• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

PLURIBUS OR UNUM?: HOW DISPUTES OVER AMERICAN

IDENTITY UNDERCUT THE

NATIONAL HISTORY STANDARDS PROJECT

THOMAS F. DRISCOLL III VASSAR COLLEGE APRIL 2007 2

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABBREVIATIONS

CHAPTERS

INTRODUCTION 1

1. THE NATIONAL HISTORY STANDARDS PROJECT: 6 Consensus Beyond Reach

2. AMERICA’S IDENTITY CRISIS: 19 Disputes over National Identity in the Teaching of American History

3. THE STANDARDS PROJECT DERAILED: 33 How Identity Politics Hijacked the Proposed National History Standards

CONCLUSION 41

APPENDIX

1. SAMPLE STANDARDS a. ERA 3: Revolution and the New Nation: Standard 3B 42 b. ERA 7: The Emergence of Modern America: Standard 3A 43

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 44

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY 49 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to greatly thank Professor Miriam Cohen for her invaluable assistance throughout this project. I appreciated her flexibility and willingness to work around my rather congested senior year schedule. Studying within Vassar College’s History Department has truly been an honor.

I would also like to thank my family, especially Dad, Mom, and Michaela. These proud educators have not only inspired this research, but also my future commitment to the noblest of professions.

Special thanks to my brother Shane, whose revisions and thoughtful insight helped shape this study. Lastly, thanks to fellow student Evan Hannay for his support through long nights of study and, of course, several pots of coffee.

4 ABBREVIATIONS

AFT: American Federation of Teachers

ED: U.S. Department of Education

AHA: American Historical Association

NCHS: National Center for History in the Schools

NCSS: National Council for the Social Studies

NEA: National Endowment for the Arts

NEH: National Endowment for the Humanities

NESIC: National Education Standards and Improvement Council

OAH: Organization of American Historians

UCLA: University of California, Los Angeles 5 INTRODUCTION

“Unpatriotic.” “Un-American.” Chicago’s mayor sparked an upsurge in public protest by directing these tumultuous condemnations towards historian and textbook author Andrew C. McLaughlin. Why did

McLaughlin deserve such attacks? According to the critics, the Battle of Bunker Hill’s portrayal was seriously flawed. The author had the audacity to claim that on three separate occasions, “the British returned courageously to the attack.” The public refused to tolerate such glorification of the enemy. Consequently, under mounting public pressure, McLaughlin voluntarily reworked the passage, which now stated that on three occasions, “the cowardly British returned to the attack.”1 Hence, this hostile early 20th century dispute cooled. But make no mistake, this issue was a faint spark compared to the firestorms of controversy that would characterize future debates. In hindsight, this dispute appears rather childish and outdated. However, clashes over patriotism, as well as the larger disputes over education’s unique relationship with national identity, became a key source of anxiety for curriculum developers throughout the century. The battles rage on to this day.

Public education is one of our nation’s most valuable and influential institutions. As a society, we wish to develop an educated, active citizenry as well as a skilled, ambitious workforce. As individuals, we seek an education that opens pathways and creates opportunities for personal advancement in society. As parents, we want our children to participate in an educational system that fosters even greater opportunities than those afforded to previous generations. As a nation, we want our children to understand our country’s founding principles and become knowledgeable and active members in our participatory democracy. Given this multitude of idealistic goals, it is no wonder that education reform has been hotly contested since public education’s inception. Familiar themes often dominate the debate, albeit in new language and context. They include, but are not limited to: what children should know, how they should be taught, which assessment strategies should be implemented, and whether educational institutions should be subject to local, state, or national control.

1 Frances Fitzgerald, America Revised: History Schoolbooks in the Twentieth Century, (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1979), 35. This dispute played out shortly after World War I’s conclusion. 6 In 1984, an influential study called Nation at Risk evaluated the current state of our educational system. This report assessed that, when compared to other nations, American students scored lower on standardized tests in math and science. It then suggested that these statistics represent a failing educational system that was negatively affecting our economic stronghold in the world economy.2 The first Bush administration sought to address this problem with an increasing degree of federal intervention. The administration proposed an ambitious project to fund the creation of national standards for each core subject.

In 1991, the independent National Center for History in the Schools (NCHS) initiated the development of national history standards, an expansive and collaborative effort that would span over four years. The NCHS soon entered the age-old debate over which essential aspects of history students should comprehend.3

Due to the social disputes over race, gender, and ethnicity that characterized much of the last quarter century, it is not surprising that these contentious issues framed much of the standards project debate. Educational reformers were now asking questions such as: Should traditional interpretations remain the cornerstone of history standards, or should they incorporate contributions to the field offered by social historians since the

1960s? Should the standards emphasize patriotic episodes of accomplishment and national pride while glossing over of our nation’s historical shortcomings, or should these less than flattering episodes be included as well? Most importantly, can educators effectively design a curriculum that addressed both the Pluribus and Unum in American society?4 These new concerns sparked debate throughout the entire standards’ development process.

Two and a half years after the project’s birth, the NCHS task force members successfully wrestled these issues into a consensus. In October of 1994, as the Standards reached initial publication, the decade’s explosive culture wars engulfed in project. Through highly visibly media outlets, conservative critics denounced the standards for what they deemed a negative, unpatriotic, and socially divisive portrayal of the

2For a closer look at the report’s results see: National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Full Account, (Portland: USA Research, Inc, 1984). 3For an extensive overview of the National History Standards Project, see: Linda Symcox, Whose History: The Struggle for National Standards in American Classrooms, (New York: Teachers College Press, 2002). An extensive account as well as a spirited defense of the project is offered in: Nash, Gary, Charlotte Crabtree and Ross Dunn, History on Trial: Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997). Another brief overview is offered in: Diane Ravitch, Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000). 4E Pluribus Unum (Latin = one made out of many). This refers to the task of recognizing the social differences in society, while also piecing together a coherent, historical American trajectory over time. This motto is located on the Great Seal of the United States as well as many American coins. 7 past. After a Senatorial vote offered unanimous support for the project’s critics, the standards never regained enough momentum or public support to receive the federal government’s official endorsement.5

Not surprisingly, the Standards’ supporters offered a laundry list of factors that led to their beloved project’s collapse. In sum, they blamed conservatively biased media representations, politically charged commentators’ distortion of facts, procedural politics in the Senate, Congress’ 1994 Republican revolution, and a Clinton administration that cowardly relinquished desperately needed support. However, many of these supporters failed to recognize the long history of conflict associated with their task. Throughout our nation’s history, we have disputed what constitutes a true American national identity. Regarding public education, portrayals of America’s past have been inextricably linked to these disputes. As the boundaries of identity have shifted over time, the teaching of American history in public schools has remained at the heart of these contentious debates.

While identity disputes have been an essential element to curriculum reform over the past 120 years, the most recent contest proved unique in several ways. First, American history standards had never been created, nor enforced, by the federal government. Therefore, past disputes pitted critics against privately owned textbook publishers. During the 1990s, however, curriculum development theoretically shifted from private, market-driven textbook publishers to an independent, federally funded research organization. Critics’ bargaining chips devalued as a result, which may help explain their spirited, collaborative attack against the

NCHS proposals.

Although this was a critical development, the most influential factor undoubtedly involved the

Standards’ content itself. Since the 1960’s, textbook publishers mostly ignored social historians’ contributions to the field. However, these new historical interpretations greatly influenced the NCHS proposals. As the task force soon realized, adoption of such theories was problematic in several ways.

Examination of competing social and cultural subgroups, a technique promoted by most social historians, often contends with traditional American history. In this particular case, traditional history refers to the portrayal of a universal, patriotic American narrative. The curriculum’s proposed shift from traditional to

5For the hearing’s full transcript, see: Congressional Record, January 18, 1995 (S1026-S1035). 8 revisionist history provoked a backlash from conservative commentators. Critics were not necessarily reacting to revisionist history as a practice, but instead to its significant impact upon traditional definitions of

American national identity.

