Post on 03-Feb-2023
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
0
Why do students call me “The War Teacher”?
Problematizing Militarism in Education as a Freireian Codification
Mike Klein
Introduction
While it may not be possible to end the reign of militarism in US society, teachers can
take the lead in halting the spread of militaristic ideology in their classrooms by electing
to practice and teach peace” (Finley, 2003, p. 159).
I facilitated Peace Educator Workshops for a non-governmental organization called World
Citizen in St. Paul, Minnesota USA from 2002 to 2007. In my first year as facilitator, a teacher
approached me before the start of our workshop. Mack taught history at a local urban high school,
and had come to the workshop because he had overheard himself described by students as the war
teacher. When he asked them how he had earned this title, they said his American History class
focused on one war to another, to the period between wars, to the next war. Mack found himself,
as have other history teachers, “positioned at the intersection of ideological forces that seek to
simplify the past and their mission to teach students about the complex world of historical study”
(Leahy, 2010).
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
1
He came to the workshop unsure if he was a peace educator, but certain he didn’t want to
be a war teacher. He had encountered what Paulo Freire described as a limit-situation, “perceived
limits that - recognized as constructed rather than natural or determined - can be acted upon and
deconstructed or transformed” (Klein, 2007, p. 191). Because of his war teacher nickname, he
recognized the militarism implicit in his course and now attached to his identity. Once this issue
had been made explicit – or problematized - he was determined to explore peace education
through our workshop.
Education can be both the problem and the solution in countering militarism and
promoting peace. Several assumptions frame this argument. Education in its many dimensions –
school systems, curricula, textbooks and teachers - reproduces the status quo unless a conscious
choice is made to the contrary. Neglecting a decision to reproduce or critique the status quo is in
itself a decision to teach the status quo as normative, thereby reinforcing it. And militarism is a
significant component of the status quo in the US and around the world. This chapter briefly
problematizes militarism in education then examines two case studies through the lens of Paulo
Freire’s pedagogy. Because Freireian methodology critically examines the dynamics of power,
and most schools systems uncritically support the status quo, his method is generally not known
to educators or used most schools. Both of the following case studies will illustrate Freirean
methodology by taking a critical approach to militarism and modeling an educational process for
teaching peace.
Militaristic Context for Education
“…only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge
industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that
security and liberty may prosper together” (Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961).
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
2
As suggested by this book’s title, our world is not only militarized but in a state of permanent
war. Yet prominent voices in US history make the case that militarism is a threat to democracy.
In 1795 James Madison wrote, “Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to
be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. No nation… could
preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare” (in Preble, 2010, P. 688). One year later,
“…in his farewell address, George Washington warned his countrymen to ‘avoid the necessity of
. . . overgrown military establishments’” (in Preble, 2010, P. 692). And 165 years later, also in
his farewell address, Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered his famous admonition against the
influence of the military industrial complex.
In contrast to these statements, evidence of a militaristic commitment to permanent war is
replete in recent US policy statements. The National Defense Strategy of the United States of
America (2005, p. 5) states, “We will have no global peer competitor and will remain unmatched
in traditional military capability.” The US Quadrennial Defense Report (2010) re-affirmed, “the
United States will remain the most powerful actor” (p. 8), and elaborated to state, “America’s
interests and role in the world require armed forces with unmatched capabilities and a
willingness on the part of the nation to employ them in defense of our interests and the common
good” (P. 9). According to the Department of Defense (2008, p. 25) the US operates 761 military
bases on foreign territory around the world. The Stockholm Peace Research Institute estimates
global military expenditures reached $1.6 trillion (1.14 trillion Euros) in 2010, the US accounting
for nearly half of that total.
Militarism in US schools is well documented (Finley, 2003; Allison & Solnit, 2007;
Leahy, 2010) and apparent to the critical observer. As Laura Finley asserts, “when militarism is
the dominant ideology, it stands to reason children will be socialized in ways that promote
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
3
military-style answers to world problems” (2003, p. 154). In Finley’s content analysis of
seventeen of the most used US history textbooks she found, “An average of 89.1 pages are
devoted to war topics… an average of only 4.94 pages are cited for peace” (2003, p. 156).
