Freedom of inquiry
Toolbox
Published: May 27, 2010
Vermont's commissioner of education is hoping that curriculum standards recently enacted by the Texas Board of Education do not skew teaching in Vermont toward a narrow ideological viewpoint.
Commissioner Armando Vilaseca has watched with concern as the Texas board made a variety of changes to standards that could cause new textbooks to reflect the conservative political views of board members. Because Texas is a major buyer of textbooks, book publishers in the past have allowed Texas's standards to shape the content of textbooks that are used by the rest of the country.
The conservative members of the Texas board see their work as a way of redirecting the teaching of history back toward a reality they believe has been distorted by liberals in academia. But many of their new standards seek to introduce a bias that distorts the historical record.
For example, the board made a number of changes designed to call into question the idea that the Founding Fathers intended to establish a "separation of church and state," suggesting instead that the nation was founded on Christian principles. Thus, the board has demoted Thomas Jefferson — author of the Declaration of Independence, proponent of secular government and third president — by removing him from a list of revolutionary leaders.
By promoting a particular point of view — pro- or anti-Jefferson — either side distorts history. In fact, important leaders of the American Revolution, notably Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, were thinkers out of the Enlightenment who sought to fashion a system based on reason, not on religion. They were deists; that is, they believed God had created the world and then more or less absented himself.
Jefferson favored a separation of church and state in order to end the dominance of an established church, such as the Anglican Church in Virginia, and to allow greater freedom of religion. At the same time, he was a rationalist who edited his own version of the Bible that removed all the miracles. So to say that the founders were inspired by Christian principles is not correct because many of the most important ones were not.
But to say that the Founders did not include Christians who wanted to establish a Christian state is also wrong. Even back then Jefferson was a figure of controversy. And in some parts of the country, the established church continued to exercise power over government. It wasn't until the 19th century that the Congregational Church was forced to loosen its grip on the affairs of Connecticut.
It's not clear that forcing a conservative slant on this debate will help promote a full understanding of the complexity of the origins of the nation.
Texas also wants to salvage the reputation of Joseph McCarthy by reminding students of the pervasive danger of communist subversion. Teaching about the Cold War would require teaching about McCarthy and about the spy scandals from the period. But do the conservatives also insist that schools teach about the lives McCarthy's witch hunts ruined or about McCarthy's alcoholism or about the time he physically assaulted columnist Drew Pearson at a press gathering? (Vice President Richard Nixon had to break up the attack.)
Hispanics from Texas were dismayed that the Texas board refused to include mention of leading Hispanics. But the board did suggest that, in addition to teaching about Martin Luther King, schools should also teach about the Black Panthers.
Teaching about our past requires acknowledgement of many conflicting strands woven into a complex tapestry. The Texas board appears to want to highlight white, Christian, conservative America. But a full understanding of white, Christian, conservative America is only possible when one sees how those strands are woven in with all the others.
Fortunately, as Vilaseca noted, modern education is less reliant than it used to be on a few major textbooks, so Vermont teachers and students will have sources other than a biased textbook designed to satisfy conservative Texans. The story of America is far too interesting to allow it to be reduced to a litmus test of conservative talking points.
19