Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01128)

Well, I must admit this is an interesting way of introducing an
argument in support of the anti-PC movement - and I fully agree
.. it is well worth it to examine this in detail, as it *is*
very telling.

>In the April 15, 1996, issue of "Newsweek", there is an
>short note on history tests and politics:
>
>"Makeup Test: More History, Less P.C."
>
>"When the National Center for History in the Schools
>issued its first set of teaching standards back in 1994,
>the flag hit the fan. Critics railed that these voluntary
>guidelines, detailing what students K-12 should learn about
>American and world history, were so P.C., so self-consciously
>multi-culti, that they distorted the national heritage. The
>standards contained 17 references to the Ku Klux Klan, for
>example, and 19 to McCarthyism, but no mention at all of
>Paul Revere or Thomas Edison. But now, it seems, the light
>bulb has gone on. Last week the center, based at UCLA,
>released new recommendations with the revisionist history
>substantially revised. Some comparisons:"

A bit of background on the huge debate that has gone on behind
these standards is probably worthwhile - as the Newsweek article
hardly even scratches the surface, and in addition definately
comes down on one side of what is a *political* issue, in this
lead paragraph accepting a particular example produced as
"talking points" by Congressional conservatives. "Now the light
bulb has gone on" ...? Is such the language of an objective
report, or of an *editorial position* masquerading as one?
Newsweek's readership is overwhelmingly the American white middle
class - with large amounts of its advertising budget coming from
large corporate sponsors.

The production of these teaching standards was begun by Lynn
Cheney, who was appointed to the task by then President George
Bush. A large number of teachers, school administrators, and
professional historians from across the country participated in
the project - which took four or five years. This was not the
work of a few "Politically Correct" extremists ... the people
were drawn from across the political landscape. Lynn Cheney left
the project after Bush was voted out of office - but as the
project neared completion, did not at all like what was being
produced ... and started speaking often and in public about it.
Republicans in Congress became involved. The "critics" who
"railed" about these standards, claiming that they "distorted the
national heritage" were not primarily *historians*, but rather,
*politicians* from the conservative right.

Since the original standards were released its critics used a
very interesting tactic to battle them in the political sphere
.. which also shows up in the Newsweek piece, "counting" the
number of mentions of particular people. Of course they rarely
say that the "counts" generally referred to *teaching points*,
specific personal examples of larger historical trends - the
suggested *discussions* about the material, and not the material
itself - in which both Thomas Edison and Paul Revere *were*
mentioned - it is *ridiculous* to think a larger number of
diverse educators from around the country, as well as the
reviewers of the standards, would define the standards for K-12
history education and *never* mention Revere or Edison. And it is
simply a lie.

As a result of the intense *political* pressure, all 2,500
teaching examples were removed ... there are now *none*. A 600
page document with an enormous number of individual historical
anecdotes to illustrate the bigger picture (as, for instance, Ken
Burns put a face on the dates and events of the Civil War by
reading the letters of those fighting it) has now been reduced to
200 pages of generalities. All "objectionable" material has now
been removed. What is left is nice, white history that certainly
will not make anyone "uncomfortable", nor cause anyone to
question the American *government* or big business, their
history, or any of their activities. This, apparently, is "good";
this is "a light bulb going on".
     Of course, a lot of educators and historians might say it
was a successful attempt to make sure thousands of "light bulbs"
never get turned on in the first place - wouldn't want the youth
of America actually *questioning* our history with the Native
American tribes, or the history of big business, now would we?
     But the *critics" were not making a *historical* argument -
but rather a *political* one. Bush probably made the initial
mistake ... he actually asked *scholars* instead of politicians
to write the "national standards". Of course, scholars actually
will occaisionally think independently of their government,
sometimes even (gasp) *critisize* it (how *dare* they say the
whites moving westward did anything mean to the Indians?).
     As Professor Gary Nash, head of the UCLA center that
coordinated production of the standards said (at an American
Studies Association meeting last year), " the attack on the
original standards is actually an attack on the historical
scholarship of the last generation".


>What does this show us and how can we learn from this
>in our theosophical circles?
     Yes, let's see what "teaching points" are in this story.

>We see what happens in standard politics. People
>don't strive for a balanced position, but carry things
>to extremes. Why? To tilt the scales in the desired
>direction as much as possible. The intent is to effect
>change in others, rather than inform and teach.
     Yes. And the critics of the standards successfully did just
that. This is the first "lesson to for the TS": When *scholars*
use the words "inform and teach", they generally mean trying to
get people to *question* things, most especially "accepted"
wisdom. When *politicians* use those words, it usually means
attempting to make sure the status quo is affirmed and supported
by yet another generation. And when those with power in a society
(be it national, or an organization) "critisize" a particular
view of history, it is often as a *political tactic* rather than
as an actual discussion of the *academic* truth of the subject
matter. What Congressional conservatives did to the original
standards bears a striking resemblance to Wheaton's response to
K. Paul Johnson.
     The second "teaching point" in the example of these national
standards is simply this: That any move towards expansion of
thought, towards a more inclusive view of things, will provoke a
strong backlash, from those with power in the current structure,
to re-affirm the status quo ... who will generally not just
attempt to engage in a discussion of the matter at hand, but to
make sure such a discussion never even happens. And will use the
full force of institutional power to do so.
     There are indeed good lessons to be learned for the TS in
the national standards debate. It was an excellent teaching
example.
                                                       -JRC