Educating Citizens: Preparing America’s Undergraduates for Lives of Moral and Civic Responsibility. Anne Colby, Thomas Ehrlich, Elizabeth Beaumont, Jason Stephens. Jossey-Bass. 2003. 352 pp. $30. ISBN: 0-7879-6515-4.
 

America needs more than taxpayers, spectators, and occasional voters. America needs full-time citizens. --- George W. Bush

            The quotation above is the principle that suffuses Educating Citizens: Preparing America’s Undergraduates for Lives of Moral and Civic Responsibility. This book is based on the three-year undertaking, called the Higher Education and Development of Moral and Civic Responsibility Project (MCR), that was conducted by the Carnegie Foundation. The objective of MCR was to examine and enhance how American educational institutions satisfy their mission statements by preparing students to be morally and civically responsible. That objective coincides with one of the central purposes of the book: demonstrate to college administrators and educators the value of a civics program.
            With an Amazon.com sales ranking near 30,000 copies, one can take for granted at least two things about Educating Citizens. The first is that some of those who want to educate future citizens believe indirectly that this book will help them obtain the objective expressed in MCR. The second is that many believe teaching moral and civic responsibility at the college level is important.
            The book is classified under the Leadership, Administration, and Policy section of the publisher’s website. Chapter 1 has a discussion on political engagement, gender, civics, and morality. It is also the overall introduction to the rest of the book; consequently, its title Educating Citizens In A Pluralistic Society is not fitting. Chapter 3, When Educating Citizens Is A Priority, could be assigned as a weekly reading in many introductory government or American studies classes. Other chapters include The Broader Undergraduate Context; The Multiple Dimensions of Moral and Civic Development; Pedagogical Strategies for Educating Citizens; Weaving Moral and Civic Learning into the Curriculum; Faculty: The Cornerstone; Moral and Civic Learning Beyond the Classroom; Assessment in Moral and Civic Education; and Bringing Moral and Civic Learning to Center Stage.
            For a more theoretical, philosophical, and general book, readers should consider Thomas Ehrlich’s Civic Responsibility and Higher Education. Not only is he the second author listed in Educating Citizens, Ehrlich is the former president of Indiana University and the former provost of the University of Pennsylvania. The book, Educating Citizens, by itself cannot be used as the standard textbook in an undergraduate class or as a reader in a master’s class—though that was certainly never the goal of the authors.
            The institutions used as case studies are either public or private. Both universities and community colleges are represented. Mostly, though, the institutions appear to be chosen based on programs with a student body that is accentuated by race, gender, and religion. Issues of race, gender, and religion are the divisive ones that some professors avoid because of the high possibility for negative conflict during classroom discussion. Bringing these issues into the classroom also increases the risk of pushing a professor’s personal ideology upon the students. The authors do not explain effectively how to surmount these limitations, even though they broach the subject of indoctrination.
            Also emphasizing institutions that are predisposed to diversity begs an important question. Are not issues of race, gender, and religion already well-represented by civic elements of society? Using successful examples as case studies that are derived from programs that already consist of civically active people is much less valuable as a measurement than programs that are not permeated with future gender, racial, and religious activists. Thus, there needs to be more case examples from universities not ensconced in racial, sexual, or religious diversity. Such institutions are still not difficult to find, and doing so would allow a better assessment of how successful a civics program can really be.
            To the authors, civic engagement means “making a difference in the civic life of our communities and developing the combination of knowledge, skills, values and motivation to make that difference.” Civic engagement also includes promotion of “the quality of life in a community through both political and non-political processes.” The authors go on to write that a “morally and civically responsible individual recognizes himself or herself as a member of a larger social fabric and therefore considers social problems to be at least partly his or her own; such an individual is willing to see the moral and civic dimensions of issues, to make and justify informed moral and civic judgments, and to take action when appropriate.” Few readers will have problems with those definitions.
            The authors state that throughout the book they will answer the question: What are the essential elements of moral and civic character for Americans in the twenty-first century? Moral responsibility is not as clear in the book as are the implications of being civically responsible, but it should be clear whenever morality is broached. Morality describes “prescriptive judgments about how one ought to act in relation to other people. . . .” The authors then state that morality and civics are “inseparable.” If that is the case, then one wonders why it is necessary to mention the word morality at all when a discussion of it can become so inflammatory? The answer provided by the authors, based on a “necessary connection” between civics and morality, is unconvincing. Nor would it convince the other reviewer, which the authors note in the book, who suggested the term morality be dropped due in part to its redundancy.
            In a diverse society such as America, what morals must be present and whose morals are needed in order to be responsible become very important questions. Readers will have to get more instruction elsewhere on how to avoid offending the many with the specific moral responsibility of the few. In this book it definitely would have been better to drop the phraseology of moral responsibility and to put everything under the umbrella of civic responsibility. Civic responsibility as a concept is suitably and sufficiently described by the authors.
            The comments above lead to the two following dilemmas in the book. The first is that the institutions examined in the book are comprised of those students who already have at least a budding enthusiasm to become dedicated to or moderately interested in society. The authors fail to convince educators that they can train those uninterested in civics to become more civically and morally responsible. That is in spite of the twelve institutions, used in the case studies, that have successful civics programs based on the ideals flowing from this book.
            Another dilemma, inherent in the philosophy of the book, is that the authors presume there is an overwhelming disengagement of young people from politics. Yet, their cited sources notwithstanding, it is unclear what their standard for this presumption is. It is indeed true that people today vote far less than they did yesterday. Here, however, authors and researchers often see only what they are looking for. It might seem to some that all the advancing technology and entertainment luxuries of today are causing today’s youth to put their spirit and free time elsewhere instead of giving it to their community or government. Still, people often get involved in their communities and in politics only if some event or policy is adversely affecting them. Many citizens—which also means students—practice the axiom “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” That more people do not participate politically in the community suggests that the government and the community are working fine for them. So why would they participate? The authors state why people should get involved, but they never say why they would. There is a large distinction between the two, and unless the authors can answer the latter question in light of the above—and they do not—no amount of teaching civics at the college level will result in higher social philanthropy. In sum, those who already have an inclination to be civically responsible are apt to be so without any instruction from college professors.
            The authors are correct where they write that today’s youth are likely to be interested more in civic engagements that are ephemeral for them and produce benefits quickly for the people being helped. They also say that young people find that type of civic involvement preferable to politics. Even had the authors not cited research to support these claims, few would have doubted them.
            In spite of the personal dilemmas of this reviewer, should this book be read anyway? Absolutely, but it should be read by the educator, administrator, or doctoral student who has the lofty goal of getting more students active in politics and the community by beginning a civics program at the college level. Afterall, what the authors are really giving readers of this book are civic-promoting models to guide administrators and educators at other institutions of higher learning. In that regard, the authors have done very well.