Formal military programs are also common in US public schools. The stated goal of the Junior
Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) “is to reach 3,500 units by FY 2011 by encouraging
program expansion into educationally and economically deprived areas” (2007), accounting for
more than 10% of all public secondary schools in the US. And the Department of Defense
Troops to Teachers Program, “all but guarantees that teachers with pro-military values and ties to
recruiters will be serving the nation’s poorest students” (Leahy, 2010).
Challenging the status quo of militarism is a primary step toward teaching peace.
However peace education also challenges the institutional power structures of education: the
political, economic and bureaucratic systems that intertwine with militarism. In both its critical
approach to the status quo and its promotion of alternatives, peace education challenges
education’s internalized identity as conveyer of culture and as conduit into social roles within
established norms. If much of education has been reduced to this sort of functionalism - wherein
children are socialized to fulfill particular roles in a militarized culture - students emerging from
education will only be capable of reproducing militarization. Given all of the forces arrayed
against them, what’s a teacher to do?
Researching and Promoting Peace Education through Paulo Freire’s Methodology
“One defends [an authentic] democracy which does not fear the people, which suppresses
privilege, which can plan without becoming rigid, which defends itself without hate, which is
nourished by a critical spirit rather than irrationality” (Freire, 2005, p. 49).
I argue that contradictions like those described above are opportunities for a critical analysis of
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
4
militarism using Paulo Freire’s (1970, 1973, 1985, 1998) pedagogy for critical education that
empowers learners and teachers to practice the skills of democracy. I illustrate his method
through two case studies to provide examples of teaching peace through Freireian codifications.
The first case examines Peace Educators in dialogue with established curricula in uncritical
institutions. The second examines the use of codifications in a peace studies Conflict
Transformation class. In both cases, I am writing about and reflecting on my own practice in the
context of these learning communities.
The concept of codifications is central to Freire’s pedagogy. Because his writing is dense
and articulation of his concepts changed over time, I have described his method in six steps
(Figure 4.1). I developed these steps (Klein, 2007, p. 189) from descriptions of Freire’s method
in both Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970) and Education for Critical Consciousness (1973).
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
5
Central to Freire’s methodology, codifications (Step 3) are representations – often
drawings, sketches, or photos; or just descriptions – that allow learners to analyze distinctions
Figure 4.1 - Outline of Paulo Freire's method (Klein, 2007)
1. Investigators:
a. Make preliminary acquaintance through secondary sources b. Establish first-hand contact to uncover constructed codes c. Expect interviews to reveal longings, frustrations, disbeliefs, hopes and desire
to participate 2. Evaluation with local assistants
a. Uncover principal and secondary contradictions i. epochal or national-level contradictions
ii. local or particular contradictions b. Determine awareness of contradictions c. Articulating limit-situations d. Proposing untested feasibilities
3. Codification a. Development of codifications from contradictions b. Prepare didactic materials
i. Utilize familiar situations and felt needs ii. Do not render them too overt or propagandistic
iii. Organize as a thematic fan iv. Include other related or subsumed contradictions
4. Decoding a. Thematic investigation circles b. Re-present to the people their own themes in systematized & amplified form c. Begin with theme of 'culture' (distinguish what is natural and constructed) d. Break down into other themes (thematic fan) i.e.: politics, economy, religion,
labor, gender, ethnicity, etc. 5. Systematic interdisciplinary study
a. List implicit and explicit themes b. Classify according to the social sciences c. Break down the theme according to discipline with input from other
disciplines d. Compose brief essays with bibliographic suggestions
6. Intervention a. Post-literacy stage b. Defending democracy c. Democratization of culture
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
6
between nature and culture, what is given and what is constructed. They are developed from
contradictions (Step 2) implicit in the hopes and concerns of a learning community.
Codifications help learners step back from their direct experiences to provide critical distance but
not disengagement from their own reality. They are presented in order to decode (Step 4) and
distinguish between situations that are given or constructed, analyzing social, political, economic
and other themes. In-depth study of these themes (Step 5) helps learners understand the broad
implications of codifications and develop action plans (Step 6).
