Recently I unintentionally caused MK Gideon Sa'ar and Education Minister Professor Yuli Tamir some sleepless nights. After I published an article in the virtual newspaper of the Herzliya Gymnasium supporting the principles at the basis of the Winograd Committee report, I was summoned to issue a "clarification" at the Tel Aviv municipality. MK Sa'ar wondered, and rightly so, whether this constitutes an appropriate procedure in a democratic country. Without having spoken with Sa'ar about the matter, I assume that "ideological clarifications" of this sort reminded him of other regimes, to which democracy and pluralism are not central. The education minister's reaction also positively surprised MK Sa'ar. In her opinion it is inappropriate for a principal or teacher to remain silent about important public matters, provided that they present their students with a full picture that illustrates the doubts in their own position as well as the existence of other opinions.

I have never understood the approach that teachers must maintain neutrality on matters that are on the public agenda. It is a well-known fact that a good teacher not only teaches his students - he also educates them. We all want to see teachers who serve as role models in their behavior and don't only transmit mathematical formulas or dates in the history of Israel. The desirable model is one of teachers who care, who are involved in what is happening in the country and who are imbued with a desire to fix and change things. Above all, a teacher has to tell his students the truth. A teacher who evades answering truthfully to students who ask difficult questions very quickly becomes irrelevant to them. If his role is limited to giving the floor to students and maintaining politeness in their discussions among themselves, then his own contribution to those he is supposed to be educating is very limited.

If, however, he expresses an opinion, and also criticizes it, presents the issue in all its complexity, encourages the students to think critically and uses his own opinions as a model for critical discussion, he affords them an experience of the first degree. He teaches them how to be thinking citizens, how to be active citizens in a democratic society.

	Advertisement

The thought that a high school student we will be sending to the battlefield in another year or two is incapable of actively participating in public debate and is unable to understand that there are differing opinions is scornful of the students in Israel. Anyone who thinks it is possible to talk to them theoretically about good citizenship, social involvement and acting for the benefit of the state, while in practice broadcasting that the educator is forbidden to touch on these areas, has no understanding of education. Of course there have to be limits to discourse. On school premises a teacher cannot express racism, anti-Zionist opinions or any other point of view that is located beyond the bounds of the values that form the basis of Israeli society. However, the days are long gone when Israel Eldad had to go to the Supreme Court to receive permission to become a teacher in Israel, even though he expressed opinions that David Ben-Gurion did not like. It is good that the education minister is making sure these times will not return.

I am glad that the Herzliya Gymnasium is an educational community that succeeds in proving daily that pluralism and true education to democracy go hand in hand with open and free discourse among students and between students and teachers. Only this kind of discourse lets students analyze public debates in an informed and intelligent manner and distinguish between what is important and what is not, between facts and value statements, and between demagoguery and complex ideas. It is these discussions that make them better citizens of the State of Israel.

The author is the principal of the Herzliya Gymnasium.