By Stephen Kastner

A few months ago, students at Essex High School walked out of class to protest Immigration and Customs Enforcement. More recently, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon visited Essex and was greeted by another demonstration. In Randolph, a controversy erupted over the display of a Black Lives Matter flag. At the state level, guidance regarding transgender students has raised difficult questions about parental rights, student privacy, and the role of schools in navigating deeply personal issues.

Viewed separately, each of these stories is different. Together, they made me wonder about something larger.

When did our schools become so deeply involved in questions that used to be debated primarily in legislatures, courtrooms, town halls, and around kitchen tables?

Maybe they always were, and I simply wasn’t paying attention. That’s possible. Schools have never been completely neutral. Every generation passes along certain values and assumptions to the next. What feels different today is the degree to which schools increasingly find themselves at the center of political and cultural controversies that divide not only Vermont, but the entire country.

This is not an argument against student activism. Students should be free to speak, organize, protest, and participate in civic life. Learning how to engage in public affairs is part of becoming an informed citizen.

The question I keep coming back to is whether public schools should be doing more than protecting that right.

Should they be facilitating it?

Should they be encouraging it?

And if they are, how do they decide which causes receive institutional support and which do not?

The difference between student activism and institutional activism

Most Vermonters would probably agree that students have every right to advocate for causes they believe in. If students want to support immigrants, advocate for environmental protections, oppose federal education policies, or raise awareness about social issues, that is part of living in a free society.

What concerns many parents is something slightly different.

Citizens are free to challenge laws they dislike. They can work to change them through elections, legislation, public campaigns, and the courts. Public schools occupy a different role. Questions naturally arise when a school appears to move beyond civic education and toward supporting activism aimed at resisting the enforcement of laws that currently exist.

The recent anti-ICE demonstrations provide an example. Supporters saw students standing up for immigrant classmates and families. Critics saw students protesting the enforcement of immigration laws while largely ignoring the policy decisions that created the controversy in the first place.

Reasonable people can disagree about immigration policy. They do so every day.

The more interesting question is whether schools should be taking any position at all.

The same question appears in debates over transgender athletics, diversity initiatives, and race-related programming. Supporters and critics approach these issues from very different starting points. Both sides believe they are defending fairness. Both sides often believe they are protecting vulnerable people. Neither side lacks conviction.

Yet public schools are expected to serve families from across that entire spectrum.

That is not an easy task.

The students we don’t hear much about

One thing that strikes me in many of these discussions is how little attention is given to students whose opinions may not align with the prevailing culture around them.

Imagine a student who supports stronger immigration enforcement.

Imagine a student who believes athletic competition should remain organized according to biological sex.

Imagine a student who questions DEI programs, supports school choice, or agrees with some of the policies being protested.

Would those students feel comfortable expressing their views publicly?

Some undoubtedly would. Others might not.

I’ve heard versions of the same comment from Vermonters for years, “I just keep my opinions to myself.”

Sometimes the speaker is conservative. Sometimes they are religious. Occasionally they are simply someone who doesn’t enjoy political conflict. What they have in common is a belief that expressing certain opinions may carry social consequences.

Whether that perception is always justified is almost beside the point. Public trust depends not only on fairness, but on the belief that fairness exists.

If a significant number of students feel they can safely express one set of opinions but not another, schools should want to know why.

Vermont is not the whole country

Vermont has many strengths. It is one of the most civically engaged states in America. It values education, community involvement, and public participation. Most of us would probably agree that those are things worth preserving.

At the same time, Vermont can be something of a bubble.

I remember standing in my own yard and wondering whether my decision to display an American flag would be interpreted as a political statement. That struck me as odd. We are approaching the 250th anniversary of the United States, yet in some circles even the national flag can feel politically charged.

The flag itself hasn’t changed.

What has changed is the environment around it.

Students graduating from Vermont schools will eventually leave that environment. They will encounter people who disagree with them on virtually everything. They will work alongside people who hold different political views, belong to different religions, support different parties, and arrive at entirely different conclusions about the issues that dominate today’s headlines.

They will still need to get along.

They will still need to cooperate.

They will still need to share a country.

The purpose of education cannot be to ensure that students agree with those people. The purpose is to ensure that they know how to engage with them.

A question worth asking

The debate over public education is often framed as a battle between progressives and conservatives. I don’t think that’s what is really happening.

The deeper question is whether public institutions can maintain the trust of people who disagree with one another.

Public schools belong to everyone. They belong to families who support DEI programs and families who oppose them. They belong to parents who favor stricter immigration enforcement and parents who do not. They belong to religious families, secular families, Republicans, Democrats, independents, and people who are tired of politics altogether.

That is what makes their role so difficult.

Schools should absolutely teach students how government works. They should encourage curiosity, critical thinking, civic participation, and an understanding of competing viewpoints. What they should avoid is creating the impression that certain political conclusions are expected while others are merely tolerated.

A healthy democracy requires more than activism. It requires citizens who can live with disagreement.

As America approaches its 250th anniversary, that may be one of the most important lessons our schools can teach. The challenge is not whether students should have voices. The challenge is whether every student believes that his or her voice matters equally.

The Skeptical Stoic is a reader-supported Substack page.