The Texas Textbook Debate: An Editorial

           The Texas Board of Education has received more attention from the national press in the last few weeks than at any time in recent memory. The attention surrounds the Board’s evaluation and proposed changes to the Social Studies curriculum for public school children in Texas. The conclusion has also been drawn that the changes in the Texas curriculum could have wide-spread implications for school districts across the country as new textbooks are developed next year to reflect the changes proposed by the Board. I must admit that I initially took little interest in the meetings last week in Austin (Texas Board of Education meetings are generally less than surprising or interesting), until information began to come out about some of the proposed changes.

            Revisionist history is dangerous to the American identity and has always frustrated and angered me. Whether revisionism comes from the far left who wish to cast American history in a less than flattering light by emphasizing darker periods of history at the expense of the achievements of the founding fathers; or from the far right who seem to see religion woven into every bit of the American fabric, revisionism is dangerous. One cannot deny that the principle of freedom of religion was a motivating factor in the development of the Republic, but the Texas Board of Education has taken this principle to an extreme and intends to emphasize Christianity as the motivating factor for American independence. Ken Mercer, a Board member from San Antonio was quoted in the New York Times as saying, “To deny the Judeo-Christian values of our founding fathers is just a lie to our kids.”

           This is a rather innocuous quote and on its face is arguably valid. However, the question arises as to where this view leaves some of the most well known framers, most notably Thomas Jefferson. It has been widely accepted that Jefferson was a deist not a Christian. Furthermore much of Jefferson’s inspiration and views of government emanated from the writings of John Locke. One of Locke’s most well-known writings was “Letters Concerning Toleration” written after the European wars of religion. In this letter Locke wrote, I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other. If this be not done, there can be no end put to the controversies that will be always arising between those that have, or at least pretend to have, on the one side, a concernment for the interest of men’s souls, and, on the other side, a care of the commonwealth.” Jefferson was undoubtedly familiar with this staple of Locke’s writings.

            While the Christian faith was important to many of the framers, The Federalist Papers (written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay) are devoid of Biblical quotes or references. One would assume that if Christianity were the major motivating factor for the framers, then such references would have been included in The Federalist Papers as this was how the idea of a free Republic was communicated and sold to the citizenry. I am not diminishing the role of faith and American history, but a proper understanding of the foundations of American political thought are vital to teaching the facts of American history rather than the opinions of modern American politicians. We must not trivialize the contributions of the Christian faith to American history, nor can we over-emphasize and revise the faiths of the individual framers at the expense of historical accuracy in an attempt to further some political ideology.

            The issue of religion is just one of a number of questionable positions taken by the majority of the Texas Board of Education, but it appears to be the most radical. Of the 15 elected members of the Board, only one has a background in history education. The remainder of the Board is composed of lawyers, realtors, business professionals, a dentist and a community organizer. How exactly are any of these people qualified to set curriculums for History and Government teachers? The best outcome that any history educator can hope for is that politicians get out of the education business. It is my goal (and prayer) that history is taught without any bias whatsoever. I don’t want liberal nor conservative revisionists. Politicizing history only denigrates the American identity.

About dwilson

David Wilson is a current Graduate Student in the Department of History at American Public University with an emphasis in American History. David's current research interests are American Diplomatic and Military History. David is also a graduate of the History Department at the University of Texas at Austin.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to The Texas Textbook Debate: An Editorial

  1. LeAnn Rice says:

    As a history teacher and Christian, I too wish politicians would stay out of the education business and that history would be taught without bias. Rather, we should be teaching our students how to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions based on the evidence and to teach them to see the opposing view as well. Teaching students to think critically about the past is, in my opinion, one of our important jobs as history educators.

  2. WORD says:

    U.S. HISTORY AS A TEACHER, I HAVE A CONCERN, CONRELAÇÃO DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS, AS TO THE INTERPRETATION CONRELAÇÃO The story itself, because you must RAISE YOUR KNOWLEDGE AS ITS CHANGES FROM YOUR OWN PLACE AND ALSO RELATING SOME HISTORY OF YOUR Contidiano TO ENRICH THE CENSUS critical of current events.

  3. Chris:

    I believe the “revisionists” are simply revising previous “revisionists.” It’s a correction of a pendulum swing. As I pointed out in my own blog post,
    http://oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com/2010/03/they-prefer-alinsky.html
    these people are duly elected representatives and were no doubt elected by concerned citizens and parents and grandparents of the children being taught. The board members are simply doing what they campaigned and were elected to do. While what and how history is to be taught is a legitimate point of debate, that debate was won during the campaign. Our representative republic in action.

    As to the Jefferson comment, though he was not an orthodox Christian, he did, in fact embrace many of the “values” to which Mercer alludes. Even the library of Congress notes that “most American statesman” embraced these values:

    “the nation’s first major religious revival in the middle of the eighteenth century injected new vigor into American religion. The result was that a religious people rose in rebellion against Great Britain in 1776, and that most American statesmen, when they began to form new governments at the state and national levels, shared the convictions of most of their constituents that religion was, to quote Alexis de Tocqueville’s observation, indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions.”

    See: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/

    And there is absolutely nothing wrong with these board members being made up of a cross section of the citizenry. Suggesting only academic historians are qualified to decide what aspects of American history should be taught to children smacks of elitism. Why should citizens hand that duty off to academia which has such a well-documented reputation of leaning left? See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

    And to “politicians [to] get out of the education business” would mean doing away with the Federal Dept. of Education and returning all control to localities, which would be a good idea.

