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.

Some people who talk or write about civic education insist that the

United States has the very best democracy (or society) in

the world. In my opinion, the US is one of a few dozen polities

that stand head-and-shoulders above the rest (due to good luck as

well as wise ancestors). I think it’s a goal of civic education to

help students understand how fortunate they are compared to people

who live in tyrannies or anarchy. I feel loyalty and gratitude toward

the United States and not toward any other nation, and I think this

is a good attitude for Americans to hold. However, it’s far from clear

to me that our polity is the single best in the world. We have low

voter participation; our crime and incarceration rates are amazingly

high; and we live shorter lives with more disease, compared to people

in some of the northern European nations. Nor do we compare favorably

with these countries if one thinks about the long term. Sweden, for

example, has been stable and at peace for 200 years, progressing steadily

toward liberty and democracy. These other democratic states are all

to our left politically. Thus I wonder whether some people want to

teach students that the United States is the best society

in order to head off discussions about whether we should move somewhat

leftward.

I spoke today at the first annual Congressional Conference on Civic

Education, which was attended by delegations from all fifty states,

including state legislators, educators, and executive branch officials.

I had served on the advisory committee for the conference, so I was

glad to see it come to pass. It was also my third opportunity in 10

days to make a speech about the Civic

Mission of Schools report. (The other two were the 50th anniversary

of the National Conference on Citizenship

and the Youth for

Justice state directors’ meeting.)

At all three events, there was discussion of the importance and difficulty

of teaching controversial issues in schools. Today,

I mentioned Gun Owners of America’s attack on the

civic education bill as evidence that there are people who do

not want such discussion in classrooms. After the session, a state

legislator from the West approached me and said that I had been un-civil

in treating the Gun Owners as "nuts"; I should have made

sure I understood and conveyed their position fairly. He said that

my incivility was an example of what is wrong with civic education.

I was taken aback, since I feel that much of my work is aimed at

promoting civil and respectful dialogue, and I strive to understand

opponents’ point of view. For example, I strongly disagree with the

National Rifle Association’s positions, yet I think its views are

sincerely held, based on principles, sometimes unfairly caricatured,

and conceivably correct. I suppose I would defend my criticism of

the Gun Owners by noting that I didn’t attribute a hidden agenda

to them; I simply paraphrased their public statement, which is a pretty

explicit attack on critical thinking in schools.

Yesterday, I reported on the progress of HR

1078, the bill written by Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) that would

fund summer programs for civics teachers. Gun

Owners of America opposes the bill on the amazing grounds

that it is "anti-gun." They are asking their members

to send the following form letter to Congress:

Dear Representative ________________,

If H.R. 1078 is enacted, educators will be encouraged to teach

that I do not have an individual right to keep and bear arms. It

will establish Presidential Academies on teaching civics and history

which will use anti-gun texts like We the People — the

textbook that conforms to the federal guidelines on teaching civics

and history.

This book encourages students to start questioning the

wisdom of the Second Amendment, asking the student whether the right

to keep and bear arms is still as "important today" as

it was in the eighteenth century and to decide what "limitations"

should be placed on the right. This kind of discussion treats the

Second Amendment as though it were not protecting a God-given, individual

right.

But the individual rights view is exactly what our Founders intended

and what the American public still believes today. An ABC News Poll

in 2002 found that almost three-fourths of all Americans believe

that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the

rights of "individuals" to own guns.

We already have too much Federal involvement in education, and

the results have not been good. As control over education becomes

more and more federalized, it seems that the ideas which children

are learning become more and more radical. Please vote against H.R.

1078, a bill which is decidedly anti-gun.

The We the People

curriculum and textbook are widely supported by conservatives

(as well as liberals) because they provide rigorous and balanced materials

on American institutions. This letter reflects a fear of open and

balanced discussion that should be deeply embarrassing to all proponents

of the Second Amendment and of freedom. I would hope that some would

come to the defense of We the People.

PS. The

Maple River Education Coalition says that HR 1078 "is in

clear violation of the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

(This is a bill, remember, that provides very modest federal support

for voluntary summer classes for teachers. It’s also a bill that invites

students to read and debate the 10th Amendment, which might cause

some to gain appreciation for states’ rights.)

Some time ago, the Senate passed The American History and

Civics Education Act of 2003, which I’ve summarized earlier.

Identical legislation has now been introduced in the House as H.R.

1078. The House leadership apparently regards this legislation as

well-intentioned, bipartisan, Mom-and-apple-pie stuff, and they would

like to get it out of the House as quickly as possible. They don’t

want to take time for hearings and amendments, because they face battles

over appropriations, Iraq, and health care this fall. They intend

to put the bill on the “Suspension Calendar,” which permits no amendments

and requires a 2/3 vote to pass (thus requiring Democratic support).

Many people in the civic education business believe that the bill

would be better if amended. In particular, there is some concern that

it will be funded at the expense of other history programs in the

National Endowment for the Humanities. Thus it would be desirable

to hold hearings and allow amendments in the House.