Mr. Hegseth, is there a connection between public and private morality?

Modern social studies beg to differ

Pete Hegseth’s one-vote Senate confirmation as Secretary of Defense highlights yet again the connection between private morality and public service.

Once upon a time, the answer was clear. George Washington, our founding president, chopped down a cherry tree, but he did not tell a lie. Young “Honest Abe,” our greatest president, read a book on a plow while horses rested in the fields. Civic texts encouraged young people to be honest, helpful, and supportive of their community and country.

Photo by BillionPhotos.com on Adobe Stock

Today’s civic texts are less sure. Worthy public actions are not necessarily rooted in private virtue, they seem to say. Whatever the truth of the allegations about Hegseth’s domestic affairs, the matter is irrelevant to Senate confirmation, if one believes the guidelines set forth in today’s civic texts.

Civic education has become a matter of increasing public concern. According to the 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only 22 percent of 8^th graders are proficient in social studies, well below the percentages in math or reading. Only one out of three 8^th graders “correctly match each of our three branches of government to its core function.” Student performance in civics has not budged from levels attained a quarter century ago.

Commentators attribute civics inadequacy to the Covid pandemic, declining trust in government, and excessive priority given to math and reading. Each of these factors could be part of the story, but judging by the state of the civics text, a driving factor may be simple, adolescent boredom. Students have high ideals and worthy aspirations. When civics education lacks a moral purpose, student minds wander.

One idea is to turn students into political activists. Teach them how to write letters, organize petition drives, mobilize the vote, and demonstrate on behalf of their rights. That works for the politically active few. But most young people, like most adults, are more concerned about their friends, families, and futures. For them, the civics message is better fashioned by connecting private morality to public virtue. If schools find it awkward to teach personal responsibility in their civics courses, it would be better to dispense with social studies courses altogether. Time in school would be better spent learning more about U. S. political history and its governing institutions.

These thoughts came to mind after reading a recently released report, A Century Plus of Civic Education, by Jed Ngalande at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. The texts, dating from the late 19^th Century, come from the Institution’s rich archives. The earliest texts explain the distribution of powers across branches and tiers of government, but they also incorporate a clear moral message: Student self-reliance and personal responsibility are key to citizenship. The oldest, dated 1875, declares interpersonal honesty and respect to be “foundational to labor and society.’ A later text, published in 1898, includes a chapter headed, “The Government of Self.” The author concedes that “sometimes … wicked and violent men seem to prosper and even to be happy.” But, he says, “they are not really happy. … They have not their own self-respect, and no one can be truly happy without this.” From this verity, the author concludes “if all the families of a town or a state were well governed, there is no doubt that the town or the state itself would be well governed.” Similarly, a 1910 text predicts: “If a man is a good husband, a good father, a good son, or a good brother, the probability is that he will also be a good citizen in the community.”

Contemporary civics texts are reluctant to impose a demand for honesty or any other moral standard. One modern text adopts the stance that the “proper expression and enforcement of the law” can be the product of “virtuous actions” from the citizen, even if citizens may not “actually be virtuous.” Another proposes a “values clarification approach” that encourages students to “change in the direction of becoming more purposeful, consistent, and rational.” That ideal could be met equally well both by an honorable justice of the Supreme Court and by a professional criminal. A third text admits there “should be ‘some relationship’ between moral education and citizenship education [but] this agreement would not rest on any deep shared understanding of the nature of morality or what it has to do with citizenship.”

It is with relief to discover that a 2^nd grade text, by Helen Harlow, succeeds in welding private and public virtue together. An imagined Mexican-American farm boy and his family help one another survive a flood, then succeed in persuading “the president and Congress to fund a dam.” The parents and children help one another and then act together in the public interest. Private and public virtue overlaps.

The demise in civic education and the rise of populist sentiments has inspired a revival in civic education among some elites and academics. Much of the energy is devoted to mobilizing young people to political action on behalf of their own rights. Justin Driver, a Yale law professor, puts it this way:

High school students tend to view abstract constitutional concepts—such as federalism or the separation of powers—as disconnected from the things that matter most to them. But highlighting constitutional conflicts involving students and the limitations that judicial opinions have placed on school authority hits home.

Driver’s approach appeals to self-interested dispositions lurking within all of us, but President John F. Kennedy had the better idea when he appealed to the next generation’s better self: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” As a high school student-body president, Senator Mitch McConnell encouraged his fellow students to show “a loyal, cooperative spirit” so that “students will assume all responsibility outside of the classroom, thereby practicing citizenship in preparation for participation in city, state, and national affairs.”

Civic education has a place in the curriculum if it appeals to students’ sense of personal responsibility, their pride in their country, and their desire to co-operate with others to build a better future. If such ideals can no longer be expressed in social studies courses, then it would be better to drop them altogether and use the resources to strengthen the quality of instruction in American history and government. In today’s world, the best civics education may be one that never mentions the name.

­­­­­__________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Peterson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and a professor of government at Harvard University.