While the teaching of controversial issues has generally been supported by schools and education scholars, new laws and public outcry have impacted whether and how controversial issues are taught. Calls to ban or limit teaching of controversial issues have largely been spurred by conservative parents, policymakers, and political groups. Some teachers and many education scholars are deeply concerned and want to preserve teaching about controversial issues. This situation suggests that inquiry is needed into changes in the educational aims held and practices endorsed by various stakeholders. This article reconsiders the aims used to justify teaching controversial issues and situates them within larger understandings of good citizenship, revealing important differences in the explanations and values endorsed by opposing groups. It categorizes the aims more generally held by teachers, philosophers of education, and citizenship education scholars as: reasoning, engaging, communicating, and sustaining democratic communities. Then, those aims are compared to aims circulating within the discourse of opposing parents, policymakers, and political organizations. Finally, this article argues that pragmatic adjustments to educational aims held by many teachers and education scholars are both warranted and wise. It provides potential ways to better justify the teaching of controversial issues, including through approaches that more strongly ground teaching in American principles, historical examples, and a commitment to living together well.