A conservative student organization has flagged a quiz at Vanderbilt University where students were asked “Was the Constitution designed to perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institution of slavery?” A student who answered “false” was marked wrong by the professor. The class is taught by Professors Josh Clinton, Eunji Kim, Jon Meacham, and Dean John Geer entitled PSCI 1150: U. S. ELECTIONS 2020. Meacham is a regular guest on MSNBC and CNN and other networks as well as a contributing editor for The New York Times Book Review.
The question posed to students is shown below: “Was the Constitution designed to perpetuate white supremacy and protect the institutional of slavery?
The faculty would only accept “true” as the answer.
The statement is wrong on a number of levels. There is no question the Constitution did not end our deeply shameful history of slavery. However, even with the Declaration of Independence figures like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson sought to address slavery. The decision was made to accommodate slave states to secure the Declaration. The same political calculus was behind the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution.
Thus, the Constitution did indeed perpetuate and protect the institution of slavery with its inherent white supremacy values. However, that was not the “design” of the Constitution. The Three-Fifths Compromise was a fight over representation and taxation. The decision to leave slavery unaddressed was based on the same political expediency. It was wrong. It is no excuse to secure the independence of most citizens at the cost of leaving enslaved others. It was and remains the original sin of our nation. The design of our Constitution should have guaranteed freedom for all men and women.
Yet, the actual design of the Constitution was the Madisonian vision of shared and limited government. It was founded on the philosophical work of figures ranging from John Locke to Montesquieu. The assertion that the design was to perpetuate slavery is revisionist and wrong.
Notably, one can teach the transcendent issue over slavery — and its perpetuation under the Constitution — without rewriting history to fit this narrative. It is also troubling that these professors would penalize students who hold an alternative view. Even if this were arguably correct, it would be at best a question upon which many would disagree. The question comes across as a reinforced group think or orthodoxy — a rising concern for many of us in higher education.
Indeed, Meacham has previously stated that the Constitution was designed to achieve democratic change and evolution:
“It’s about openness to changing circumstances and data. If you can’t recognize that circumstances have shifted and a preexisting opinion is worth revising, you can’t be an heir of 1776. Woodrow Wilson said the Constitution was supposed to be Newtonian, but was in fact Darwinian. Its genius was to change and evolve. If we can’t change and evolve as citizens and leaders, then we are undoing the American Revolution. The road to totalitarianism lies in unquestioning certitude.”
Meacham has repeatedly stressed that the design was meant to institutionalize gradual democratic change. He agreed with the assertion that “America’s Founders wrote a Constitution designed to make change a slow and deliberative process.” He stated “Yes, they did, and it has served us rather well over time—not perfectly, God knows, but it has enabled us to muddle along for well over two centuries, always expanding, not contracting, individual liberty under law.”
Indeed, Meacham stressed equality as the design of the Constitution, even if unachieved:
“This shift found its fullest expression in what became the most important sentence in the English language: ‘We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.’ I think that sentence has changed more lives around the world than any other. The eras we commemorate and want to emulate are the ones when we’ve more generously applied the implications of that sentence.”
Meacham has previously defined the Constitution’s purpose in other ways like resisting figures like Trump: “the Founders would have been stunned that it took this long to get a president like this. They designed this document for demagogues.”
That Meacham would have failed this question.
I reached out to the professors and the university about this story. The faculty did not respond. Vanderbilt sent the following opaque response that did not expressly deny the facts of this story:
“Consistent with our commitment to the principles of free speech and academic freedom, Vanderbilt has long fostered an environment in which diverse ideas and opinions can be expressed in our efforts to both model, and teach, the principles of civil discourse. The question was posed to stimulate discussion. Students were in fact not rewarded or penalized for their answers. It is unfortunate that the intent behind and purpose of the academic exercise have been misconstrued. We appreciate that our students, faculty and staff have historically engaged in respectful dialogue and we hope this continues.”
It is not clear what is meant by students not being “rewarded or penalized for their answers” when this student was marked off for answering “false.” For that student, there was not a “dialogue” but a decision that the student was wrong for believing that the design of the Constitution was developed to perpetuate slavery and white privilege. For some of us, that is like telling students that they are wrong in believing that the United Nations charter was designed to perpetuate colonialism or capitalism. That is the start more of a diatribe than a dialogue.