I use codifications in my workshops and classes to encourage: critical analysis of
complex issues, thoughtful reflection on normative assumptions, and exploration beyond our
limited awareness of social phenomena; like militarism. I will explain Freire’s pedagogy through
the following two cases studies, referring often to figure 4.1. The Peace Educators Workshop
case study addresses teachers who create opportunities for peace education in a school system
that does not acknowledge or accept it. On the other hand, my own Conflict Transformation
Class case study addresses peace education as the accepted norm, and students who struggle to
identify implicit militarism or to effectively resist and transform it.
Case Study I: Peace Educators Workshop
As the events of 9/11 become “history” to contemporary high school students, how the event is
characterized and incorporated into history text books will reinforce justification for the “War
on Terror”, military industrial congressional complex, and other manifestations of unexamined
militarism (Bacevich, 2011, p. 74).
Teachers stand at the intersection between national, state, and school district policies;
standardized curricula and textbooks; and students. As their role is made more technical and less
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
7
professional by increasingly restrictive requirements of the educational system, teachers are hard
pressed to remain effective and ethical educators. When their particular educational setting is
uncritically reinforcing the status quo, how can teachers resist and transform militarism?
The Peace Educators Workshop addresses that question from the teacher’s point of view.
Educators come together three times annually to explore peace education in US secondary
schools. Teachers in the workshop are encouraged to attend in pairs from each school to support
each other, and the group as a whole provides mutual support and solidarity beyond the school
building. Workshop sessions reflect Freire’s critical pedagogy by: drawing topics from the
participants’ own experience, investigating issues raised by teachers for deeper themes of
domination and militarism, relying on participants’ creativity and wisdom to solve problems, and
developing skills and solutions that positively impact their own classrooms, schools and
communities.
Freire’s pedagogy was usually implicit in workshops, but when participants expressed an
interest in the democratization of schools we explicitly explored his methodology. We did so
through another problem teachers struggled to address, military recruiting in schools. Analyzing
the privileges of military recruiters over those of other recruiters in public schools led to insights
about teaching peace and countering militarism in a teacher-centered change process. Acting as
Freireian investigators of their own schools, textbooks, and curriculum, fourteen public high
school educators found contradictions that highlighted limit-situations and produced
codifications that allowed them to address militarism in a tangible way. This first case study will
illustrate Freire’s method (table 4.1) and provide an example of a Freireian codification found in
school systems that reinforce militarism as status quo.
In our Peace Educators Workshop, teachers wondered why college, non-profit and business
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
8
recruiters did not receive the same level of access to students’ personal data or to the campus as
military recruiters. They identified this privilege as a local or particular contradiction (Step 2).
One teacher in the workshop knew that this privilege was legislated, written into a little known
clause of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001). Thus the local contradiction of privileged
military recruitment in schools was tied to a national-level contradiction of legislated privilege.
The workshop allowed teachers to become aware of both levels of contradiction and begin to
describe the limit-situation of militarism as they experienced it. They realized militarism and
military recruiting were not a given, but a constructed situation that they were now
problematizing. The teachers moved quickly to discussing tactical responses that might
challenge or change the particular situation, a step Freire recognized as proposing untested
feasibilities (Step 2), or “what if” questions. What if we try to ban them from campus? What if
we get Veterans for Peace to recruit alongside them?
Their temptation was to address the local contradiction, but it leaves un-addressed the
national-level contradiction and the larger limit-situation of militarism. In Freire’s
conceptualization, the local contradiction of privileged military recruiting is only the
epiphenomena of the total limit-situation of US militarism. Instead of moving to immediate
intervention (Step 6), Freireian methodology approaches this contradiction and deeper limit-
situation as an opportunity for critical analysis by developing a codification (Step 3).
