Westwood’s ‘controversial issues’ policy is a disservice to students

Westwood, New Jersey, which sits at the lush and prosperous heart of Bergen County and just a short drive from the pulse of Manhattan, is one of those towns that remind many of the best of America.

The borough’s center is anchored by a park dedicated to military veterans and features an elegant gazebo, where bands perform summer concerts and kids parade in their costumes on Halloween. Nearby, commuter trains stop at a stately stone station. A monument with a large bell commemorates local firefighters. The business district bustles with life.

Politically, Westwood is a mixed bag. The mayor and most of the Borough Council are Republicans. Yet the town has favored Democratic candidates in presidential elections during the past two decades.

Coming to this community of 11,000 residents, you get a sense that life runs smoothly, without the kind of venomous discord that has poisoned so much of America.

Until now.

Westwood, sadly, has emerged this summer as yet another battlefield in our nation’s culture wars.

Just what is a ‘controversial issue’?

The springboard for this latest culture-war chapter is a new regulation by the Westwood Regional Board of Education to require the local schools superintendent’s approval before any teacher can discuss “controversial issues.”

What’s interesting is that the new policy, spelled out in a roughly 500word statement on the board’s website, begins with the stipulation that “the consideration of controversial issues has a legitimate place in the instructional program of the schools.” From there, the statement notes that “properly introduced and conducted, the consideration of such issues can help pupils learn to identify important issues, explore fully and fairly all sides of an issue, weigh carefully the values and factors involved, and develop techniques for formulating and evaluating positions.”

So far, so good, right? Isn’t education supposed to be framed by debate? But consider the concept of debate against the backdrop of the Westwood board’s effort to describe what “controversial issues” are. This is where things slide down a murky path that gets even murkier when it falls to the superintendent to make the ultimate decisions about what can be discussed and what needs to be tabled.

“Controversial Issues,” the board says, “are defined as topics that have competing values and interests resulting in strong disagreement about statements, assertions, or actions on which opposing points of view have been expressed and are likely to arouse both support and opposition in the community.”

OK, that makes sense — but only up to a point.

Is a science discussion about climate change a “controversial issue” because some students might strongly disagree with each other? Or how about an economics discussion of pay scales for men and women? Or the place of so-called legacy admissions for children of college alumni now that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a consequential ruling on affirmative action?

Those are just a few examples. And the variety of the sampling of issues that I’ve cited here offers a sense of the rhetorical Pandora’s box that has just been opened.

The Westwood policy goes on to point out that controversial issues are “often viewpoints that touch on some particular sensitivity — e.g. political or religious” and could “arouse an emotional reaction of significant academic, social, political, and ideological matters involving multiple perspectives