The same set of facts can lend itself to different historical interpretations.
When the new National Standards for American History were released a couple of weeks ago, there were some indignant -- and alarming -- comments. We heard that the standards are politically correct "garbage," which elevate the founding of the John Muir Society over the creation of the U.S. Constitution. We heard, too, that the standards are destined to become "official knowledge," and that when they do, American students will no longer learn to be proud of their country. Is this true? Are George Washington and Abraham Lincoln about to go the way of Christopher Columbus?
Admittedly, the history standards have some serious flaws. They also offer much that is worthwhile. Issued under the name "Exploring the American Experience," the standards are part of an effort to establish "world-class" national standards in core subjects. They are there to serve as models -- not mandates -- for states wishing to set their own standards. This is in accordance with the Goals 2000 legislation, which was passed
this spring.
The first piece of good news about the history standards is that they are substantive and demanding. This should reassure people who fear that any so-called national standards will shy away from demanding real knowledge or skills (the way many of the outcomes-based education [QBE] goals do). Students are expected to absorb a great deal of information about U.S. history, and they are also asked to use what they have learned to think about historical issues. For example, the standard dealing with the Constitution goes way beyond asking students to learn its provisions: They are expected to analyze the other plans presented at the Constitutional Convention and discuss the continuing relevance of issues debated by the Convention participants.
Are the standards marred by political correctness? They give more attention to groups -- like African-Americans or Native people -- that were largely ignored by traditional history, but that in itself is not a problem. This change in emphasis reflects a rethinking of history to include more social history. And, more important, it is an attempt to correct previous distortions.
When I was in school, U.S. history was largely political history, and groups that did not play major roles in politics were nearly invisible. This distortion was especially unfortunate in the case of African-Americans. They have been in our country from the beginning and have played an enormous role in shaping our democracy even when they themselves were disenfranchised. This is something that we are just beginning to look at squarely. Creating standards that reflect this recognition is not a matter of political correctness but of accuracy. On the other hand, there is no question that the picture of U.S. history the new standards present is grim.
The same set of facts can lend itself to different historical interpretations. Those who want to show that American history is largely negative can do it by taking current standards of behavior and applying them to the past, when those standards were not in effect in the U.S. -- or anywhere else. Then, our history looks like a history of oppression. This is unfair, and these same people do not apply current standards when they are judging the histories of other countries or groups.
But if we apply the standards of the time to our history, we see that the U.S. has always been remarkable for having democratic ideals and institutions and attempting to live by them. Seen through this lens, U.S. history is a dramatic story of progress, a 225-year struggle in which various groups have fought to achieve the rights promised to U.S. citizens -- and been largely successful.
Who's right? The people who think that U.S. history should portray a rotten country with phony ideals? Or the ones who think that though the U.S. has made some tragic mistakes, its story is positive and even inspiring? Historians and philosophers can argue over this question forever, but I think the best way to decide is by the fact that few people who've come to the U.S. have wanted to leave while millions have wanted to come -- and still want to. Our history standards should reflect that fact, and the standards contained in "Exploring the American Experience" do not.
Fortunately, the new standards are not set in stone. Nor will they ever become "official knowledge." Federal law does not require that states use them, and if states are smart, they will not adopt the history standards without making some basic changes.
The next step is for knowledgeable historians to critique and rework the standards to provide the balance that is lacking. Teachers should also be provided with materials to help them restore the balance in the classroom. The standards are a good first draft of an extremely difficult assignment. But they are not good enough to be the basis for teaching American history to our kids ... yet.