From the contradiction of privileged military recruiting, teachers could describe and
depict–with a drawing in this case–a scenario that regularly occurred in their schools: a
uniformed recruiter in a school hallway talking to a student. This codification could then be
decoded (Step 4) by breaking it down into themes. Teachers discussed how ethnicity and gender
was represented in the codification. The socio-economic background of the student was debated
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
9
based on divergent understandings or is recruited, who enlists, and why. Connections between
political parties and views on war were dissected, religious commitments and views on violence
were explored, and macro-economic implications of permanent war were discussed. Decoding
the image of a military recruiter led to a more sophisticated analysis than would have been
produced by a simple discussion on the broad concept of militarism.
These themes led teachers to analyze militarism from their different academic disciplines,
(Step 5) referring to books, class assignments, and school events that supported or resisted
militarism. From within their disciplines, teachers began to re-imagine classroom approaches to
militarism (Step 6) without abandoning more immediate and confrontational tactics such as sit-
ins, petitions or picketing military recruiters. Teachers discovered a range of untested feasibilities
reaching beyond the local contradiction of recruiting. A math teacher realized her class could
meet a curricular standard on data analysis by tracking all types of campus recruiting, hoping the
contradictions would be apparent to students and providing data for further investigation or
intervention. A social studies teacher imagined an economics unit that compared jobs promised
in recruitment ads and actual employment statistics for current soldiers and veterans. In
connection with a required text, an English teacher decided she would assign articles by veterans
with differing views about military service and organizes a speakers’ panel on the topic. And a
social worker invited to a career fair representatives of Americorps and other full-time volunteers
organizations to provide students alternatives to military enlistment.
Proposing untested feasibilities at this stage allowed teachers to probe other limit-
situations within the theme and explore related contradictions. The latter example above raised
another national level contradiction: extravagant incentives for military versus volunteer service
in compensation, educational opportunities, and status. Because such themes “contain and are
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
10
contained in limit-situations”, Freire describes these themes as generative because “they contain
the possibility of unfolding into again as many themes, which in their turn call for new tasks to
be fulfilled” (1970, p. 92).
This generative nature of Freire’s method is part of its promise for peace educators in
schools that reinforce the status quo. His method can create spaces in standardized curricula to
examine contradictions and address limit-situations in the midst of ordinary classroom activities.
The other promise of his method lies in its expansive potential for an empowering, activating
education. Student activism could be empowered by an isolated effort to counter local military
recruiting. However, if it is limited to addressing the local contradiction alone, what happens to
their activism after they succeed, or worse, if they fail? Law schools and other US educational
institutions have resisted military recruiting based on the previously untested feasibility of school
anti-discrimination policies, and with some success. But this now tested feasibility is likely to
lose its tactical efficacy after President Obama’s 2011 State of the Union speech:
“Our troops come from every corner of this country — they're black, white, Latino,
Asian, Native American. They are Christian and Hindu, Jewish and Muslim. And, yes,
we know that some of them are gay. Starting this year, no American will be forbidden
from serving the country they love because of who they love. (Applause.) And with that
change, I call on all our college campuses to open their doors to our military recruiters
and ROTC. It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past. It is time to move
forward as one nation” (Obama, 2011).
Narrow tactical efforts focused on this specific legal contradiction like non-
discrimination may be upended by a single policy change. However, using Freire’s method to
uncover national level contradictions has expansive educational potential for ongoing critical
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
11
analysis of militarism and evolving interventions. “What begin as pragmatic actions, like keeping
youth from joining the military, are most effective when they have as their end the
transformation of the root causes of war, undemocratic governance, and injustice” (Allison &
Solnit, 2007, p. xviii). The end of a discriminatory military policy such as “Don’t ask, don’t tell”
will frustrate limited tactical activism focused on local contradictions. However it’s end could
also elevate critical education about national level contradictions related to discrimination in the
military based on race, class, gender and sexuality. Freireian methodology grounds education in
the particular without loosing sight of larger themes and contradictions.
Teachers need to use their own best judgment about how to utilize Freire’s method given
the variation in the political climate of individual schools. Some contradictions may be so hotly
contested, or presumed to be so centrally normative, that addressing them directly expends too
much political capital. But contradictions abound and allies may be waiting for an invitation. To
reflect Freire’s generative methodology, and to inspire readers, this case study concludes with a
list of contradictions peace educators explored following our 2010 workshop:
• Zero tolerance weapons policies and military drills or color guards at schools
• The advertised benefits of military service and the preponderance of homeless veterans
• Academic standards addressing US democratic values and review of actual US foreign
policy, historical (i.e.: colonialism) and contemporary (i.e.: unilateral military
intervention).
