A disturbing report concerning education policy in Texas cautions that the national textbook market may soon be flooded with products that advocate rather than educate. The Lone Star State recently approved changes to social studies, economics, and history textbooks that would drastically alter what the next generation of students learn. While the School Board has yet to finalize the changes (there is a required period of public comment), the initial 10-5 vote for approval suggests that acceptance is all but assured. Perhaps unintuitively, policy decisions concerning education in Texas -- ostensibly a local issue -- spawn potentially national ramifications because "the Texas School Board effectively spells out requirements for 80 percent of the nation's textbook market." Thus, it is important to take notice of how the materials for the nation's students might be altered.
The changes proposed by the Texas School Board have generated so much consternation because they would require that educational materials include questionable elements that impose an admittedly conservative gloss on their contents. Neither end of the political spectrum denies the somewhat flagrant manipulation at issue. While critical members of the School Board decry the move as an attempt to promote an extremist ideology, the conservative majority maintains that "academia is skewed too far to the left" and that "balance" must be restored. In all fairness, this is not an argument that should be dismissed out of hand. Education is a dynamic and vital part of our national culture and it should represent many different viewpoints fairly and accurately. An educational system that advocates only liberal ideas is as flawed and undesirable as one that stresses conservative beliefs, and it is frankly questionable to expect that liberal adherents are the best proponents of conservative aims. Tensions between political ideals and contested values are built into the American system in countless areas precisely so that oppositional ideologies will be respected and adequately represented. As such, a claim of imbalance or bias deserves -- indeed demands -- conscientious examination.
The conservative position is misleading, however, because it willfully ignores the essential natures of opposing educational philosophies -- undermining neutrality while purporting to achieve balance. Clearly, the goal of any educational system should be to produce intelligent, well-equipped students who possess the knowledge and abilities required for them to achieve success and become valuable citizens. The fundamental question in a democratic and deeply diverse society is how to most effectively and fairly achieve this goal. In point of fact, conservative critics who lament that "academia" generally embraces liberal ideals more readily could be correct. There is some evidence that universities and other centers of learning sometimes demonstrate left-leaning tendencies. There are several reasons, however, why the converse -- or even an increased focus on conservative values in the name of compensation -- is undesirable if one is to achieve legitimate educational goals.
The most salient argument is that a liberal educational philosophy generally values and seeks to expound as many differing viewpoints as possible while a conservative philosophy by definition must reject some ideas in order to preserve what are designated as vital principles. It is important to recognize that this observation is judgment neutral -- it says nothing about the actual value of the principles at issue or the importance of teaching those ideals to students. A conservative philosophy may, in fact, emphasize perfectly laudable concepts but it is dishonest not to acknowledge that a perspective focusing on conservation of values and beliefs is in tension with an appreciation for the inclusion of opposing ideas. One cannot conserve one way of thinking while expanding and incorporating novel concepts. The conservative model may be appropriate for some instances; for example, in a homogeneous society where core principles are universally shared and consistently rearticulated. It is woefully inadequate, however, for a fast-paced, dynamic, and heterogeneous nation composed of strikingly diverse citizens who hold infinitely varied views on almost every subject. Survival and success in such an environment is contingent on an ability to appreciate and understand beliefs that differ from one's own -- skills that are not gleaned from educational materials delimited by idiosyncratic perspectives.
Support for this analysis can be found in a brief review of several of the changes tentatively approved by the Texas School Board:
I. "A greater emphasis on the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s."
This directive would require more or better converage of conservative and antifeminist activisit Phyllis Schlafly, the Moral Majority, Newt Gingrich, etc. The School Board is correct that such information should be included in educational materials and given the appropriate weight. It is, after all, important that historical changes in political and social culture be accurately documented, preserved, and taught. "Greater emphasis" may be actually be required if the information from this period is not presented appropriately relative to other material. This, however, does not appear to be the case.
