Oklahoma State Rep. Dan Fisher presumably has an array of tough issues to tackle for his state from unemployment to the environment to crime. However, Fisher has decided to take on the ignoble task of banning Advanced Placement history classes in the state because he objects to the inclusion of negative aspects of American history and the omission of material embracing “American exceptionalism.” As an academic, I have previously criticized politicians (here and here and here and here) intervening in our school system to impose their own values or priorities on educators. This however ranks as one of the worst such intrusions that we have seen.
Oklahoma has been one of the states rejecting the Common Core curriculum for K-12 programs. There are valid arguments for states in insisting on control of such curricula as a general matter even if one disagrees with the merits of objections to the common core. However, this is beyond the pale. AP classes are a mainstay of our educational system and allow students to get truly advanced studies in given subjects. I have argued for years that we need to ramp up such courses on civics and history. It is therefore particularly distressing to read Fisher’s bill. It is not only would deprive these students of advanced courses but it would place Oklahoma students at a serious disadvantage in college applications which put great weight on such courses.
Fisher’s primary objection is that the AP history courses, in his view, emphasize the wrongs about America. However, these courses allow students to study not just the triumphs but the mistakes of history so history does not repeat itself. We are not a great nation because we did not commit errors and even crimes in our past. We are a great nation because we overcome such history, recognized our failings, and become a better nation despite such failings. The Trail of Tears, Alien and Sedition Acts, Japanese internment camps, Red Scare and other dark chapters reveal both our succumbing to fears and our transcending them. Part of AP curricula is to train students to read history in a critical and objective way. Converting our history into some Disney tale will teach students little about our country or themselves.
The “exceptionalism” of this country is precisely that we are not perfect but strive to be better.
old nurse: “The history of america is all of it [good, bad, and neutral], not just the parts that one prefers.
Great commentary, JT.”
Says it best.
It’s ‘Sock Puppet Friday!’
Gosh, maybe there could be a curriculum that teaches BOTH the things America has done well AND the things it has done badly.
We would be a much finer country if we collectively got down on bended knee and apologized for the evils we have done [and let the rest of the world thank us for the good we have done]. But so many prefer the myth of american exceptionalism – a narcissistic delusion if there ever was one – and turn a blind eye to the bad while over-stating the good.
The history of america is all of it [good, bad, and neutral], not just the parts that one prefers.
Great commentary, JT.
old nurse – new sock puppet – you had drunk the kool aide.
Correction,
Should be “you or your ” teaching history@ 9:54 AM.
Inga – I continue to effect change every day. 😉
America’s past is full of exceptional: heroism, cowardice, pluralism, racism, open-mindedness, bigotry, and so on. To study only the positive aspects of American history is to invite the negative to take root.
There comes a time when a child must understand the dangers of extreme singular perspectives that divide people. In the greatest crimes committed are instances of heroism and righteousness. This is evident throughout the histories of almost all nations. The greatest moves, statements, laws made by countries come typically after confronting its negative aspects.
Regarding AP classes, my experience is only through our son. He took mostly AP classes when he could, passed some for university credit and some not so good. It provided a needed challenge in the ‘pablum’ that is the American public school system curriculum. Paralleling this, he was encouraged to research outside of the available materials given, make use of our extensive library at home, and question what is presented to seek the truth as well as the facts. Sometimes he educated the educators. Example, Lewis and Clark were not the first to reach the Pacific overland. Ten years earlier Alexander MacKenzie crossed vastly more difficult terrain and reached the Pacific through what are now the Prairie Provinces and British Columbia. The previous year MacKenzie followed the river that would bear his name to the Arctic Ocean. Yet most Americans are pretty much unaware of anything that happened outside of a truncated education in the history of North America. Growing up in Canada, students are washed over with America’s history, accomplishments, and ideals. Yet when they meet American students they encounter people so devoid of knowledge and understanding of the world outside their borders it is sometimes laughable. Those Americans most respected by Canadians and indeed most other nationalities are those who can stand proudly and recite the crimes their country has committed knowing all along its tremendous achievements. An edited education makes for an edited individual.
Regarding the fragmented approach to this country’s education system, state by state as opposed to a centralized approach as envisioned by Carter, the US stands near the bottom with its fragmented approach where those countries at the top tend to rely on a single centralized overview of curriculum. In France, a country with vastly superior results in the K-12 experience, the curriculum is the same for all students, regardless of whether they are in public or private schools, urban or rural schools, wealthy or impoverished areas. The exams for graduation and entry into the universities are the a same for all. The results prove the point.