• Analysis of history books for themes of war and themes of peace (i.e.: Finley, 2010).
• Comparing US federal funding for education and funding for defense in an economics
class
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
12
Case Study II: College Conflict Resolution Course
[Too often] peace education deals mainly with single issues and particular cases (such as
the proposed nuclear arms freeze or the war in Nicaragua), with the aim of avoiding or
limiting war. In the minds of some peace educators, this failure to focus on war as an
institution or on the ‘war system’ helps to perpetuate the notion that war itself is too
great a problem to tackle (Reardon, 1998, p. 14)
The previous case study addressed peace educators in a public education system that tends to
uncritically reinforce the status quo, including militarism. This second case study examines a
conflict resolution course in a peace studies program. As noted in the quote above, peace
education is sometimes focused on particular conflicts and gives limited treatment to systems
and values behind conflict, like militarism. In this case study instructors, curriculum, and
textbooks critically analyze conflict and yet are situated in a university that uncritically accepts
militarism as evidenced by: significant grant funding from the US Defense Department, the long-
term institutionalization of ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corps) on campus, and its own
history as a military academy. How might an educator so situated use Freireian codifications to
address militarism?
In this case study of an annual Conflict Resolution course I am reflecting on my own
teaching in peace studies. Even in a program explicitly premised on the promotion of peace,
Freire’s method can encourage critical analysis of education inside and outside of a particular
institution. Academic tensions between theories, strategies, and tactics on one hand and current
conflicts, oppression, and human suffering on the other can be addressed by codifications drawn
from student research, examples from practitioners and activists, and the lived experience of
students.
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
13
Our Justice and Peace Studies program methodology is grounded in Freire’s approach
and articulated in a four-step process we refer to as a Circle of Praxis. We begin our analysis in
the experience of violence and injustice, from the margins of power, and with those most subject
to suffering through direct experience, first-hand accounts, primary sources, or other
representations. We proceed to a multi-disciplinary descriptive analysis through the social
sciences. We subject that data to normative analysis examining worldviews, religious
perspectives, philosophical assumptions, and the construction of meaning. Finally, action
planning develops interventions to promote peace and justice while accounting for available
resources, potential obstacles, and the consequences of action. This last step leads to the next
experience in the circle, hopefully promoting informed, ethical and effective change. However
contradictions of Freire’s type exist even within our own praxis, such as the limited
representation of marginalized voices, the abstracting force of any academic study, the blind
spots and biases that shape and distort normative analysis, and the unintended consequences of
the best-planned action. Codifications will not prevent these problems entirely, but can help
ground peace education in tangible situations and inform critical analysis, concepts, and theory.
In my 2010 Conflict Resolution class I integrated several codifications into the syllabus
and responded to others that emerged during the semester. I explore four brief examples in the
following paragraphs. One contradiction that emerged from class discussion was based on the
inclusive mission of our Catholic university and the denial of equal rights for lesbian and gay
students on campus. This general contradiction became a focused codification when the
university hosted a conference entitled Reclaiming the Culture of Marriage and Life Spring
Forum. It brought speakers to campus including the authors of the Constitutional Amendment to
Eliminate Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Initiative in California, USA, otherwise known
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
14
as Proposition 8. This highly charged codification was analyzed with class concepts such as
identity, recognition, conflict framing, and conflict mapping. Our analysis examined perceived
contradictions (Step 2) in conference materials, the university mission statement, Catholic
theology, and students’ own definitions, between such concepts as “respect” and “dignity of the
human person”. Normative assumptions were decoded (Step 4) from the discursive elements of
the event and developed into a thematic fan addressing politics, history, religion, law, and
economics.
