Teaching and Promoting Tolerance

Article Updated 02/19/2025

The Need for a Clear and Practical Definition

In recent years, schools have given an increasing amount of attention to issues surrounding diversity and tolerance. Character education courses, multicultural material, and even health curricula weave the theme of tolerance through their lessons.

Incidents such as the Charlottesville white nationalist rally or the South Carolina church shooting by white supremacist Dylann Roof shock us into the reality that hate-motivated crime is still alive in America.

While some people use these tragedies to create the appearance of a crisis largely for political reasons, it must be pointed out that incidents of hate crimes are relatively rare. For example, the FBI shows that there were 11,862 hate crimes in 2023. However, in 2023, there were an estimated 1.22 million aggravated assaults 11, 862 is only 0.97% of all 1.22 million aggravated assaults. (Of course, the rarity of the occurrences is little consolation to the victims.)

Clearly, we are not a nation of bigots and haters, though the spotlight put on certain incidents might make it appear that way. The need for tolerance is not because of an epidemic of hate crimes, but because of the much more mundane and daily social interactions that require treating each other with respect and dignity. It is in these interactions where educators deal with intolerance most frequently: hallway insults, angry outbursts, and smug dismissals of others' viewpoints during class discussions.

Not only do educators deal with these types of social interactions among students, they, too, are tested in their tolerance for student clothing, hair styles, body piercing, attitudes, morals, and behaviors.

Defining Tolerance

When some use the word tolerance, they mean the first definition you find in the dictionary: recognition of and respect for the opinions, practices, or behavior of others. However, it is important to understand that respect here means, not veneration, but the avoidance of interference. Without this clarification, the definition of tolerance comes to be viewed as a gushing acceptance of just about everything someone says or does. Some even go so far as to define tolerance as the embracing and celebration of the opinions, practices, or behaviors of others.

Many educators and parents, however, cringe at the moral relativism of this approach. Yet, they feel boxed in by the current talk of tolerance. If they oppose it, they run the risk of being accused of advocating bigotry, intolerance, and even hate. This is because those promoting the most open-ended view of tolerance have staked out the playing field by defining the terminology. Pressure then gets placed on colleagues and students to adopt this view of tolerance. To resist is to appear intolerant.

Tolerance Requires Virtue

Tolerance, in and of itself, is not a virtue. If a student tolerates drinking and driving, his tolerance is not virtuous. Tolerance is neutral. Tolerance derives its value from what it is the student tolerates, and the manner in which the student expresses his tolerance and intolerance. This involves character.

When a student uses a racial slur, his problem is not a lack of tolerance, but a lack of kindness and a problem with pride (the root of belief in racial superiority). When a student makes fun of a classmate's point of view during a class discussion, his problem isn't a lack of tolerance, but a lack of courtesy. When one student spits on another student because he thinks his schoolmate is gay, tolerance isn't the issue so much as is self-control.

Proper tolerance is the outgrowth of moral character qualities such as kindness, patience, courtesy, humility, love, self-control, and courage. Even intolerance should be expressed through these qualities.

Students need to be taught that tolerance arises from character. If they don't understand this, they will think they are being tolerant when they are actually only expressing indifference ("whatever"), or apathy ("who cares?"), or even recklessness ("why not?"). Improperly taught, "tolerance education" can lead to disarming students of their proper convictions.

Tolerance Requires Standards

The view that tolerance means, "accepting everyone's ideas and behaviors" is impractical in the real world. It sounds nice in classroom discussions and school board declarations, but it won't work in the hallways. You will find a more practical definition of tolerance in the dictionary's second definition of the term: the allowable variation from a standard. For instance, an engineer might ask about the tolerance of a metal beam in a building during an earthquake. How far should it bend before serious structural damage is done?

This is the definition by which we most commonly live. We establish a standard of what we think is best (even if somewhat vague). We then establish an allowable variation from that standard (often more vague). Then we judge the ideas and actions of others based on what we've established. This is as it should be. To do otherwise is to invite social and moral anarchy. The problem for many people isn't intolerance; it is in not clearly defining their standards.

Even so, we establish standards in hundreds, even thousands, of categories. For example, the First Amendment states that Americans have the right to peacefully assemble and petition their government. In other words, to protest something. Offensive words may be said and even annoying actions may take place. Though offensive to some, these actions are still legally tolerable. What is illegal (intolerable) is when actions become violent and the property of others is stolen or damaged.

Within the school setting, this definition of tolerance is applied in many places: dress codes (pants are allowed, but not hot pants), hallway conduct (conversation between boys and girls is allowed, but not sexual harassment), and classroom participation (students may not have to participate in discussions, but they can't fall asleep).

This practical definition is valuable for classroom instruction because it honors students' moral frameworks developed by their religious education and families. Rather than teach them that tolerance is best demonstrated by an absence of judgment, it teaches that tolerance requires making judgments: first, establishing a standard, and second, establishing the limits of the allowable variation.