    Best,
    RW

  4. dwilson says:

    RW,

    Thanks for your response to my editorial (my name is David, and I am new to the staff here at B4H). The goal of my editorial was to simply point out the religion was not the sole purpose for revolution and it is unfair (and incorrect) to place this one issue over many other more pressing issues of the time (i.e. taxation without representation). My own faith defines me and is very important to me, so while writing this editorial I was very mindful of my own faith. And while my position on including historical scholars in the decision making process for Social Studies curriculums may smack of “elitism,” that was not my intent. Unless of course I am referring to politicians, then I will gladly accept the elitist position. (Just a joke!) Anyway, I really do appreciate your response. Keep reading!

    David Wilson

  5. dwilson says:

    LeAnn,

    Thanks so much for your response to my editorial. I must profoundly agree with everything you wrote. Keep your chin up out there on the front lines of education! Have a great week. Thanks again.

    David Wilson

  6. DW:

    Thanks for responding. All points well-taken. I would add, however, that while you are certainly correct in pointing out that “religion was not the sole purpose for revolution,” it was a *major* influence, which is why King George called it the “Presbyterian Parson’s Rebellion.” It therefore deserves major attention. Again, I believe this is just a correction of a pendulum swing.

    Yes, historians and scholars should be consulted in these discussions, but the decision should ultimately be left to the representatives of the citizenry and the parents of these children. I look forward to reading more of your posts here.

  7. Bob Pollock says:

    DW,
    I agree with the thrust of your opinions here, however I’m a bit surprised at your fear of “revisionist history.” I have an MA in History and work in public history. I believe all history is “revisionist.” That’s what historians do; revise history. We study, research, theorize, and when we think we have enough evidence to support our thesis we present it for review. Hopefully, if we have done our job well, our “revison” will become accepted history. At least until some historian down the line uncovers new evidence or a new way of interpreting that “revises” what we had previously believed. In 2002, Eric Foner wrote in “Who Owns History: Rethinking the Past in a Changing World,” that the emergence of previously politically impotent groups such as women and African-Americans led to an increase in studies of the contribution to American history of these groups and others, but that this “revisionist” history has not been without its opponents. Foner observed, “the public at large often views the reinterpretation of history with suspicion, and ‘revisionist’ is invoked as a term of abuse.” History revision should not be feared, it should be embraced, provided the revision is based on solid historic research.

  8. dwilson says:

    Bob,

    Thanks for reading the editorial. I understand your position and agree for the most part. When I speak of “revisionist history,” I am talking about people who will twist or change historical events or facts in order to make a political point or further a political ideology. I firmly believe that historians must interpret the events of history in context of the times and circumstances surrounding the event. We cannot apply modern beliefs and morality to events that occured 250 years ago and expect an accurate analysis of those events. History is somewhat revisionist, but it MUST remain in context of the time. Thanks again for your input!

    David Wilson

  9. dwilson says:

    Richard,

    I fully understand and apprecaite where you are coming from, particulary the idea that “the decision should ultimately be left to the representatives of the citizenry…” I once believed the very same thing, unitl I actually worked within the Texas State Legislature. I have “seen the sausage being made” and it is disgusting. The opinions I have drawn are based on real life experiences inside the legislative process, and let me tell you quite frankly, I have yet to find a “Represenatative” that I would fully trust enough to walk my dog. I was on the inside, and believe me when I tell you that I fear far too many people put too much faith in the works of their “representatives.” By in large, These people do not serve the best interest of their constituancy, they serve the best interests of themselves, and their reelections. I have seen it first hand, and I truly wish that Iwould have never seen it and become so skeptical of their motives. BEWARE of what you believe your representatives are doing, my personal experience has found many of them lacking a backbone. I truly wish I was wrong in this situation, but I have seen it all to clearly and again, I’ve seen it firsthand. As a parent I do believe that I should have a greater say in these issues, but then again, I have met other parents that I’m quite glad don’t have an input. It is a difficult dilemma, and honestly, I don’t have all the answers. I am however, open to anyone who thinks they may have a legitimate solution! Thanks again for the input. I pray a dramatic shift in “politics-as-usual” will occur and allow me to find my faith in our representation once again. Thanks again for reading, more posts to come.

    DW

  10. DW:

    I, too, worked in government in Virginia – 12 years in the judicial branch. And also 4 years as a gubernatorial appointee. Like you, I’ve seen the sausage machine in action – not a pretty sight.

    “These people do not serve the best interest of their constituency, they serve the best interests of themselves, and their reelections.”

    I disagree. They ran on the promise to do what they are doing and were elected. That sounds to me like they ARE serving those who elected them as they campaigned to do.

    “It is a difficult dilemma, and honestly, I don’t have all the answers.”

    You are right and I certainly don’t have all the answers either. However, I believe choice, along with more local control, would go a long way in addressing the various concerns. My wife and I chose to homeschool 4 of our 6 children and it worked extremely well. The other 2 went to private school. Charter schools, though not a perfect solution, also offer at least part of the answers.

    Best,
    RW

  11. Michael Schack says:

    I would like to ask a non simple question what do you se as the role of history in developing the student generation and for the country? I have played with this for years . feel free to e mail me any thoughts. dsxhack@maine.rr.com
    thanks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>