1. What is philosophy of education?

Philosophers of education examine the aims, content, methods, and policies of education from a philosophical lens. They question what schools intend to do (developing citizens, preparing soldiers to defend the country, creating workers to strengthen the economy?), whom they serve (parents, children, taxpayers, employers?), and how teaching should best be done (rote learning, experiential approaches, group discussions?). They consider who has the authority and/or responsibility to educate or make decisions about education.Footnote ¹ Many are trained in philosophy but work within university education departments. There, they take up more applied aspects of social science using the methods of philosophy, including questioning, analysis, and critique. Whereas some within philosophy have shunned this applied subfield as seemingly less rigorous, perhaps because it often must move from abstract ideas to messy, real-world problems in actual schools, the complex and applied nature renders this subfield ripe for doing public political philosophy.

Philosophy of education, especially in the United States, has been deeply influenced by the work of the philosopher, John Dewey. An American pragmatist, Dewey takes a problem-solving and applied approach to real social and political issues. One might argue that Dewey is an exemplar of public political philosophy. He was a public intellectual who took up important public issues and reached wide audiences in addressing them. In addition to his extensive philosophical corpus, he also wrote for and spoke in public outlets. Moreover, he took action on an array of political issues, including backing the Pullman railroad strike, supporting the nation’s entry into World War I, and founding the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the American Association of University Professors. Many American philosophers of education uphold Dewey’s philosophical views and some follow suit in his public endeavors. While many have embraced a Deweyan approach, including myself, it is important to note that there are other ways of doing philosophy of education well. That includes focusing on engaging in quality philosophical argumentation apart from political affairs, positions advocated by respected leaders in the field, including D.C. Phillips and Harvey Siegel.Footnote ²

Embracing the Deweyan and/or problem-solving orientation, some philosophers of education doing public political philosophy frame their work around the question, “What should we do?”Footnote ³ This question acknowledges the deliberative nature of political issues, where citizens often need to understand them, discuss them, and then do something about them, whether that be through making a decision, a vote, or an action. The question is also civic in nature, engaging citizens together in thinking and acting, as they must consider what is possible, feasible, and wise for their community. This question differs slightly from a broader organizing question for public political philosophy proposed by Jonathan Floyd: “How should we live?”Footnote ⁴ Notably, though, it shares the cooperative spirit Floyd advocates, a spirit which differs from the more argumentative or competitive orientations within wider philosophy. Asking “What should we do?” invites citizens to reason and deliberate together, making the philosopher not an expert to be revered, but rather a helpful interlocutor who presents a skillset of asking tough questions, elucidating concepts, and envisioning alternatives.

2. The political context of philosophy of education

It can feel like a stretch to engage in public political philosophy within some fields of philosophy. One can imagine how difficult it might be for a philosopher of mathematics to achieve public interest in or political impact about matters of number theory. But, philosophy of education is concerned with a public good (education) and the public spaces where it plays out, all of which are shaped by political forces. While philosophy of education is practiced around the world, I will focus here on my present context of the United States, in part because the political battles involving schooling are particularly inflamed in the United States right now, presenting unique opportunities and challenges for philosophers who take up public political philosophy in this country.

Schooling is inherently a political process, where struggles over power play out in multiple ways. Schooling distributes goods and resources, which provide students the power to not only obtain future jobs and shape their private lives, but also to sculpt their public and civil spheres. Schooling cultivates the political agency of our youngest citizens, enabling them to understand how democracy works and to become active in it both in the present and the future, as they learn how to express their political views, assess political leaders, and prepare to cast informed votes as adults. Public schools, which are overseen by elected school boards who are ultimately accountable to the citizens of a community, are also subject to the laws and demands of the state and federal government. Increasingly, public schools have become contentious political spaces, as warring political parties and tribes compete to ensure that their values are reflected in the goals and practices of schools. This includes culture wars that are raging over the content of textbooks and classroom materials. These have led to the banning of concepts or issues deemed controversial or “divisive” in more than half of the US states. Most recently, President Trump has issued executive orders limiting the role of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in schools, including in the curriculum, as well as in the practices of the school, from the hiring of teachers to the grouping of students.

