In today's political climate, I generally applaud signs of bipartisanship, no matter how small or inconsequential. But when bipartisanship becomes mere political posturing, and when the posturing causes nonsensical but drastic policy changes, it becomes difficult to support. Such is the case with the newly proposed "Constitution Day" legislation, which mandates that all schools -- kindergarten through college -- teach lessons about the U.S. Constitution on Sept. 17 or risk losing federal funding.
This well-intentioned idea was hatched by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W. Va.), a Constitution aficionado who frequently waves a pocket copy of the document when speaking on the Senate floor. "While our educational system is good at ingraining feelings of respect and reverence for our Constitution, that same system is in need of great improvements in teaching what is actually in the Constitution and just why it is so important to our daily lives," Byrd said in a written statement. Accordingly, Byrd slipped the Constitution Day Act into the 2005 federal budget bill, to "protect and perpetuate our precious Constitution," according to constitutionday.com. President Bush signed the proposal into law last month, and Penn students will start observing Constitution Day in September of this year.
On the surface, I can agree with many of the proposal's goals. I agree that the U.S. Constitution is a valuable, significant and nuanced document. I also admit that many Americans are misinformed about its contents, and that our educational system bears some responsibility for this situation. I can even agree that Congress has the right to mandate Constitution Day -- after all, when Congress gives schools money, it seems reasonable that it might influence their policies. Moreover, congressional laws affecting education are not without precedent. According to the Yale Daily News, during World War I, Congress passed a law requiring schools to teach a course on "American values."
Nonetheless, I cannot agree with the Constitution Day Act. First, the circumstances of the law's passage seem highly suspicious. Because Congress has no direct power to regulate education, Byrd's act was hidden in a $388 billion budget appropriations bill, manipulating fiscal policy to pass a law that is, at best, only marginally fiscal. It is disturbing that something designed to promote Constitution education was passed using means and powers not allocated by the Constitution. More importantly, if Byrd and his allies wanted to require Constitution Day, they should have submitted it as an independent proposal so that senators could debate it on its own merits.
Second, even if the government has the power to change education policy, that does not mean it should. In general, the trend of American policymaking has been that Congress grants money, and the money is given to experts who decide how to use it. Career politicians such as President Bush and Sen. Byrd, whose only educational knowledge stems from their decades-old experience as mediocre students, are no more qualified to design curricula than they are to design aircraft carriers.
Third, requiring observance of Constitution Day has numerous practical problems. For example, on Sept. 17, 2005, which is a Saturday, some students may not be able to attend school to receive Constitution lessons. Even if the observed day were moved to the previous Friday or the following Monday, implementation remains unclear. Would engineering and fine arts professors be required to give lectures on the Constitution in their regular courses? Would students miss class to attend campus-wide programs? More importantly, could we all agree on how the Constitution should be taught?
Some schools, such as the University of California system, are not yet in session on Sept. 17. In general, the overwhelming impracticality of the Constitution Day legislation only reveals Congress's embarrassing ignorance of how educational institutions work.
It is possible that authors of the law intended Constitution Day to become something like Martin Luther King Day -- a day devoted exclusively to the study of the Constitution. However, although MLK Day has become successful through an emphasis on activism and service, the solution to every important and undertaught subject isn't to make a "day" for it.
Ultimately, such a solution shirks our duties as educators. Like the lessons of MLK Day, the contents of the Constitution need to be a part of everyday education, not reserved for an annual ritual.
There are numerous alternative solutions to improving Constitution knowledge. Teacher-training programs should be encouraged (not required) to include classes on the Constitution so that the information can be passed to students. Schools should be encouraged, financially and culturally, to include Constitution courses. Constitution buffs like Sen. Byrd could even create scholarships for students displaying knowledge of the Constitution (and monetary incentives would definitely have been approved of by the Constitution's framers). Unfortunately, the Constitution Day Act of 2005 is simply the wrong way to go.
Jennifer Weiss is a senior Linguistics and Theatre Arts major from Los Angeles. War On Error appears on Wednesdays.
The Daily Pennsylvanian is an independent, student-run newspaper. Please consider making a donation to support the coverage that shapes the University. Your generosity ensures a future of strong journalism at Penn.
DonatePlease note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.
