This essay focuses on a little-understood aspect of the
process of “teaching Palestine” in American schools: Palestine’s
unwarranted status as part of the “null curriculum.” In his book
The Educational Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of
School Programs (1994), Elliot Eisner outlines four categories
of modern curricula: formal, informal, hidden, and null. Briefly,
the formal curriculum is that which is “officially approved” by
some institutional authority. For high schools in the U.S., this is
the state government. The informal curriculum is that which is
actually taught in the classroom; in other words, it is what the
teacher does with the formal curriculum. The hidden curriculum is
any subsidiary or unplanned teaching and learning that takes place
as a result of delivering the official curriculum but which is not
“officially” part of it. The null curriculum, the category that I
am focusing on here, is content that is specifically not
taught.
An example of a null curriculum controversy that gets a great
deal of attention in the U.S. is the one related to scientific
“creationism.” Proponents of this religiously-based interpretation
of the origins of life are waging a very public and organized
national effort to leverage its idiosyncratic ideology out of its
null status. The goal of the creationist movement is to insinuate
its textbooks, lesson plans, and curriculum into the formal
curricula in the hope of replacing evolution, a theory based on
scientific methods and empirical evidence. They have been
spectacularly unsuccessful to date. Much of the credit for this
goes to the science educators who organized to challenge
creationism in the classroom, in the state house, and in the
media.
Over the course of the past sixty years innumerable resources
(books, curricula, films, teachers’ guides, extra-curricular
activities, extra-credit options, visiting lecturers programs,
maps, websites and more) related to the contemporary Middle East
have been designed and introduced into the American high school
classroom. Yet the majority of American high school students, and
teachers, remain practically illiterate regarding the region’s core
conflict, the one between Palestinians and Zionists. What explains
this? As a follow-up question I ask, is any area studies history
more important for Americans to be studying in light of the events
of September 11?
In my opinion, much of what passes for curriculum on Palestine
is in fact, mis-education and a disservice to teachers, students,
and the wider community. Moreover I consider it functionally
impossible to teach the authentic history of the contemporary
Palestinian-Zionist conflict in U.S. high schools using the
currently available “formal” resources. Educators relying solely on
those resources are doomed to fail because the formal curriculum
does not teach to the standard established by the National Council
for the Social Studies. Specifically, no formal curricula on
Palestine that I have seen or read about teaches for "civic
competence" which is the ability of students to take the lessons
learned in school and apply them to their adult lives. Civic
competence, in essence, is a blueprint for participatory
citizenship. Instead, most formal curricula teach a form of history
trivia on Palestine; for example, dates of obscure historical
documents such as the White Paper (1939) and the Sykes–Picot
Agreement (1916). The formal curriculum on Palestine is a clear
example of what Paolo Freire called the “
banking”
system of education: schools deposit trifles via the curriculum and
then withdraw them via tests. Nowhere are the students’ critical
faculties engaged or strengthened.
Background
Between 2007 and 2009, as part of the research for my graduate
thesis at Georgetown University, I surveyed the official textbooks
used in the Montgomery County, Maryland school system to teach the
history of the Palestinian-Zionist conflict. During this same
period I also field-tested my thesis, what I call the New
Curriculum Project, at several locations: two undergraduate
history classes offered by the Modern Hebrew department of the
University of Maryland, in College Park; an International
Baccalaureate teachers seminar in Fairfax County, Virginia; two
Middle East history classes at Bethesda-Chevy Chase and Montgomery
Blair high schools; and at the Center for Policy Analysis on
Palestine, in Washington, DC.
There is not sufficient space here to delve into all the
shortcomings I discovered in the formal Montgomery County
curriculum. Instead, I will pose three questions, each of which
addresses a serious defect in the formal curriculum that I seek to
rectify through the New Curriculum:
1) Where does the authentic historical arc of the
Palestinian-Zionist conflict begin?
2) How can we overcome the debilitating effects on education
of the conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism?
3) What role can the poster art of the Palestinian-Zionist
conflict play in creating and maintaining a positive learning
environment?
Each of these questions is addressed below.
Begin At the Beginning
Where does the authentic historical arc of the
Palestinian-Zionist conflict begin?
In every history book, syllabus, curriculum, and lesson plan
that I reviewed in the course of my research, the origins of the
Palestinian-Zionist conflict (variably called the “Arab-Israeli
conflict,” the “Palestinian-Israeli conflict” or "the Middle East
conflict") begin on May 14, 1948. This is the day that, as one
textbook explains, “Israel declared its independence and the Arab
countries invaded.”
Those committed to “teaching Palestine” must address a major
historical flaw in existing classroom resources, one so obvious it
is somewhat amazing that it has persisted to this day: the failure
to integrate the critical period of Zionist colonial activity that
took place in Palestine between 1897 and 1948. May 14, 1948, was
indeed an important date. But the actual starting point for the
discussion of the Palestinian-Zionist conflict is August 31, 1897.
On this date, the First Zionist Conference in Basel, Switzerland
approved the
Basel Program, a detailed strategy for the
colonization of Palestine. Its text declares that: “
Zionism aims at establishing for Jewish people
a publicly and legally assured home in
Palestine.” Theodor Herzl, the founder of
political Zionism, said of this day: "In Basel, I founded the
Jewish state."
