Exploring Others’ Perspectives in
History’s Lessons and Questions
By Joe Shapiro
E
ve r y ye a r, up on
introducing my
favorite unit,
an excited sixth grader
i nva r iably ma kes t he
point, “Oh, so it’s like the
musical.” Thanks to that
musica l , t he Ha m i lton
a n d Je f fe r s on d e b a t e s
are enshrined in popular
culture in the iconic song
“Cabinet Battles” in which Alexander Hamilton and Thomas
Jefferson engage in rap battles over the topics of assuming
states’ debts and choosing international allies. In our Sixth
Grade history curriculum, I ask the boys to participate in
the exact same debates from a modern-day perspective,
hopefully with fewer mic-dropping insults. Through
Socratic seminars and a close examination of historical events
using primary sources, boys learn to defend their beliefs
with sound logic and evidence while cultivating respect for
differing opinions.
The premise of Socratic seminars (sometimes referred to as
fishbowl discussions) is fairly straightforward: half the boys
are given a question to prepare an answer to and they have
a discussion with their peers in a circle about their differing
ideas. The other half of the class remains on the outside of
the circle taking notes and helping grade those on the inside
on their reasoning, conduct, and listening. The catch is that
the teacher is not involved in the actual discussion while
they take the exact same notes as the boys on the outside.
I remember being introduced to Socratic seminars as a sixth
grader myself and the excitement and fear that accompanied
the first in which I participated. A number of questions
ran through my head at the time: What happens if someone
disagrees with me? What if I disagree with someone else? Is
the teacher really not going to intervene? The idea is that the
boys understand the trust I am placing in them, and they
meet it with maturity and an elevated level of seriousness.
This year, a boy turned to me at the conclusion of his
seminar and said, “Wow, that felt really grown-up!”
In preparation for their seminars, the boys fill out a handout
in which they are asked to provide evidence that helps back
up their argument. Our first question this year was vitally
important to our young Republic and equally important
today – What is more important to protect: national
4 • Saint David’s Magazine
security or individual
rights? In addition to their
own evidence, the boys
are asked to brainstorm
questions to pose to the
group in case a dreaded lull
in the conversation strikes.
Most importantly, they are
asked to predict the other
side of the argument. This
thoughtful
preparation
in which they are asked to think through an issue from
someone else’s perspective helps boys engage in respectful
disagreement. They come to see that other people’s evidence
and logic deserve to be discussed just as much as their own,
whether or not they are in agreement. The boys begin to get a
sense that the “answers” to any of these massive questions lie
somewhere in the middle, as the extreme of either viewpoint
is often untenable. These magical moments of compromise
within the discussion are that much more meaningful
because they occur organically as the boys puzzle through
difficult questions together. The boy who changes his mind
mid-seminar is not lambasted as a flip-flopper, but rather
praised for having the courage to be swayed by evidence and
logic he had not yet thought about.
The seminar twists and turns through a wide range of
topics such as the purpose of airport security, the importance
of quarantines during epidemics, and even military drafts.
The boys present their ideas and when the discussion gets a
little too cacophonous, one brave soul remembers the advice
they received before they started and advises his groupmates
to avoid interruptions. A critical juncture in the conversation
occurs when one boy makes a connection to a novel the
class read in Fifth Grade, The Giver, and how the society
depicted in the book, too focused on security, ignored the
freedom of individuals to make their own decisions. The
boys respond with a collective moment of "eureka" and the
discussion takes an interdisciplinary detour – “music” to a
middle school teacher’s ears.
Through our study of the Hamilton and Jefferson
debates, the boys not only learn how to defend their own
arguments, but also to critically analyze the arguments
of historical figures. As we learn about Hamilton’s and
Jefferson’s beliefs, a term I introduce to them is “ideological
consistency.” Were Hamilton’s beliefs consistent with one