Institute helps instructors teach civics

July 22, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

This post was written by Indiana Lawyer reporter Rebecca Berfanger.

After attending the Project Citizen Institute at Indiana University in Bloomington last month, I jumped at the Indiana Bar Foundation’s invitation to again head south, this time to check out the We The People Institute. Due to a hectic schedule this week, I was only able to attend a Wednesday morning session but it was well worth the time.

This summer’s institute, which started last weekend and wraps up on Saturday with mock congressional hearings, includes about 50 teachers from elementary, middle, and high schools in Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky.

As a way to learn what the students go through, the teachers learn the six units for We The People: philosophical and historical underpinnings of the Constitution; writing of and debates about the Constitution; Civil War and President Abraham Lincoln through the civil rights movement; modern day functions of the branches of government and federalism; Bill of Rights and civil liberties; and current applications of the units and international relations.

Throughout the institute, they also prepare and ultimately present mock congressional hearings before those who’ve judged or worked with students in the past, including many attorneys.

I sat in on Unit 4, which is about the modern functions of the branches of government. Robert Dion, a political science professor at the University of Evansville, focused on presidential powers. He said this unit is of interest to students more than some others because it has to do with current events, and if nothing else, students do or at least should know who the president is and may have also heard their parents gripe about Congress as a whole or certain members in the news.

While explaining presidential powers to the teachers, including a paragraph-by-paragraph reading of Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution, how the founders argued heavily about what the presidency does or doesn’t entail compared to a monarchy, how those powers have expanded since the signing of the U.S. Constitution, and why checks and balances from the other branches of government are imperfect, more importantly he shared with teachers how effectively to explain this to students.

Using pop culture references to explain the difference between empirical questions of fact and normative questions of value, as well as the imperfections of the Constitution, the teachers appeared to be entertained.

For instance, he said some questions were too “pat,” and showed a photo of the androgynous Saturday Night Live character, Pat. He said that it is OK when questions are ambiguous because students understand there isn’t always a clear-cut answer to the questions they ask, that not all students will agree on an answer within a classroom or even on a small team, and that while these “Pat” questions will make for more work for the teacher and students, the learning process and research will be worthwhile in the end.

He also used the example of infomercial king Ron Popeil’s Showtime Rotisserie with the catch phrase: “Set it and forget it,” as a way to illustrate how many Americans think checks and balances work. In reality, he said, that’s not really how it is, and Americans should be vigilant about their government officials. He added this was just one more reason the We The People program is a worthwhile class for students.

While I couldn’t stay for the second part of the session, or any other sessions during the institute, a part of me wished I could have been there the whole week to brush up on my own civics education. As a side note – I learned most of this in high school, had a refresher in grad school while reporting about Congress in Washington, D.C., but I still had to pause when Dion quipped that most people wouldn’t know who represents them in government “even if Dick Cheney waterboarded them.”

Luckily, it wasn’t that hard for me to remember my Congressman – but it wasn’t an instant reaction either. And a few minutes later I remembered my state representatives … but I’ll have to look it up to be sure.

An article about the civics education institutes will be in a future edition of Indiana Lawyer and has been covered in past editions.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT