The most passionately debated question in civic education is how

to present the overall story of American history in schools.

Is it a march toward freedom and democracy, a blood-soaked tale of

oppression, or something in between? I can see three ways to address

this question:

1. By trying to tell the truth. Some historical statements

are verifiable (or falsifiable); and we should only tell students

the ones that aren’t false. However, the debate is not about whether

particular facts are true; it’s about which facts we ought

to mention and emphasize. History is a "vast grab-bag" (as

Robert Weibe once said in my hearing); and one can choose which items

to pull out. As for grand assessments of the overall meaning of American

history—they aren’t precise enough to be either true

or false, I suspect.

2. By conducting a normative (moral) debate. How to present

American history is hotly debated because each approach seems to cohere

best with a different moral/ideological worldview. Modern conservatives

want to emphasize the degree to which our founding institutions have

served us well; some liberals want to stress the March of Progress;

and many modern leftists want to focus on violence, exclusion, and

resistance. There is nothing wrong with having this debate. However,

"is" never implies "ought." One could, for example,

take a very dark view of the American past and still believe that

students should love their country and its founding documents. Many

complex combinations of facts and values are possible.

More importantly, "ought" never implies "is."

It is intellectually dishonest to adopt a normative position and then

try to teach students a set of historical facts that support that

ideology, presented as the history of the United States.

If I wanted to help students think about moral and ideological positions,

I wouldn’t proceed by trying to present a brief version of American

history to them. I would teach them explicitly about conflicting values

and methods of normative argument.

3. By predicting the effects of each version of history on students’

attitudes and beliefs. Many ideologists in this debate assume

that particular versions of history will have particular consequences

for students’ psychological development. For instance, a "triumphalist"

narrative will create patriots—or will alienate students, especially

minorities. An emphasis on exclusion and oppression will create social

activists—or will breed despair.

There is not nearly enough research on this (empirical) topic. William

Damon of Stanford argues that young people must develop a positive

view of their nation before they can care enough about it to become

engaged critics. This theory rings true in my own life. I was a jingoistic

patriot at 10, only to become a critical activist by 20. However,

I’m not sure that trying to impart a completely positive view of the

Founders would work as well with young people of color as it did with

me. In any case, I would love to see more research this field, using

as many relevant methodologies as possible.