I’ve recently come across a debate concerning how academic institutions influence students’ opinions toward the United States. Some conservatives allege that left-leaning teachers and professors encourage students to view the U.S. in a cynical manner and dismiss the multitude of freedoms they are able to enjoy. To an extent, I can understand why one would make such an assertion. Several prominent academics are extremely critical of the United States and it is reasonable to assume some students share similar viewpoints. However, one would assume such attitudes would inevitably arise in institutions of higher learning, which are expected to promote intellectual diversity and respect dissenting opinions. A more concerning trend is occurring on the other side of the political spectrum, where conservatives have consistently attempted to alter educational curricula to correspond to their political ideology.
Colleges have always been known to harbor individuals who challenge conventional wisdom and espouse strong critiques of U.S. foreign and domestic policy. Noam Chomsky, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has developed a reputation as a fierce critic of U.S. actions abroad, having criticized prior military interventions in Latin America, Afghanistan and the Near East. The late Howard Zinn was also known for his outspoken criticism of the United States, arguing in “A People’s History of the United States” that the Pledge of Allegiance, national anthem and other displays of patriotism instilled a jingoistic “nationalist fervor” in children at an early age.
These sorts of criticisms naturally led to a strong conservative backlash. Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the right-leaning think tank The Heritage Foundation, has been critical of the decision to make Zinn’s works required reading for high school and college students, alleging it fosters a sense of “grievance mongering” that has permeated U.S. academic institutions. Dennis Prager, in an article published at National Review Online, voices a similar opinion: expressing his amazement over Zinn’s refusal to recognize the United States as “a force for the betterment of humanity.” Ironically, these reactions contradict the right’s own emphasis on protecting free speech and exposing students to alternative political and cultural perspectives.
While both Gonzalez and Prager have voiced criticism towards the content in academic curricula, others have resorted to alternative means of addressing their perceived shortcomings in public education. Since 2010, the Texas Board of Education has approved of a series of controversial revisions in the content included in textbooks for middle and high school students. Among these changes include language downplaying the role of slavery in the outbreak of the American Civil War, biased statements directed towards Native Americans and an attempt to omit references to Oscar Romero, a Salvadoran priest suspected of being assassinated for his criticism of the U.S.-backed junta in San Salvador. The Washington Post’s Michael Birnbaum notes this is especially troubling because the Texas textbook market is so large that books assigned to the state’s public schools generally “rocket to the top the market, decreasing costs for other school districts and leading them to buy the same materials.”
Proponents argue these changes are necessary to offset the liberal biases inherent in high school curricula. While some may claim these changes are tantamount to requiring students to read Zinn’s works, such an argument would ignore a key distinction. “A People’s History of the United States” is not an objective work, nor did Zinn intend it to be. One can rationalize incorporating Zinn’s work (as supplementary material) into a high school or collegiate curriculum because it challenges what students had otherwise been taught at an early age and can foster critical thinking and analytical skills. This is in stark contrast to what the Texas Board of Education has promoted; their actions appear to be driven by the desire to reaffirm conservative values and dismiss historical events that portray the United States in a bad light.
U.S. history is fraught with instances of racism, xenophobia and chauvinism. It is also rife with instances of courage, selflessness and humanitarianism. It is absurd to actively promote one viewpoint of history for the sake of preserving favorable public opinion towards U.S. history and culture. Attempts to do so constitute an obvious attempt to replace historical information with propaganda. Discussing the United States’ past indiscretions gives students a better understanding of foreign attitudes towards the United States and will help future generations avoid repeating the same mistakes as their predecessors.
Brandon Brooks is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at b.brooks@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | 2 days agoSuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | 6 days agoThe University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