Despite the multitude of factors affecting the Standards Project’s downfall, the teaching of American history’s role in shaping national identity remained the central point of contention throughout. We will examine this elusive, controversial topic throughout the following chapters. Chapter One provides context for this study, outlining the National Standards Project from its ambitious beginnings to its humble demise. It will also investigate the debate within the NCHS task force, the conservative backlash against their proposals, and the Senate resolution that stopped the reform movement in its tracks. Chapter Two focuses on how the teaching of American history has been inextricably linked to disputes over national identity. Chapter

Three then demonstrates the overwhelming role that issues over national identity framed the standards debate and lead to the reform movement’s disintegration. Finally, I attempt to draw conclusions regarding the project’s failure, lessons learned, and future courses of action.

Chapter One

THE NATIONAL HISTORY STANDARDS PROJECT Consensus Beyond Reach 9

“To the historians, “world class” standards meant bringing the latest advances in historical methodology, social and cultural history into the classroom. It did not mean the rehearsing of what they considered to be an outmoded teleological narrative in an uncritically patriotic mode.”6

- Linda Symcox, Whose History

“The message from the critics had been clear: give us hope, not shame.”7

- John Patrick Diggins, On Hallowed Ground

Although local governments have historically been the driving force behind change in public education, the national government has introduced more expansive reform initiatives over the past two decades. In 1983, the catalyst for such federal intervention was the groundbreaking Nation at Risk report, a striking study claiming that our educational institutions were dismal and worsening. This study attempted to demonstrate that our education levels were not only stagnant, but actually regressing from previous generations. The study based its research upon assessments of teaching and learning quality as well as comparisons between America’s higher educational institutions vis-à-vis colleges and universities in other industrialized nations. The group also considered recent historical shifts in student achievement, particularly social change and educational reforms over the past twenty-five years.

A Nation at Risk’s general task was to identify the major problems facing our educational institutions.8 The most glaring threat, according to the report, was that our “unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation [was] being overtaken by competitors throughout the world.”9 According to the study, our failing educational institution was a major contributing factor to this dangerous development. Competing nations’ educational institutions were cited as demonstrating quantifiable growth, while our own system idled in neutral due to poor teacher quality, flawed curricular standards, a lack of meaningful accountability measures, and overall ineffective educational reforms.

6Linda Symcox, Whose History: The Struggle for National Standards in American Classrooms, (New York: Teachers College Press, 2002), 160. 7John Patrick Diggins, On Hallowed Ground: Abraham Lincoln and the Foundations of American History , (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 138. 8Ibid. 9National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Full Account, (Portland: USA Research, Inc, 1984), 2. 10 The study group blamed popular educational trends of the 60’s and 70’s for deemphasizing academic rigor in the classroom. They argued that schools focused too much on electives and nontraditional course loads instead of emphasizing the traditional core subjects of math, English, science, and history. As the decade waned, the urge for back-to-basics educational policy strengthened. Employers grew weary of providing resources needed to educate entry-level employees who lacked basic skills. As American scholars and politicians tackled these issues, President George H.W. Bush took the initiative and responded by proposing a new wave of national education reforms.10

In September of 1989, the Bush Administration held a conference in Charlottesville, Virginia to discuss several reform initiatives. In order to build consensus with state and local authorities, those who have traditionally administered public education, several of the nation’s most powerful governors were invited to the conference. Also present was Albert Shanker, Union President of the powerful American

Federation of Teachers (AFT). There, Shanker urgently proposed the need to create a system of national standards and assessments.11 Public opinion polls demonstrated that the majority of Americans favored establishing such standards. However, there had been a history of reluctance on the part of politicians and high-ranking educators regarding such national initiatives. Wary Republicans feared that enacting Federal standards would allow liberal, ideologically driven politicians and educational reformers to impose their ideas upon our nation’s impressionable youth. Further amplifying the issue’s complexity, many Democrats were reluctant as well. They believed that federal standards did not necessarily promote higher achievement, especially in urban districts that often lacked equitable resources and funding.12

Despite these underlying fears, the Conference agreed upon the urgent need for national standards.

Out of the six goals set for the year 2000, two suggested the need for such an initiative. One of them stated that “American students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, history and geography.”13 The next step towards achieving these two goals involved drafting national standards.

10Ravitch, Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms, 430-31. 11Diane Ravitch, National Standards in American Education; A Citizen’s Guide, (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1995), 2-3. 12Ibid., 4. 13Ibid., 2-3. 11 During the Bush Administration’s final year, despite considerable efforts, concrete reform legislation regarding national standards failed to pass. However, the Department of Education (ED), along with the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), funded organizations whose goal was to draft national history standards.14 In preparation for the looming attack by opponents of federal intrusion in state and local matters, the NEH made it clear that the standards were not mandatory. Instead, they were intended to become useful guidelines for local and state administrations to develop their own curricular standards.15 In

1991, the Education Department started funding several organizations to begin developing these guidelines.

Lynne Cheney, Chairman of the NEH, met with Charlotte Crabtree, Director of the National Center for

History in the Schools (NCHS). This organization was a collaborative educational program between UCLA and the NEH. Crabtree and distinguished American historian Gary Nash proposed that the NCHS assume the imposing task of national standard development. Cheney and the NEH officially endorsed the National

History Standards Project in December of 1991.16

Since no single committee or organization could effectively take on such an expansive project alone, the NCHS first created a large and diverse task force. This collaborative body consisted of a National

Council, a National Forum, nine Focus Groups, and three Curricular Task Forces. The National Forum encompassed a very broad range of representation. This group was a conglomerate of representatives from the nation’s twenty-four most well renowned associations of educators, parents, teachers, and public interest organizations. This diverse group offered suggestions and provided a communicative link between the standards project organizers and the American public.17 Furthermore, the NCHS created three Curricular

Task Forces to draft the standards. Totaling over fifty members, this branch of the project consisted of distinguished teachers and scholars from across the nation. Not only did this group draft the standards, they also provided examples of how teachers could practically apply each standard in a classroom setting. The

NCHS then established nine Focus groups representing the country’s most powerful historical organizations

14Ibid., 5. 15Ravitch, Left Back, 432. 16Gary Nash, Charlotte Crabtree and Ross Dunn, History on Trial: Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997), 156-158. This source has provided much of the background information for this chapter. Since the authors were so involved in the project, their account occasionally becomes defensive and polemical. These underlying sentiments make this in many ways a valuable primary source. 17Ibid., 160. 12 to review each of the drafts and offer consultation.18

The National Council considered arguments posed by each of these subgroups (national forum, focus groups, and task forces) and ultimately managed the publication’s timetable. This group was composed of twenty-eight accomplished teachers and historians who offered a wide array of historical perspectives.

However, to avoid any stigmas that may have become associated with the council, none of the members were well known advocates for either extremely liberal or conservative viewpoints. The NCHS also excluded government officials of any kind. Therefore, critics of federal intervention would know that the Federal government itself did not actually draft the standards.19 Thus, the National History Standards Project embarked upon a two-and-a-half year struggle through exhaustive research and heated debate before a draft would finally reach publication.20

Not surprisingly, as American views about our past came to the fore, several contentious issues surfaced within the task force. Should history be presented through the traditional practice of chronological periodization, or should it be organized by important themes and concepts? Should the standards focus more on traditional heroes and patriotic accomplishments in American history, or present issues more critically by examining issues regarding social unrest, international conflicts, and the dynamic roles of gender, race, class status, and ethnicity?21 Following months of debate, the task force decided to stick with the traditional, chronological organization of events, but to also adopt a more multicultural approach, one that would include previously neglected historical experiences of women and minorities, for example.