Within that heated context, many citizens proclaim that we should “get politics out of schools,” but as necessarily a political endeavor, such an approach may not be feasible or even desirable. Philosophers of education wade into that fray, shedding light on how the political process works in education and seeking to guide it in defensible ways. Many philosophers of education do so only with each other, perhaps through conceptual analysis of key concepts in education or arguing among themselves about competing visions of good schooling at key philosophy of education conferences (such as the Philosophy of Education Society or the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain) or in a handful of journals within the field (such as Educational Theory, Studies in Philosophy and Education, and Journal of Philosophy of Education). A small portion, however, embrace public political philosophy, extending their audience beyond merely other scholars and sharing their ideas outside of the short list of academic conferences and journals. Those philosophers of education aim to help policymakers, educators, and/or citizens better understand the political components of education and be more careful about the role of politics in shaping schooling.

In addition to being inherently political, education is a noteworthy venue for public philosophy because it is, arguably, the public institution with which citizens are most familiar. Nearly every adult has attended schools and many have children who do as well. Citizens are intimately connected to schools; their time and interests are invested in them. Moreover, citizens are overtly connected to schools as public school oversight is entrusted to local communities and overseen by the state. Local citizens support them through taxes; elect the school boards that govern them; and make decisions about their policies, practices, and use of funding. Schools are places where our collective decision-making shapes what and how students learn, signaling the values of our communities. As a result, schools are ripe for careful public consideration and participation.

3. Methods and mediums of engagement

Many who engage in public political philosophy aspire to be public intellectuals. Public intellectuals can come from an array of academic disciplines.Footnote ⁵ Philosophers of education bring a distinctive combination of sophisticated knowledge of philosophical concepts, traditions, and thinkers, as well as skills of questioning and analysis, paired with practical knowledge about schools and educational policy. Public intellectuals share knowledge and expertise with the public that are typically grounded in their content area and spell out their connection to current issues or public problems that impact a large or significant group of people. They do so in ways that help the public better understand those issues and problems, including their moral and political underpinnings. This informs the public and prepares them to take various forms of action, from voting to protest. Drawing on their dual expertise, philosophers of education are poised to connect abstract thinking to pressing applied issues in schools, helping the public understand their dimensions and equipping them to take an informed stand.

Although a few public intellectuals, such as Albert Einstein, Henry Louis Gates, and Noam Chomsky, achieve broad recognition and have been invited to speak on a wider range of topics, most scholars operate at a more localized or issue-specific level. My focus here is more on aspiring public intellectuals, who may not be household names but who contribute to public discourse, particularly in the realm of education.

Here, I consider what it means to be a public intellectual as a philosopher of education working in political spaces tied to matters of education, schooling, teaching, and students. As political spaces, these are realms where power is at play, as goods are distributed and decisions are made about who has access to learning, of what sorts, and to what degree. These are spaces where power is exercised and contested, and where issues of identity, justice, and equity often come to the fore. Philosophers of education may engage directly in formal power structures with policymakers or more informally as they support teachers who are navigating political mandates. Or, they may work outside of the institutions of government and schools in civic groups devoted to matters of education.

This work represents a way of doing “situated philosophy,” philosophy embedded in real-world contexts and responsive to the complexities of lived experience.Footnote ⁶ It is to do so for, in, and often, with the public, rather than primarily involving other philosophers in the ivory tower. Again, this differs slightly from Floyd, who argues that public political philosophers must do philosophy both in and for the public through doing work that is both accessible to the public and applicable to political situations they face.Footnote ⁷ While I agree with him, I want to push a bit further. Philosophers of education undertaking this work often do not merely aim to push out their views for public consumption in public spaces but rather seek to work alongside the public in discussion as they work through shared problems together. Philosophers of education of this sort, then, must ask, what their role is as a fellow citizen in this endeavor? Moreover, they must consider what it means not just to work in public spaces, but in the public interest? Additionally, they must question whether they might do more harm than good if they aim to work in the public interest but do so poorly or wrongheadedly?