While pleasing to conservative persons, the 20-year span at issue is hardly an historical moment that inherently transcends other social and temporal periods. This is not the same as saying that important achievements were not made or that so-called 'liberal' eras should receive better treatment -- it is just as important to emphasize past conservative periods and to compare one brand of conservatism to another. The overall point is that students must learn to contrast and form their own conclusions, because both private and civic life will require that they do so. Designating such a brief time as especially important because some the prevailing political ideology compelling is simply misleading and irresponsible.
II. "Changes in specific terminology."
This suggestion would alter certain terms in order to introduce new connotations for traditional ideas. Examples include changing American "imperialism" to "expansionism," "capitalism" to "the free market," and "stressing favorable depictions of America's economic superiority across the board." Not only are these inventive alterations in many cases less precise, they are also patently unnecessary to serve any purpose other than blatant political manipulation. It is frankly wrong to implicitly deny points in history where American actions are accurately described by negative terminology -- especially when such labels are freely applied to similar actions by other countries. Without acknowledgment of its own errors no nation can learn, improve, and move forward.
Similarly, it is not the place of economics textbooks to extol the virtues of the American system over those of competing designs. It may be that the American economic system is superior and any commentator is certainly free to say so in articles, books, papers, blogs, etc. Textbooks, however, should strive to present information objectively and should never restrict information in an attempt to convey a "favorable impression." Obscuring legitimate criticisms of the American capitalist system is dishonest and perhaps even pointless. After all, if it truly is superior then presumably the benefits of capitalism will vastly outweigh the costs, leading students to reach the same desired conclusion without any need for deception.
III. Revision of the the legacy of the Founding Fathers.
Perhaps the most striking revision offering by the Texas School Board is the diminution of the importance of Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, as an important intellectual force behind the Revolution. Instead, textbooks would emphasize thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, and William Blackstone. While these individuals certainly deserve consideration as important giants in philosophical and legal thought, it is hard not to take notice of the fact that preference is given to religious philosophers while more secular theorists (such as Jefferson, who was a Deist) are ignored. There are clear indications that the School Board is seeking to emphasize the "strict Christian beliefs" that guided the foundation of the country -- an assertion that serves a baldly political and religious purpose, takes great liberties with academic accuracy, and sharply divorces fact from historical context.
Moreover, that the aim of education should be restricted to secular instruction is too established to be questioned. The ultimate goal is not and cannot be religious or spiritual education; such tutelage is rightly reserved to the individual student's religious community (or in the case of a parochial school, special classes and periods that explicitly focus on religious principles). Attempting to mold students in a specific religious image violates the autonomy and rights of nearly all involved, and seeking to accomplish this end through the rewriting of textbooks and history is deplorable.
"Not only are these inventive alterations in many cases less precise, they are also patently unnecessary to serve any purpose other than blatant political manipulation"
ReplyDeleteIs this not the same method that liberal thinkers use to rotate terminology every few years to keep them "politically correct," when in fact the main purpose is to change how people feel about / react to hearing it? So how is this any different than what goes on in every area of education already?
"An honest education, however, usually means challenging personal views"
Does this not apply more appropriately to the study of contemporary issues and exploring solutions for them going into the future? When studying history, however, which was what this comment was referring to, is it not more "honest" to discuss prevailing ways of thinking behind the major events, even if they are religious? I don't think this is "molding" students religiously, it's simply being honest about what was happening and the reasons why.
Your reliance on an outdated definition of "liberal" and "conservative" undermine the validity of your argument.
ReplyDeleteThe current American "liberal" is anything but liberal in the classical sense, but more accurately "progressive." The progressive ideology that saturates academia is hardly open to conflicting and alternate points of view. They're about as open to conflicting viewpoints as the Stalinists and Maoists they share ideological roots with.
Modern American Conservatism, on the other hand, embodies the classical "liberalism" that you erroneously credit the American left with. American Conservatism does not simply seek to "conserve" some generic set of "traditional" values, it seeks to conserve the classically liberal values that our nation was founded on.
