The teacher's task: Handling queries on war

The teacher's task: Handling queries on war

Simon Marcus Gower, Director of Research and Development,
Harapan Bangsa School, Tangerang, Banten

"Who will win this war?" was the rather innocent and even
child-like question asked in an Indonesian classroom in the early
days of the war in Iraq. This was an innocent and child-like
question perhaps but an enormous question nonetheless and one
that is very difficult to find an appropriate answer for. There
was some fear in the voice of the questioner and a considerable
amount of uncertainty and worry. So what kind of answer could
alleviate such fear and worry? No honest answer could really put
aside such discomfort.

The answer that came was honest but filled with much regret.
It spoke of "nobody winning this or any other war really, there
are too many losers in war." But the addition was made that
"America is the world's only superpower, with a massive military
might behind it, and so if one side was likely to overcome the
other it was most likely to be America and its allies overcoming
the Iraqis."

But this additional note about America's strength only seems
to add to fears. Perhaps equally dangerously it may add to
misperceptions and even allow for harmful stereotypes to be
implanted and nurtured. There can be no denying that America is a
superpower but the perception of America as a nation impinges
upon the perception of American people and indeed Westerners
generally here in Indonesia.

The current negative perceptions regarding the actions of the
United States and indeed Britain over Iraq are liable to spill
over to create prejudices regarding Westerners here. It is
regrettable that the U.S. is viewed as a dominant and dominating
power that is conducting foreign policy with near disregard for
world organizations such as the United Nations and international
opinion generally. But such character traits should not
erroneously be applied to all Americans and Westerners.

Schools and educators have a duty of care not to extend and
deepen prejudices and stereotypes. Educators need to be centrally
and critically involved in opening up students' minds to the
broader picture so as to allow the students to have the highest
possible degree of access to truth and reality.

Educators must be careful not to distort or prejudice
the reality that is presented to students such that they are
making the students narrow-minded and naive as opposed to broad-
minded and worldly-wise.

Schools and educators should not leave themselves prone to
accusations of naivete, bias or even fundamentalism. But it is
relatively easy for schools and educators to slip into biased and
prejudiced thinking.

For example an expatriate teacher in an Indonesian school was
quite surprised and even shocked to be asked by a group of
students "Is it true that people in your country don't believe in
God?" As a believer and committed religious person such a
question was disturbing. When the students were asked what made
them ask such a question the response was equally disturbing
because, apparently, these students' religion teacher had told
them that most people in the West do not believe in God.

The perception of the West as a capitalist and deeply
materialistic place should not be sweepingly applied. Perceptions
now abound of the West being held in the grip of materialism and
spiritual values being sidelined.

However, many people in the West are not committed capitalists
and recognize the need for deeper spiritualism as opposed to
shallow materialism. Likewise many people in the West are
opposed, even deeply opposed to the war in Iraq.

Educators could and probably should be amongst the most active
of players in broadening young peoples' minds and giving them the
opportunity to gather all the relevant information and so come to
their own considered and intelligent opinion and assessment of
the situation. In a sense, then, educators need to play a
somewhat ambivalent role. Sitting on the fence and offering as
impartial guidance as possible.

There is, however, another sense in which educators probably
cannot really be ambivalent and/ or neutral. This is when
consideration turns to the notion of the use of violence as a
form of dispute resolution. It is surely a primary duty of
educators to show and tell of how peaceful resolution is the best
possible way forward.

The educator that violently hits his students in order to get
them to conform or behave to his liking can surely not lay any
claim to teaching of peaceful dispute resolution.

But this too presents problems of impartiality in the context
of the war in Iraq. Some, even many would condone this war as an
action to rid the world of an evil dictatorship and so claim that
it is a just war.

An educator that defends this war as being just would seem to
be advocating war as an acceptable means of solving problems.
There is clearly a confusion of potentially contradictory
positions here that could leave educators looking indecisive and
lacking in leadership and real guidance to the students.

Perhaps, then, all that is left to educators is a position of
neutrality that will not prejudice or bias the thinking of their
students. Out of a sense of humanity and the intrinsic message
and aim of building and growth for the betterment of the human
condition that educators must surely have, they must be opposed
to violence and war. That opposition, though, should be provided
in a model of objectivity and intelligent thought as opposed to
subjective and emotive feelings.

Some schools have posted signs or notices with simple messages
such as "Keep peace on earth. End all wars." This seems to
represent an appropriate thoughtfulness and a quite quiet form of
offering guidance. This is probably the limit of what educators
can do when facing the question of war.

If there is a more opinionated and zealous response to war
then there is the risk that educators are no longer educating but
are in fact being provocative and becoming participants in the
conflict. Education must surely seek to resolve disputes rather
than provoke them.