<p>I see that others made this point before me, but you didn’t just assert that it was dominated by liberals and their ideology. You asserted that the liberal ideology was CAUSING the ignorance of our young people. This is the point that you’ve failed to support with any evidence (or anecdote).</p>
<p>This is in some ways a surprising argument for me because I’m quite sympathetic to the “back to basics” point of view; I think the prevalence of cultural and scientific illiteracy in America, even among privileged middle-class kids, is a national embarrassment. It’s a disgrace that every child doesn’t master the three R’s. I just don’t think that liberal ideology is to blame, or that restoring the whitewash on history classes is the solution.</p>
<p>DRJ4: You missed my points. First: The Albert Shanker Institute is an organ of a giant teacher’s union. You can’t argue that teachers don’t agree with you when you are agreeing with them. Second: If you want more and better history taught, the places to start are the U.S. Department of Education and the Texas Education Agency (which is the largest single textbook purchaser in the country). Last time I looked, they were pretty much controlled by Republicans. As are most state accreditation agencies, and as are the vast majority of local school boards (which in most states have considerable curriculum responsibility). Third: I don’t doubt that there are people who hold the beliefs you demonize, but I don’t think they were taught to think that way. I think they came to it on their own, certainly outside the secondary education system. How did you come to hold your beliefs? Did you simply accept what your high school textbook said? I doubt it. I’m not sure I even READ my high school textbook, it was so dumb. In the world I live in, many different things combine to produce peoples’ basic outlooks, and making up their own minds is a big one.</p>
<p>Lefties, by the way, LOVE history. I don’t know one who doesn’t devour it. They also love America, while feeling periodic shame or anger at its government. It’s the talk-radio wingnuts and the America-Right-Or-Wrong crowd who come across as historically ignorant, or whose vision of history seems strategically molded to whatever has their goat at the moment.</p>
<p>As I suggested earlier, there are different issues here. Whether Americans I know (enough) history, and whether the history they are taught in college is undermining America.</p>
<p>JI agree partly with JHS about the textbook issue. Partly because I have no idea whether the various school boards are dominated by Republicans (and whether this makes a real difference) and partly because, while the current Department of Education reflects the Republican administration’s priorities, whatever problem exists as far as Americans’ historical knowledge is concerned predates this administration by a long, long shot. </p>
<p>On the subject of high school textbooks, they are written by committees keen to have the textbooks adopted by school boards. CA and TX are the largest puchasers of textbooks and thus pretty much dictate what the rest of the country’s hs students read. The key, though, is not to offend anybody and to include as many as possible of various people’s pet interests. Hence the doorstop size of most textbooks: it’s easier to put in than to take out. And this also accounts for the bland tone of most texts. But this is a result of the workings of the market, not of a left-wing conspiracy.</p>
<p>Given the requirement in most high schools that I know of that students take four years of history and at least one year of US history, if American students remain woefully ignorant of their country’s history is a testament to the failure of their teachers to pass on their ideas, right or left.</p>
<p>Barone attacks college profs. But how many students actually take history classes in college? Most students, after all, are not history majors, though the majority of history majors focus on US history. The rest may take one or perhaps two history classes in order to fulflll their gen ed requirements; they will not necessarily take a US History class. Besides accusing all college profs wholesale, Barone gives them too much power to shape the ideologies of their students. You and he and I and others did not fall for Ward Churchill and his ilk. Why can’t we trust students not to fall for them, either?</p>
<p>I read the article quoted in post #60. Its central points are that recent work on American history is skewed, and that this skewed version, presented in schools, leads to (1) students who don’t have the right values regarding participatory democracy, (2) students who don’t know how much it sucks to live elsewhere, and (3) students who don’t have enough pride in their national heroes and achievements. Page 10 contains personal reflections about how a good education can enhance the democratic experience.</p>
<p>The article barely hints at a connection between politically skewed history instruction and kids who think Abraham Lincoln invented the penny. It certainly does not support that idea with evidence.* It’s about teaching kids the wrong values, not about failing to teach them basic facts.</p>