It’s amusing that Turley continually points out the insanity of the leftist cult which the democrat party has become a part of yet he’ll probably vote straight D down his ballot in November, including that old man with dementia running for president. Really shows the cognitive dissonance of people on the left that while they may not be part of the leftist cult, they still refuse to accept the party they vote for is and it’s not coming back.
Vanderbilt needs to double check their Liberal Arts Dept to make sure they are requiring students of the Humanities and Social Sciences to take a survey course in Western Civilization.
Vandy may be Dandy but here they are really stupid.
The professor who designed this quiz is a political hack and a fool. If he does not understand the purpose of the US Constitution, then he is not qualified to teach classes on US Elections at any university, let alone Vanderbilt.
We conservatives are so tired of this. We are not scrimping and saving for 18 years only to send our kids to universities that are madrassas for the Democratic Party rather than institutions of higher learning.
The Democratic Party has changed so much. Its goal appears to be to destroy America from within, and remake it as a Socialist, Third World country that its people will seek to escape, just like all the other Socialist countries.
CA Democrats are trying to pass a wealth tax that would tax the assets of successful people, annually. If they leave the state, the tax would continue for 10 years. Again, the trend is for Democrats to become more like Socialist dictators who try to trap citizens in the dystopia they create, “for their own good.”
I am so glad that somebody has finally taken on Jon Meacham, one of the biggest frauds in public life. I am ashamed beyond measure that my alma mater, Vanderbilt, keeps him on the faculty as a full professor. His book on Andrew Jackson is full of errors that he did not even bother to research. Thank you, Jonathan, for doing a great service.
At the time the Constitution was written, there was nothing observable about blacks that suggested they were “human” in the same sense that whites were human.
Blacks looked significantly different, they spoke significantly different, and they behaved significantly different.
The notion that blacks could successfully integrate into white culture was remarkably absurd.
So WHY would the founders introduce provisions into the Constitution for “people” that no one really believed were fully human, or would ever be capable of living among whites??
Speaking of slavery. Let’s pay attention to the present day, instead of 200+ years ago.
Here is what Barack Obama (1st half white-half black POTUS) and his psychopathic Secretary of State did in that regard:
“Libya migrant ‘slave market’ footage sparks outrage”
18 November 2017
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-42038451
“The footage released by CNN appears to show youths from Niger and other sub-Saharan countries being sold to buyers for about $400 (£300) at undisclosed locations in Libya.
“These modern slavery practices must end and the African Union will use all the tools at its disposal,” Mr Conde said.”
Meanwhile, Gaddhafi’s 4.5 tons of gold is still missing, and Barry the Grifter has a $14.5 million dollar beach house in Martha’s Vineyard.
The American Constitution was designed to establish self-governance in a restricted-vote republic providing maximal freedom to individuals while severely limiting and restricting government to a role of merely providing security and infrastructure which facilitates the maximal freedom of individuals. Freedom results in the supremacy of those who merit it.
Slavery was a function of the greed of African tribal leaders who apprehended and sold tribal members into slavery, Arab slave traders who marketed the aforementioned apprehended African tribal members, and British planters who engaged in end-product utilization. Americans debated, sought and, ultimately, generated resolution of the institution.
White supremacy is a physical axiom proven by the 160,000-year of history of homo sapiens sapiens, after which white men landed on the moon.
The American Founders and their Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 designed European sinularity in America.
Those who apply events out of context are fruads.
Those who covet are sinners.
Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and to the Promised Land before the ink was dry on their release papers.
It is not incumbent upon any group to do the critical thinking for another, less well cognitively endowed group.
Those who merit, succeed.
Those who don’t, fail.
Those who fail, caterwaul incesantly.
Universities will change after their budgets fail due to a dearth of matriculation.
Parents who send their children to communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) universities are the problem.
Parents who blindly send their children to public school are the problem.
George, the comrades at NPR say hundreds if not thousands will close due to COVID problems
silver linings all around!
