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.
Publius….it is almost a “once upon a time story” that I related. It almost seems surreal to me now, as I view today’s conundrums vis a vis “education.” There really were simpler times when discussion and disagreement did not require a war. Oddly, once I finished, I enlisted and went off to one. Strange Days indeed.
In a video of rep. Dan Fisher discussing this Bill in the Legislature, he emphasised that if was the “robust analysis” that AP teachers were going for and that was what disturbed the GOP. This should give pause to every American.
Before I even finished reading this story, I predicted the reactions, and my predictions were accurate. What many of the comments confirm is what most reasonable people already understand, which is that the textbook wars, regardless of how they have been characterized by the right, are not motivated by educational concerns but by political ideology. The Oklahoma legislative proposal is merely the latest absurdity.
Until parents are allowed the freedom to choose where their kids go to school, nothing will change. the sad part is that the people who advocate central govt. control just don’t see the harm a monopoly does. Monopolies do not innovate due to lack of competition.
Pogo, Home Schooling is a growth industry.
There is always a huge, emotional pushback against any effort to remove Liberalism from our public education system and replace it with ACCURATE information. There are the usual cry and hue of “they’ll make it Right slanting!” or “They’ll take out all negative history!” and “Republicans are all stupid! Only Democrats can properly teach children!”
It’s ridiculous, and not what’s proposed. This is another clear sign that Liberals have taken over the public education system, as they fight vigorously at any attempt to make education balanced or free it from politics.
They want politics in the classroom as long as it’s their politics.
Isaac, my point was directed at your claim that France’s centralized method was successful, but the nation is very small and until recently entirely white.
So France is able to manage teaching of history centrally much like any other US state.
Your response missed the point; you saw what you preferred to see.
PS: my comment about categorizing is not aimed at anyone in particular. I meant this as a general reflection. I try to catch myself whenever I do this myself, so I don’t miss out on a really good conversation or a great insight from anyone I meet. Best wishes!
Thanks to all of you for the thoughtful replies. Aridog, that certainly is interesting, thanks for sharing your story. Another thing that comes to mind: we never know where we might find points of agreement, and that’s why it’s important to refrain from automatically categorizing the people you’re talking to. Thanks again – I have to get back to work. But I appreciate the turn this discussion has made… towards a better place of raising questions and seeking understanding. The closer you look, history is pretty darn complex.
A good high school US history curriculum could be made by contrasting Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States with A History of the American People by Paul Johnson.
But all kids get these days is Zinns approach, hence the pushback.
Homeschooling helps parents avoid leftist indoctrination more than anything.
And it’s true that a voucher system, as well as Charter Schools, Private schools, and homeschooling, offer parents choices in education. Of course, Teachers Unions and public school districts often fight those choices.
Pogo
Yeah and their cheese stinks, and they are healthier, and they talk funny, and on average they understand at least one other language, and they’re rude, and the average French student knows more about the US than the average American student, and the girls don’t shave their armpits, and no one worries about health care, and they don’t shower often enough, and ….
Your argument Pogo makes my point better than I could have.
Preemptive note to grammar police: I regret those keystrokes which I cannot retract! 🙂
Publius … on a more serious note, I gave this topic my best shot at 10:14 AM. And I don’t mind a whit if some or all disagree with me. As my old, card carrying Commie instructors and professors said, if you have a brand, defend it with research. The right wingers (just shy of the John Birchers ) in those days did the same thing…they expected effort, not rote repetition of their personal brands. It was a fortunate time in education from my perspective…and one cannot say the 1960’s were without powerful differences overall.
One “research” source I discovered around 1962 was US Congressman John Dingell, who provided me with research material,l upon written request, unavailable elsewhere for a paper I had to write for one the “Commie” professors…for which I received a high mark, albeit for “propaganda.” It’s unlikely former Rep Dingell and I agree on much, but I appreciate him as a “representative” … he is regularly out and about my town with his wife, now the new Rep Dingell (not my choice, but what-the-heck), and he and she will always stop and talk to you if you greet them and ask question. My last coincidence was at a dry cleaners where we came in together….where they first greeted me. Huh? Yes, that is what happened. I will say the same thing for Rep John Conyers and his staff…I seem to become involved with those I disagree with most, until the subject of “representation” comes up…where the two cited here have never failed me.
I truly weary of the politicians who can’t be bothered with Joe Sixpacks like me, and I admit I am puzzled that those I do manage to connect with are the opposition. “Representation” used to mean some thing, and the fact my citations here are two of the longest serving, says something. I am not sure quite what….:-)
We should focus on making history classes representative of the truth, rather than politicized.
