Teaching Tolerance through Film and Reflection

• In Event: TLC at APSA: Diversity & Inclusiveness: Restructuring the Curricula Panel

Abstract

The responsible or ‘good’ citizen according to classic democratic theory is an enlightened and engaged citizen (Nie et al. 1996). Our paper speaks to the first dimension of democratic citizenship, enlightenment, in general, and to tolerance specifically. A functioning democracy requires a free marketplace of ideas and for this marketplace to be accessible to all member of a society, public tolerance of diversity – not just political tolerance we argue, is an essential prerequisite. Tolerance – the willingness to extend civil liberties and equal opportunities to those you dislike because of their ideology, religion, ethnicity, etc. is at the very core of enlightenment (cf. Sullivan et al. 1982).
The role of formal education in the reduction of prejudice of, and intolerance toward out-group members has long been recognized by social and political psychologists. Higher education, (i.e., college education) for example, exposes students to diversity of political and religious beliefs and people of different national origin, race or ethnicity, which they often have not encountered in their life previously – at least not to the same extent. The college campus then is an important training ground for one critical component of democratic citizenship – civic enlightenment in general and tolerance of diversity in particular.
We argue that in order for students to truly value the benefits of tolerance and diversity they need to know what their de facto absence means. To get the message across audiovisual images are more powerful than any alternative (i.e., print, visual or auditory) medium. To get the message across, looking at applied intolerance, de facto discrimination, is more powerful than reflecting on theoretical perspectives on intolerance (cf. the concept of principled tolerance discussed for example, in Sullivan et al. 1982). We further contend that understanding of the detrimental implications of intolerance, prejudice or discrimination is enhanced when students are confronted with examples of individual victims, ‘perpetrators’ or specific instances rather than a class of victims (Gehrig 1991).
Our paper describes and assesses a teaching instrument that we consistently and repeatedly over years have employed to enhance our lecture on civil liberties and rights in the context of introductory American government courses. Our students, upon receiving a short lecture on civic enlightenment and tolerance, view a documentary on the history of intolerance in the U.S. Afterwards students complete an assignment, in which they express their cognitive and affective responses to the film. Students are clearly moved by what they saw and learned. Their answers reflect a deeper understanding of the meaning of tolerance. Weeks later, at the end of the semester, we administer a standardized survey, where we tap self-reported change in the level of tolerance since the beginning of the semester. The change is positive and significant.

Author

• Pia A. Knigge, Auburn University Montgomery