Are American Universities the "Covert Enemies" of America?

mini · August 23, 2006, 2:12pm

“Now for some of the specifics of the article: Are students taught that the Founding Fathers advocated liberty and justice? Of course, they are. Are they told that Jeffeerson owned slaves. Yes, they are also taught that (although I expect that this should come up in high school). Should they not be taught about Jefferson’s slave ownership? Why not? It is a historical fact. Not liking it won’t make it go away.”

What they are not taught is that Jefferson not only owned slaves, but was the only President in American history to be elected by the “slave vote”, the 3/5ths compromise that gave a voter in Virginia with 250 slaves 151 times the voting power of one in Massachusetts, and that, without the slave vote, Adams would have easily defeated Jefferson in the election of 1801. Further, that the Louisiana Purchase was designed (and talked about at the time) as a way to extend the influence of the slave vote out into the future, and that the Purchase became possible only because of the first successful national slave revolt in the history of the world! (Haiti) Compared with the Haitian Revolution, the American Revolution was small potatoes when it comes to European history.

digmedia · August 23, 2006, 2:16pm

Our covert enemies are harder to identify, for they live in large numbers within our midst. And in terms of intentions, they are not enemies in the sense that they consciously wish to destroy our society. On the contrary, they enjoy our freedoms even while working to remove them. But they have also been working, over many years, to introduce Fear into our society so that they can solidify their power. These covert enemies are those among our elites who have promoted the ideas labeled as fundamentalism, neoconservatism, moral rectitude and greed.

At the center of their thinking is a notion of moral rectitude. Their ideas are morally superior to all others. Bush had his way, we should all agree with him – we’re to say what’s right! Their ideas should be “privileged,” especially those that have been the guiding forces in getting them elected and enriching themselves. These rich white men “know” they have the correct ideas, as proven by their accumulation of wealth and their willingness to employ the use of force. They think that rich white nations have a God-given right to impose their rule on people of color around the world. They think they must rescue the morally stained and presumptively wrong. Our covert enemies go quickly from the notion that all societies are morally inferior, except ours, to one of “the ends (their own election) justify the means (lies and deceit).”

These are the ideas that have been transmitted over a long generation by the elites who run our government, and who dominate our mainstream media. They sugarcoat an American history with the bad parts left out and the good parts reinterpreted to their own benefit. They are upset that we are taught actual history and are not brainwashed to make us good fundamentalist neoconservatives. They think that taxing the poor to enrich the rich is honorable. They think that lying to get the nation to go to war is honorable. They think that removing our civil liberties by invoking the word Terrorism is honorable. To be sure, some Americans tend to resist these ideas. By the millions they read serious biographies of the Founders and accounts of the Greatest Generation and even the Constitution of the United States. But the ideas of our covert enemies have their effect because they have the power, both civil and military.

originaloog · August 23, 2006, 2:21pm

second rate punditry filled with unsubstantiated generalizatons and lacking specific examples to support his positions. Hoist up another strawman!

A bad day at the keyboard for mr barrone.

DRJ4 · August 23, 2006, 2:43pm

Hanna,

I’m “alleging” that the Albert Shanker Institute report says 81% of college students in its study lacked a basic knowledge of American history. In my view, this is most definitely about ignorance in education - but it is ignorance produced as a result of a liberal political agenda that promotes tolerance of all views, particularly ones that are anti-democratic and anti-American, without a complementary acknowledgement of the contributions made by Western Civilization.

If our colleges were overwhelmingly populated with conservative professors, I have no doubt that we would face other serious problems in the academic arena. Colleges should be havens for those who think rather than bastions of liberal or conservative ideology.

Hanna · August 23, 2006, 2:53pm

Do you have any data to support this?

Heck, do you have any ANECDOTES to support this?

How do you explain the fact that our kids are just as terrible at math as they are at American history? Is this because elementary school math is also taught with a liberal slant?

<a href="http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=document&documentID=294#And%20’Rithmetic">http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=document&documentID=294#And%20’Rithmetic</a>

Also, it seems to me that if liberals are the problem, you would see better test scores and survey results in places like Mississippi and the Dakotas where school boards, parents, and teachers all lean strongly to the right. But that’s not the case.

(Edited to add: I’m amused imagining fourth-grade teachers telling kids: “That’s OK, Johnny, 49 over 7 can come out to 6 if you want…it’s only the capitalist patriarchy that says it has to be 7!”)

DRJ4 · August 23, 2006, 3:07pm

Hanna,

In my comment #26, I provided a link to the Albert Shanker Institute report that details deficiencies in the way we educate our children about American history and democratic values. Here is that link: <a href=“http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/EfD%20final.pdf[/url]”>http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/EfD%20final.pdf</a>. I agree that there are deficiencies in math knowledge and other subjects, too.