Some students chose to engage in further study and intervention (Steps 5 & 6) outside of
the course. Rather than staging an angry protest against the university, students gathered the
campus to celebrate the university’s stated convictions, including: pursuit of truth, dignity,
diversity, and gratitude. This celebratory framing created an inclusive demonstration with spaces
safe enough for university administrators to take the podium and speak in support of university
convictions. A more confrontational protest might have led these same administrators to restrict
or terminate the demonstration rather than join in. Freire’s method helped students analyze
contradictions and limit-situations in the event to generate resistance and develop a
transformative intervention.
On a more specifically militaristic topic, another class discussion raised the US military
policy commonly known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” regarding lesbian and gay soldiers. Initially,
some students identified a particular contradiction and limit-situation (Step 2) in this policy
based on a soldier’s right to freedom of speech. In this discussion and in previous discussions on
LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) issues, each student’s identity qualified their
recognition and definition of contradictions. Catholic students who accepted their church’s
teaching on LGBTQ issues recognized limit-situations for lesbian and gay soldiers, but did not
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
15
necessarily accept these as contradictions. Students from LGBTQ-inclusive religious
denominations identified both limit-situations and contradictions through a more conceptual
analytical approach. And students who identified as lesbian testified to limit-situations and
insisted on contradictions from an existential perspective. Although students disagreed in their
analysis, Freire’s methodology provided an opportunity for their disagreements to be compared
and contrasted in a reasonable discussion.
Agreeing to disagree about this local contradiction, students discussed higher-level
contradictions such as restrictions on the rights for US soldiers during military service. The
codification (Step 3) was manifested in a drawing of an individual soldier exercising democratic
rights (i.e.: freedom of expression, press and assembly). This codification in turn generated
awareness of other contradictions including US military intervention to promote democratic
rights in other countries (e.g.: Iraq), and US support for democracy in Iraq while supporting
dictatorial regimes in other countries. Decoding (Step 4) in this instance was conducted using an
ethical framework from the Conflict Resolution course addressing: values, duties, rights and
outcomes. Decoding based on these four ethical concepts led to an interdisciplinary thematic fan
including analysis of issues: legal (rights under civilian compared to military legal systems),
political (duties of service to country and the politics of patriotism), economic (outcomes for
individual soldiers and for national spending priorities) and religious (values of compassion,
nonviolence, justice). By the end of the discussion, students also became interested in the
experiences of ROTC students and military veterans on campus and developed potential
intervention on their behalf (Step 6).
Finally, the most significant engagement with Freire’s method in this class was an online
dialogue in partnership with the New Tactics in Human Rights project of the Center for Victims
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
16
of Torture. Through this partnership we engaged in a seven-day online dialogue with human
rights practitioners around the globe (Step 1). Students chose the theme for this online dialogue,
“Engaging Youth in Non-Violent Alternatives to Militarism”. Over the course of the semester
students researched organizations engaged in this work, developed questions about militarism,
explored alternatives based on academic theories and concepts, and identified human rights
practitioners to invite into the dialogue (Step 2). These featured practitioners agreed to
participate in the midst of their human rights work, to reflect on their practice the light of the
students’ questions. They included representatives of: The Swat Youth Front in Pakistan; a youth
development program in Palestine; American Friends Service Committee in the USA; a
representative of UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund); and the director of Project YANO
(Youth And Nonmilitary Opportunities) in the USA.
The dialogue was initiated with broad themes such as: nonviolent alternatives to military
service; engaging youth; the role of family, community and government, etc. In response to these
themes featured practitioners raised examples from their own practice that pointed to perceived
limit-situations and served as codifications (Step 3) although they were not presented as such by
featured practitioners. Each codification became the starting point for analysis or decoding (Step
4) and the development of thematic fans through online dialogue discussion threads. Themes
developed rather organically in the course of the dialogue, and were occasionally clarified or
expanded in comments from the New Tactics dialogue facilitators and myself. Codifications that
emerged from the dialogue included: the concept of “opt-in & opt-out” in military recruiting;
sports as alternatives to violence; and volunteer service programs as alternatives to military
service. The concept of military recruiting is explored below. The latter two are available in the
archived dialogue (New Tactics in Human Rights, 2010).