To reach broader audiences, these scholars often move beyond traditional academic venues. They write OpEds, produce podcasts, speak at school board meetings, and contribute to blogs, documentaries, and social media. Some contributions are highly visible, such as testifying before legislatures or publishing in national newspapers, while other efforts take place in quieter, more grassroots settings. In my own work, I examined the rapid expansion of school choice programs in the United States and exposed their threats to traditional public education. While not every instance was philosophical in nature, to reach a larger audience, I testified against these programs at the statehouse, wrote OpEds about state policy proposals for the Cincinnati Enquirer, garnered my city’s support for a “Public Education Week” by calling for a proclamation at City Hall, led a book discussion of my philosophical book defending public education as a key democratic institution at the Cincinnati Educational Justice Coalition, organized a major protest supporting public education in Washington D.C., and wrote about the larger problem of how school vouchers harm civic life in The Washington Post. Footnote ⁸

Across an array of platforms, philosophers of education of this sort often employ media approaches and rhetorical style that are not typical in academic writing. They avoid jargon, translate complex ideas into accessible language, and use narrative to connect with audiences. Their goal is not to simplify, but to clarify—to make philosophical insights understandable, meaningful, and useful in public life.

Public philosophers must avoid dumbing down an issue as they try to convey its complexity in accessible ways. They must articulate the issue in a way that enables the audience to understand and employ it. This requires being attentive to not just how one shares one’s ideas, but how they are taken up, and then adapting one’s presentation accordingly to further enable use and discussion. One worthwhile aim is to invite the audience into conversation, being careful not to alienate them with esoteric language or an air of superiority. This is increasingly important today, as many members of the public view academics with suspicion, assuming they are out-of-touch elites.Footnote ⁹ Genuine dialog, however, entails exploring ideas together and collaborative problem-solving. This requires more than just good communication; it requires intellectual humility, a willingness to listen, and a tone that invites participation. These may come more naturally to some philosophers, while others may need to cultivate them intentionally.

One effective strategy is to tell stories of personal experiences to help convey sincerity and build trust. Here is how I have done this in my own work when I have been interviewed by podcasters regarding my recent book on the importance of honesty in populist democracies and how we might emphasize truth in schools.Footnote ¹⁰ During those interviews, I often share a personal story about when truth-seeking and truth-telling had great import not just for our country, but also for me personally. I tell the story of how I came to doubt the elected officials I previously respected, as my husband was serving in the military in the time leading up to our 2003 incursion into Iraq based on supposed weapons of mass destruction. His life was on the line and my political affiliation shifted as evidence revealed that our leaders were not fully truthful in their accounts. In light of that high stakes environment, my philosophical reflections on honesty in politics today gains more buy-in with my audience and attracts the attention of people on various points of the political spectrum.

Acknowledging uncertainty of the limits of one’s knowledge can also help connect with the audience. This differs considerably from the norms of academic philosophy, where authority is often asserted through rigorous argumentation and quick rebuttals. Such a style may be counterproductive to connecting with audiences who experience those practices as arrogant or off-putting. The public is more likely to engage with ideas if they feel the philosopher is making a good faith effort to connect with them, including an openness to learning from them and not preaching at them. Those who do this sort of work well bring a personal presence that balances authority that people respect (as a thinker and interlocutor) with being approachable and open to learning from others.

