By Paul Horton.

In the mid 1990s the debate over the National History Standards produced by the Center for History in the Schools at UCLA and funded by the National Endowment of the Humanities created a big stir. The “History wars” raged on for years and sensitized many Americans to history curriculum issues.

The writers of the NEH American History and World History standards included many preeminent historians like Gary Nash and William H. McNeill. The standards were written with input from a representative and very experienced sampling of college and high school teachers and teachers from K-8 as well.

Once the standards were published, the NEH Director, Lynn Cheney, then Vanderbilt Education Professor Chester Finn, a legion of conservative critics and pundits, and many historians led a concerted; some would say vitriolic attack, on the standards. These conservative critics claimed that the standards denigrated the positive aspects of American history, especially by vastly reducing treatments of the benefits of entrepreneurship, innovation, and technology. They also claimed that “tenured radical” historians centered the standards on social history and “victimization narratives.” Conservative critics tended to support Historicism (the idea of completely objective history), the consensus history that was produced in the 50s before 60’s social history began to emphasize conflict, and textbooks that had been stringently reviewed by state textbook committees. After all, this has been the status quo since WWII they argued. Textbooks were reviewed for forty years by Mel and Norma Galber, a husband and wife team in Texas. The Gablers were very conservative and reviewed textbooks very carefully for any signs of atheism or left-wing bias. Because the number of textbooks that were sold in Texas was so great, textbook companies tended to use the approved Texas textbooks for the rest of the country in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s before printing developed to accommodate different textbooks for different states. So editing in Texas impacted the high school textbooks that were distributed to the entire country (see link below*).

The defense of the standards amounted to a defense of historical “revisionism.” Nash, fellow editor Charlotte Crabtree, and dozens of historians argued in dozens of opinion pieces that research on new topics and new aspects of history had uncovered new documents and perspectives that had to be integrated into the then current textbooks to reflect ongoing debates and emerging consensus on dozens of issues. From this perspective, most historians saw the attack on the national standards as politically motivated: a continuation of the 60’s “culture wars” that the right used as a political weapon.

Since the mid 1990s, this controversy tends to heat up around hot-button issues, especially in the states. State school board elections, especially in the South, have focused on state standards and curriculum; especially history standards and curricula that seek to develop critical thinking. Conservative groups tend to push for 50s consensus history that reduces the emphasis on learning about reform movements and their leaders. Conservatives also tend to support an emphasis on what is called the Whig idea of American history that combines the idea of American “Exceptionalism” with steady movement toward more democratic freedom tied to free-market capitalism. Most of these conservatives are also associated with church and business groups who claim that the Founding Fathers were devout Christians, that religion is central to American history, and that the idea of American “Exceptionalism” justifies the exportation of American freedom that legitimates an assertive foreign policy and heavy defense spending. They seek to defend a given state’s history curricula from “creeping socialism, atheism, and political correctness.” Attempts to teach critical thinking from this perspective all too often seek to undermine these values and must be combated. In a word, they want public school history to be patriotic history and thus project a very robust nationalism. Florida and Texas have banned critical thinking that undermines received democratic values from the above perspective.

A recent example of such a state hot-button issue is ex-Indiana Governor Mitch Daniel’s concern about the use of Howard Zinn’s, The People’s History of the United States as a classroom source or text. Zinn was a historian, a Civil Rights leader, and an anti-Vietnam War protestor. His book unabashedly seeks to undermine consensus history by presenting a bottom-up perspective of American history that emphasizes class-conflict and race, class, and gender issues. His central theme in The People’s History is, not surprisingly, that the very wealthy always find a way to control the mechanisms of political power in the United States.

The recent attempts by the Jefferson County Colorado School Board to force AP United States History teachers to focus on “American exceptionalism” and to teach with a “patriotic” emphasis is yet another iteration of the nineties History Wars.

