And I do think this kind of approach to education is not going to end up necessarily being a muddle. I think it has a real potential in developing distorted and destructive thinking that doesn't promote a healthy psychological/spiritual mindset in young people or anyone else.
And I do think this kind of approach to education is not going to end up necessarily being a muddle. I think it has a real potential in developing distorted and destructive thinking that doesn't promote a healthy psychological/spiritual mindset in young people or anyone else.
I agree and don’t share the author’s optimism on this point. I think similar content has already resulted in that kind of thinking. While it can be hard to ascertain how widespread and deep the impact, the effects seem to have manifested across the country and negatively influenced our discourse both on and off campus.
Chandra, I appreciate your comment and understand why you have your perspective, thinking as you do that people like me and others on this thread oppose teaching black and women's history, banning books and censorship. I can't speak for others on this thread, but I can tell you that description does not accurately reflect my views, concerns or motives, and that I believe similar allegations are often made against people who don't deserve to have their views, concerns or motives characterized in that way.
The following excerpts from the article resonated with me:
----------
"Ethnic and racial histories—the experiences and contributions of different ethnic and racial groups in the US, the rivalries among them, the especially egregious injustices inflicted on some of them, the struggles to overcome those injustices, and instances of injustice and racism today— are taught in schools throughout the country. The best version of these classes teach ethnic and racial histories through multiple lenses, giving students a rich understanding of how these histories are connected to different ideas today.
"Ethnic studies, on the other hand, is the lens....Pointing out the origins and political aims of ethnic studies doesn’t discredit its point of view. But it does remind us that it is a point of view. Despite proponents’ claims, ethnic studies does not promote the teaching of multiple perspectives. It applies a single perspective to teaching about multiple ethnic groups. It is not just social conservatives who object to it. The ethnic studies perspective is contested by reputable scholars in the humanities and social sciences, and rejected by many members of the ethnic and racial groups for whom ethnic studies claims to speak.
"Requiring the ethnic studies lens across K-12 learning standards is therefore akin to requiring a feminist or libertarian lens. Those ideologies and others should be taught somewhere in the school curriculum, but they should be taught as rival interpretive frameworks and objects of analysis. None should be enshrined in state learning standards or local curricula as settled doctrine."
----------
I am open to considering the perspectives of those who believe that the content of what we are teaching in black and women's history courses is insufficient. Indeed, I am curious to know how you would want to supplement the current content of such courses, and would be grateful if you shared your thoughts on that question. Whatever the right depth and breadth of content is, though, I agree with the author that teachers and students should consider that content through a range of perspectives.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We are in agreement that U.S. history needs to be taught, "warts and all," as is often said. In that regard, model curricula developed by FAIR and 1776 Unites attempt to contribute to such an outcome.
We are also in agreement that schools and other organizations benefit from a diversity of perspectives and thought, and I support efforts -- including those of FAIR, as well as others like FIRE and the Heterodox Academy -- to generate such outcomes. While there are DEI initiatives that encourage a diversity of perspectives and thought, one of my concerns -- which I believe is likely shared by others who have commented, as well as FAIR itself -- is that DEI programs often effect and even impose conformity of thought, which either results in self-censorship on the part of those who disagree, or material consequences for those who openly dissent or even just question. When that happens, the result mitigates against a diversity of perspectives, which is the point I understood the author of the article to be making.
I think one of the problems with the discourse in our country is that we often use the same words or terms and mean different things. In addition, we often assess people with opposing views based on caricatures created by people who are trying to divide us and/or don't understand the countervailing perspectives and how good, well-meaning people might come to have them. As a result, I believe conversations like the one we're having are critical, as such direct, good-faith communication can enable people with different perspectives to better understand each other, see the humanity in each other, and find common ground. So, thank you again for your willingness to engage.
In that regard, I hope you won't mind, if I can throw one more organization at you: Braver Angels (www.braverangels.org). Braver Angels is trying to bring Americans together across differences, not to change anyone's values or views, but to change how we treat those with whom we disagree, so that we can lower the temperature and toxicity in our discourse, bridge our political divide, work together to better understand and address our problems, and encourage elected officials to do the same. You might appreciate the heterodox engagement we have there, and you might also find it to have useful (and free) resources for you to leverage with your students. If you're interested in learning more, the website is full of information and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Historians were certainly white men initially in the US. They have been far from that since the 60s in the West.
Also, teaching an incessant gripe story of black/female history does not produce balanced, healthy, informed, happy citizens. Its another form of biased history and I have little doubt it produces miserable illinformed p/t activists.
We have been teaching black and women's history for forty years now, in blue states more than any traditional history in fact. I have students who are sick of these fields. I myself studied this way more than any Eurocentric history.
In red states, different sure, but as a whole, its such a myth we don't teach these fields. High school teachers are so diverse, black and female that I doubt any student since 1999 has heard of Copernicus or Adam Smith.
This isn't about refusing to teach history, it's about putting everything under a lens to reimagine historical perspectives in a divisive and revisionist way, and for what? Where in the world has that worked out? Under Mao's China? Stalin's Russia, or the French Revolution, where these nations eradicated their historical past and re-created a new one? I'm all for teaching historical facts, as is this author. In fact the more, the better. What's at issue here, is how constructivist mannerisms and new age progressivism is hellbent on teaching history under a different lens, and that is destructive to kids when they don't first know their own history, first and foremost. How do you build on a foundation when nothing is there? A house of cards simply falls in the wind. I'd also say that when putting a reimagined history in front of teachers systemswide, does anyone have confidence it will be taught well?