In October of 1994, the task force was relieved that, following years of painstaking research and debate, they had finally achieved a consensus. So they thought. As the NCHS prepared to release their

18Historical organizations represented in the focus groups: American Historical Association (AHA), Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), Council of State Social Studies Specialists (CSSSS), National Council for History Education (NCHE), National Council for Social Studies (NCSS), Organization of American Historians (OAH), Organization of History Teachers (OHT), World History Association (WHA). 19Ibid., 159-160. 20Ibid., 160. 21Ibid., 166-167. The World History Standards also proved contentious as progressive historians aimed to reduce the curriculum’s focus on the Western World in favor of a more inclusive worldview. They also tried to avoid what many termed cultural essentialism, referring to the relatively common practice of portraying a particular region or culture as having certain essential or inherent characteristics. This traditional approach, progressives argued, disregarded the plurality of civilians and internal dynamics that occur within regions. Critics of the progressive approach countered with their claim that such inclusiveness would significantly reduce the West’s role in the curriculum, shifting focus upon obscure cultures for the sake of political correctness. 13 standards to the public, an attack from the conservative right blindsided the project. The first major critique came from none other than former NEH Chairperson, Lynne Cheney. Although she had been a strong advocate of the standards movement as Chairperson, she had performed a complete about-face on the issue since her departure. In October, she published a confrontational Wall Street Journal article entitled

“The End of History,” which attacked the multicultural approach and chastised the significant omissions that resulted.22 Two weeks later, the Washington Post published conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer’s

“History Hijacked.” His critique attacked the document’s excessive focus upon America’s shortcomings, but also condemned the shift in focus away from the traditional methods of rote memorization of facts.

According to Krauthammer, “ten-year-olds can easily be induced to have opinions about anything. The reason they go to school, however, is to acquire knowledge. Opinions will follow.” 23

Abruptly entering the debate, up-in-coming right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s and his antics exacerbated the media frenzy. During his radio program’s evening telecast, he theatrically tore the document to shreds, informing the American public that the proposed standards, those created by a “secret group” at UCLA, should be “flushed down the toilet.”24 Those involved in drafting the standards neither expected, nor were prepared for these types of public assaults.25 They needed to regroup since negative public opinion would undermine the entire standards project. Task force members countered the criticisms with factual responses, but effectively publicizing their case in time to save the projects’ reputation proved a formidable task.26

In response, Nash charged that most accusations were clearly misrepresentations and manipulations of the standards’ true nature. For instance, Cheney charged that the document failed to mention the

Constitution. While the thirty-one main standards did not mention the exact word, one did require students to

“demonstrate understanding of the issues in the creation and ratification of the United States Constitution and

22Lynne Cheney, “The End of History,” Wall Street Journal, (20 Oct. 1994), A22. 23Charles Krauthammer, “History Hijacked,” Washington Post, (4 Nov. 1994), A25. 24Joan O’Brien. “Troubled Past Follows New History Standards,” Salt Lake Tribune, 4 April 1996, A1. For other accounts of Limbaugh’s tirades, see: Ravitch, Left Back. 434. Also, Symcox, Whose History, 6, 127, 149. 25For examples of NCHS task force members’ attitudes in response to the conservative attack, see: Carol Gluck, “History According to Whom; Let the Debate Continue,” New York Times, (19 Nov. 1994), A23; Theodore Rabb, “Whose History? Where Critics of the New Standards Flunked Out,” The Washington Post, (11 Dec. 1994); Douglas Greenburg, “Face the Nation, Exposing the Chief Critic of the ‘American Experience,’” Chicago Tribune, (9 Jan. 1995); Frank Rich, “Eating Her Offspring,” New York Times, (26 Jan. 1995), A21. 26 Nash, History on Trial, 193-194. 14 the new government it established.” In the accompanying sample lesson, students were required to “draw upon historical data and the Bill of Rights to construct a sound historical argument.” 27 Nash considered this condemnation a blatant example of opponents’ cleverly misleading distortions of the document.28

Siding with Nash, project supporters mobilized and vehemently opposed the right-wing attack.

Cultural Historian and NCHS member Carol Gluck responded with “History According to Whom,” noting that the standards were “wrestled into their present shape through a lengthy national dialogue.”29 Gluck sought to dispel the myth that a small group of liberal academics were the projects’ driving force. The New

York Times editorial staff followed suit, offering outright praise for the project, claiming that “the standards and support materials is exhilarating.” The editorial further confronted critics’ strategic enumeration of historical names, periods, and events.30 According to the editors, this approach “would make sense if all standards were a textbook, a compendium of all important facts. But the sample lessons, from which the numbers are taken, are just that. Samples. Teachers would fill in the blanks.”31

Many NCHS supporters aimed their responses at Lynne Cheney, particularly for her sharp reversal in sentiments. Nash thought her disassociation from the NEH was a political maneuver to politically align with husband Dick Cheney, who at the time considered a run for the Republican primary in the 1996 presidential election.32 Focus Group Chairman Douglas Greenburg concurred. After praising the project throughout her tenure, Cheney was now “using the standards as an excuse to initiate a discussion that has… everything to do with politics… [The standards] do not deserve to be caricatured for narrowly partisan reasons.”33 In “Eating

Her Offspring,” liberal columnist Frank Rich further charged that Cheney “turned against her former agency so she can play her own starring role in the culture war that the far right hopes to ride to the White House.”34

27National Center for History in the Schools, National Standards for United States History; Exploring the American Experience, (Los Angeles, 1994), 84-86. See Appendix C for a transcript of the standard referred to by Nash. 28Nash, History on Trial, 204. 29Carol Gluck, “History According to Whom; Let the Debate Continue.” New York Times, (19 Nov., 1994), A23. 30This “enumeration” refers to critics’ tactic of counting the number of the Standards’ references to particular historical figures (ex. Ku Klux Klan’s nineteen references vs. Thomas Edison’s zero) in order to highlight and discredit the project’s supposedly liberal, unpatriotic, and divisive nature. See Appendix C for transcript. 31“Maligning the History Standards,” New York Times, (13 Feb., 1995), A18. 32Nash, History on Trial, 221. 33Douglas Greenburg, “Face the Nation; Exposing the Chief Critic of the ‘American Experience,’” Chicago Tribune, (9 Jan., 1995). 34Frank Rich, “Eating Her Offspring,” New York Times, (26 Jan., 1995), A21. 15 As additional high profile conservatives publicly rejected the standards, project supporters had increasing cause for concern. Televangelist Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition sought nothing more than to abolish Goals 2000, the NEH, and the Department of Education itself. To them, the standards were “proof of the danger of federal involvement in education… [and] a monument to what is wrong with an education establishment that is out of touch with the values of ordinary Americans.”35 The conservative Family

Research Council shared fears that the nature of national history standards would undermine family values taught in the home. The Council’s President charged that the standards were consistent with the Education

Department’s tendency “ to magnify America's flaws and belittle her achievements." He also opposed the standards’ controversial interpretations of recent events, warning that such practices fall “prey to ideological interpretation… [increasing] the chance of emotional disagreements [between] students and their parents." 36

Responding to the waves of attacks, standards project representatives met with critics and congressional staffers at the Brookings Institute, a mainstream liberal Washington think tank.37 The project staff optimistically sought to dispel misrepresentations and build consensus between the two embattled fronts. On January 12, 1995, the conference proved a futile endeavor. Lynne Cheney’s failure to attend the conference left uninvited John Fonte as spokesperson.38 Following the day’s debates, he reported that the standards were severely flawed and that progress had been minimal throughout the conference. Once confronted by an NEH press officer, however, Fonte admitted to writing the report “that morning,” before the day’s deliberation ever took place.39 Nash charged Fonte with purposefully impeding the consensus building initiative. It later became evident that, at the time, Fonte was deep in the writing process for Republican

Senator Slade Gorton (WA) speech in fierce opposition to the standards.40

On January 28, 1995, without warning, Congress dove headfirst into the melee. While the Senate was embroiled in a heated debate over an important Unfunded Mandates Bill, Senator Gorton proposed a rider denying the standards’ federal endorsement a freezing further NCHS funding. Democratic Senators

35Christian Coalition, Contract with the American Family: A Bold Plan, (Nashville: Moorings, 1995), 17. 36Carol Innerst, “Pro-Family Group Proposes History Standards,” The Washington Times, (21 Feb. 1995), A4. 37"Brookings Institution." Encyclopedia Britannica. 2007. [Online] http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9016635, 7 Apr. 2007. 38Symcox, Whose History, 136. 39John Fonte, Quoted in Nash, History on Trial, 230. 40Nash, History on Trial, 230-232. 16 Claiborne Pell (RI) and Jeff Bingaman (NM) voiced opposition to the rider, proposing that the government instead allow the NCHS further time to revise the document. The Senators agreed upon a hasty compromise that prolonged NCHS funding, but rejected endorsement of the NCHS proposals. This did not imply that, once revised, the standards could not obtain future federal endorsement. However, the standards as presented to Congress in January were dead in the water. On top of this, the compromise declared that any future standards must demonstrate a “decent respect for the contributions of Western Civilization.”41 This vague, utterly subjective reference was less a practical suggestion than it was a symbolic slap in the face. The

Senate, pleased to have hurdled the contentious issue, returned to what a majority considered a more concern, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Hence, the Senate voted 99-1 in favor of the compromise, with the one dissenting vote proposing even harsher measures against the NEH and NCHS.42 Although the law did not legally restrict funding or deny the possibility of future federal endorsement, the Congressional Act was nevertheless a major blow to the standards project’s image.

