Apparently, education is a popular topic this week. Yesterday, I mentioned the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act being debated in the U.S. House, which would give the Department of Education the authority to “develop” and “disseminate” high school curricula.
Today, the Texas State Board of Education begins debating social studies curriculum standards that would affect history, government, and economics classes in public schools for the next 10 years. And naturally, the debate isn’t without controversy.
One of the biggest questions is how much emphasis should be placed on the role of Christianity in history books. Critics argue that the Board is showing a clear Christian bias, including appointing conservative Christian experts to review current standards.
Some of the board-appointed reviewers are picking and choosing certain people and events from history to make an argument that America is a Christian nation, said John Fea, a history professor at Messiah College, a Christian school in Grantham, Pa.
“Students are not learning history. They are learning the facts about the past that suit some larger agenda, a cultural and political agenda,” said Fea, who has been following the Texas curriculum process.
“My best advice would be to respect the historians, respect the voice of historians,” said Fea, “and try to keep politics out of the teaching of history.”
A few observations here:
First, it’s impossible to teach history or government without discussing politics and religion. Go on, try it. It can’t be done. It’s a proven fact that 99% of history involves politics and/or religion to some extent. The other 1% mainly involves men in funny hats, but even that often is related to politics and religion.
Second, all historians have an agenda. Don’t be fooled by their stunning good looks, these folks are serious. And as someone with a History degree, I know of what I speak. The reality is that history, while comprised of objective facts and statistics, is largely subjective. What history “is” depends on how the historian interprets those facts and statistics. So any time an “expert” tells you a history book is completely unbiased, they’re lying. The bias might not be great, but it’s there. The critics in Austin simply want to trade a bias that they don’t like for one that they do.
Third, the United States is a Christian nation, so to downplay the role of Christianity in our history is pretty reckless. Now, when I say the U.S. is a “Christian nation”, what I mean is that Christianity has played a critical role throughout our existence. Christopher Columbus, the Puritans, the Founding Fathers, the U.S. Constitution, slavery, the Civil War, Manifest Destiny, the Enlightenment, Prohibition, the Civil Rights Movement, abortion, gay rights. Every single one of these topics was influenced in one way or another by Christianity.
Does that mean we should ignore the role of Judaism, Islam, or other religions in U.S. and world history? Absolutely not. But just because you discuss a particular religion in an historical context doesn’t mean you’re promoting it.
Finally, I’m struck by the irony of this debate. This is the same Board of Education who only 6 months ago voted to eliminate the “strengths and weaknesses” requirement when teaching evolution in science classes, pretty much guaranteeing that evolution will go unquestioned in public schools. The critics who argue that the Board is being biased with social studies now didn’t seem to mind them being biased with science back then. I’m sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.
As I said back in January regarding the evolution question, I think students need to be able to do their own research and come to their own conclusions, and they should be free to question and debate as part of the process. That’s true with science, and it’s just as true with history.
Previously:
Should evolution be debated in public schools?
Bill would protect the grades of students who disagree with evolution
History to be (re)written by the victors?
