by Muriel Stallworth, 5th Grade French Head Teacher and PYP Coordinator

I always look forward to our 5th grade unit on ideologies (“Ideological differences can trigger social change“). We explore the ideas that caused the revolutions of the 18th century and the impact these ideas continue to have on the European and American continents to this day, and each year I am guaranteed to find relevant material for my students in current world events. Last year, as we learned of Nelson Mandela’s passing, we explored the historical roots of racism. We saw how this misguided ideology was legalized through the laws of Apartheid in South Africa and segregation in the United States, and how through the ideology of non-violence, the laws were changed.

As the unit began this year, journalists covered political demonstrations in Burkina Faso, the announced end of the US embargo against Cuba, and a Nobel Peace Prize for Malala, the incredibly courageous Pakistani girl who stood up for girls’ right to education and for her right of expression. Later, amazingly, the news turned to race/police relations, and took some of my students right out on the streets of New York City to express their views!

Then, last Wednesday, as many of us did, I woke up to the shocking news of the massacre at Charlie Hebdo. Coincidentally, I had prepared a few philosophers‘ quotes that morning for my students to ponder, including one that found burning relevance in the day’s event: “To renounce freedom is to renounce one’s human quality, human rights, even one’s own duty,” — Jean-Jacques Rousseau. And not ten minutes after I heard the names of those lost, I sat down for our morning circle with my students, who were begging for clarification on the unfolding event.

Suddenly, it appeared that my preparation for our familiar 5^th grade debate on freedom of expression was taking an unfamiliar turn. It was easy enough to see why Malala had unequivocally earned support for her right to freedom of expression, but this was different. I knew that my 5th graders had a clear-cut understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Making fun of others and hurting their feelings is something they knew was wrong. Yet they were seeing the world come together in support of a humoristic style that finds greater relevance in its offensive form. I knew the questions would come. I knew that through this event, they would find again this year — as they had in our previous unit about global warming — that the world is a complex and sometimes confusing place.

As I took the weekend to prepare for our Monday debate, “Are there limits to freedom of expression?”, I struggled with my own confusion. What did the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo really want to achieve? Were they trying to shed “new light” on the absurdity of all fanatical creeds? Was Charlie Hebdo‘s self-proclaimed “stupid and mean” satirical humor defensible as a weapon for peace? Could this be an opportunity to examine deeply and honestly the context of “structural racism”, as one Al Jazeera journalist described it, in France? I wondered what and how much information I would share with my students. As they try to make sense of events and ideas such as these, children seek clear answers. Yet introducing different perspectives and ambiguity is critical, because it opens the door to understanding the nuance and complexity of the world around them. I was aware that in controlling the information I brought to them in class, I could control the debate. I imagined of all the teaching opportunities that this news was bringing, and reflected on how it had suddenly changed the course of our unit.

When they arrived on Monday, the children couldn’t wait to talk about what had happened. Processing information with them through the framework of our debate brought both tension and relief. I thought of how brave they were to take all of this in, as well as of all the “unit words” that they assimilated through the formulation of their arguments: revendication, fanaticism, attack, extremist, Al Qaeda, ISIS. It was also a fascinating exercise in semantics: words like offended, disrespected, excluded, exposed, ridiculed, insulted, furious were juxtaposed with solidarity, support, and empathy. PYP key concepts (perspective, responsibility, causation) provided depth, and as always, my students impressed me with their arguments, some of which are included below.

• No, we should not limit freedom of speech because:

• Writing, speaking, drawing is not violence. Violence is how people react.
• You can make fun of anyone if it’s of everyone equally.
• Religion is more complicated than it seems. We should stop calling the attackers “Muslim” but rather call them “terrorists”.
• If we stop allowing people to make fun of Mahomet, then we’ll have to forbid people from making fun of anything at all.
• A world where you’re not allowed to laugh about serious things would limit our emotions.
• Yes, there are limits to freedom of speech because:
• If words/drawings become violent, it’s too much.
• If bombing and killing are ways to express oneself, then it’s not ok.
• Making fun of others is not a good way to express oneself if not everyone can understand the joke in the same way.
• You can make fun of people, but not of their ideologies or religions.

Sophie Amieva, an ISB parent and a clown by trade, came to our class this week to help us think through some questions and to talk about the historical role of buffoons. The students remarked that, “laughing allowed us to breathe.” They also wondered if we were all “equal” in the face of a joke, and how essential the notion of perspective is. In the past few days, we also enjoyed observing and commenting on the work of Khalid Albaih, a Sudanese political cartoonist, and students made their own cartoons. To conclude our week, a colleague is coming to speak about how it feels to live through these current events as a Muslim. There are certainly ample resources available for exploring our topic with impartiality in mind.

We learn best when confronted with the unfamiliar, because it allows us to bring new meaning to prior understandings, and prompts us to use our cognitive skills in new, authentic contexts, advancing our thinking even further. When looking at the world around them, children combine their knowledge with feelings of self-interest and empathy, and here, through exploring Rousseau’s quote, concern for what is at stake for their future. Last week, we were all reminded of a beautiful and frightening truth: that speaking out can be a significant act that impacts our own lives and the lives of others in known and unknown ways. Cabu, Wolinski, Charb, Malala, and Dr. Martin Luther King were all ready to die for the right to express their beliefs, as were their attackers. As a teacher, I am always sensitive to my students’ emotional capacity when we cover difficult material. For the 5th graders this year, my hope is that the events and ensuing discussion we have had this past week will bring a greater appreciation of the profound impact that Dr. King and others have achieved through their ideologies of peace and forgiveness.