Between Mere Tolerance and Robust Respect: Mutuality as a Basis for Civic Education in Pluralist Democracies

Abstract

This essay by Suzanne Rosenblith and Benjamin Bindewald is motivated by the question of how do those who value civic liberalism give the religiously orthodox a reason to engage in pluralist democratic deliberations in a manner that does not allow intolerance to undermine the foundations of liberal democracy. Introducing the idea of tolerance as mutuality -that is, a will to relationshipthe authors argue, strikes a balance between those theories that are too demanding of the religiously orthodox and those that are not exacting enough. Applying the principle of tolerance as mutuality to the special space of public schools allows for a new way to conceptualize civic education in pluralist democracies.In Political Liberalism, philosopher John Rawls asks the very basic question of how, given deep difference in ideological perspectives, we as a society are to get along. 1 This question is especially relevant as it applies to public schools situated in contemporary pluralist democratic societies, where educators are tasked with fostering in students a shared civic identity while refraining from undermining their cultural and religious commitments. Cultural and, in particular, religious pluralism present public schools with considerable challenges, many of which manifest as tensions between civic aims of education and religious orthodoxy. An important question for pluralist democratic societies, then, is "How should schools respond when civic aims of education conflict with orthodox religious commitments?" A related and equally challenging (but somewhat overlooked) question for liberal theorists is "How do those who value civic liberalism give the religiously orthodox a reason to engage in pluralist democratic deliberations without offering up a form of blanket inclusion that allows intolerance to undermine the very foundations of liberal democracy?" Addressing these two vexing questions is the central purpose of the present work.Philosophers have long attempted to address the first of these difficult questions. Some, in the spirit of Rawls's political liberalism, have argued that public schools should remain as neutral as possible on matters of cultural and religious 1. John Rawls, Political Liberalism: Expanded Edition (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005). EDUCATIONAL THEORY Volume 64 Number 6 2014

Chinese Medicine sans Chinese: The Unequal Impacts of Canada's “Multiculturalism within a Bilingual Framework”

“…Indeed, our work points to the ways in which regulators in jurisdictions simultaneously characterized by significant ethnocultural diversity, multiculturalist commitments, and an ethic of substantive equality must increasingly attend to these policy issues in ways that represent and respect their diverse constituents' needs and rights. Our findings echo the work of other policy scholars (Rosenblith and Bindewald 2014;Milroy and Wallace 2004) who have previously theorized ways in which state actors may best conceptualize the policy-making processes in the context of ethnocultural plurality. Milroy and Wallace (2004)-with reference to urban planning-and Rosenblith and Bindewald (2014)-with reference to education policy-have critically characterized distinct potential policy-making approaches in this regard.…”

“…A second policy‐making model, according to Milroy and Wallace (, 4), is to “recognize ethnoracial diversity as a factor” in the policy process but without treating “any one group differently.” This approach—conceptually evident in our Ontario case study of Chinese medicine regulation—coincides with what Rosenblith and Bindewald (, 596) have termed “tolerance as mutuality,” in which decision makers take “relationality and an acceptance of plurality as [their] starting points.” As our analysis illustrates, however, such an approach does not necessarily exemplify the principle of substantive equality in practice and can result in markedly unfair outcomes.…”

“…Milroy and Wallace ()—with reference to urban planning—and Rosenblith and Bindewald ()—with reference to education policy—have critically characterized distinct potential policy‐making approaches in this regard. An undesirable approach that may retain normative “ethnocentric assumptions,” according to Milroy and Wallace, “see[s] planning as a technical, neutral activity” in which “there is no place for culture” (2004, 3).…”

“…An undesirable approach that may retain normative “ethnocentric assumptions,” according to Milroy and Wallace, “see[s] planning as a technical, neutral activity” in which “there is no place for culture” (2004, 3). Rosenblith and Bindewald (, 595) describe a similar policy‐making approach termed “mere tolerance,” which, they argue, “renders the least powerful invisible, particularly when it comes to developing or changing policies … allow[ing] for the persistence of social and political inequality.” Although this approach was not evident in our particular case study, others may see it reflected in their specific contexts.…”

Teaching Evolution in a Creation Nation and Living with Moral Disagreement: The Enduring Controversy about Affirmative Action

“…Yet, it does so without committing to limitless inclusion, which would potentially allow intolerance to undermine the foundations of liberal democracy. 8 Both Laats and Siegel (implicitly) and Moses (explicitly) endorse the principles of reciprocity and basic equality that undergird mutuality, deliberative democracy, and liberal democratic pluralism. The principle of reciprocity requires that democratic citizens be prepared to engage in a process of reason-giving and reason-taking, demonstrate mutual respect of persons, and attempt to find some common ground from which to address shared public problems.…”