By Kathleen Nugent, DFER New Jersey State Director
A few weeks ago, Georgetown University President John DeGioia issued a statement in response to the attacks on Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student who testified before Congress about proposed regulations around contraceptive coverage. Ms. Fluke, he noted, “was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction. She provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people.” His letter continued:
One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression. And yet, some of those who disagreed with her position — including Rush Limbaugh and commentators throughout the blogosphere and in various other media channels — responded with behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student.
In our vibrant and diverse society, there always are important differences that need to be debated, with strong and legitimate beliefs held on all sides of challenging issues. The greatest contribution of the American project is the recognition that together, we can rely on civil discourse to engage the tensions that characterize these difficult issues, and work towards resolutions that balance deeply held and different perspectives. We have learned through painful experience that we must respect one another and we acknowledge that the best way to confront our differences is through constructive public debate. At times, the exercise of one person’s freedom may conflict with another’s. As Americans, we accept that the only answer to our differences is further engagement.
The timing and content of President DeGioia’s letter feels particularly relevant to recent education reform debates. At all levels of policy discourse, from local to state to federal, too often participants generalize, distort, and otherwise manipulate the facts. This diverts focus from the actual priority – improving student outcomes.