This is the date that introduces American
students to the
processes and psychology of Zionism, not
merely its main product, Israel. Study must begin in 1897 because
that is the date which launches both Palestinian and Zionist
curricula. By teaching from this authentic historical point
American students can finally begin the study of the conflict on
the same footing as students in Israel, Palestine and the rest of
the world.
Creating a Comfort Zone
How can we overcome the debilitating effects on education of the
conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism?
New Anti-Semitism is the
concept that a new form of anti-Semitism has developed in the late
20th and early 21st centuries, emanating simultaneously from the
left, the right, and fundamentalist Islam, and tending to manifest
itself as opposition to Zionism and the state of Israel…Proponents
of the concept argue that anti-Zionism, anti-Americanism,
anti-globalization, third-worldism, and demonization of Israel, or
double standards applied to its conduct, may be linked to
anti-Semitism, or constitute disguised anti-Semitism. Critics of
the concept argue that it conflates anti-Zionism with
anti-Semitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly
and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of
anti-Semitism, and exploits anti-Semitism in order to silence
debate.
This definition, the Wikipedia entry for "New Anti-Semitism,”
illustrates the circular, empty rhetoric that surrounds the term
“anti-Semitism.” Many Americans keep at arm’s length from
engagement with this topic because they fear being branded as
“anti-Semitic” even though the meaning of the “anti-Semitism” label
has become so confusing. According to the U.S. Department of State there is no
“universally accepted” definition of the term. Moreover, new
complex, multi-leveled and seemingly incomprehensible definitions
appear, unannounced, on a regular basis. Given this state of
affairs, how reasonable is it to ask a history educator to “teach
Palestine” and risk running afoul of the projections of "New
Antisemitism" (and by extension run the risk of ending up on the
Campus Watch list or being the subject of a "hasbara" attack)?
Anti-Semitism, as defined in the first sense by
Merriam-Webster’s New Third International Dictionary
(unabridged), is, of course, real. However, the hysterical
discourse surrounding the “New Anti-Semitism” is merely a
diversion, a distraction from what is actually important:
challenging the central idea of Zionism, that “combating
anti-Semitism is futile” a concept derived from Theodor Herzl’s
personal, subjective beliefs. Few Americans will accept the idea
that racism or any other form of inequality cannot, and therefore
should not, be fought. Such defeatism is not in keeping with
American civic values or the principles of the Constitution. One
has only to consider how the U.S. has changed over the past fifty
years in terms of civil rights, women’s rights, Native American
rights, gay rights, voting rights, labor rights, environmental
rights, and even animal rights to get a sense of how Americans feel
about the ability, indeed the moral obligation, of their society to
face down its inner demons. Yet this is exactly what Zionism
teaches its adherents about anti-Semitism – that it is everywhere,
will never go away, and there is nothing one can do to eradicate
it. Zionism does nothing to “combat” or abolish anti-Semitism:
instead it seeks to exploit it politically. Zionism’s core
principle is functionally anathema to the American experience yet,
unfortunately, too few Americans have challenged Zionism’s
misreading of American culture. Those who have, such as Norman
Finkelstein, to name but one prominent educator who has written and
spoken publicly on this issue, have paid an enormous personal and
professional price for their courage.
Is there a way out of this morass? I believe there is by
taking a page from the creationism drama. According to many science
educators, the best way to confront the preposterous claims at the
center of creationism is to have scientists challenge the purported
“scientific evidence” that creationists put forward. Science
educators have been very successful at poking holes in creationist
attempts to justify their ideology as a scientific theory worthy of
being taught. These educators engage the proponents of creationism
according to the norms of American language usage and the laws
of empiricism. I am suggesting here that "teaching Palestine"
advocates adopt the exact same approach towards Zionism.
In the New Curriculum, an initial activity has students
endorse an existing definition of Zionism and anti-Semitism or
craft one of their own. They are invited to read their definitions
aloud and defend them. This activity is central to breaking the
false, reflexive conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. It
promotes civic competence because it puts control over language
into the hands of those who actually own the language: the
students and teachers. By asserting their language rights, in this
case by clearly stating the definitions that will be considered
acceptable in class, the atmosphere in the classroom is improved
immediately. Removing any doubts, early on, as to appropriate,
agreed-upon terms demonstrates sensitivity to all views and
establishes an open and supportive comfort zone for both students
and teachers. This exercise primes the class for a teachable moment
on Palestine.
“Anti-Semitism 1: hostility toward Jews as a religious or
racial minority group often accompanied by social, political or
economic discrimination. 2: opposition to Zionism. 3: sympathy with
the opponents of the state of Israel.”- Webster’s Third New
International Dictionary (unabridged),
2002
Dictionary definitions are, in essence, social contracts;
people voluntarily accept them because they make sense and reflect
actual usage. The conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism,
for example as found in Merriam-Webster’s New Third
International Dictionary (unabridged) is a prescriptive
term; it does not reflect actual usage. Ordinary, mainstream
Americans do not normally conflate the two terms. Only Zionists do
that. In democracies, people are free to accept or reject
prescribed terms. They can push back by crafting their own
definitions. When students are given the opportunity to make an
informed choice for their definition, they learn how to reflect
upon and question a spectrum of political ideas they may have about
Palestine and Israel.