However, I will not provide a link showing the American educational system is dominated by liberals and liberal ideology. If we can’t agree on that, even I agree this debate is useless.

DRJ4 · August 23, 2006, 3:14pm

I take it you are too young to remember the introduction of “New Math” by teaching experts in the 1960’s. It was generally described as “1 + 1 = 3”.

Tarhunt · August 23, 2006, 3:39pm

DRJ4:

I remember new math well. I benefited greatly from it. Instead of learning that 1 + 1 = 2, we learned that this is true only in Base 3 or higher. From that, we learned that the zero is simply a placeholder and, from that, the ability to see the usefullness of a binary system where the only two digits are 1 and 0. Algebra was far easier for me because of new math (which really wasn’t new at all, just advanced).

As for your assertion that the reason so many college students did poorly in a recent history test as the result (somehow) of “them librals,” what do you make of this statement by Peter Schrag, writing in the Nov. 1997 issue of Atlantic Magazine:

"In 1943 The New York Times, citing findings by the historian Allan Nevins, reported its shock at discovering that
a large majority of [college] students showed that they had virtually no knowledge of elementary aspects of American history [and] could not identify such names as Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, or Theodore Roosevelt… Some students believed that George Washington was president during the War of 1812… St. Louis was placed on the Pacific Ocean, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, the Atlantic Ocean, Ohio River, and almost every place else.

Similarly, the college students described Walt Whitman as a missionary, a pioneer, a colonizer, an unpatriotic writer, a humorist, an English poet, and (not surprising in the days of Paul Whiteman) a band leader. Plus ça change …"

Was that the result of liberal ideology? In the midst of WWII?

digmedia · August 23, 2006, 3:45pm

I was a HS math teacher at the end of the sixties. To equate New Math with relativism and liberalism and to say it taught 1+1=3 is a gross misrepresentation, misunderstanding, and an indication that you do not really know what was taught.

However, in these days of computers, EVERYONE knows that 1 + 1 = 10. ;)

========

I don’t want this to turn into a discussion of “New Math,” but there are two basic approaches to the teaching of math: rote learning (memorizing formulas and facts) and teaching the underlying understanding. I think the same applies to neoconservatism and liberalism. Neoconservatism doesn’t really WANT citizens to understand what their rights are. They want to use the words (“freedom”) in a rote way. Liberalism wants citizens to REALLY understand what it means to have those rights. Like math, however, many people do not want the understanding because it would mean standing up for those rights for people, even when the person whose rights you might be supporting is saying things abhorent to you.

Allmusic · August 23, 2006, 3:49pm

I think Hanna has hit the proverbial nail on the head.

“…if liberals are the problem, you would see better test scores and survey results in places like Mississippi and the Dakotas where school boards, parents, and teachers all lean strongly to the right. But that’s not the case.”

Fact is, the worst performing schools in the entire US are those in traditionally conservative “red” states. And conversely, the best performing schools are those in the liberal “blue” states.

So, is the problem liberal teachers? Or not?

DRJ4 · August 23, 2006, 3:52pm

Digmedia,

I don’t want this to turn into a New Math discussion either but, as a former teacher, perhaps you can bring some clarity to this issue. As I recall, New Math was a substitute for arithmetic, which up until then had been taught by memorization. Also, I was under the impression that New Math is No More, having been discarded as a viable teaching method some time ago by most school districts.

DRJ4 · August 23, 2006, 3:58pm

Allmusic,

I doubt many here (including me) know how teachers in Mississippi teach or their politics. However, the teaching profession as a whole is typically liberal, secular, PC, or whatever you want to call it.

Tarhunt · August 23, 2006, 4:02pm

DRJ4:

Having been taught new math, I can assure you that it was not a substitute for arithmetic unless you consider Algebra a substitute for arithmetic. We used Venn diagrams to understand the concept of sets and subsets, learned about bases, solved simple equations, and the like.

In my school district, new math “failed” for two reasons. One was parental pressure (“Gawlleeee Martha. What’s them letter x things doing thar’ where there should be some figgers? I don’t want no child o’ mine learning t’add and subtract with letters? They need t’learn th’old way. The tried and true way!”)

The other was that many teachers were too old and too set in their ways to adapt, so implementation could be very poor.

For all I could see, new math was just pre-algebra, for the most part, taught at a much earlier age than is customary.

michuncle · August 23, 2006, 4:04pm

God is in the Details: so spoke Mies van der Rohe.

Where to begin?

The author believes: They (the terrorists) hate our society because of its freedoms and liberties If anything, the terrorists are openly envious of our liberties. The real problem for Islam is to find an Islamic approach to modernity. So much of Western culture is alluring to Muslim youth that a natural reaction is to preach a strict fundamentalism that places faith above a material life.

