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.