Anti-Semitism, which has traditionally been defined as lies
told in private about Judaism, now includes truths told in public
about Zionism. Repudiating this contrived equivalence is key to
creating an environment within which American teachers and students
can embrace Obama’s call to "say openly the things we hold in our
hearts."
The school as art space
What role can the poster art of the Palestinian-Zionist
conflict play in creating and maintaining a positive learning
environment?
A common feature of the discourse around the
Palestinian-Zionist conflict is that it tends toward polarization.
There is little, if any, neutral ground for rational, dispassionate
conversation. Zionists project their assumption of an eternally
hostile and universally anti-Semitic world onto all outside its
boundaries. Palestinians, not surprisingly, dismiss this world view
with contempt. The elevated degrees of passion that define the
discourse are off-putting to disengaged, uninitiated Americans such
as high school students. Furthermore, the bewildering mix of
languages, histories, religions, political parties, geographies,
symbols, and other layers of facts in this complicated story tends
to intimidate most mainstream Americans. At a time when U.S.
interests in the Middle East have never been more complex, such a
self-defeating response needs to be addressed.
Ironically, the public discourses inside Israel and Palestine
appear much more inclusive and democratic than the one that takes
place, when it takes place, in the U.S. Perhaps this is because the
conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism (addressed in the
question above) is a non-issue for Palestinians and
Jewish-Israelis. In the U.S. an ostensibly outspoken exchange of
opinions can be heard on cable TV, in Congress, at public
demonstrations and over the Internet, but rarely in ordinary
conversation. Many of these public exchanges are between
ideological opponents and the language used often comes across as
code or worse, as “weaponized.” The classroom, however, is not a
battle zone: different values apply there and we do a disservice to
education when we either forget or overlook this ideal.
The classroom should be a place for students to explore ideas
without the fear of humiliation or denunciation. It is a place
designed to lay the groundwork for deeper, adult-like thinking.
Ideally, a classroom is a place free of ridicule – where one is
never wrong so long as one is making an effort to learn.
Art has been an aid to learning for as long as there have been
schools, yet no U.S. curriculum that I am aware of has ever taken
systematic advantage of the art produced by the parties to the
Palestinian-Zionist conflict. This is mystifying, given the sheer
amount, and quality, of art that is created on and around the
conflict. The recounting of the two historical narratives, that of
Palestinian nationalism and political Zionism, is perhaps nowhere
more eloquently told then in their respective poster art traditions
– traditions that have no equal in any other historical genre. One
has only to skim through the posters featured at the
Palestine Poster Project Archives website to
get a sense of the phenomenal creativity, nuance, and historical
breadth that is locked into this unique and uniquely pedagogical
genre. It is because of the Palestine poster's storytelling
potential that I have designed the
New Curriculum around
it.
There are many reasons educators might want to consider using
Palestine poster art in the classroom, but I will elaborate on just
two key benefits:
1) The interpretation of art is a value-free activity. No
reading of a poster is "right" or "wrong." Students can differ in
their readings of the symbols, colors, language, texts, imagery,
meaning, message and history of the posters without taking sides.
Every opinion is legitimate. Students-as-viewers do not have
to agree with each other and in not agreeing they do not have to
become antagonists. In all the times I have presented the New
Curriculum, the projection of a Palestine poster image on the
screen followed by the question “what do you see in this poster?”
has led to a rich and insightful exchange. Teachers have reported
that the posters were the most successful technique they had
observed for engaging their students in the study of the
conflict.
2) When analyzing the Palestine posters in the New
Curriculum, students do the speaking. This is
a seminal change in the way the history of Palestine is taught in
the U.S. Via the New Curriculum, the students get to say
what their definition of anti-Semitism is. They get to compare
definitions of Zionism and determine their own. They get to say
whether or not they agree with the U.S. government's Middle East
policy. They get to say whether or not the imagery in the Palestine
posters is militant, beautiful, poetic, incomprehensible,
disagreeable, or unforgettable. Through this vocalization, the
students take their first step towards civic competence: they get
to hear themselves say out loud what they think, feel, see, want,
fear, and hope for relative to the contemporary Palestinian-Zionist
conflict.
When the poster art of Palestine is used in the classroom,
students assert their language rights, add their voices to the
discourse, and reform the educational process. In effect, they
forge a new democratic arena within which to register their
positions relative to, in Said’s words, "one of the foremost moral
issues of our time."
Conclusion
When American students articulate their opinions regarding
Palestine posters, they set the stage for articulating their
opinions as adults in society regarding Palestine itself thereby
advancing civic competence. When the authentic arc of modern
Palestine history is taught it is liberated from the null
curriculum and becomes a candidate for inclusion in the formal
curriculum, where it belongs. By asserting their language rights
students practice public speaking, strike a meaningful blow against
real anti-Semitism, and move the national discourse closer to a
rational perspective on Palestine.