What and How Can Moral Education Contribute to Social Justice?

Larry Nucci

Much of what is done in the name of moral education focuses upon developing what I refer to as moral “wellness,” and what Kohlberg characterized as the development of conventional moral thinking.  Moral education, however, must go beyond promoting basic moral wellness to prepare students to address issues of social justice, or in the words of educational philosopher, Winston Thompson, suffer from incoherence.

Social justice education aims to upend the historical structural inequalities that lead to unequal life outcomes for students based on race, gender, social class, sexual orientation, and disability.  In our work we address moral education for social justice by integrating moral education based upon social cognitive domain theory with critical pedagogy as described by Paolo Freire.  Social domain theory differentiates moral reasoning about issues of human welfare and fairness, from concepts about the conventions and rules established by social groups or social authority, as well our concepts about issues that we consider to be personal, private matters (such as the content of a diary).  Conventions can, and often do overlap with morality and what we consider to be personal, making it necessary for us to coordinate our moral reasoning with our understandings across domains.  Finally, our social judgments are impacted by our factual assumptions.   Issues of social justice arise when conventions maintained by the dominant cultural group impinge upon the rights and well-being of members of minority or politically less powerful groups.  Domain based moral education is designed to stimulate development within domains to allow students to engage in more complex social judgments and apply them to issues of social justice.

Following Paulo Freire, we avoid the banking model that privileges information from the dominant culture and provide students with original source material beyond textbooks, together with opportunities to connect what is being learned with students’ own experience, and of members of their immediate community.  This examination of information is the first step in the “cycle of praxis.”  The topics of investigation can be drawn from the academic curriculum so long as they also connect with the moral lives of students. With information in hand, the teacher generates domain-based questions to stimulate transactive moral discussion around the key social justice issues embedded in the topic.  For example, middle school teachers we have worked with have used the historical event of the Boston Tea Party to engage their students in lively discussions around the moral issue of whether it is all right to destroy private property to protest against injustice.  In these discussions students are encouraged to make use of one another’s ideas to work toward a common position that all members of the discussion can hold as their own.  The goal of searching for “common ground” allows for dissenting views so long as the participants respectfully and sincerely address the perspectives of students with whom they disagree. This is what we refer to as “responsive engagement.” Such discussions are associated with greater student engagement and academic achievement along with moral growth. 

Connecting moral growth with social justice is deepened when students translate their insights—gained through research and moral discourse—into an action project.  This is the praxis component of the cycle of praxis.  For example, students in a STEM class examined the levels of environmental pollution impacting water and air quality in lower- and upper-class neighborhoods within their own city.  Their moral discourse addressed questions such as: “Is it the responsibility of citizens of Oakland who live in more affluent neighborhoods to be concerned about levels of air pollution and other forms of environmental pollution in poor neighborhoods?  Why?  After all, somebody has to live near the oil refineries and highways.”  Students followed up this discussion with a survey of 70 residents regarding their experience and concerns regarding pollution, along with a member of a non-profit working on these issues. They also set up an air pollution measurement device called AirBeam in various parts of the city and posted the data on a web site geared toward youth.  The students then entered the final phase of the cycle of praxis with reflection on the impact of their action on the community, and on themselves.  They ended the project with a concluding moral discourse around the key issues of the action project. 

All of these educational activities take place within a classroom and school where the conventions that establish school culture are coherent with the home culture of students, and where responsibility for behavioral moral accountability is placed on the students (such as in restorative justice), rather than a top-down teacher/administrator-imposed set of rules and consequences.

To learn more about this approach to moral education with specific examples, look for our forthcoming book with Robyn Ilten-Gee, Moral Education for Social Justice, Teachers College Press (preorder: https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Education-Social-Justice-Larry/dp/0807765635).