<p>We could discuss the pros and cons of this article, but when I say, “Support your theory with facts,” and you say “Here’s an article describing a related theory,” that’s not very convincing.</p>
<p>*Funny, this article bemoans the lack of perspective in textbooks that place Mao’s China on a moral footing with Jefferson’s America…and the article in post #1 places me on a moral footing with Osama bin Laden (because we both want America to “lose”). That’s perspective?</p>
<p>JHS, let me get this straight. Albert Shanker was a life-long Democrat and a staunch union man, yet you present him as the poster boy for neo-cons and right-wingers. Albert Shanker and his Institute have been committed to federal supervision and intervention in education. At its peak in the 1980’s, his union’s members were 1/3 of the NEA’s membership. Overall, that doesn’t sound like a right-wing organization, nor is it the countervailing force for conservatism in education you suggest. Perhaps that’s why the “Education for Democracy” report is so disappointing for those with a liberal bent.</p>
<p>Marite, thanks for coming back. I agree with you about textbooks but it’s precisely that blandness that makes moral equivalency the norm. If the goal is to say nothing offensive, you end up saying nothing.</p>
<p>Hanna, for the purposes of discussion, I provided a link to a report that ascribes the lack of knowledge of US history in young people to cultural relativism and moral equivalence. You object that I have not provided facts proving that liberal ideology has caused people to devalue democracy. We are at an impasse since I’m not going to spend all my time (beyond the considerable amount I’ve already spent) researching that issue to provide incontrovertible proof. For the present, could we agree to disagree?</p>
<p>Okay, I’m still on board … to an extent. The marketing of inoffensive history books may not be a “left-wing conspiracy” but it does favor a tolerant, diverse, multicultural ideology more than it favors conservative ideology.</p>
<p>And I agree there is something for everyone - in the sense that you can buy the textbooks you want and someone, somewhere will supply them - but they aren’t all available at Walmart prices. The market selects the most universally acceptable product (in this case, textbooks) that appeals to the largest possible market (school districts). By definition, the inoffensive textbooks offend the fewest people but that doesn’t make them the best textbooks.</p>
<p>For example, if textbooks were cars, the market would select for Chevy Luminas and not Rolls Royce Phantoms. PC history, where no one is right and no one is wrong, is like a Chevy Lumina - serviceable, dependable, uninspiring. Western civilization and democracy are the Rolls Royce of ideas. (Sorry, this is a lousy analogy but it’s been a long day and it’s the best I can do.)</p>
<p>Small school districts cannot buy the textbooks they want, necessarily, because publishers cater to the larger markets. </p>
<p>I agree that inoffensive textbooks does not make them the best textbooks. But that IS the point: they are inoffensive. They are not written by “enemies” of America and dp not set out to convert anyone to some controversial ideas. They eschew controversy like the plague.</p>
<p>THAT should be a topic for Barone to pick up on, rather than demonizing college profs.</p>
<p>Here are some excerpts from Non Campus Mentis. If you want to read more, and weep while laughing, buy the book. It’s more frightening than the possibility that they’ve been brainwashed by left-wing college profs. </p>
<p>I accept your textbook analysis. Nevertheless, if we Americans are ambivalent about democracy and refuse to teach our children that it’s the best hope for mankind, then who will?</p>
<p>And thanks for the link and the laugh. For me, it’s a good “last word” on the subject.</p>
<p>There are many discrepancies here as pointed out by many posters. But in all honesty DJR4, I just don’t see that you have successfully grappled with the problem of one of the theses: if inadequate knowledge of history leads to lack of appreciation of American and Western values, why is the lack of appreciation of American/Western values found mostly in highly educated college professors? Plus, as several have pointed out before, college students do not appear as unformed clay to be molded by their professors, nor are the most liberal states pumping out the most ignorant students. </p>
<p>Mr. Barone’s thesis just doesn’t hold up: too many fallacies, too many unproven assertions, and too many discrepancies.</p>
<p>You mention DailyKos. I agree many of the posters are amazingly over the top. But one thing you may notice about DailyKos posters is that they source their opinions fairly closely (at least, the posters allowed on the front page do). You may not agree with them, but any main poster on DK who fails to source their facts and back up their opinions with some evidence gets instantly attacked. You might think their sources are adequate, you may not agree with their interpretation of the facts they present, and you may challenge which facts they decide to omit (I frequently don’t come close to agreeing with their conclusions), but the main posters take a fairly rigorous approach. Which is more than can be said about Mr. Barone.</p>