Therefore, abandoning the progressive curricula of the left, and replacing it with a "conservative" curriculum, actually represents a return the classical liberalism that you admit is important to education.
"Modern American Conservatism, on the other hand, embodies the classical "liberalism" that you erroneously credit the American left with. American Conservatism does not simply seek to "conserve" some generic set of "traditional" values, it seeks to conserve the classically liberal values that our nation was founded on."
ReplyDeleteActually, liberalism has always espoused progressive viewpoints, while conservatism has always espoused traditional viewpoints. Classical liberalism, when it was first developed, was a progressive ideal and, while it pushed for limited government, the ideals it held sacred were progressive *for that time*. And that is the key, values that were once considered progressive are now considered traditional or normal. Thus, what was called liberal in the early 20th century (for instance, separate but equal) is not considered liberal today. Classical liberalism is an older form of liberalism, espousing many ideals that today would be considered traditional values in our country.
And I will say that the continuous pull between liberal and conservative often serves our country well - it creates a system in which some are pushing forward and others are stressing caution. When the system functions as it should, we end up with more moderate and well thought out changes, which is what leads to stability.
Thank you to those who have commented on this post. Please allow me to respond to several of the points that I found most intriguing.
ReplyDeleteI. Ben
1) As an initial matter, I have no trouble conceding that politically correct language can be used in the same fashion. Nor is its use in irresponsible ways by any means confined to conservatives. I find it equally upsetting when employed in this manner by liberals.
2) "Does this not apply more appropriately to the study of contemporary issues and exploring solutions for them going into the future?"
B&B: Interesting point, but I am unaware of a more appropriate or compelling goal of education than exactly that.
3) "When studying history, however, which was what this comment was referring to, is it not more 'honest' to discuss prevailing ways of thinking behind the major events, even if they are religious?"
B&B: Of course. I understand your assumption to be, however, that the primary motivations in this instance (i.e. the creation of the United States) were in fact religious -- a conclusion hotly debated by many scholars. In cases where religious motivations truly did form the core of a movement, I would agree that it is inappropriate to say otherwise.
II. Commissioner
1) "Your reliance on an outdated definition of 'liberal' and 'conservative' undermine the validity of your argument."
B&B: With all due respect I must disagree with your analysis. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" -- while certainly carrying some distinct political connotations in this day and age -- are not confined to so narrow an interpretation as to refer only to positions on the current political spectrum. This, I believe, may also address your critique about attributing better educational policy to "the left." It was my position that a liberal policy toward education is the most legitimate; I make no claims about Democratic, progressive, or other 'leftist' visions of the same.
2) "Modern American Conservatism, on the other hand, embodies the classical 'liberalism' that you erroneously credit the American left with. American Conservatism does not simply seek to 'conserve' some generic set of 'traditional' values, it seeks to conserve the classically liberal values that our nation was founded on."
B&B: I disagree on this point because it treats as too monolithic the ideals on which this nation was founded. Moreover, it ignores the very real instances in which "Modern American Conservativism" advocates principles and positions that are not fairly described as the "traditional" values of the nation. The history of the United States has most often be characterized by contestation and contradiction (e.g. the feud between Federalists and Anti-Federalists). The point of this post was really to demonstrate that coming down on one side or the other -- rather than exposing students to all views -- is incorrect. I did not attempt (and do not intend) to assign blame to either end of the political spectrum generally.
3) At best, your argument implies that the conservative majority of the Texas School Board has betrayed the tenets of "Modern American Conservatism" as you have articulated them. Assuming that this was both your rationale and a correct formulation of 'true' Modern American Conservative" values, I have no basis on which to disagree. I doubt, however, that most modern conservatives would wholeheartedly embrace classical liberalism.
III. Anj
1) I appreciate and agree with your description of the dynamic evolution of viewpoints. I am hesitant, however, to concur that liberalism always asserts progressive ideals exclusively.