And I do think this kind of approach to education is not going to end up necessarily being a muddle. I think it has a real potential in developing distorted and destructive thinking that doesn't promote a healthy psychological/spiritual mindset in young people or anyone else.
I agree and don’t share the author’s optimism on this point. I think similar content has already resulted in that kind of thinking. While it can be hard to ascertain how widespread and deep the impact, the effects seem to have manifested across the country and negatively influenced our discourse both on and off campus.
Kathy I completely agree.
Chandra, I appreciate your comment and understand why you have your perspective, thinking as you do that people like me and others on this thread oppose teaching black and women's history, banning books and censorship. I can't speak for others on this thread, but I can tell you that description does not accurately reflect my views, concerns or motives, and that I believe similar allegations are often made against people who don't deserve to have their views, concerns or motives characterized in that way.
The following excerpts from the article resonated with me:
----------
"Ethnic and racial histories—the experiences and contributions of different ethnic and racial groups in the US, the rivalries among them, the especially egregious injustices inflicted on some of them, the struggles to overcome those injustices, and instances of injustice and racism today— are taught in schools throughout the country. The best version of these classes teach ethnic and racial histories through multiple lenses, giving students a rich understanding of how these histories are connected to different ideas today.
"Ethnic studies, on the other hand, is the lens....Pointing out the origins and political aims of ethnic studies doesn’t discredit its point of view. But it does remind us that it is a point of view. Despite proponents’ claims, ethnic studies does not promote the teaching of multiple perspectives. It applies a single perspective to teaching about multiple ethnic groups. It is not just social conservatives who object to it. The ethnic studies perspective is contested by reputable scholars in the humanities and social sciences, and rejected by many members of the ethnic and racial groups for whom ethnic studies claims to speak.
"Requiring the ethnic studies lens across K-12 learning standards is therefore akin to requiring a feminist or libertarian lens. Those ideologies and others should be taught somewhere in the school curriculum, but they should be taught as rival interpretive frameworks and objects of analysis. None should be enshrined in state learning standards or local curricula as settled doctrine."
----------
I am open to considering the perspectives of those who believe that the content of what we are teaching in black and women's history courses is insufficient. Indeed, I am curious to know how you would want to supplement the current content of such courses, and would be grateful if you shared your thoughts on that question. Whatever the right depth and breadth of content is, though, I agree with the author that teachers and students should consider that content through a range of perspectives.
Thank you for your consideration of this comment.
Rick
Chandra,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We are in agreement that U.S. history needs to be taught, "warts and all," as is often said. In that regard, model curricula developed by FAIR and 1776 Unites attempt to contribute to such an outcome.
We are also in agreement that schools and other organizations benefit from a diversity of perspectives and thought, and I support efforts -- including those of FAIR, as well as others like FIRE and the Heterodox Academy -- to generate such outcomes. While there are DEI initiatives that encourage a diversity of perspectives and thought, one of my concerns -- which I believe is likely shared by others who have commented, as well as FAIR itself -- is that DEI programs often effect and even impose conformity of thought, which either results in self-censorship on the part of those who disagree, or material consequences for those who openly dissent or even just question. When that happens, the result mitigates against a diversity of perspectives, which is the point I understood the author of the article to be making.
I think one of the problems with the discourse in our country is that we often use the same words or terms and mean different things. In addition, we often assess people with opposing views based on caricatures created by people who are trying to divide us and/or don't understand the countervailing perspectives and how good, well-meaning people might come to have them. As a result, I believe conversations like the one we're having are critical, as such direct, good-faith communication can enable people with different perspectives to better understand each other, see the humanity in each other, and find common ground. So, thank you again for your willingness to engage.
In that regard, I hope you won't mind, if I can throw one more organization at you: Braver Angels (www.braverangels.org). Braver Angels is trying to bring Americans together across differences, not to change anyone's values or views, but to change how we treat those with whom we disagree, so that we can lower the temperature and toxicity in our discourse, bridge our political divide, work together to better understand and address our problems, and encourage elected officials to do the same. You might appreciate the heterodox engagement we have there, and you might also find it to have useful (and free) resources for you to leverage with your students. If you're interested in learning more, the website is full of information and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Best,
Rick
Historians were certainly white men initially in the US. They have been far from that since the 60s in the West.
Also, teaching an incessant gripe story of black/female history does not produce balanced, healthy, informed, happy citizens. Its another form of biased history and I have little doubt it produces miserable illinformed p/t activists.
Right on! My sentiments exactly
We have been teaching black and women's history for forty years now, in blue states more than any traditional history in fact. I have students who are sick of these fields. I myself studied this way more than any Eurocentric history.
In red states, different sure, but as a whole, its such a myth we don't teach these fields. High school teachers are so diverse, black and female that I doubt any student since 1999 has heard of Copernicus or Adam Smith.
This isn't about refusing to teach history, it's about putting everything under a lens to reimagine historical perspectives in a divisive and revisionist way, and for what? Where in the world has that worked out? Under Mao's China? Stalin's Russia, or the French Revolution, where these nations eradicated their historical past and re-created a new one? I'm all for teaching historical facts, as is this author. In fact the more, the better. What's at issue here, is how constructivist mannerisms and new age progressivism is hellbent on teaching history under a different lens, and that is destructive to kids when they don't first know their own history, first and foremost. How do you build on a foundation when nothing is there? A house of cards simply falls in the wind. I'd also say that when putting a reimagined history in front of teachers systemswide, does anyone have confidence it will be taught well?