This Senatorial display galvanized project supporters across the nation, particularly those who were thus far reluctant to expose themselves in the volatile public discourse. Following the Senate verdict, Nash claimed that “entire history departments began writing their Senators to express their shock at Congress’ irresponsible action.”43 SUNY New Paltz, for example, portrayed the situation as an “unwarranted and potentially harmful political and legislative interference in the academic freedom and responsibility of scholars and teachers in the field of history.”44 Historians were fueled by a shared sentiment that these attacks not only targeted the standards, but also several decades of historical scholarship. Arnita Jones, Executive

Director of the Organization of American Historians (OAH) claimed the following:

“Fueled by the concern of many citizens whose knowledge of the standards themselves derives mainly from talk shows or politicized debate, the controversy threatens to create a serious misunderstanding, if not demonization, of several decades of scholarship in American history. Moreover, the acrimonious nature of the debate, if it continues to escalate, imperils programs at the endowment and at the U.S. Department of Education, both of which helped finance the

41U.S. Congress. Senate. 1995. Senator Slade Gorton of Washington proposing Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Amendment Number 31. 104th Congress, 1st session. Congressional Record S1026-S1028, (18 January 1995). 42Ibid., 232-236. 43Ibid., 239. 44Resolution of the University Faculty Senate to Senators Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alfonse M. D’Amato, 1 March 995. Quoted in Nash, History on Trial, 239. 17 project.”45

Jones, along with many other historians, worried that these events jeopardized both decades of scholarship as well as the federal funding needed to support academic research across the nation. However, these responses from various corners of academia were no match for the visibility of critics like Cheney and Limbaugh, who could more effectively communicate their point of view to the American public.46

At this point, a speedy revision process was the project’s last hope for survival. For several months, a review panel made up of many conservative historians deliberated alongside the NCHS task force. Alongside malicious attacks from presidential hopefuls Bob Dole and Pat Buchanan, the revised standards reached publication in January of 1996. This revised version deleted the controversial sample lessons from the entire document. Project members also scaled back standards accused of revealing liberal bias. Surprisingly, since many educators sought the deleted teaching examples, the revised edition’s release prompted a boost in orders for the original. Despite the public controversy, teachers had viewed these documents as valuable professional resources. The NCHS eventually distributed the revised edition to each of the nation’s 16,000 school districts, from which none were ever returned.47

Cheney attacked once again, although this particular assault drifted from the standard’s content towards a more broad critique of national standards reform. She argued that “danger can lie in deciding to visit a single version of any subject on every child in the nation. That single version can too easily go awry.”48

However, mainstream historians and policy experts Diane Ravitch and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. offered praise for the improved standards.

“We are impressed… they are rigorous, honest, and as nearly accurate as any group of historians could make them. They do not take sides, and they pose the most fundamental questions about our nation's history. In our judgment, they will make a solid contribution to the improvement of history education in American schools.”49

In spite of Cheney’s attempts, the right wing media had lost interest. Furthermore, many educators, scholars, and journalists now praised the revisions. The efforts proved futile, however, since the gradual shift in

45Arnita Jones, “Our Stake In the History Standards,” OAH Magazine of History, 9 (Spring 1995). 46Ibid., 241. 47Ibid., 253. 48Lynne Cheney, “New History Standards Still Attack Our Heritage,” Wall Street Journal, (2 May, 1996), A14. 49Diane Ravitch and Arthur Schlesinger Jr., “The New, Improved History Standards,” Wall Street Journal, (3 Apr., 1996,) A14. 18 sentiments was not enough for the standards to ever achieve the federal government’s full endorsement.

As the dust settled, it became clear that efforts to create federally endorsed national history standards were crushed. Years of intense collaborative efforts and scholarly debate did provide a set of standards, but they were so severely battered by critics that it could hardly be considered a victory. Why did Congress so vehemently reject the NCHS proposals? How did critics successfully construe such a large, collaborative body of historians, teachers, and policy experts as a minority of radical revisionist historians,’ those who wished for nothing more than the dissemination of national unity for the sake of political correctness?

Standards supporters pointed to several factors, particularly: critics’ deceitful distortions, conservatives’ overrepresentation in the media, and legislators’ opportunistic political practices. Surely, these factors played a role in the controversy, but a much larger debate had engulfed the entire project. Since our

Founding Fathers’ first attempt to consolidate a loose-knit batch of colonies into a strong, independent nation, Americans have debated our obscure definition of national identity. How that debate has historically been infused with disputes over the teaching of American History will be considered next.

Chapter 2

AMERICA’S IDENTITY CRISIS Disputes over National Identity in the Teaching of American History

“The past we choose to remember defines in large measure our national character, transmits the values and self-images we hold dear, and preserves the events, glorious and shameful… that constitute our legacy from the past and inspire our hopes for the future.”50

- Gary Nash, History on Trial

National identity disputes have repeatedly surfaced throughout American history, and the standards debate set the stage for yet another public bout over the true definition of an “American.” From the initial

NCHS task force meetings, to the decisive Senatorial showdown, this dispute over national identity impeded the project’s prospects for success at all stages of the consensus-building process. Since a shared heritage

50 Nash, History on Trial, 3. 19 with fellow members of the national community strengthens otherwise non-existent relationships, the teaching of history itself plays a major role in national identity development. Therefore, how we portray history to the nation’s youth is inseparable from domestic disputes over American identity. This chapter will investigate how public bouts over national identity have directly shaped public schools’ portrayal of the

American past. But first, to provide context, we must briefly examine America’s dynamic experience with nationalism, an elusive, yet powerful conceptual framework that has dominates modern society.

In a basic sense, nationalism is a belief system that promotes the general interest of one’s own nation vis-à-vis others nations in the world. Nationalism’s existence, however, depends upon a social collectivity that deems itself a nation of people. A “nation” is commonly defined as a group of individuals unified by factors such as a common ancestry, language, history, culture, territory, or political ideology. Benedict

Anderson’s influential studies have challenged the conception of nation as an inherently unique group of

“people” with natural affiliations and unities. Instead, according to Anderson, nations are social constructs, or

“imagined communities.” Although these people will never meet the vast majority of fellow community members, they feel a shared sentiment and connection based upon nationalist ideology. This process of imagining does not equate with falsity, however, since the nation itself is a real and powerful social entity.

Nationalist sentiments are often so powerful that community members overlook blatant social, economic, and political inequalities.51 Our nation has been no exception.

Nationalism gained strength in modern society as nations developed political objectives, particularly state building initiatives.52 In this sense, a state encompasses the actual programs and institutions established to organize society and maintain order within a geographic territory. New nation-states developed in Europe over the 19th century and became the dominant force in society by World War II. However, nationalist ideology was by no means definitive. As historian Robert Wiebe suggests, “nationalism’s own dogmatism, permeability and adaptability rank among its greatest strengths.”53 The boundaries that define this imagined political community are constantly redrawn, even though nationalists often refer back to an ancestral past in

51Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, (New York: Verso, 1995), 6-7. 52Robert Wiebe, Who We Are: A History of Popular Nationalism, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), 5. 53Ibid., 6. 20 order to facilitate unity among nation members. Therefore, the boundaries that define national identity, those that delineate inclusion or exclusion from the nation, are often in dispute. Since the relationship between nation and state has strengthened exponentially over the past two centuries, exclusion from the nation often implies alienation from the state as well.

