Protests-turned-rioting in Utah and across the country prompt two important questions:

Do young Americans know our nation’s history of social change? 

And are they adequately equipped with knowledge about constructive, nonviolent activism available to them?

Some have argued that the level of violence is an unfortunate but understandable outgrowth due to the sins of our nation, while others are horrified at the potential of justifying this kind of lawlessness.

How has a significant chunk of young people come to view violence as a legitimate means to an end? 

The next generation needs to understand America’s history of social change

“The heroes of America – from Frederick Douglass, to Harriet Tubman, to Abraham Lincoln, to Martin Luther King, Jr. – are heroes of unity.” – Statement from former President George W. Bush posted to Twitter on June 2.

The next generation needs to understand the key stories and players in American history if they are to pursue nonviolent reform. 

Bush’s comments expressed anguish over the killing of George Floyd, asked for Americans to listen, called for empathy for African American communities, and pointed to reformers of the past for guidance on the future. With these “heroes of unity” – as opposed to divisive voices – Bush said, “We know that lasting justice will only come by peaceful means. Looting is not liberation, and destruction is not progress.”

And he’s right.

History suggests figures who sought peaceful, unifying demonstrations have had a better chance in achieving sustainable outcomes. Consider the ripple effects of Rosa Parks, a black woman who refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on a bus. Her simple, nonviolent obstinance led to the Montgomery Bus Boycott and eventually a ruling from the Supreme Court that segregation on public transportation was unconstitutional.

Similarly, according to recent research by a Princeton political scientist, violent protests of the 1960s and in the 2010s pushed white Americans away from Democratic candidates and created a backlash against progressive policies. Turns out, violence distracts from even the noblest of causes and generally harms its success in the end. This reality is something any good civics education ought to highlight.

The next generation needs to understand different forms of civic engagement

“The point of protest is to raise public awareness, to put a spotlight on injustice, and to make the powers that be uncomfortable. But eventually, we have to translate those aspirations into specific laws and institutional practices” – Former President Barack Obama via Twitter on June 1.

To move toward constructive social change in the future, young Americans must understand the varying forms of civic engagement as well as the different levels of government, distinctions Obama explained in this tweet. 

Serious problems arise without clarity surrounding the role, effectiveness, legitimacy and lawfulness of different forms of activism – especially when people conflate them.

Obama explained that the choice isn’t between protest and politics because both are important – and said that “the elected officials who matter most in reforming police departments and the criminal justice system work at the state and local levels.”

Civics education is inadequate if it’s not explaining these basics. These concepts shouldn’t be revelatory. People need to know that protests generate headlines – and so do riots – but protests are peaceful and protected by the law, whereas riots typically involve violence and criminal behavior that lead to further suffering in the community. They need to know that social media can set a narrative outside of mainstream media, but its impact is most often short-lived without intentional follow-up efforts. 

Students must understand the processes of lawmaking bodies. If someone cares about state academic standards, they can go to their state board of education; if they care about the gas tax they can go speak to their state legislature; if they care about immigration policy, they can go to their representatives in Congress.

The purpose of public education requires students be taught how to identify the appropriate decision-makers for policy changes, how to study issues critically, when to attend public hearings, and how to vote for change.

Rather than leaving citizens feeling unheard, angry and desperate when they fail to understand or misapply “the process,” we need to empower them with knowledge. Having information about the proper power levers increases their chances for success in the civic – and hopefully civil – process. 

When pain is spreading across the nation, we need reform, but it needs to be targeted, efficient, meaningful, unifying and long-lasting. 

Social media is part of this, protests are part of this, lawmaking is part of this – but violence is not.

Proper civic engagement will never be a reality if we fail to equip young Americans with the stories, information and tools to do it right.

Part of America’s response to recent protests and riots should come from education reformers – those who can ask how to nurture a generation of Americans who seek to reform the nation through means that build it up rather than threaten to destroy it.