This is addressed to ‘enigmainblackcom”. It does make a hill of beans if the original document was written by a bunch of white folks or not. Who cares today whether Thomas Jefferson owned slaves? Does your ancestry have a choke hold on your life today so much so that you can’t see a future that is offered to you in America? This country has had and still does have its own problems but there is opportunity for any individual to succeed if they wish to put in the effort. There are obstacles for all who attempt to make a better life for themselves and their heirs. That wasn’t the case for the original individuals who made the voyage to the promise land of America; they were escaping the despotism of the English Crown and laws. Some of these white transplants from the British Empire and other European countries carried the concept of slavery with them to the new frontier.
The British House of Commons started debating slavery around 1783 and abolished it somewhat in 1834. In 1837 legislation was passed to compensate slave owners, and Slave Trade abolishment was not until 1873. America on the other hand because of our imperfect constitution and those that challenged it on the basis of slavery went to war in 1861 to keep its union intact. America chose to fight and ultimately win a war of separation and the freedom for slaves across America, mustarding some 1.5 million to fight, killing or wounding in excess of 500,000 individuals on the Unions side. Not that the idea of slavery or the poor opinion of the blacks subsided because of victory over the secessionists, that took more conflict and laws. Further will humankind every purge itself of Racism, Tribalism or other forms of superiority views, I have my doubts. In America we’ve lost the true distinction of Race and now classify persons by nationality (African, Latin, Mexican and too many more to list). This leads to tribalism and then becomes classified as Racism. I am white and proud of who I am, not because of my whiteness but because I’m an America citizen, and do believe in what was written in our Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal under the eyes of our creator (GOD).
You asked, “This is addressed to ‘enigmainblackcom” – Does your ancestry have a choke hold on your life today so much so that you can’t see a future that is offered to you in America.”
That would be a resounding YES! Poor Enigma lives in the past and he can not make it out of the early 20th century. He believes that blacks are poor in 2020 because of racism, Rosewood, the Titanic sinking, the Electoral College, and milk in cardboard boxes instead of glass bottles. In short, because of everything except a 77.3% black illegitimate birth rate, gross racial resentment, and a disregard for education. He don’t believe that blacks can do anything to improve their lot in life because of all us evil white people.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
ancestry chokehold? it should be a matter of respect for one’s ancestors to live a lawful and productive live in the society into which we are born or find ourselves one way or another.
I should think people of any ancestry who find themselves in America would render respect due to ancestors by living a good life. one imagines that such a way of thinking might apply to all races, but seems like some groups resent any form of suggestion that would imply a less antagonistic relationship with greater society. well, some groups have been weaponized against others, and not for their own good, either. they’re not smart if they continue in that vein, but hey. we all gotta make choices.
Jonathan Turley’s interpretation is perhaps too subtle for Vanderbilt freshmen.
The question would be betterized by replacing “designed” by “allowed”, err…, improved.
Students need to fight this racist nonsense. Sue the schools…or simply stop attending. Give your tuition to a trade school or a college that isn’t out to indoctrinate…if you can find one. But this shouldn’t be accepted under any circumstances.
This kind of question is the result of “African studies” and “African American history” courses that developed in the 1960s, courses that are based on a combination of myth, exaggeration and outright lies. Joe Biden’s claim that a black “invented the light bulb” is a classic example. As for slavery being the great American sin (what the United States did to the native tribes is worse), blacks and others need to realize that without slavery they would not be in Africa (check out that history) THEY WOULDN’T EVEN EXIST! Vanderbilt had a decent black professor but she left because she got tried of the BS such as this.
One needs to understand the discussions that proceeded the quiz and any discussions after the exam. How was the professors of using the word “design”. Remember, when in college, you regurgitate the words of the professors to obtain the best grades. Those words historically may or may not have been the truth.
Given the fact that 4 FOOLS (including a dean) ask this question of those whom they purport to “teach,” there was no real discussion prior to the quiz. The lefty progressives were simply spewing their single-minded hatred of anyone and everyone who isn’t in lock step with their dangerous ideas; the quiz was an attempt to root out the non-believers.
OK Guess I missed that from JH article. But again, I remember in the 60’s when I was in college and the free speech movement was happeneing and the professors were on the oposite side of issues than they are today, as long as you regurgitated their words, you got a good grade.
Too many times to count, there’s this robotic response regarding free speech, dialogue, etc. when none of that truly applies.