Relatedly, public intellectual philosophers of education must resist the push to take a stand on matters where they may not be well qualified.Footnote ¹¹ And, those who work within the tradition of pragmatism, like myself, have a responsibility to assess our ideas in the realm of experience to see if they actually work and enable students, schools, and communities to flourish. This means being willing to revise or abandon ideas that do not work, and to value being “usefully wrong” as part of the process of inquiry.Footnote ¹² Public acknowledgment of being wrong can be important for demonstrating intellectual humility and showing the public a willingness to learn and reconsider. For example, in 2021, I was commissioned to write a major national report on how to improve civic reasoning and discourse for the National Academy of Education. In the years following, I found that many of the philosophical recommendations I made and virtues that I touted did not work in our increasingly populist and polarized democracy. This led me to author my 2024 book, which offered a corrective approach in light of the changing context. When introducing the book in podcasts and public speeches, I have described how I initially got it wrong and what led me to rethink my philosophical argument.

Importantly, the work of these philosophers of education is not unidirectional; rather, they must be open to learning from the public, including the public’s experiences with school practices and other messy situations. Immersing themselves into educational spaces, whether by volunteering, serving on school boards, or participating in education civic groups, can be a way to position themselves to witness, experience, and learn. Barb Stengel warns that philosophers of education should not wait to be asked to contribute to discussions with educators, or, I would add, to learn from them.Footnote ¹³ They need to carve out spaces for themselves and, through their contributions, demonstrate the usefulness of being at the table. Philosopher of education Kathleen Knight Abowitz took such an approach in her role as an elected school board member from 2019 to 2023, where she carefully listened to and learned from the public as they explained how school closures impacted adults and students during and after the pandemic. She adjusted policies and practices in light of public concerns, while also guiding discussions in school board meetings based on her philosophical knowledge of theories of justice and more. After concluding her service, she used her experience witnessing partisan rancor in her district to reach out to wider audiences in a nonphilosophical piece for The Conversation. There, she explained how increasing partisanship and bills requiring political affiliations in school board races might harm school oversight.Footnote ¹⁴

While national or global issues often draw the most attention, many public philosophers of education find that engaging in local politics is more impactful. Local contexts demonstrate how school policies and practices affect real people. In these settings, philosophers can work alongside educators, students, and citizens to better understand problems and ameliorate them. Philosopher of education Kurt Stemhagen has engaged in this sort of local endeavor through the Richmond Teachers for Social Justice, where he has led philosophical discussions on justice and racial identity related to local issues, while also using the experiences with the group as fodder for his philosophical reflections on political dissent.Footnote ¹⁵

4. Benefits of doing public political philosophy of education

At its core, philosophy is about asking questions about the world, including critical questions about our environment and the meaning and significance of its elements. When philosophers of education engage in public political work, they bring that questioning spirit to shared problems, inquiring with others about what the problem is, why it matters, and how it might best be addressed. The questions they ask often center on power and justice, considering who benefits, who is excluded, and what values are at stake. These questions reveal assumptions, challenge dominate narratives, and open space for more inquiry.

This kind of questioning is especially important during times of political change. In recent years, much of the field has turned its attention to the health of democracy, as democratic norms are shifting and deteriorating, especially commitments to truth, equity, and pluralism. This is indicated in the presidential addresses at the 2023 and 2024 Philosophy of Education Society conference, which focused on extremism and erosion of truth in democracy, and at the 2022 conference on the failing commitment to the vision of Martin Luther King.Footnote ¹⁶ Now is a key time for public-minded philosophers of education to inquire into those changes, particularly in terms of how they might impact the education of our youngest generation of citizens. In the United States, public schools are under direct attack as the Department of Education is dismantled, funding is slashed, and anti-DEI initiatives handcuff what educators can teach and how. In this context, philosophers of education must ask whether they may have a deeper obligation to defend the institutions and values that sustain public education. They must consider whether they have some special obligation to schools and students by virtue of being philosophy of education, rather than merely an abstract academic field. Do they ever have a moral or professional duty to engage in public, political work for the sake of schools, students, or even for their own survival in universities? If so, do they have a responsibility not merely to question or clarify, but to actively persuade the public to a particular interpretation, viewpoint, or action? If the answer is yes again, we may move from conversation to conversion, a shift that some others doing public political philosophy have warned against.Footnote ¹⁷