Early on a student may focus on his or her state’s history. In Nova Scotia, during my elementary school years, we experienced an in depth education of the history, geography, and social aspects of the Maritime Provinces. However, the country is the country, science is science, and math is math. A strong and well developed curriculum for all kids would be an improvement on this state’s rights nonsense. The main problem is a combination of poor teacher training, lack of teacher empowerment, and fragmented and redundant administration.
One universal curriculum, administered by the states, higher paid, higher trained, more empowered teachers, and get rid of at least half of the administration in the local school districts through to the state governments.
issac – Canada has a history? Who knew?
Having taught history, I can say w/ KNOWLEDGE that the curriculum is heavy in the multicultural and soft in other areas, such as WW1, WW2, and the cold war. I taught the ugly, but also the noble. We have become a caricature nation. Our heroes are pure and majestic, our villains evil incarnate. The theme of all the history I taught was that history is about people. And, people are flawed. I would work in Shakespeare, Hemmingway and other giants, who understood the good/evil in all people. Those 2 greats are virtually ignored in English classes now, because they are sexists. Incredible.
The education industry has become indoctrinated w/ a left agenda. The reaction to that are pols like this who are heavy handed in trying to balance some of the left propaganda w/ right propaganda. This country has done some of the most incredible feats in the history of civilization. We have also done some real nasty shit. You don’t emphasize either, you just play it straight. That’s what I did. I was quite rare in that regard.
This could be a good discussion. The usual suspects are incapable of substantive, civil discussions. They just rant and create drama. A damn shame.
Nick – when I taught history I tried to teach both sides. For instance, for Pearl Harbor I would show how FDR boxed the Japanese into a corner. I would compare the American concentration (internment camps) with the German concentration camps, etc.
Yes indeed Alyssa.
Inga (Annie),
Wow. What a guy, huh? (Tells one a lot.)
Inga – I started teaching in the community college system, which requires a masters in your subject area.
What an utterly ignorant comment Paul. You don’t have anything to do with teaching AP History classes, thank God.
I seriously doubt that Zinn’s book is the core reading for the AP class which is what the nuts are thinking. The fact is that Zinn had no intention of writing a balanced view of US history and he never makes such a claim. The whole point is to provide the parts of US history which are omitted from standard US history texts. The fact is that Zinn, unlike most of his critics shed his blood for the US during WWII as a bombardier.
The worst part of this is that they include speeches by Reagan as somehow being part of US history instead of actual accomplishments. Maybe somebody here can tell me what great accomplishments Reagan did that make him a great President. I have yet to find any conservative who can tell me that. They simply cannot since there are basically none. I will give him credit for making the Customs service more civil since I remember how it was before and after. So he was not all bad.
randyjet – Zinn was factually challenged to put it nicely. I was surprised that Tony Soprano didn’t off him when he caught his kid reading his book.
I had to double-check to see if this piece wasn’t written by a weekend blogger. There are way too many facts missing to make an informed opinion about the curriculum, so what makes sense? Do people really believe the Pol wants to eliminate AP History or the Common Core version as proposed? I do not believe he would inject himself into this arena to push a curricula that only focuses on the good of America; so what specifically are his objections?
http://www.bustle.com/articles/65482-oklahoma-bill-against-ap-us-history-reminds-us-of-4-other-times-legislators-have-tried-to
This is right up there with the Scopes Monkey Trial. Legislators tweaking reality.
Inga – I taught dual credit classes, several of them.
I was surprised to see such hatred and fear directed towards great writers in the Western Tradition by those who purport to defend it. Professor Turley provides a much-needed critical perspective, and I truly appreciate what he does to enliven public discourse. Good luck to all of us. Given the palpable fear of freethinking that runs throughout these comments and elsewhere, we’re going to need it.
davidm2575 – “The federal government needs to get out of the education business entirely. The Department of Education that Jimmy Carter started should be abolished.”
Amen brother! Education has become so creepy. No way in hell I would send my kids today to a public school. I always find it interesting that liberals hate big business and monopolies unless it is a monopoly run by the govt. The govt. education monopoly is even worse since if I am a land “owner”, they are allowed to steal property from me.
