How’s this for a loaded question?
“Did the president jeopardize U.S. national security by pressuring Ukraine to initiate politically-motivated investigations that could interfere in U.S. domestic politics?”
Discuss amongst yourselves.
And with that, about 25 seniors in an American government class at Oakland Technical High School got down to business.
“Isn’t it already unconstitutional to do your own private investigation on a political person youâre going against, much less threaten an entire country if they don’t do it?” student Lucas Eichelberger asked as several of his peers nodded in agreement.
From across the room, student John Kelley disagreed.
“He’s talking about other members of American government in this phone call, [but] he’s not directly putting America in danger. He’s actually reinforcing bonds between the two countries.”
A handful of students narrowed their eyes skeptically.
“If Russia is our enemy and Ukraine is where we need to strengthen our allies and our bonds, then [Trump’s] doing what kind of needs to be done, in his own way,” Kelley added.
Bailey had tasked students with finding supporting arguments for both sides of a fiery saga that’s enthralled and confused scores of adults across the country. It was the beginning of the second week of the Congressional impeachment inquiry, and Bailey’s class had already watched key segments of the previous week’s testimony.
Each student held a packet of documents, including the transcript of President Trump’s call with Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine.
“I donât know if it jeopardizes national security or not. It just still is wrong,” said student Alex George. “Heâs taking his power as the president. Heâs using leverage that he has to get dirt on a candidate thatâs heâs going to go against.”
The lesson, Bailey explained, was called a “structured academic controversy,” where students are given information and asked to argue both sides of an argument. They then discuss what they really believe and attempt to arrive at some kind of consensus.
Students in Katie Bailey’s American government class deliver their opposing arguments on the question of whether President Trump jeopardized national security in his dealings with Ukraine. (Matthew Green/KQED)
Bailey later noted the obvious: that the Bay Area, and Oakland in particular, is an unusually liberal place, and most of her students likely come from more politically progressive households.
“I just want them to be able to consider why so many people might believe the opposite, so that they’re not surprised by the potential outcome, or so they just have a better sense of the political landscape that they’re going into,” she said.
Like many students in the class, Erica Rogers had an easier time supporting an argument for impeachment, although she was confident the Senate would never actually vote to remove Trump from office.
“I do think that he did jeopardize national security,” she said, referencing the administration’s take-down of Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine. “It’s like, if you can target someone that’s a higher-up in the government, you can target anyone that’s a citizen. So itâs just very scary to have that much power and be abusing it.”
Josselin Lopez agreed wholeheartedly. “At the end of the day, his intentions were to gain for his political race,” she stated, looking frustrated.
“I don’t know if this is even going to go anywhere,â she added. “At this point, it’s not even a fight of whether the president should be impeached or not. It’s a fight, like, if Democrats or Republicans are better.”
Lopez admitted she was confused by some of the impeachment proceedings, because she didn’t know many of the people who were testifying or asking questions.
“At times I had no idea what they were talking about,” she said. “Other times it was easier to understand them. Like, I kind of had to watch it all over again or do some research to actually understand what was happening.”
Bailey said that the class seemed generally engaged in watching the hearings, but were especially interested in certain bombshell moments, like when Yovanovitch was informed, in the middle of her testimony, that Trump was simultaneously attacking her on Twitter.
“We could all watch her face fall on camera,” Bailey said. “I think that helped to really sink home this idea that it’s dangerous for somebody in power, particularly, to target somebody on social media.”
She was also heartened by her studentsâ reactions to some of the more combative exchanges during the proceedings.
Students give their closing statements in the final minutes of class (and yes, that is a kid lying facedown on the couch). (Matthew Green/KQED)
“They kept talking about how passive aggressive it was,” she said. “They were kind of offended a little bit by that. They donât even like when they hear other kids in class talk to people that way.”
She added, “They’re just surprised to see [people in power] acting badly, in a way that they’d be chided for in school.”
Although students expressed mixed reactions about how compelling they thought the hearings were, most agreed it was a major story worth paying some attention too.
“I donât think itâs interesting, but I feel like itâs vital to know about because itâs happening now and weâre at that age where we have to vote for our next leader,” said Vena Mai.
Kelley, though, had a different take.
“I typically steer away from politics, but this is really interesting,” he said. “It’s something I can understand and it’s something that seems like commonsense [for the president] not to do. And it also seems like something that relates to the country. Itâs something that’s kind of big right now, that we should be talking about.”
For Rogers, the classroom debate proved a valuable exercise.
“Since we are, like, the next generation that are going to be able to vote, it’s kind of insightful to see what we think,” she said, packing up her bag at the end of class.
Rogers, like many of her classmates, will be old enough to vote in the next presidential election. She said she now feels a stronger obligation to know who the candidates are and understand the major issues at stake.
“We’re actually thinking about politics because it’s so pivotal for our future,” Rogers said. “I feel like voting for someone that I really care about.”
When the sixth-period bell rang, Bailey stood by the door, looking pleased, as her students ambled out, some still deep in discussion.
âI think it went well,” she said, the room suddenly quiet. “These are sometimes wiggly people. It’s the afternoon. It’s after lunch. And sometimes they’re a little bit wiggly and jumpy. So I like to focus them by giving them something to really engage with.”
Her goal, she said, had been for them to âtry on different viewpoints,” knowing that they were going to be hearing a lot from both sides in the coming months.
“I think in the end, they all did come up with reasons why they believed what they believed, which is a big goal these days â getting kids to actually identify why they think something.”
Copyright 2019 KQED