Teachers face a dilemma when dealing with politically sensitive issues in the classroom. Should they uphold the dignity of their students at all costs, even if it means taking a stand against certain opinions, or should they remain impartial? How can they exercise their academic freedom when facing this dilemma?
Some legal and theoretical principles may guide teachers here (Maxwell, 2024; Maxwell, McDonough, & Waddington, 2018), but empirical work is scarce, suggesting that teachers employ indirect strategies to manage student speech (Cassar et al., 2023; Cohen, 2022; Geller, 2020). However, no study has analyzed these strategies in relation to the imperatives of impartiality and respect for students' dignity, or the influence of these tough trade-offs on teachers' academic freedom. The present study aims to fill this gap. We examine these issues through interviews conducted with 14 teachers who regularly address politically sensitive issues with their secondary students in Quebec, France and the United States. A thematic analysis (Braun et al., 2019) reveals two main approaches to navigating the dilemma: an argumentation-based approach, which favours students' open discussion even if it means eliciting discomfort, and a protection-based approach, which favours respect for students' dignity even if it means explicitly closing and condemning certain comments. Teachers adopt these approaches with nuance, depending on multiple contextual factors (student diversity, knowledge of the issue, pedagogical objectives, etc.). Finally, most teachers report feeling free to teach sensitive subjects as they wish, although the spectre of the attacks on Samuel Paty and Dominique Bernard is palpable among French teachers. Nevertheless, teachers see a renewed importance in their mission to teach politically sensitive issues in a society they perceive as increasingly polarized.