@ davidm2575
“Bill W, this issue is actually bigger than Oklahoma. The Republican National Committee voted to fight this last year”
ROFL – Of course, republicans want to create an enemy (fictional or real doesn’t matter) to rally the voters behind. Just say a few catch phrases such as “hate America” on faux news and the lemmings run to the chat boards claiming expertise.
Once again, I’ll ask if there is a specific issue with the curriculum (please cite OK AP curriculum) that now has you advancing your argument to stating education is centered around teaching kids to hate America? And just what parts of our history does need to be hidden to assist your skewed agenda? Indians, slavery, massacres, overturning legitimate govt’s, etc……isn’t our history somewhat brutal?
I for one am thrilled for kids to learn that American exceptionalism cuts both ways and is often used to justify aggression, legal and illegal, against others. Why do you believe a balanced education should have our kids should only learn one part of it?
btw – when that conservative agenda goes beyond America exceptionalism to step 2 and starts promoting a specific religion (that is what the Hobby Lobby OK education goal is and this whole taxpayer funded voucher lie is really about) what part of the constitution will you quote for that?
Have to go to work, but will check back later and hope your own arguments instead of cut and pastes
Bill W wrote: “Why do you believe a balanced education should have our kids should only learn one part of it?”
That has NEVER been my position. Just the opposite. Students should learn all perspectives. The AP curriculum only presents one part, the liberal left’s version. That is the problem.
I gave you a link to the curriculum previously, so let’s focus on part of it.
In the section covering reasons for exploration to the Americas, the AP curriculum says:
“European exploration and conquest were fueled by a desire for new sources of wealth, increased power and status, and converts to Christianity. ”
These motivations are all denigrated EVERYDAY by the left as evil. What about the other motivations that I was taught in history class? What about the desire to flee religious persecution? This was the primary motive in the Plymouth, Massachusetts settlement. What about just the plain desire to start a fresh new life? What about the desire to escape abusive government? What happened to the concept of, “land of the free, home of the brave”?
History is always viewed through a lens. That is what makes history interesting and meaningful. But we have to be careful not to provide only one lens of history, and then present that as if it was the factual lens. In fact, it would serve students far better to make this one point, that historical facts can be viewed from different angles and appear differently depending upon the historian.
Other objections I have include: 1) Our smallest President, James Madison, the father of the U.S. Bill of Rights and father of the U.S. Constitution, is completely absent from the curriculum. 2) Washington, Adams, and Jefferson are almost absent. In the one place they are mentioned, they are characterized as elitists in revolt against other elitists in England. Here is a quote from the AP curriculum: “Those individuals who were wealthy, powerful, and influential before the event continued to possess wealth, power, and influence later. George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson could serve as examples. This approach would argue that the Revolution was basically a revolt by colonial elites against the elites in England.” The socialist mindset here is nauseating. This is all a setup for the later emphasis in the curriculum on political activists fighting for their rightful place in society. In the end, it is a justification of hatred toward the successful Americans who made this country great.
The entire curriculum is basically built upon the communist ideal that equality is righteous and inequality is unrighteous. I do not agree with that ideal. The idea that gender and racial inequality is an injustice is a spurious claim. Anybody with a modicum of common sense can see that the sexes and races differ in a wide variety of ways. We are all equal in value. We are all equal before the law. But we are clearly not equal in gifts, talents, and abilities. Economic inequality is a natural state of affairs because it is a result of how society values the different talents and abilities that we each possess. It is not the job of government to force economic equality upon society. That leads to tyranny and oppression. Government should focus on security only. That’s it.
We could learn a lesson from other societies that are hell bent on regression, look what ISIS and the Taliban did to the Mideast. Pretty soon they’ll be back to the stone age.
…its reason for fighting…
“However, these courses allow students to study not just the triumphs but the mistakes of history…”
No, they’re not teaching anything but the mistakes, and blaming Western thought, white males, capitalism, and the Christian religion for the evils of history.
This approach is how we ended up with a President who can’t speak the name of an enemy or it’s reads for fighting or even admit we are fighting them,.
They’re just random guys blowing up random people in random coffee houses that just happen to be Kosher.
Words matter. If they didn’t, The New School wouldn’t have forced this ideologically driven claptrap on US students.
Indeed, I read with great concern about the philosophers featured in the New School curriculum: Aristotle, Hume, Wittgenstein… an interminable list of dangerous “far left radicals,” even including Arendt, who warned us about the totalitarianism that arises when people don’t ask enough questions about their own society. Oh, wait…