There is a valid argument that many school classes are clearly slanted Left. There are many examples, such as a poly sci question asking which political party does not care about the poor. We need to make history classes representative of actual history, not take them out! For instance, cover our history with slavery, and the terrible crimes it committed against humanity. But point out that slavery was practiced around the world since the inception of society, the Portuguese were the most prolific/infamous slavers, that African tribes sold enemy tribes as slaves or kept them as slaves themselves, and that slavery still exists in Africa today.
It is true that many public education classes teach from an anti-American point of view, to which many parents reasonably object. I recall when I was in college, there was an unrelenting Liberal slant coming from the podium, in everything from Anthropology, English Lit, and Science. It was really tiresome. Educators should leave their personal politics at the door when they enter a classroom or write a textbook, but clearly that is not happening.
JT said something which needs more discussion. JT said that this “is beyond the pale.” That phrase comes from the longer version which is: Beyond The Paletinate”. I always add the phrase, which I think came from John Maynard Keyes: East of Corfu The Ten Commandments Dont Apply. And Oklahoma has a history which some so called modern day politicians do not want to address. Ask for example: where did all the present day residents come from? Is Andrew Jackson a hero in Oklahoma today? The so called Trail of Tears is not some song written by Sally Pappas. The Cherokee folks in Oklahoma would like to know more in their schools.
We on Remulak do not necessarily believe that good history lessons are good for the folks in Oklahoma. We on Planet Remulak want people on Planet Earth to be happy as clams. So, I would advise leaving this particular clam alone and let Oklahoma be what it is.
Beldar – beyond the Pale is the actual phrase and it is English and refers to the area of Ireland controlled by the British. That area not controlled by the British was ‘beyond the Pale.’
I guess one minor point I’d like to add: no one source should be considered ‘gospel truth’. The ideal of an authentic, critical education is to have competing views. As far as I can tell, Zinn was trying to complicate simplistic stories of US history by bringing in different experiences that had been ignored for decades. But of course, it doesn’t mean he was a flawless individual or didn’t make mistakes. We could certainly talk about some well-known historians who are considered canonical, but if we dig into their past, we’ll find dirt of all kinds. For his faults, Zinn broke new ground by considered different sources of historical knowledge.
publius – if Zinn had brought new sources to the table that would be one thing but Zinn didn’t. Zinn made sweeping statements that he expected to be taken as the truth. You have to read his book(s) to see what he was up to.
publius,
Exactly.
My concern is better stated by DBQ.
Federalism is preferred over centralized control of our schools. You and I having it our at local school boards makes more sense to me than Common Core or the teacher’s unions or Oklahoma Legislators forcing their views on us local schlubs.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepage1/oklahoma-lawmaker-says-he-will-pull-back-controversial-ap-history/article_3f733d69-f450-5b72-af81-696142327df3.html
Looks like the Oklahoma Legislature is rethinking their brilliant Bill.
I agree, and I think that’s pretty much all there is to say about politics and life. Bullies are bad, from the ones who make fun of the smelly kid in third grade to the ones who douse mideast villages with white phosphorus. People of the world unite: you have nothing to lose but all those bullies. —Jonathan Schwarz, below
January 29, 2010
Why I Liked Howard Zinn
Howard Zinn was probably my favorite among the entire genre of writer/activists. The reasons boil down to the fact he was (1) humane, (2) informed without being pretentious, and (3) funny. His only real competition for me is Noam Chomsky—but while Chomsky is incredibly good at knowing everything without coming across as a jerk, he otherwise is somewhat robotic. Whether or not Chomsky actually is just as humane and funny as Zinn (I assume he is), he chooses a method of presentation that usually prevents those qualities from surfacing.
Zinn, on the other hand, was always recognizably a human being among other humans. He didn’t hector, he didn’t sneer, and he was never abstract. He made you think: in a better world, there would be more people like this. And maybe I could be more like him, since he doesn’t make it look that hard.
This was to me one of the most meaningful things Zinn wrote, from his autobiography:
The events of my life, growing up poor, working in a shipyard, being in a war, had nurtured an indignation against the bullies of the world, who used wealth or military might or social status to keep others down.
That’s not a manifesto about democracy, freedom, the means of production blah blah blah. It’s just a simple perspective that anyone can understand: bullies are bad.
I agree, and I think that’s pretty much all there is to say about politics and life. Bullies are bad, from the ones who make fun of the smelly kid in third grade to the ones who douse mideast villages with white phosphorus. People of the world unite: you have nothing to lose but all those bullies.
—Jonathan Schwarz
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003204.html