The current culture wars in the United States—focused on parental rights over curriculum and book bans—offer a vivid example of why this work matters. They show that these wars are not just about school policy, but rather competing visions of the good life. Philosophers of education can help the public unpack the political ideologies underlying these conflicts, trace their historical roots in populism, and predict how polarization might reshape democratic life. Moreover, philosophers of education can point toward educative responses to those changes, noting new skills or knowledge that students might need to navigate the shifting terrain, such as critical media literacy to head off conspiracy theories and identify legitimate sources of information.

Too often, education policies are boiled down to mere slogans—“school choice,” “accountability,” “parental rights.” Philosophers of education can flesh out the meaning of these slogans, explain why they appeal, and determine whether such appeal is justified. They can introduce the sort of complexity that is needed to better grasp all that is entailed in these slogans. This is especially useful in our populist context, where citizens increasingly seek neat and easy solutions to difficult social problems. And yet, also in that context, we must be careful not to be written off as elites telling the public what to think; instead, we must be respectful of the knowledge they possess and add our insights to it in useful ways. For example, Kathleen Knight Abowitz joined me in writing a magazine article about a metaphor used by an Ohio politician and others elsewhere suggesting that choosing a school should be “as easy as buying cereal at the supermarket.” While it would seem obvious that choice should be desirable, we broke down the assumptions operating in that metaphor. We showed how the metaphor problematically treats schooling as a personal preference rather than a public good. We pushed back against the drive for vouchers to be cashed in easily by individual parents to show how schooling actually requires careful public work.Footnote ¹⁸

In other instances, debates over school policy get bogged down in claims about effectiveness or efficiency. These metrics may obscure deeper questions. Philosophers of education can redirect attention to values and ideologies operating behind the scenes. This can help the public consider whether policies reflect values and ways of life that citizens desire or endorse in the first place. This work can also help uncover common ground around shared values. Returning to my own personal example of intervening into public discussions of school choice, I highlighted the tension between the values of freedom and equality, showing how these policies often prioritize individual liberty at the expense of equality. I also argued that school voucher programs can undermine the common good and weaken civic life.Footnote ¹⁹

The work of scholars in this arena has increasingly been amplified by podcasters, social media influences, and leaders in other newer forms of communication. While that provides new opportunities for indirect and wider impact, it raises key questions: Should public intellectual philosophers of education also provide sophisticated philosophical arguments to back up the claims that they offer to the wider public and must they be vetted by those with philosophical training while also withstanding the test of public reason?Footnote ²⁰ And what responsibility do they have to follow up on how other people or media reshare their ideas, perhaps to not only ensure correct or ethical use but also to continue widening the conversation? Finally, should such philosophers of education seek only to clarify and encourage conversation or should they promote particular stances and persuade the public to join them?

Beyond clarifying values and ideologies, philosophers of education can draw on their training in social science to provide data and interpret data so that the public has not only more information about facts, but also their epistemological and moral implications. This is a way of explaining data, not in terms of accounting or accuracy, but in terms of its significance ethically and politically. Taken together, these contributions clarify, improve, and deepen public conversations.

Another role of the public intellectual philosopher of education is to actually lead or facilitate public dialog. This might involve organizing community forums, moderating deliberative events, or simply providing spaces where people can come together to discuss educational issues. This is a way of doing philosophy with the public. These dialogs are often focused on specific educational policies and may aim to build understanding, reaching compromise or consensus, or encourage action. An exemplar of this approach is philosopher of education Michele Moses and her team, who led community dialogs on affirmative action in Colorado universities.Footnote ²¹ Less policy oriented, but still responding to a significant public event (the Unite the Right Rally), philosopher of education Rachel Wahl has facilitated dialogs among students and residents of Charlottesville, with the intention of building understanding across differences.Footnote ²²