*For more on the influence of the Gablers see:

Douglas Martin, “Norma Gabler, Leader of Crusade on Textbooks, Dies at 84,” New York Times, August 1, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/education/01gabler.html?_r=0

Assignment: Please read the discussion in the links (below) about this controversy and be prepared to discuss the following:

David J. Bobb, “Howard Zinn and the Art of Anti-Americanism, Wall Street Journal, August 12^th, 2013:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324769704579008453713889352.html

Scott Jaschik, “Daniels vs. Zinn: Round II,” Inside Higher Ed, July 18, 2013

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/07/18/mitch-daniels-renews-criticism-howard-zinn

David Masciotra, “Mitch Daniels should have been more open –minded about Howard Zinn’s magnum opus,” IndyStar.com, July 25, 2013

http://www.indystar.com/article/20130724/OPINION03/307240090/Mitch-Daniels-should-been-more-open-minded-about-Howard-Zinn-s-magnum-opus

Joseph A. Palermo, “Mitch Daniels, Howard Zinn, and the Politics of History,” Huffington Post, July 30 2013

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/mitch-daniels-howard-zinn_b_3677477.html

Rich Lowry, “Daniels vs. Zinn,” National Review Online, July 30, 2013

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354691/daniels-vs-zinn-rich-lowry

Daniel J Flynn, “The FBI History of Howard Zinn,” New York City Journal, August 19, 2010

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0819df.html

Quotes from Zinn’s, A People’s History of the United States:

http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2185591-a-people-s-history-of-the-united-states-1492-to-present

1) What are Gov. Daniel’s concerns, exactly?

2) What course of action does Gov. Daniels propose?

3) List and describe the arguments of those who defend Zinn.

4) Read Chapter Five from Zinn’s, The History of the American People.

Indiana State School Board Simulation

All role players from the left and the right below will make two minute presentations to the members of the Indiana School Board below, after which the school board will vote on whether Hoard Zinn’s writing can be taught in Indiana classrooms and as a part of Indiana pre service teaching training at state funded institutions of higher learning. (Note: This simulation could be easily changed to reflect the current standoff in Jefferson County, Colorado).

State Board Roles:

Research all points of view and research how state school boards work: all minutes have to be published, so google: “Indiana State School Board minutes.”

#1Person of Color: Moderate

#2 Middle Aged, Special Education Degree, Special Education Advocate

#3 Conservative ex-teacher with links to the Tea Party

#4 Retired University professor with chemistry degree

#5 Person of Color: Left-Leaning

#6 Former President of the City College System of Indianapolis, millionaire who has barely avoided several indictments due to political connections

# 7 State Superintendent who favors the Common Core Curriculum, Standardized Testing, and school privatization

Roles in favor of banning Zinn from Indiana public school classrooms

Prepare a two-minute speech to deliver at the State School Board meeting for:

#1 Bill Korach from The Report Card (online History publication)

#2 Chester Finn of the Fordham Institute

#3 Lynne Cheney, former National Endowment for the Humanities Chairperson

#4 Michelle Malkin from The National Review magazine

#5 Concerned parent affiliated with the Tea Party

#6 Concerned parent and history teacher

#7 Concerned conservative historian

#8 Concerned conservative US History student

 Roles against banning Zinn from Indiana public school classrooms

Prepare a two-minute speech at the Indiana State School Board meeting for:

#1 Matt Rothschild, editor of The Progressive magazine

#2 ACLU lawyer

#3 Professor Stephan Thelen, editor of The Journal of American History

#4 Professor Kenneth Pomeranz, University of Chicago, and outgoing President of the American Historical Association

#5 Concerned parent affiliated with Move-on

#6 Concerned parent affiliated with Occupy

#7Liberal retired history teacher who used to use Zinn in his classroom

#8)Concerned liberal US History student

Following testimony and vote:

Prompt: You are a member of the Indiana State School Board. Write a one page single-spaced speech that explains your vote on this issue. Be prepared to deliver your speech. (All student participants)

I gave every student a chance to read his/her opinion as a school board member.