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
17
Military recruiting has occurred in US high schools for decades, but it was
institutionalized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (EASA, 1965) and
expanded to include privileged access in a little known provision of the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB, 2001). The 1965 ESEA mandated that the US military have the same access to
students as post-secondary schools and employers. The 2001 NCLB mandated privileged access
to students that includes directory information, “names, addresses and telephone listings” (Sec.
9528. (a)(1)). Because The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA, 1974)
proscribes release of such information, privileging military recruiters in this way stands out as a
contradiction. However another subsection of the NCLB legislation provides an “opt-out” for
students or parents, so that directory information will, “not be released without prior written
parental consent, and the local educational agency or private school shall notify parents of the
option to make a request and shall comply with any request” (NCLB, Sec. 9528. (a)(2)). This
discussion thread culminated in a student comment on a perceived contradiction inherent in “opt-
in & opt-out”:
Today four United States Senators sent a letter to the CEO of the online network
Facebook, asking that users should be able to "opt-in" rather than "opt-out" of sharing
private information with third-party websites. They were concerned about how people's
information can be used, and were also concerned that not enough people take advantage
of opt-out forms who would actually prefer to do so. I just thought this kind of showed
the values of the United States with respect to militarism and the army. It's preferable to
have an "opt-in" form for Facebook, but "necessary" to have an "opt-out" form for the
military (New Tactics, 2010).
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
18
This observation about a national-level contradiction (Step 2) provided a concrete example of
contrasting values in the context of militarism. This codification led to a rich discussion or
thematic fan (Step 4) that is beyond the scope of this chapter, but available in the archived
dialogue (New Tactics, 2010).
In addition to discussing tactics related to opt-in & opt-out, featured practitioners offered
other untested feasibilities; tested in their case, but untested for more than 1000 visitors
following the dialogue (Step 2). A military aptitude test given in many schools provided data to
recruiters (beyond directory data), so some groups were attempting to ban this test through
legislation. Veterans for Peace worked with student groups to counter military recruiting by
coordinating peace group recruiters right next to the military. These particular untested
feasibilities provided further codifications for the class to analyze for other subsumed
contradictions (Step 3) and decode for militaristic themes (Step 4). In the dialogue, students
posed questions that directed the dialogue back to contradictions, limit-situations, codifications
and decoding: exploring the supposed and actual economic benefits touted by recruiters, the
report of over one hundred rape and sexual assault cases against military recruiters in a single
year (CBS News, 2006), and Reardon’s assertion that militarism and patriarchy are inseparable
and shape the dynamic of domination of men over women (1985).
Additional codifications of militarism emerged in our online dialogue. Sports programs,
promoted as alternatives to Taliban madrassas in the Swat Valley of Pakistan, sparked debate
about the pseudo-military nature of sports as encouraging rather than discouraging militarism.
Volunteer programs like Americorps and the Peace Corps were upheld as alternatives to military
service. However it was also suggested that the Peace Corps lays a foundation for US
militarization in other countries (a subsumed contradiction), and others noted that volunteer
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
19
service programs are woefully under-resourced compared to US military service, individually
and institutionally. At $446 million, the 2011 budget for Peace Corps (Peace Corps Connect,
2010) is dwarfed by the budget for military recruiting, $1.8 billion for the same period (Secretary
of Defense, 2010).
A final contradiction hit closer to home. A recently built science building on our Catholic
university campus does not display crucifixes or any religious symbols. This contradiction is due
to the public funds used in construction and appropriated by the Defense Department to address
its need for future software engineers. An additional contradiction, subsumed in the first, is the
development of a peace engineering concentration by the school of engineering that encourages
graduates to pursue alternatives to militarism through sustainable development projects. As in
previous examples, this contradiction created opportunities for critical analysis in a course
dedicated to peace studies, enriched by Freire’s methodology, and set within a militarized
educational context.
