Beyond Neutrality and Consensus: The Case for Partisan Teaching

Abstract

This article challenges the prevailing binary in civic education that pits teacher neutrality against political activism. I argue that the real tension is not whether partisanship belongs in the classroom—it always does—but how it is engaged. Drawing on the concept of partisan justification, I define partisanship as reasoning from within a contestable normative framework that shapes what issues are foregrounded, how they are framed, and which disagreements are possible. I critique two dominant models: the Controversial Issues approach, which relies on the illusion of neutrality by concealing partisan framing, and the Activist approach, which risks the illusion of consensus by treating a single vision of justice as settled. Against both, I advocate for an educational partisanship as a democratic design: a practice that acknowledges the inevitability of partisan commitments and structures classroom inquiry to make them visible, discussable, and open to challenge. Using a classroom example focused on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), I show how teachers can disclose their commitments without imposing them, expanding democratic understanding through genuine contestation. I conclude that democratic education depends not on evading partisanship but on practicing it transparently and with care—designing classrooms where disagreement is expected, plurality is preserved, and no view, including the teacher's, is above scrutiny.