Both were false. Instead, students were enthusiastic to share their opinions and engaged in the debate. Adults love to discuss what students learn in school, but they also want to protect them from social criticisms in the classroom. However, the students turned out to have strong, inborn ideas about structural injustice.They were interested in the beginning of recess, but I encouraged them to share their ideas on electoral fairness.The session began with a simple idea that I used on the first day in my election law class. Imagine that you're creating an entirely new electoral system. Which rules would you use to determine who is eligible to vote?We started with the voting age. Because they have always known it, some wanted it to stay at 18. Others believed 16 was the best. A student who was celebrating her 10th birthday just days ago said that 10 was the right voting age, but not 9. She said that nine-year-olds don't care as much and will do what their parents want. But, 10-year-olds are becoming more independent and having their own opinions.The discussion moved on to discuss why some rules might be better than others. Surprisingly, I discovered that the students had an intuitive and very visible understanding of what academics might call structural inequality.Of course, we didn't use these words. It quickly became clear that they were aware of the fundamental unfairness in a system that allows one side to create rules that favor the party in power. It was absurd to allow one side to effectively shut out the other from having equal chances of winning. Although they didn't know it, they offered the most critical critique of gerrymandering that could be made. It has over the years helped white majorities, incumbent candidates and political parties stay in power. A district that favors them shouldn't be a reason to win.Students brought up complicated issues regarding citizenship and immigration without my prompting. One student said that although his parents were not U.S. citizens but they are still legal members of the community. He said that he wanted them to be U.S citizens so that they could vote. He also felt it was unfair that they weren't allowed to influence who gets elected.These youngsters, however, recognized the difficulties inherent in rules that make voting more difficult for certain people based on their social status. One student supported a requirement for voter identification. Another student objected to the requirement of a voter ID, pointing out that it might be more difficult for some people to obtain an ID. The student then asked, "What if they have two jobs and take the bus to work?" The solution was found by the first student: Before imposing this requirement, the government should give all eligible voters an ID.These discussions were free from partisanship. We did not discuss Democratic views on voting access and Republican views about election integrity. We did not ask whether liberal or conservative voters would be better served by the rules. These kids were primarily concerned about fairness. They wanted to ensure everyone had equal say in who is elected. It is absurd to allow partisan officials administer our elections. One student pointed out that it would be unfair to allow someone to start a race just a few seconds ahead of everyone else. They also said that the same applies to elections.The students were also implicitly diving into one of the most controversial educational issues of the moment without realizing it. Even though they didn't use the terms, they could see that certain rules might make it more difficult for some people to take part and be heard. The class brought a sense of fairness and playfulness to the discussion. Although we didn't explicitly discuss race, in real life, when you consider real impacts, this is exactly where the discussion takes place.While I don't study critical race theory and I didn't plan my fourth-grade lesson around this topic, it is a concept that underlies every aspect of our electoral process. It explains how history and structure create continuing racial inequalities. These principles were born organically, in a way I had never anticipated. Fourth graders showed an understanding of the injustice in our society through their comments.Recent criticisms of teaching critical race theory or teaching about racial issues miss the fact that students are already familiar with and understand this material, even if they don't know all the theories. It is easy to have a conversation with fourth-graders about societal inequalities. The underlying principles of the exclusion of non-white Americans are the same, despite the fact that they have been consistent over time.Yes, it is important to communicate ideas about race in an age-appropriate way. It is absurd to believe that legislators could ban inquiry into these topics. These inequalities are part of our daily history. These inequalities are well-known to our children. They are something that many children experience every day. Literally, any child can see them and know what is wrong.We must recognize this reality and allow children to use their experiences to enrich classroom discussion if we want an educated, informed electorate. Even if we ignore structural racism in the classroom they will likely experience it in the playground.