Conclusion
Our 2011 Conflict Resolution class left behind the previous year’s explicit focus on militarism to
study resource-based conflicts. Yet militarism was raised anew in the comments of guest speaker
Julián Lazalde, Program & Advocacy Officer with Catholic Relief Services. He quoted Bishop
Nicolas Djomo Lola, the President of the Catholic Episcopal Conference of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (CENCO), who provided a codification for mineral-based conflicts by
stating, "There is a drop of Congolese blood in every cell phone.” Given that each of us had a
cell phone in our pocket or backpack, this codification made an impression on us all. Discussions
followed on themes of political economy, 700+ US military bases around the world, and US
policy to ensure “access to key markets and strategic resources” (QDR, 2001). Although the
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
20
focus of our semester had changed from the previous year, our Conflict Resolution course could
not escape global militarism, its insidious role in our own consumer lifestyles, or its presence in
education.
Freire’s methodology holds promise for academic analysis, however it is not to be
applied as a rigid formula. As evident in these case studies, the process may begin in the middle
with a codification, circle back to contradictions or limit-situations, jump forward to thematic
fans, and return to untested feasibilities before developing interventions. The order of these steps
will depend upon the institutional context, the educator’s syllabus, and the connection to
students’ experiences. Most important is the diligent adaptation and pursuit of Freire’s process to
develop critical analytical skills, democratize teaching and learning, and empower agents of
change.
Freireian codifications can address militarism in educational settings that reinforce the
status quo and in those that promote critical analysis. Codifications are tools for praxis-based
education that connects the broad implications of militarism to the particular concepts and case
studies of a standardized curriculum. Thoughtfully constructed or serendipitously discovered,
codifications provide a starting point for critical inquiry through decoding and thematic fans that
challenge limit-situations and raise additional contradictions. Freire’s methodology encourages
critical thinking without prescribing conclusions to analysis, even if codifications are indeed
premised as challenges to the status quo - to militarism in education – in the pursuit of peace.
References
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
21
Allison, A. & Solnit, D. (2007). Army of none: Strategies to counter military recruitment, end
war, and build a better world. New York: Seven Stories Press.
Bacevich, Andrew J. (2011). The tyranny of defense inc., Atlantic Monthly, 307(1), 74-79
CBS News. (2006). More than 100 women raped or assaulted by recruiters in past year.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/19/national/main1913849.shtml
Department of Defense (2008). Base Structure Report. Department of Defense website:
www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/bsr/BSR2008Baseline.pdf
Eisenhower, D. D. (1961). Farewell address.
http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/All_About_Ike/Speeches/Speeches.html
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). (1965). Public Law 89-10, 79 Stat. 27, 20
U.S.C. ch.70
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). (1974). 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part
99
Finley, L. (2003). How can I teach peace when the book only covers war? OJPCR: The Online
Journal of Peace and Conflict Resolution. 5(1, Summer), 150-165
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
22
. (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York: Continuum.
. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. New
York: Bergin & Garvey.
. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (2007). Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps
Assessment. Retrieved April 5, 2011 from White House website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10003233.2006.html
Klein, M. (2007). Peace education and Paulo Freire’s method: Towards the democratization of
teaching and learning. Convergence, Volume XL (1-2), 187-205.
Leahy, C. R. (2010). Whitewashing war: Historical myths, corporate textbooks and possibilities
for democratic education. New York: Teachers College Press.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). (2001). Public Law 107-110, Military Recruitment, Sec.
9528.
Book Chapter: “Educating for Peace in a Time of Permanent War: Are Schools Part of the Solution or Problem?” Routledge, scheduled release, May 2012
23
Obama, B. (2011). State of the union address. National Public Radio website:
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/26/133224933/transcript-obamas-state-of-union-address
Preble, C. A. (2010). The founders, executive power, and military intervention, Pace law review,
30(2): 688-719.
Reardon, B. (1985). Sexism and the war system. New York: Teachers College Press.
. (1988). Comprehensive peace education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Peace Corps Connect (2010). Congressional action on Peace Corps.
http://www.peacecorpsconnect.org/2010/06/congressional-action-on-peace-corps/
Secretary of Defense (2010). Operation and maintenance overview: Fiscal year 2011 budget
estimates. http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2011/fy2011_OM_Overview.pdf
New Tactics in Human Rights (2010). Engaging youth in nonviolent alternatives to militarism.
https://www.newtactics.org/en/blog/new-tactics/engaging-youth-non-violent-alternatives-
militarism