Turning to the American experience, our country’s complex journey from devoted English colony to dominant world superpower has been marred by social and political disputes over national identity. In 1776, there was no clear sense of a distinct American people. Before the Revolutionary War, if asked which nationality the colonists were, most would have responded, “English.”54 To deeply devoted colonists, many of whom considered themselves English citizens, geographic separation was the only distinction between themselves and their fellow European counterparts.55

For this reason, most colonists were outraged by England’s increasingly subordinate treatment, both politically and economically. Many colonists not only considered themselves English, but better English citizens than those in their home country.56 Compared to European Englishmen, they deemed themselves superior in their application of England’s national ideals (liberty, equality, and reason).57 By revolting, the colonists claimed that they were actually construing Britain’s own national ideal of liberty. The colonists interpreted liberty as the right to practice self-government. Therefore, revolutionaries considered independence the only practical means of ensuring American self-governance, i.e. liberty.58

In many respects, following independence from England, the American nation was born premature.

For instance, concerning the characteristics we commonly equate with nationality, American colonists were exceptionally diverse.59 They were from different geographic locations and operated within various economic and social structures.60 Since previous allegiance to the mother country had all but disappeared, American loyalties dispersed as a result. Furthermore, Americans lacked many unifying characteristics, such as a

54Liah Greenfeld. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992), 412. This source provides an in-depth examination of national identity’s development in the United States. It proved to be an invaluable source that has influenced my understanding of the history standards debate. 55Ibid., 406. 56Ibid., 409. 57Ibid., 399, 409. 58Ibid., 412. 59Greenfeld, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity, 422. 60Ibid., 409. 21 common language, religion, ethnicity, military threat, or lengthy patriotic past.61 It seems evident that the

Founders were well aware of this circumstance. For example, the Constitution did not refer to a “nation of people,” but instead a union of “United States.”62 Although ethnic nationalism would soon characterize many of the developing European nation-states, America’s ethnically diverse character made this nation-building technique rather useless. Instead, as historian Eric Foner suggests, an ideal form of civic nationalism would suffice.63 In contrast to ethnic- nationalism, all civic nationalism required was a unified devotion to a set of political principles. Theoretically, all participatory members in the political structure who reside within the nation’s geographical boundaries become members of the national community.64 As we will see, this ideology would been tested and challenged throughout our nation’s history.

Beginning in the late 19th century, the nation’s public education institution became an important theater for challenges to national identity. Racial, ethnic, and other social developments over America’s inaugural century resulted in a murky definition of national consciousness. However, history textbooks of the period portrayed a rather homogeneous American culture. Most schools before the 1890s were privately owned and religious. Subsequently, they defined an American as predominately white, protestant, and possessive of a particular set of moral virtues. For example, tales aimed at providing moral education portrayed white children behaving valiantly in battle against hostile Native American attackers. These rather ahistorical tales and anecdotes characterized the texts in order to promote behavior in what the authors considered an ideal American Culture.65

In the 1890s, as public schools began outnumbering private religious institutions, the nature of instruction dramatically shifted. The traditional focus upon moral instruction was replaced by what was then considered objective fact and truth. These “facts” dismissed moral tales, replacing them instead with lengthy discussions about American government and politics. Although textbooks did not explicitly dispute the existence of a homogenous American culture, they chose to avoid the issue. Instead of focusing on particular

61Wiebe, Who We Are, 78. 62 Greenfeld, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity, 431. 63Ibid., 423.

64Eric Foner, Who Owns History?: Rethinking the Past in a Changing World, (New York: Hill and Wang, 2002), 152. 65Fitzgerald, America Revised, 48. 22 cultural practices, they simply defined Americans by their citizenship status.66

Soon, textbook authors discovered that volatile conflicts over immigration made classifying

American identity by citizenship problematic. Over the course of the 19th century, due to immigration practices, America had become a conglomerate of ethnic nations.67 Historian Robert Wiebe characterizes this development as the rise of “hyphenated nationalism.” For example, people became classified in society not only as Americans, but as Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Polish-Americans, etc. Not surprisingly, this change in social classification coincided with nationalism’s mounting strength in 18th century European society. Therefore, immigrants who arrived on American shores over the latter half of the 19th century did so with a sense of national identity and loyalty to their home country.68 It was arguably not a love for the

American nation that drew these immigrants, but instead a love of the prospects of freedom, equality, and above all, prosperity. 69 Would citizenship alone suffice in unifying a nation of such diverse cultures? Critics of the era were skeptical, setting the stage for public education’s first real confrontation with national identity disputes.

At the turn of the century, textbooks could no longer ignore critics’ concern over immigration and its impact upon American national consciousness. Before long, textbooks offered a clear distinction between

Americans and immigrants. References to “we Americans” in opposition to “the immigrants” suggested a clear delineation between the two social categories.70 At the time, textbook writers were embroiled in the cultural controversy of defining an “American. ” For most, the solution was to classify American identity based upon a common English ancestry.71 Clearly, due to the nature immigration in America, this classification was problematic. If English ancestry truly became the sole determinant of national identity, most of the nation would no longer be considered an American.

First published in 1911, David Muzzey’s An American History expressed this concern by asserting that immigration practices placed enormous strains on American society.

66Ibid., 76. 67Wiebe, Who We Are, 72. 68 Greenfeld, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity, 436. 69Ibid., 435. 70Fitzgerald, America Revised, 76. 71Ibid., 77. 23 “Can we assimilate and mold into citizenship the millions who are coming to our shores, or will they remain an ever increasing body of aliens, an undigested and indigestible element in our body politic, and a constant menace to our free institutions?”72

The negative tone towards immigration carried into the twenties as well. According to one text, Americans were increasingly concerned over the “hordes of immigrants” invading their “homogeneous” American culture. Our doors were now open to “criminals, idiots, [and] avowed anarchists” who “were coming faster than we could assimilate them.” Supposedly, they infected the nation with “revolutionary ideas [that] were repugnant to an orderly freedom and the voluntary respect for law.” This text further claimed that a close look at America’s social practices proved that our nation had failed in forging “foreign elements into a truly

American people.”73 The text’s blatant cynicism ultimately framed American immigration as detrimental to the nation’s culture and heritage.

To address this complex issue, textbooks of the 1940s proposed the “melting pot” theory. This proposed that immigrants residing in America blended their native traditions with “our native colonial stock,” creating a new, uniform American culture.74 Accepting the theory’s validity, critics were concerned that such fusion was a detriment to our superior American way of life. However, most of the period’s textbooks praised both the valuable labor force and the intellectual creativity offered by foreigners.75 This melting pot theory was also congratulatory to Americans at home, a contributing factor to its general acceptance and popularity. Americans were considered kind enough to accept immigrants into their culture, a society that lived up to its ideals of liberty and equality. Thus, immigration practices were framed as a uniquely American display of generosity. History textbooks’ sporadic references to immigrants’ social contributions exemplified the nation’s reward for such charity.76

Spirited charges of anti-patriotism proved a contentious issue as well. As this study’s introduction exemplified, the first signs of protest emerged as critics charged textbook authors with pro-British biases in their Revolutionary War accounts. The Ku Klux Klan also engaged in the dispute, charging publishing companies for having pro-Jewish and pro-Catholic sentiments. Both of these protests effectively persuaded

72David Muzzey, An American History. (1924) Quoted in Fitzgerald, America Revised, 78. 73David Muzzey, The United States of Americas: From the Civil War, (New York: Ginn and Company, 1924), 786-87. 74Muzzey, A History of Our Country (1955). Quoted in Fitzgerald, America Revised, 81. 75Fitzgerald, America Revised, 80. 76Ibid., 81. 24 publishers to revise their drafts.77 Accusations of anti-patriotism resurfaced with greater force throughout the late 1930s and 1940s. The American Legion charged that textbook writers were in fact communist sympathizers whose textbooks were vehicles for the subliminal indoctrination of American youth. Ada White of the Indiana State Textbook Commission even took the steps to ban Robin Hood from schools, claiming his tale was sympathetic to communist and socialist ideals.78 Yet again, the publishers responded to public discord and modified the text, creating a more patriotic and triumphant version of the nation’s past.