Philosophers of education often employ forms of skepticism and criticism that are trademarks of philosophers. These traits may be perceived as unhelpful or even condescending by nonacademics. Several philosophers of education have weighed in on this issue. Eric Bredo has cautioned that philosophers of education may be good skeptics, but few in the general public value that approach or find it helpful.Footnote ²³ As a result, Rene Arcilla warns that educators, in particular, may turn to the more useful approaches and products of social science instead.Footnote ²⁴ Audrey Thompson notes that this critical orientation may feel paternalistic to teachers.Footnote ²⁵ Claudia Ruitenberg notes, however, that skepticism and criticism may be more welcomed when the philosopher of education is embedded in the situation and has established caring relationships with those involved.Footnote ²⁶ For philosophers of education who inhabit such local spaces and have fostered trusting relationships, using skepticism and criticism may be helpful for detecting educational and political injustice.

Philosophers are accustomed to hearing criticism, including from those who may diagnose social or political problems from a dispassionate distance. These critiques may be experienced as whiny or cynical by the public, especially if they are seeking a more positive way to move forward. Nicholas Burbules urges philosophers of education to balance their critical bent with hopefulness.Footnote ²⁷ This call means not only generating dissent, but also guiding it through to solution posing. As I explained in my book, hope emerges when participants work together to identify problems, engage their imagination in crafting solutions, and then implement them together.Footnote ²⁸ Public intellectual philosophers of education can offer vision, counternarratives, thought experiments, and other techniques that ignite hope and the action to fulfill it. Some philosophers of education, like Maxine Greene, enliven the imagination, drawing on art, storytelling, and literature to do so.Footnote ²⁹ Her efforts were so impactful that they were commemorated in a documentary about her life.Footnote ³⁰

Philosophers of education can also articulate the principles upon which good dissent is grounded to help citizens voice their concerns.Footnote ³¹ Constructing solutions can be the most difficult part of political engagement. Philosophers of education can use their knowledge of history and normative ideals to chart a path forward by depicting how things can be otherwise. To do so well, they must collaborate with teachers and other citizens in the creation of those solutions and must be careful not to write off those fellow citizens as merely part of the problem.Footnote ³² Kurt Stemhagen has been doing such hope-building work through his engagement with teachers in Richmond, Virginia, who increasingly found themselves frustrated with education policy and demoralized in their work. He applied his knowledge of philosophical principles of good political dissent to help the teachers become more effective in their political endeavors, while also using their experiences to reshape and refine his understanding of dissent in action, all the while helping the teachers provide more philosophically sophisticated justifications for public education.Footnote ³³

This sort of solution- and hope-building work employs storytelling. In this regard, though, stories are not merely rhetorical hooks to attract the reader or ways to build rapport with the audience. Instead, philosophers of education tell new stories about how schooling can be better. For instance, Kathleen Knight Abowitz and I worked to expose how the typical stories told about education and who it serves are economic stories of competition, ladder-climbing, and personal reward.Footnote ³⁴ To help the public weigh their values about schooling differently and better understand all that is at stake in public education, we crafted alternative stories that emphasize the moral and political aspects of education. Those stories then become a call to public deliberation about what citizens want from their schools. Such stories matter because they influence how the public understands what schools do and can do, which may reframe public debate or even spark civic or political action.

5. Risks, rewards, and implications for public humanities

Doing philosophy of education in public, political spaces can be a part of professional service, which is acknowledged in the traditional promotion and tenure policies at many universities, and is increasingly valued by universities that endorse “community-engaged” scholarship or service. This is especially the case if it entails prolonged engagement with educational organizations or civic groups, rather than just one-off activities.Footnote ³⁵ Increasingly, research funders (and the state, in the case of public institutions) seek research impact, requiring metrics that demonstrate the frequency, breadth, and depth of our reach. While likes and sharing on social media may be one way to measure impact, philosophers of education tend to be more concerned with how they are impacting actual schools, including their aims, curriculum, teaching practices, and policies. Doing this sort of work may show not only that philosophers of education matter for our communities but also demonstrate how they matter. Of course, it can be tricky to define and measure that impact or assess the lasting effectiveness of proposed solutions. Moreover, matters of assessment raise the question of how to determine whether their contributions have been successful as philosophers of education, rather than merely concerned citizens?