The Covert Enemy: believers in moral relativism. Oh, liberals? Why didnt you say so? The author states:

At the center of their thinking is a notion of moral relativism. No idea is morally superior to another. Hitler had his way; we have ours – who’s to say who is right? No ideas should be “privileged,” especially those that have been the guiding forces in the development and improvement of Western civilization. Rich white men have imposed their ideas because of their wealth and through the use of force. Rich white nations imposed their rule on benighted people of color around the world. For this sin of imperialism they must forever be regarded as morally stained and presumptively wrong. Our covert enemies go quickly from the notion that all societies are morally equal to the notion that all societies are morally equal except ours, which is worse.

I have no idea what any of this means. If I recall my American History, it was the conservative America First-ers that believed that Hitler was not a threat to America. Let Europe solve its own problems, they said. Fortress America It was through the machinations of the Democrat, Harvard educated and liberal FDR (The Great Satan of his day) that moved America towards a war footing against German and Japanese fascism.

From that poorly thought out idea, the author rambles on about privileged ideas that were the guiding forces in the development and improvement of Western civilization. The author does not tell us what those ideas were except to say that Rich white men imposed their ideas (privileged?) using wealth and force to advance Imperialism (The White Mans Burden). Seemingly, the author believes that Imperialism was a sin. And from that sin, everything that flows from the fruits of Imperialism is bankrupt as well I would agree with this statement, if that was what the author meant. What the author is trying to say (imperfectly) is that all ideas, thoughts or actions ought not to be judged through the prism of Imperialism alone. That is, Imperialism alone should not be the controlling factor in judging the moral compass of nations. But isnt this the very moral relativism that the author decries? The author believes that covert enemies harshly judge nations based on the sins of Imperialism. What the author urges is to look beyond Imperialisms evils to see a nations fundamental goodness. Isnt this conservative relativity?

American history: Good parts and bad

The author wants us to look beyond the fact that some of our Founding Fathers held slaves and emphases their proclamations of universal liberties and human rights (which, seemingly, doesnt apply to enemy combatants). Then universal liberties and human rights are selective in their application?

Yes, elites paint a dire picture of Japanese-American internment. Yet conservatives dont seem too eager to point out the heroics of the Japanese-American 442nd Regimental Combat brigade which was the most highly decorated US unit in WWII.

And who ordered the internment of Japanese-Americans ? Why that same liberal, FDR. In Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), the Supreme Court agreed with the President. And which Supreme Court Justices supported the President?

Hugo Black: University of Alabama
Harlan Stone: Amherst/Columbia Law School
Stanley Reed: Kentucky Wesleyan/Yale/ UVA/Columbia/France (no law degree)
William Douglas: Columbia Law School
Wiley Blount Rutledge: University of Colorado/Boulder
Felix Frankfurter: Harvard

All the supporting Justices came from elite schools and, for the purposes of the Korematsu decision, did not appear to be tainted by moral relativism. Shouldnt they and FDR be enshrined in the Neocons Hall of Fame? After all, Japanese-Americans could have posed a security threat to our country just like Muslim and Muslim-Americans might do today. FDR, rightly or wrongly, acted on that perceived threat and a majority of the Supreme Court agreed. To be fair, some of the Justices regretted their decision after the war ended.

The author adds that Americans are not taught that the American military forces liberated millions from tyranny. Did I sleep through my teachers lecture on D-Day, the liberation of France, Poland, Italy, Greece and the Philippines? Theres got to be a few millions of people there

Now, onto slavery… The author bravely points to Adam Hochschilds book Bury the Chains. Mr. Hochschild is an editor at MotherJones magazine (high on the reading list of any Neocon?). The book ably describes the anti-slavery movement in England and America. However, our author, Mr. Barone wrongly concludes that only England and America held the high ideals that sought to end slavery. While not the focus of Mr. Hochschilds book, the process of manumission in Latin America is a subject alien to Mr. Barone. Again, sweeping statements, no evidence or thought to prove his points.

The Taliban Post 9/11 our enemy Pre 9/11 (at least in the 80s), our friends Mr. Barone obviously never watched the 1987 James Bond film, The Living Daylights. James Bond, with the aid of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, fought off the Russians. The next year, in Rambo III, the Taliban comes to the aid of John Rambo to rescue his old Colonel from the evil Soviet Empire. The US (under Ronald Reagan) trained, armed and paid off the Taliban to aid in their fight for freedom: <a href=“http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/278.html[/url]”>http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45/278.html</a>

And the pieces de resistance, the author writes:

In World War II, our elites understood that we were the forces of good and that victory was essential. Today, many of our elites subject our military and intelligence actions to fine-tooth-comb analysis and find that they are morally repugnant.

All of a sudden, the author brings up some good elites! The elites that Mr. Barone favorably points to during WWII can only be FDR and his New Deal cronies who prosecuted the war effort and not to the Fortress America conservatives (What happens in Europe, Stays in Europe).

