations across political lines were not staged carefully, and expectations clearly established. Here are a number of ways a system/platform might be set up to accomplish mutually beneficial political conversations:

1.) Allow The Students To Propose Topics They Are Interested In and Engaged With

Assigning issues to students that they feel no personal investment in (regardless of whether it actually impacts them) is not going to further their engagement with civic issues. A system that allows students to draft descriptions of issues they care about would allow a space for educators to learn from students about the topics they’re concerned with, and also to start a dialog around how these issues might be discussed in a broader context. Every recommendation may not be ideal for wider discussion, but it could lead to a greater mutual understanding between teacher and student about what the definition of a civic issue is, and what kinds of issues students feel they could have agency in. Given that the submission would be done in an online, participatory environment, the experience for students could be modeled after other online civic engagement platforms, preparing students for more significant, non-educational actions in the future. There is also potential for wider (perhaps state-wide) data-based analytics to understand what issues are of most concern to local students.

3.) Set Expectations About Respect and Debate

Online communities and platforms tend to have norms of behavior that can be reinforced by media available on the site itself. Providing examples of successful conversational etiquette, and also of disrespectful behavior could prime the conversations to be more productive, or at least provide a framework for later classroom critique where fellow students can point out ways in which the conversation could have been managed more respectfully. Students could also contribute to the database of “dark conversational patterns” that they feel are counterproductive.

4.) Archive Conversations For Future Analysis and Class Consideration

Allowing for storage (in whatever format the system allows debate in) and providing tools for annotation, issue categorization, and future engagement via comments or other communication, the site could serve as a valuable archive of teaching material, and a low-barrier point of entry for students to continue conversations in a participatory platform that would remain current and be made up of their peers, allowing for political engagement without the trappings of agenda-setting by political parties or others who might portray political and civic engagement as not relevant to the students’ every day life.

There is no doubt that building a system like this would have to be done delicately, and school (as well as student) buy-in would also be a challenge. If these hurdles were overcome however, more conversational hurdles may await. School newspapers have controversial debates about what is published and also what is affiliated with their school. Organizational issues aside, if a system such as this were build thoughtfully, it could provide a way for students to engage in civic issues they see value in before ever having to set foot in potentially more toxic, confusing, or high-stakes arenas, allowing them to acclimate and learn from one another, before moving on to more official platforms, and taking part in public civic communities.

—

1. “Participatory Politics: New Media and Youth Political Action”, http://ypp.dmlcentral.net/sites/default/files/publications/Participatory_Politics_New_Media_and_Youth_Political_Action.2012.pdf.

2. CIRCLE, All Together Now: Collaboration and Innovation for Youth Engagement, http://www.civicyouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CIRCLE-youthvoting-individualPages.pdf.

3. Zuckerman, Ethan. Rewire. W. W. Norton & Company, 2013. Print.