During the 1950s, textbook accounts adopted an ultra patriotic portrayal of American history. Political action groups throughout the decade lobbied to ensure that textbooks presented a glorifying picture of America’s heritage.79 Publishers responded by referring to America as not only the new leader of the free world, but also its most powerful defender of democracy. Under public pressure, the Silver Burdett Company revised the following passages:

Original: “Because [America] needs to trade, and because it needs military help, the United States needs the friendship of countries throughout the world.”

Revised: “The United States trades with countries in all parts of the world. We are also providing military help to many nations.”

Original: “The United States sometimes finds it difficult to agree with its neighbors in all things. Nor do other countries always agree with us.”

Revised: “The people of some nations have forms of government different from ours. Often they do not enjoy the same freedom and opportunity as our people.” 80

According to these revisions, far from requiring any type of foreign military aid, America now could provide military assistance to any nation it deemed fit. Furthermore, countries that disagree with any of our nation’s practices must oppose the ideals of “freedom and opportunity.” It was clear by the decade’s end that Cold

War politics, mobilized by vocal critics, coerced textbook publishers to develop an overwhelmingly patriotic, glorifying portrayal of our nation’s past.

77Fitzgerald, America Revised, 36. 78Ibid., 38. 79Ibid., 114. 80Silver Burdett Company, The American Continents. Quoted in: Jack Nelson and Gene Roberts, The Censors and the Schools, (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1963), 130-131. 25 The civil rights movement of the following decade fostered the conditions for a dramatic rewriting of American history textbooks.81 Empowerment of social groups, particularly African Americans, ethnic minorities, and women, turned the image of a homogenous America citizenry on its head. Therefore, the civil rights movement produced a perplexing dilemma for textbook publishers. How would they acknowledge the revolutionary social changes of the 1960s without recognizing these groups’ existence and historical contributions in the past? Do Americans even have a racial, ethnic, or cultural identity?82 Many texts responded carefully to these controversial issues over national identity by asserting that America is simply a multiracial, multicultural society. However, Americans now had to confront the uneasy history of violence and oppression preceding these social groups’ liberation.83 Although the debates raged on in the public and academic realms, textbook manufacturers remained reluctant to tackle these controversial issues head on.

The textbook industry’s response to these social issues throughout the 1970s played out differently than one would expect. Despite social historians’ considerable contributions to the field, most texts only made token references to different social groups as they saw fit. Many of these relatively superficial inclusions were simply tactics employed by publishing companies to appease regional markets. To boost sales, the publishers catered to local school boards by emphasizing shared racial and ethnic values of that particular region. For example, textbooks written for Texas school districts often focused on the historical experiences of Mexican-Americans.84 On the other hand, West Virginians protested their text’s inclusion of excessive references to black historical figures. Clearly, there was no universal interpretation that would appease all regions and school districts.

In response, publishing companies ignored modern historians’ contributions and instead reverted back to the traditional focus upon white Americans’ achievements and social contributions.85 Even when textbooks did identify minorities’ struggles, they rarely considered the underlying causes of oppression. For example, the texts often proposed solutions to problems before the social issues ever arose in their texts. 86 An example

81Fitzgerald, America Revised, 58.

82 Ibid., 73. 83Ibid., 84, 94. 84Ibid., 24. 85Ibid., 30. 86Ibid.,, 101. 26 of this would be typical references to President Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty, although the text rarely alluded to the existence of American poverty before Johnson’s reforms. Furthermore, in neither case did it fully examine poverty as an important American social issue.87

There were, of course, critics concerned that the textbooks’ increasing emphasis upon social subgroups would destroy America’s cultural unity. They questioned whether recognition and praise for a multicultural society would lead to the racial and ethnic strife present in other nation-states around the globe.

Are we also a loose-knit conglomerate of ethnicities, races and cultures? Will America be engulfed in war as oppressed social groups challenge traditional power structures?88 These fears are present in particular circles to this day, an issue that will be further examined in the Chapter Three. In sum, the social reforms of the sixties did make it into textbooks, but mostly through token references that appealed to targeted regions and school districts. By no means did publishers include thorough examination of these social issues, never mind their fundamental roots and causes. The underlying fears about multiculturalism would linger into later decades, further preventing most of social history’s discoveries from reaching the classroom. As the NCHS’s proposed national standards influenced by this somewhat controversial sixties-era scholarship, these issues once again reached center stage.

Since controversy often chased progressive social historians’ claims, textbook companies were not under considerable pressure to incorporate their views into the texts. Conservative historian John Patrick

Diggins is one example of a distinguished scholar who disagreed with the NCHS’s adoption of social historians’ methods. He commented on these complex and confrontational developments in an essay entitled,

“American Identity in an Age of Political Correctness.” His interpretations certainly aligned themselves with the standards’ critics, as he proposed that Americans had “never before… been so deprived of the backward glance of historical understanding unsullied by the idiocracy of political correctness.”89 He blamed this mostly upon the rise of social historians in the academy. This scholarship, according to Diggins, would never

87Current, De Conde, and Daute, United States History (1974). Quoted in Fitzgerald, America Revised, 157. 88Fitzgerald, America Revised, 98. 89Diggins, On Hallowed Ground: Abraham Lincoln and the Foundations of American History, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 87. This source provided a great example of the conservative voice in this scholarly debate. It is referred to extensively throughout the rest of this chapter. The title is a bit deceiving, since the selection of essays focuses primarily on the “foundations of American history” with little actual reference to “Abraham Lincoln.” 27 take a firm hold on the American public due to its inherently anti-patriotic agenda. If these scholars wished to connect to the public at large, they “should… refrain from abusing the symbols of American patriotism” that Americans hold so dear. 90 This anti-patriotism comes from the social historians’ process of praising diversity while allowing “every faction [to] bloom.” Subsequently, patriotism is portrayed “as the snare of subordination [and] perishes.”91

According to this critique, not only do these progressive historians attack patriotism in pursuit of political correctness, but they also deny that Americans share a common national identity. Therefore, opposition to ethnic, racial, and class diversity in defense of social cohesion “is tantamount to advocating oppression and domination.”92 In essence, adherence to these ideas will destroy any sense of American national unity. This is because anyone who proposes a history based upon a coherent set of American ideals and experiences are simply regarded as “coercing conformity and suppressing differences.”93

Since social history was an ideological inspiration for most NCHS Task Force members throughout the standards development project, Diggins considered the project a successful practice of inclusive historical interpretation. However, as “a pedagogical effort at historical understanding, [it] lies between comedy and farce.”94 He asserted that flawed, leftover revisionist ideologies from the 1960s heavily influenced the authors’ rejection of a coherent American national identity.95 Accreditation of these standards in Congress, according to Diggins, would have legitimized their skewed version of the past. Even though the standards were not mandatory, Diggins feared that the misguided documents’ teachings would be reciprocated in high schools throughout the nation for years to come. If the NCHS had its way, the nation would be plagued by the disintegration of a shared American historical identity. In its place, rivaling subgroups would inevitably demand recognition at the expense of social solidarity.

In defense of social historians, prominent Leftist scholar Eric Foner offered a counter interpretation of this clash between revisionist ideology, identity politics, and national education reform. In Who Owns

90Ibid., 74-76. 91Ibid., 77. 92Ibid., 85. 93Ibid. 94Ibid., 72. 95Ibid., 74. 28 History, Foner proposed a much different interpretation of scholarship’s shift in focus over the past several decades. He agreed that emphasis upon American subgroups and their competing historical experiences is bound to wreak havoc upon any historical narrative based upon a consistent set of universally shared experiences. He also concurred with Diggins’ assertion that it is healthy for citizens to embrace American accomplishments as a means to develop a sense of national identity.96

Nevertheless, for Foner, social history itself is not oppositional to the notion of American identity.