And finally, Mr. Barone chastises some elites who choose to exercise their moral compass and find fault in our dealings with our advesaries. We rail against the curelties of slavery, but a little waterboarding is OK?

Sadly, Mr. Barones essay strikes me as a sophmores Red Bull caffine and sugar rush to finish a term paper the night before its due. It sounds great at 3 oclock in the morning, but, in the cold light of day, it simply fails to deliver the goods.

Allmusic · August 23, 2006, 4:09pm

DRJ4, I have no idea how teachers in Mississippi teach either. My point is that if teachers, in general, are liberal, how do you explain the disparity between scores nationwide?

Actually, I think teachers reflect their communities, by and large. You will have a more conservative teacher population in Montgomery than in Seattle, for example. I would venture to guess that professors at the University of Alabama are more conservative than those at the University of Washington, on average, as well…which begs the question…are students at the U of Alabama more historically “literate” than those at the UDubb?

Tarhunt · August 23, 2006, 4:11pm

DRJ4:

Hanna’s point stands. Since teachers are part of the general population, one would expect teachers in conservative parts of the country to be more conservative than teachers in more liberal parts of the country. One would then expect schools in more conservative parts of the country to produce better results than in more liberal parts.

But they don’t.

Of course, if we were to assume that, we would also have to assume single-factor causality for test results. That’s something that we will do here because it is what you do and have done.

DRJ4 · August 23, 2006, 4:19pm

I guess someone forgot to tell the Wall Street Journal that teachers and their largest union are a cross-section of America:

<a href=“http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007761[/url]”>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007761</a>

Once again, and this time with feeling, I reiterate that I will not debate whether teachers generally are liberal and their typical curriculum is secular/liberal. If we can’t agree on that, and we clearly can’t, then there is no point to this discussion.

Plus I have to work.

Tarhunt · August 23, 2006, 4:27pm

DRJ4:

No. That’s not the point. Your assertion is that liberalism causes educational ills. I will gladly stipulate to the fact that, at the university/college level, there are many more liberals than conservatives. No problem there. I will not stipulate to that at the pre-college/university level. My own experience growing up in a very conservative community is that my teachers were infinitely conservative.

You have, however, failed to make any viable link between what you consider ills (and not everyone does) and liberalism, in general. You have postulated single factor causality without a shred of evidence for doing so. Many people have presented valid arguments and/or mitigations to your unfounded assertions, and you have not answered them.

By all means. Cut and run.

JHS · August 23, 2006, 5:18pm

Everyone is doing a perfectly good job debunking this [stuff], but I want to add a couple of minor points re lack of historical education:

(1) There is a disconnect between DRJ4’s smug savaging of the NEA and his wholehearted championing of an Albert Shanker Institute study, 100% funded by the union that represents the REST of American public school teachers. There may be a political difference between the NEA and the AFT, but it’s not that much. I think if he read that study, he might notice that it’s pretty middle-left in orientation. It certainly advocates teaching kids that slavery and Japanese internment were bad things.

(2) A lot of what’s at stake in the debate over history education is national educational priorities. In case anyone hasn’t noticed, No Child Left Behind has produced standards that are pretty much limited to math and reading. There are other programs that encourage science teaching, but not much on the history front. If you evaluate (and sometimes punish) school districts based on reading and math tests, and pay them to teach science, their efforts are going to be directed towards reading and math, and some science. The time and effort devoted to history (and art, and music, and everything else) is going to be reduced.

(3) I would like to meet one kid, just one, who has the attitudes the article presumes – everything is relative, America is bad – because that’s what he was taught in school.

DRJ4 · August 23, 2006, 5:45pm

Tarhunt and JHS,

First, I’m happy to discuss the substance of Michael Barone’s article. It’s surprising that JHS would caution me to read the Albert Shanker Institute report since sometimes it appears I’m the only one who has read it. It specifically addresses the notion that democracy has been diluted by moral equivalency, a tenet of liberal Democratic thought that has been embraced by our schools. See especially page 10 of the report that I will link one last time: <a href=“http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/EfD%20final.pdf[/url]”>http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/EfD%20final.pdf</a>

Second, JHS makes a good point: The Albert Shanker Institute may have an agenda (just, in fairness, as the NEA has an agenda). Keep that in mind when you read the report. I also appreciate his mention that he would like to see one kid who thinks everything in America is relative or bad. JHS, may I suggest you browse Daily Kos’ website?

Third, and last: Tarhunt, I don’t think I deserved your “cut and run” comment. I had to be offline for approximately 1-1/2 hours due to work and, as a courtesy, I mentioned it to explain my absence. On the other hand, it did have a nice ring to it. Touche’.

Are American Universities the "Covert Enemies" of America?

CONNECT WITH US