Rewritting History?

Last week Texas' Board of Education voted in favor of making some changes to the social studies area of the state's curriculum. (Here is a New York Times' article reporting the most recent vote.) In summary, the board decided to change state textbooks to reflect a more conservative version of social subjects such as history and economics. The first article on the subject that I read was an op ed which criticized the decision and asked: "How can a state decided to rewrite history?" The editorial is quite critical of the decision and describes it as a move by Republicans to push their agenda and put God in schools.

After reading the bold assertions of the op ed author, I decided to look more into the debate and see if this was actually a partisan attempt to "rewrite history". The vote, 10-5 in favor of the Republicans, followed party lines exactly. Concerned about the politics involved with this issue, I suspected the op ed to be the liberal point of view and questioned its objectivity. I looked to review the changes first hand but although the curriculum is supposed to be published for open review, I was unable to find it.

Using the New York Times article for details, I looked at what changes are being made and what the motives behind them actually are. The Board believes it is adding factual pieces to history that are currently omitted. The Republican majority claims history and education are biased by the left's agenda and that it is important to include both sides of the story. In support of this argument, I agree academia is biased to the left and that the history of “the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association,” should be included. Economic history is a prime example where the new proposed curriculum attempts to complete the picture. The board stated and I agree that the history and theories of Chicago economists, Frank Knight and Milton Friedman for example, must be included alongside those of Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes. Friedman needs to be included, not instead of, but alongside Smith and Keynes to complete the picture and tell the story not advertise a message, political view or agenda. (Note: I am probably biased given I am an economics major at a school dominated by the Chicago school of economics) Education is not limiting what students learn or shaping what they believe politically. Therefore, I fully support including factual information and allowing students the necessary information to learn about the past objectively.

Adding factual information, such as Friedman's theories, to textbooks improves the quality of education and reduces the liberal bias in education. However, not all of the Board's changes are this constructive. In other areas, the board has decided to combat the liberal bias by simply omitting important information in hopes of painting a biased history in line with the message the Republicans are hoping to send to the youth. This is hypocritical and illogical because omitting factual information does not allow students to balance facts but instead forces them to wade through agendas and political struggles to discover simple truths.

The best example of blatant omission can be seen in perhaps the most debated educational issue, separation of church and state. This issue is at the forefront of the proposed changes and rightfully so given it may be the most biased piece of history in the current public education system. When I first came to college and enrolled in a Religion in Politics course I was surprised at the role of religion in American politics. In high school, it was stressed that the founders were not religious and that they believed religion had no role in politics. In my college course, we read numerous primary sources ranging from the Mayflower Compact to state constitutions to personal correspondences between the founders of our great country. From this I began to understand the role religion played in American and the distinction between religion and politics and church and state. In high school, none of this was talked about because there is so much attention and focus given to the political correctness of church and state separation. Therefore the Republicans on the school board are correct in saying America was founded by Christians and also correct in believing all students should be able to learn this truth.

However, where the school Board fails is portrayed clearly by how they attempt to correct the bias view of church and state. Instead of creating a comprehensive explanation of how Church and State separation began and what it actually means, they decide to simply eliminate its "founder", Thomas Jefferson from the list of influential figures and instead focus on more religious figures. Withholding information is the same grievance the Republicans are crying about regarding education today so simply editing pieces of history does nothing but further the subjectivity of the material taught to students. In this sense I have to agree with the op ed author and say that a lot of the proposed changes are not designed to simply add omitted pieces of history but instead are carefully crafted to create a biased political message.

I came to the realization that education has become a partisan battleground just like everything else in this country. Texas' motive behind making the curriculum more Christian does not fix the problem of a politically biased education system. Instead it simply adds another bias for students and professors to compete against in their deliberation for truth.