If students aren't taught to clearly establish their standards and allowable variations, they will struggle with what to tolerate. In frustration, they may simply jump to the sophomoric view that they should just accept everything. This doesn't require hard thinking and yet has the appearance of taking the moral high ground.

Some may raise the concern that making judgments will only add to someone's existing prejudices. There are two reasons why this doesn't have to be. First, as we have seen, the reality is that this is the way tolerance really works, so the best course of action is to help students think deeply about their standards. Secondly, no matter what their standards are, they should act virtuously toward anyone who varies from those standards.

Ironically, educators can create more "tolerant" school climates by focusing not on tolerance, but on character.

Click here for a practical student handout that explains a better definition of tolerance.

© 2025 Gateways To Better Education

Challenging a Book in Your School

There are many educators who believe that when parents question something being taught in the classroom, it's meddling. When parents ask to have something removed...it's censorship! But, is it? To hear certain groups tell it, you'd conclude that Hitler is alive and well and lurking in the wings of Hooterville High School. 

Definitions

The word "censorship" as it applies, or is misapplied, to school issues seems hard to define. The dictionary defines a censor as, "one authorized to examine material, as literature or plays, and remove or suppress anything considered objectionable." If that definition were applied to a school district, every school board member, administrator, and educator would be a censor. They are all authorized to examine material and suppress (by not choosing) all kinds of books and programs to which students could be exposed. 

Even the pros struggle with applying censorship to classroom situations. Edward B. Jenkinson who served as the chairman of the National Council of Teachers of English's Committee Against Censorship takes a stab at clarifying the issue for us in his book Censors In The Classroom: The Mind Benders. He not only falls short in his attempt, he admits defeat in the introduction of the book: 

"I, too, am a censor. I do not permit my daughter to watch certain television shows because they are filled with crime and violence. I do not want her to read certain literary works because I believe that she is not yet ready for them. As a parent, I feel that I have a moral obligation to be concerned about what my child sees and reads." (p.xvi) 

Recognizing that his book would be pretty short if he left it at that, Mr. Jenkinson goes on: 

"On the other hand, I know I do not have the right to impose my standards on the other children in her class or in the nation. I must live with the constant uncertainty that by denying her the right to read or see anything, I may be seriously limiting her education. I do not know exactly what is best for my child — I can only try to provide what I think is right. But the public censor apparently knows what is best for all children." 

Now, I'm not picking on Mr. Jenkinson, but after all, he did write the book. The whole problem of censorship in the classroom is a clash between private and public censorship. 

When Mr. Jenkinson sends his daughter to the public school, he must decide whether or not his "moral obligation" extends into the classroom. If it is truly an obligation, he must inject himself into that classroom. Otherwise he, or any other parent, must alter his sense of moral obligation by stating, "I feel that I have a moral obligation to be concerned about what my child sees and reads...except in school; then, anything is acceptable." Not much of an obligation, is it? 

The question of "moral obligation" also goes on in the mind of the teacher. She is the "imposer" of values ranging from conduct, hygiene, speech, academics, and, yes, what is valuable for children to read. And, yet, she is only one person, just like a parent. When a parent questions the validity of a book in school, we call it a censorship challenge. But when the teacher does it, we call it part of the job. Maybe censorship is part of the job! 

So, What is Censorship? 

Reason causes me to conclude that to be an educator is to be a censor. The word "censor" has become a bad word. It is used today to emotionalize a situation. It never clarifies an issue. It is only used to paint one group of people as the "bad guys." There is nothing wrong with the word. The problem is with what we now think of when we hear the word. When I say, to be an educator is to be a censor, I mean that the very process of education chooses one thing over another, sometimes for logical reasons and more often because of personal biases. 

To be fair, schools cannot have it both ways. Educators shouldn't describe what a parent wants to do in seeking to remove a book as censorship and describe what schools do every day as selection. 

The only suitable definition of a censor is the one found in the dictionary: "one authorized to examine material, as literature or plays, and remove or suppress anything considered objectionable." Some dictionaries refer to suppressing things for the "public good." The very act of teaching is the act of promoting that which is good and ignoring that which is objectionable. 

Determining what is good and what is objectionable is where the conflict arises. Public education by its very design cannot avoid these conflicts. If it could, it would neither be public nor education. 

Four Book Selection Guidelines You Can Suggest to Teachers

1. Does it violate your school's handbook on profanity? If a student can't say it in the halls, why does he have to read it in the classroom? Look, in the real world lots of people use foul language, but if we don't like it we can walk away. In a compulsory education system with an assigned reading a student is forced to read it. Why do that? Even if the book is just on a reading list, you have to ask yourself, "With 50,000 books published every year, is this the best stuff we can recommend?" 

