When President Obama exhorted high school students not to drop out in that summer speech last year, some conservatives lambasted the effort as indoctrination-lite. I thought it was a silly debate -- the same way Esquire thinks the Second Amendment can't be read any other way than his, apparently -- but I don't think the latest Texas shenanigans are.
At least in the textbook world, where Texas goes, so does the nation. And so, when the local board of education decides to review the curriculum to include glowing accounts of Nixon's and Reagan's leadership, that matters because it might affect how students in, say, Arkansas or Montana learn about the ideas. Some of the concepts under attack include the separation of church and state, and some Founders didn't make the cut either -- Thomas Jefferson was removed from a list of figures who inspired the Enlightenment.
Not all the modifications are bad. I don't mind high school students learning more about Milton Friedman alongside John Maynard Keynes (though I doubt how much they'll appreciate about what either had to say). And, really, let's all admit this: Jefferson was a douchebag.
So, in the spirit of high school:
INTERESTING QUESTIONS FOR GROUP DISCUSSION -- Can any curriculum be devoid of ideology? Is there a difference between partisan editing and earnest, good-faith political education? Should we care about all this nonsense, since a) our kids better not learn social studies, but math and science, if they hope to get a job?, and b) our kids are all going to private school anyway?
Sunday assorted links
1 hour ago
To my mind, there is an unavoidable subjectivity to the study of history. It's the reason why historiography exists.
ReplyDeleteBut that doesn't mean that therefore all examinations of history are inherently equal in merit (because hey! it's all subjective!). Some presentations are more defensible that others.
I can't comment too much on the Texas case as I've been avoiding reading too much about it (I assumed it was yet another stupid battle in the culture war).
Nor can I therefore comment on the examples you give, except to say that in passing I've seen references to the other side's ideas that were equally ridiculous. So one wonders how accurate both sides are being in their portrayals.
From my own educational experiences in public school (in a very liberal area), I was often frustrated by my teachers commentary and source material choices. I recall that my AP History teacher (who remains a friend of mine) lamented the fact that he hadn't yet changed the textbook to "The People's History of The United States." And as a small example, I remember I was frustrated by how public schools seem to teach the Progressive Era as a string of unadulterated successes for mankind, with society moving unalterably towards our (liberal) destiny.
I didn't expect them to say that the Progessive Era was all horrible either; but it does a disservice to everyone to pretend that a)progressives were ipso facto right, and b)there was nothing controversial about their actions, motivations, and philosophy.
So...that's my roundabout way of saying that subjectivity is unavoidable in the study of history.
All that said, I always looked at school as merely an environment to introduce students to the method of learning; it was their job to actually educate themselves by going out and reading/learning throughout their life. In that sense, it's somewhat irrelevent if their textbook doesn't exactly match their own worldview. Life is full of people who don't agree with you. Get used to it.*
*One caveat of course is that if the bias of a teacher/textbook is so great as to interrupt the students understanding that there ARE competing viewpoints to investigate, then that's a problem.
PS. You know of course that I am pained to disagree with you on anything. :) But...Jefferson may have been a DB in some sense. But he was also brilliant and fascinating. I realize it's fashionable to rip on him now, but he was both a complex and great man. In some sense, he's one of my favorite historical figures because he was so human. Though after reading McCullough's bio I'm more of a John Adams man, myself.
This is a rare moment in our dialogues, gentlemen: I don't vehemently disagree with what Esquire just wrote.
ReplyDeleteLet's pause so harmony can sink in.
I agree about the point of high school, which should be giving students the tools of critical thinking, rather than spoonfeeding materials. In my school, even though we spent about a week learning evolution -- because it is quite complicated -- the IB curriculum mandated that students be informed that some people had other theories, including creationism. It was just one line -- and the teacher fulfilled it by reading it -- but it was there.
As for Jefferson, that was just a throwaway line. I'm afraid I know little to nothing about the man, other than the Sally Hemmings saga. Shameful, I know.
Great point for discussion, Berchmans. I'll need time to think and come up with something sensible.
ReplyDeleteBut at first blush, I'll say this to Esquire's notion of "everything's subjective": yeah, well, maybe that's true. But surely you recognize there are also historical truths that aren't for debate?
But like I said, let me think on it.