Even as promotion and tenure criteria may put some value on this sort of public service and engaged scholarship, it is far less than that placed on research grants and prestigious publications.Footnote ³⁶ Sometimes, such public service can be seen negatively, as neither philosophically sophisticated nor appropriate for an academic.Footnote ³⁷ In others, the time required for such engaged work may detract from one’s ability to produce rigorous scholarship in peer-reviewed publications.Footnote ³⁸ Relatedly, as Martha Nussbaum rightly warns, the pace of politics may conflict with the slower and careful cadence of philosophy, rushing public philosophers of education into potentially hasting conclusions and actions.Footnote ³⁹ Finally, intervening into contested political issues or in public spaces opens these philosophers of education up to criticisms of being out of their lane, especially for those who hold a narrow idea of what philosophers of education do.

As some states in the United States institute legislation to restrict faculty from addressing controversial issues or contested matters of public policy, and as federal dictates restrict faculty use of DEI in an array of ways, philosophers of education may feel limited in their ability to take up those particular political matters.Footnote ⁴⁰ That is certainly the case in the classroom, but it is less clear whether it may also be the case in research or service work. Academics supported by public taxpayer dollars may face backlash if their endeavors are politically one-sided, especially if they entail using public resources like university computers or meeting spaces to craft or distribute their ideas. Those supported by private funding may find that their political work runs counter to the worldviews or educational aims upheld by their funders and therefore may face various forms of punishment, including being fired or having their grants terminated. This pushes us to question whether these philosophers of education should offer multiple perspectives on a political situation and whether funders can suitably demand a balanced analysis or even one aligned with their interests? Moreover, recent bans lead us to question whether a public intellectual will silence themselves on contested matters, whether they must check some of their work out of respect for differing opinions currently at the helm, and/or whether they have an ethical or professional duty to take a stand? Does choosing to do philosophy of education in this public way result in an obligation to continue that work in the face of significant risk?

Perhaps the most significant related question for public political philosophy as a whole is the extent to which such scholars should engage in activism that seeks to persuade the public and bring about particular outcomes. This approach differs from that endorsed by Floyd, who argues that public political philosophers should explain and engage in conversation, but should not seek to convert the audience to a particular view or action, in part because the stance or action may end up being wrong or harmful. Within this subfield, some philosophers have embraced an activist orientation, while others feel that it overreaches our expertise. At the very least, those who engage in persuasion and activism must embody a commitment to intellectual humility, acknowledging the limits of their knowledge, indicating weaknesses in their arguments, owning up to mistakes, and taking responsibility for the outcomes of their work. In an era of intellectual arrogance and growing affective polarization, such scholars must also be careful not to magnify affective responses that head off reason and reflection by using language that is too inciting, an outcome that runs counter to the careful thought indicative of doing philosophy well.Footnote ⁴¹ They must be engaging enough, but not so much that they propel action that is unwise, unwarranted, or harmful.

On a personal level, it can be rewarding for philosophers of education to see their ideas taken up by wider audiences beyond academia, influencing real policy, practice, and political life. At the same time, it can be frustrating when the visions held for schooling or public life may be far from reality today. Yet, doing such public philosophy of education may be one way to channel those frustrations and act on them, rather than allowing them to fester into cynicism. Arguably, doing philosophy of education in this way may be of more use and more value than merely confining one’s work to arguments about philosophical ideas exchanged only with one’s philosopher colleagues.