2. Would the teacher read the book out loud in public? If the book has a sexually explicit or gratuitously violent passage that seems so relevant to student angst or sexual tension, would the teacher be willing to read it at the next school board meeting or PTA? Could he give it to a school board member and ask her to read it out loud? If he thinks it might be embarrassing, maybe he needs to think twice about letting minors read it. Another thought: Is the teacher assuming students are more mature than they really are? They seem sophisticated in the way they talk and dress, but they may not be emotionally ready for a certain book's content. 

3. Does the book represent the most noble and most inspiring literature students can read? They'll probably spend most of their lives reading uninspiring stuff (if they read much at all). Now's the chance to lift their sights a little higher. 

4. Is the book the only one that will teach to the objective? Can the teacher satisfactorily defend why he chose the book and rejected (censored) any other possibilities? Can he reach his objective with another book and, thus, satisfactorily address parents' concerns? 

© Eric Buehrer

Multiculturalism In The Classroom

What to look for and how to talk to your child about it

Two prominent views dominate the hotly debated subject of multiculturalism. One rapidly emerging view is that the defining factor for each American is his or her ethnicity. Racial origin becomes paramount in understanding who an individual is and how he or she should live. Schools emphasizing this view highlight and celebrate preservation of past ethnic and cultural distinctions (generally at the expense of teaching students about the wider American culture). 

On the other hand, there are those educators who see ethnicity as an enriching ingredient within the uniqueness of American culture, not separate from it. These educators see the American experience as formed by immigrants who cast off significant ties to their old cultures and contribute to the formation of a national identity with a common core of shared ideals. These teachers emphasize commonality of values based on Western civilization, rather than division of values based on cultural ancestry. 

What to look for in your student's class that should cause concern: 

Watch carefully to see if students are taught what it means to be an American and to appreciate our heritage. 

Does the school seem to teach more about Americans' differences than it teaches about their similarities? 

Does it seem that the teacher teaches about other countries of the world without teaching about the uniqueness and value of America? 

Is Western civilization taught only as exploitative (for example: Columbus plundered and brought disease, Europe colonized Africa and Asia, Spain terrorized South American native cultures, etc.)? 

How to talk to your child if you are concerned about multiculturalism at school: 

Talk to your student about the beliefs that can bind Americans together. While there are people who put a divisive perspective on everything, it is important that we talk to students about the beliefs that the vast majority of Americans agree help build community. These include such values as our form of government, free enterprise, capitalism, compassion, justice, freedom, opportunity, and personal responsibility. We can disagree on how to best pursue those values, but having common values is necessary for building, rather than fragmenting a nation.

Discuss issues of race and cultural diversity in American culture. During family devotions, incorporate lessons on racial equality and respect. These could include the fact that God shows no partiality (Acts 10:34) and that in His eyes there is neither "Jew nor Greek, slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female" (Gal. 3:28). 

© Eric Buehrer

Thinking Biblically in a Public School

“In the information age, plenty of voices are willing to talk with our kids if we aren’t,” write John Stonestreet and Brett Kunkle in their book, A Practical Guide to Culture: Helping the Next Generation Navigate Today’s World. They add that “kids need not only to hear the truth, but they also need to learn what it means to think with truth.”

Thinking with Truth

As Christian parents, we must equip our children to think biblically about what they are learning at school. They must not only learn the content that will get them the right answer for the quiz, but they must also learn to think critically: “How does what I’m learning fit in with what the Bible teaches about God’s world?”

Everyone is influenced by their worldview. There are many good books written about developing a biblical worldview. To simplify it to its basics for Christian students, the question boils down to whether one believes in the God of the Bible or that there is no God – either a biblical worldview or a secular/utilitarian worldview. For many young people who are believers, they could be digesting their academic subjects as if there is no God.

Please help us promote religious freedom in schools.

donate today

The overarching themes of a biblical worldview cover four topics in the biblical story: Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration.

As Christian students sit in class or read a textbook, it is helpful for them to ask themselves one question, “How will what I learn today help me think about God?” They should also ask God for insight (see chart below).

Learning is not just about consuming information and getting a good grade. It is also about developing ourselves to love God, love others, and contribute to our world. Thinking biblically in every classroom and with each assignment helps us become the people God wants us to be.

Help Your Child

To help your children think biblically about what they learn at school have them ask themselves one question: How will what I learn today help me think about God? Then, before class starts or before doing homework, they can do two simple things: Think and Pray. For example, when it comes to science, your children can think this thought: God created the world with order. As I learn about science, I can think about how awesome God’s design is revealed. Then, they can pray this short prayer: “Lord, help me marvel at how You have designed things as I learn about science.”

 We’ve created a simple guide they can use, and you can download. This one-page guide will help shape a biblical worldview regarding nine topics: science, math, history, government & civics, literature, spelling & grammar, art & music, foreign language, and health. It gives them something to think about and a short prayer before class or before doing their homework.