Social historians do oppose, however, national histories that thrust particular social subgroups outside the boundaries of American identity. Foner warned that “when history locates supposedly primordial characteristics shared with members of ones own group and no one else, it negates the interpenetration of cultures that is so much a part of our nation’s past.” He challenged critics who claimed that diversity destroys our social makeup, such as those who suggest that immigration dismantles our “ethno-cultural community.”

As this chapter has demonstrated, our nation has always had difficulty defining national identity on ethnic and cultural grounds. Although conservative commentators blame revisionist historians for promoting

“fragmentation of national consciousness,” these critics often overlook the unifying principles of civic nationalism which many social historians bring to the fore.97 Citizenship, as well as the principles of liberty, equality, and democracy defines American identity more accurately than any racial or ethnic definitions ever could. For these reasons, Foner believes that social historians actually help instill a sense of national unity and pride.

This chapter has illustrated that, from the early 1890’s to today, the teaching of American history has always been a contentious issue. When confronting the volatile subject of American identity, the battles over how to portray history have grown increasingly fierce. Most clashes have played out between critics of all types and private textbook publishers. However, the stakes were raised with the Federal government’s sponsorship of the NCHS’s national standards project. The national history standards’ inextricable relationship with disputes over national identity development, particularly how they played out in the mid

1990s, will be considered next.

96Foner, Who Owns History, xi-xvi. In contrast to Diggins, Foner provides an example of the liberal stance in the debate. 97Ibid., xi-xvi. 29

Chapter 3 THE STANDARDS PROJECT DERAILED How Identity Politics Hijacked the Proposed National History Standards 30

“We are a better people than the National Standards indicate, and our children deserve to know it.”98

- Lynn Cheney, “The End of History”

“Bland fictions, propagated for the purpose of creating good citizens, may actually… give young people no warning of the real dangers ahead, and later they may make these young people feel that their own experience of conflict or suffering is unique in history and perhaps un-American.”99

- Frances Fitzgerald, America Revised

Following the NCHS project’s creation, the disputes over national identity that plagued textbook publishers throughout the 20th century reach new heights. The unprecedented nature of federally endorsed standards raised the stakes, and the NCHS project set the stage for yet another round of hard-fought disputes over national consciousness. The debate first surfaced within the confines of the NCHS task force before shifting into the public eye. Here, conservative critics mobilized powerful media outlets in order to attack what they considered unpatriotic standards that threatened and distorted our concepts of a shared national identity. The debates culminated during the Senatorial showdown in January of 1995, during which several politicians condemned the document for its supposedly anti-patriotic and socially divisive messages. In the end, heated debates over national identity drove an ideological wedge deep into the heart of the standards movement. This chapter will take a closer look at how critics mobilized these disputes over national consciousness, particularly how it reaped havoc upon reformers who underestimated the public’s powerful reaction, and concern, over such fundamental issues over identity.

As early as December of 1991, the year the NCHS received its federal endorsement, organizational leaders understood that the project would bring volatile debates over multiculturalism to the fore. NCHS

Director Charlotte Crabtree suggested that the dispute over national identity, particularly America’s “binding values, ideals, and democratic institutions,” posed a formidable challenge to building consensus in regards to

United States History standards.100 The main issue revolved around the extent to which they focused upon

98Cheney, “The End of History.” 99Fitzgerald, America Revised, 218. 100Symcox, Whose History, 99. 31 group experiences in place of a more traditional and unified portrayal of the American past. Historical interpretations that focused upon the diversities among American experiences, ideas proposed by social historians of the 60’s and 70’s, garnered strength leading up to the debates and heavily influenced the task force. Supporters of this historical framework argued for the inclusion of histories experienced by those of different race, religion, ethnicity, class, and gender.101 Liberal task force members were not the only ones that proposed these shifts in historical interpretation. According to AFT reports, the public in states such as New

York fully supported increased attention to diversity in the curriculum. Statewide surveys concluded that about ninety percent of those surveyed considered it important for history courses to incorporate experiences and contributions from ethnic and racial minorities. 102

Detractors argued that an approach highlighting our differences while emphasizing racial and ethnic injustices posed a threat to national unity. Mark Curtis, task force representative of the Atlantic Council of the United States, feared that “multi-cultural agendas in history threaten to balkanize society. They will serve to drive people apart and will diminish the critical importance of teaching about our common American heritage.”103 Conservative education policy expert Chester Finn shared similar fears regarding an overly inclusive history, stating that Americans “must never lose sight of what binds us together as a nation.” The standards, he argued, would need support from the majority of the nation. Since most Americans readily identify with traditional history, he argued, they would most likely reject any version that questions their sense of national consciousness.104 Clearly, Finn was not concerned about the concept of “tyranny of the majority,” at least concerning historical interpretations. In hindsight, however, it is difficult to ignore his assertion that the public was not prepared to accept such an inclusive history.

As Chapter One demonstrated, the NCHS project’s handling of these internal debates was no match for the conservative onslaught to come. After the proposals reached the public, critics promptly blamed progressive historians,’ particularly liberals, for their corruption of the national standards. They considered such revisionist ideology detrimental towards the nation’s social cohesion and sense of national identity. If

101Nash, History on Trial, 161-162. 102New York State United Teachers 1991 Education Opinion Survey. Final Report. Section II. Public Attitudes on the Debate over Multicultural Education in New York State 103Mark Curtis, Quoted in Nash, History on Trial, 161. 104Chester Finn, Quoted in Nash, History on Trial, 162. 32 critics’ goal was to abolish the standards, framing the debate around disputes over national unity proved an effective measure. For them, every American could relate to this issue, and persuading the public towards their version of national consciousness was the most powerful means to undermine the project.

Lynne Cheney’s “The End of History” led the assault, chastising the Standards for “their unqualified admiration for people, places and events that are politically correct.” She asserted that the task force was heavily influenced by misguided revisionist ideology that reflected “great hatred for traditional history.” She condemned the document’s excessive references to the dark American episodes of McCarthyism (19) and rise of the Ku Klux Klan (17). On the other hand, she pointed out; there was no mention of the honorable

American achievements by men like Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers. The standards not only included diverse ethnic and racial histories at the expense of great American figures, but also portrayed our national leaders as inherently flawed, racist, and immoral. She suggested that we represented traditionally honored Americans more fairly, since as a nation, we are “a better people than the National Standards indicate.” 105 As previously mentioned in Chapter 1, her critique, particularly her enumeration of historical icons, offered a strategically skewed glimpse of the standards.106 Regardless, her condemnation released the floodgates of conservative critiques in the media.

Charles Krauthammer’s subsequent “History Hijacked” mirrored Cheney’s attack. He asserted that

“the whole document strain[ed] to promote the achievements and highlight the victimization of the country's preferred minorities, while strain[ed] equally to degrade the achievements and highlight the flaws of the white males who ran the country for its first two centuries.”107 Both of these critiques implied that the

NCHS’s version of history was a divisive distortion of our proud American heritage, therefore threatening

America students’ sense of a cohesive national identity.

Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education and renowned educational historian Diane Ravitch also

105Cheney, “The End of History.” 106See Appendix C for teaching examples in the Standards regarding the Ku Klux Klan. Her examples came from the sample teaching lessons, which were not meant to include each historical fact that should be taught. This explains why there were several references to the Ku Klux Klan, but none to figures such as Thomas Edison. In fact, the Ku Klux Klan are mentioned in none of the 31 proposed standards, and are only included in teaching examples on two of the 212 page guide.