I’m trying to catch up. Is this tolerant, diverse, multicultural ideology a bad thing or a good thing? Is the point that an intolerant, homogenous, ethnocentric ideology is the conservative ideology? If so, that explains a lot, doesn’t it? They need to put that on a button. </p>
<p>Oh, and out here in West Central Texas the teachers are about 80% conservative, 15% reactionary, 5% mute. ;)</p>
<p>Button talk reminds me of my all time favorite political button- “Nuke a Gay Whale For Christ”. I wore it proudly.</p>
<p>“if we Americans are ambivalent about democracy and refuse to teach our children that it’s the best hope for mankind, then who will?”</p>
<p>Democracy per se or a specific brand? The way things are done in USA is not the same way things are done in Finland. So do we teach our kids to value democracy, but appreciate the differences, or impress on them that it’s “our way or wrong” ?</p>
<p>DRJ4: I’m not portraying Albert Shanker, who died nearly 10 years ago, as a neocon. I’m commenting on the irony that YOU, a neocon, are simultaneously championing a study funded by a teacher’s union still very strong in “blue” East Coast cities and claiming that over-liberal teachers dominate the profession and are harming kids. In my opinion, the study IS somewhat neocon, but then lots of people – I, and lots of teachers, too – are “somewhat” neocon, on an issue-by-issue basis. The Shanker Institute paper could be summarized: Teachers want history textbooks with more positive themes about democracy, the U.S. governmental structure, and its ideals. Fine, I believe that. Now where are these enemies of America you demonize?</p>
<p>I’m still waiting to hear an explanation of how any of this (1) makes kids stupider across the board or (2) turns them into “covert enemies of America.”</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>First of all, as I discussed above, that’s not what the article does. It ascribes a lack of democratic values to cultural relativism and moral equivalence. Lack of values =/= ignorance.</p>
<p>Second, you provided a link to an article full of THEORY when I asked for FACTS. Theory + theory =/= evidence.</p>
<p>In other words, you made an assertion, I asked for factual support, and it never came. If you call that “agreeing to disagree,” so be it.</p>
<p>You reject the premise so I doubt that any facts would convince you. I imagine there are studies and statistics that support Michael Barone’s point but I don’t have the time or inclination to research them. There are surely other resources that cast doubt on his thesis. Life’s big issues frequently involve ideas that may be right or may be wrong. Every now and then, those are the issues worth discussing. Your demand for proof is a way to foreclose even hypothetical debate. So here’s the “fact” for the purposes of a website like CC: You may be right; Michael Barone may be right. Agree to disagree.</p>
<p>By the way, does it trouble you that our educational system might promote “a lack of democratic values”?</p>
<p>I’d rather teach students to question that to believe, “My country, right or wrong.” We have enough blind flag-waving jingoistic nationalists…and that’s just at the Olympic games.</p>
<p>I never accept premises that allege no basis in fact, and I wouldn’t ask for support if I had already rejected the premise. Barone does not present his ideas as pure speculation. He presents them as conclusions about the state of the world. Likewise, you stated that these professors “undermine us as a nation” (post #22); you didn’t say, “I wonder if this is could be hurting the country?”</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>So do you accept his premise out of faith? Because you haven’t even explained whether/what personal experiences led you to this conclusion.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>No, I didn’t demand proof, I demanded EVIDENCE. Even anecdotal evidence (“my son’s liberal history teacher didn’t teach him a thing, but he learned a lot from the conservative one”) would have been welcome. It still is.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I may be right about what? I didn’t put forward any theory. I wanted you to explain what’s behind Barone’s, since you thought that it was valuable enough to share.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’m extremely troubled that our nationwide ignorance (especially in civics and science) and our nationwide lack of skills (especially critical thinking and written expression) is hurting us tremendously. Our voters aren’t making educated choices, and our workers can’t compete with the rest of the world. And I’m happy to explain what observations led to that conclusion if you’re interested.</p>
<p>I still think that expecting people to march in lockstep with neocon talking points is more promoting “a lack of democratic values” than teaching kids to think.</p>
<p>DRJ4 might not want what he/she wishes for: If we had more educated voters, he-who-must-not-be-named would not be in office. :)</p>
The way things are done in USA is not the same way things are done in Finland. So do we teach our kids to value democracy, but appreciate the differences, or impress on them that it’s “our way or wrong” ?</p>