107Krauthammer, “History Hijacked.” 33 based her criticism of the original Standards upon its lack of a unifying version of the past.108 In an

Education Week article, Ravitch characterized the projects’ primary theme as a focus on the “struggle by the oppressed to wrest rights and power from selfish white male Protestants.” Instead of focusing on the unifying democratic ideals that shaped national identity, the document asserted that “greed, racism, and corruption” are what truly define the American nation.109 Ravitch and American historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. later praised the revised standards, but when reflecting upon the problematic originals, asserted that a major flaw was its inability to accurately “balance pluribus and Unum.” Inclusive history was not the only problem. To them, the Standards jeopardized the nation’s democratic ideals and institutions by shifting focus upon racial, ethnic, and class difference in America. It was only considered improved once the task force removed entries

“whose main credential seemed to be that they were not dead white males.”110

On January 18, 1995, the concern over the proposed standards’ detrimental affects upon American national identity was as explosive on the Senate floor as it was among intellectuals and media commentators.

Senator Slade Gorton’s speech began with his own rosy portrayal of the American past, claiming that despite setbacks, it was a history of “mostly triumph, of flawed yet unprecedented accomplishment.” He continued by asserting that the politically correct standards failed to prepare citizens for “survival as a nation, as a people.” 111 Distinct historical narratives based exclusively on race, ethnicity, gender and class served as both a devaluation of America’s common political heritage, as well as a detriment towards “the building of a nation, of a ‘people… the prototype for emerging democracies around the world.”112 According to the

Senator, the standards must not vilify America, but instead demonstrate a “decent respect for this country and for its roots in Western Civilization.”113

Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman took a similar stance, claiming that the Standards “undercut some of [America’s] fundamentals… [its] core values, [and its] great personalities and heroes.” Referring to

108Diane Ravitch was Assistance Secretary of Education from 1991-1993. 109Diane Ravitch, “Standards in US History: Solid Material Interwoven with Political Bias” Education Week, December 7 1994: 48. 110Diane Ravitch and Arthur Schlesinger Jr., “The New, Improved History Standards,” Wall Street Journal, (New York, NY: Apr 3, 1996), A14. 111Congressional Record, (January 18, 1995), S1026. 112Ibid., S1027. 113Ibid., S1026. 34 the standards’ proposal to often times consider and analyze multiple perspectives of the same historical event, the Senator claimed that the documents failed to illustrate America’s defining uniqueness, which was subsequently lost in the “kind of valueless, all-points-of-view-are-equally-valid nonsense.”114 Since the debate was framed around patriotism, social cohesion, and the preservation of American identity, Senators who felt supportive or even ambivalent towards the standards were reluctant to defend them. If Senators stood up for the standards, they would have been blamed for supporting a supposedly anti-American, unpatriotic document that was detrimental to America’s national character. Creators of the Standards were most frustrated that Senators Gorton and Lieberman’s argument employed similar distorting and manipulative interpretations of the text that conservative commentators had resorted to in previous months.

Nonetheless, on the nation’s most prominent political stage, the power of national identity politics once again proved an invaluable medium for the project’s critics as the Senate unanimously decided against further

NCHS funding by a vote of 99-1.115

Following the decision, Republican presidential hopefuls Bob Dole and Pat Buchanan rode the coattails of the Senate’s verdict by mercilessly attacking the project on the grounds of the dissolution of national unity. Bob Dole, who at the time was attempting to lure in Buchanan voters, engaged in an all-out assault on the proposals. He asserted that the Standards constituted an “attack from our government and from intellectual elites who seem embarrassed by America.” He further charged the project for its anti-patriotic nature, deeming that “American greatness must be taught in our schools.”

Regarding Dole’s condemnation of the standards, Republican primary adversary Pat Buchanan followed suit. On as campaign stop in Iowa, he delivered a stump speech that further chastised the NCHS proposals.

“There was not a single mention of Paul Revere's ride. It wasn't even mentioned!... No mention of Thomas Edison, the greatest inventor in history!... He's an authentic American genius!… but they've got 17 mentions of the Ku Klux Klan! Why? What are they trying to do? They're trying to poison the minds of American children against the history and heritage of this country. That's what these elitists are doing in these universities that do those kinds of textbooks and guidelines, and that's coming right out of the Department of Education.”116

114Ibid., S1032 115Innerst, Carol. “Dole Fires Another Cultural Barrage; Slams Intellectuals for Siege on Values,” The Washington Time, 5 September 1995, A1. 116Pat Buchanan stump speech, delivered on 30 January 1996 in Waterloo, Iowa. Aired on NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, 35

Here, Buchanan aimed his attack at what he deemed corrupt government officials, elitist historians, and anti-patriotic ideologues within the NCHS. The two politicians clearly based their arguments upon those made by visible critics and commentators in hopes that they could rally the conservative base at election time. Whatever the motivations, these critics again clearly framed their critiques around the confrontational issue over national identity.

Soon after, Secretary of Education Richard Riley publicly announced that the Education Department lacked any authority over the project. He was concerned that hard right conservatives such as Buchanan, who were making a direct connection between the Education Department’s funding of the NCHS and their controversial standards, would jeopardize the Department’s future as well as Clinton’s reelection campaign.

Although the panel’s revisions edged closer to consensus, the Administration sought to avoid any risk of negative publicity.117 In a press release made soon after Dole’s Labor Day attack, Riley seemed reeled in his support for the standards by offering a list of critiques and recommendations.

“American history is full of heroes and even scoundrels, but ultimately it is a positive history of a people striving to make real the democratic ideals of this great nation.”118

It is no surprise that Riley emphasized the need offer a prideful, “positive history” for our “great nation.”

He further emphasized the need for flexibly with local governments who may not disagree with the standards and which to revise them as they wish. Again, this took pressure off the Department of

Education and the Clinton Administration, who had now created a more comfortable distance between themselves and the NCHS’s controversial proposals.

31 January 1996. . 117Ibid., 247. 118U.S. Department of Education. Statement by U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley Regarding Proposed Revisions of National History Standards, by Richard W. Riley. Press Release. Washington, 11 October 1995. 36

CONCLUSION

“If our history teaches us anything, it is that the question “Who is an American?” has never had a fixed or simple answer… In the twenty-first century, the boundaries of our imagined community will continue to be a source of political conflict and social struggle.”119

- Eric Foner, Who Owns’ History

Despite the intricacies of the Standards debate, these conflicts were part of a much larger and

119Foner, Who Owns History, 166. 37 complex issue over American identity. As Chapter 2 demonstrated, debates over national identity have been a source of controversy in America for over two centuries. However, in the late 20th century, the strengthening influence of multiculturalism and emphasis upon social history challenged traditional historian’s interpretations in a way that raised new questions about who we are as Americans. As a result, the history standards reforms became engulfed in the raging ideological disputes.

As Foner suggests, debates over American identity will likely persist well into the foreseeable future.

Therefore, efforts to standardize the teaching of American history, particularly at the national level, will prove a daunting task for whomever takes up the challenge. If reformers wish to succeed the NCHS in establishing national standards, they would be well advised to consider the insurmountable obstacles their predecessors faced. For future reformers, the most daunting task of all will be their ability to carefully balance both the pluribus and unum in American history? If we have learned anything from the NCHS project’s failure, it is that we cannot craft a standardized response to this presumably simple question: Who is

American?

APPENDIX A: SAMPLE STANDARDS

1. Era 3: Revolution and the New Nation (1754-1820s)

1. Demonstrate understanding of the issues involved in the creation and ratification of the United States Constitution and the new government it established by:

1. Analyzing the factors involved in calling the Constitutional Convention, including Shay’s Rebellion. [Analyze multiple causation]

2. Analyzing the alternative plans considered by the delegates and the major compromises agreed upon to secure the approval of the Constitution. [Examine the influence of ideas]

3. Analyzing the fundamental ideas behind the distribution of powers and the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution. [Examine the influence of ideas] 38

4. Comparing the arguments of Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the ratification debates and assess their relevance in the late 20th-century politics. [Hypothesize the influence of the past]

2. Era 7: The Emergence of Modern America (1890-1930)

1. Demonstrate understanding of the cultural clashed and their consequences in the postwar era by:

1. Examining the “red scare” and Palmer raids as a reaction to Bolshevism. [Marshal evidence of antecedent circumstances]

2. Analyzing the factors that lead to immigration restrictions and the closing of the “Golden Door.” [Interrogate historical data]

3. Examining race relations, including increased racial conflict, the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, and the emergence of Garveyism. [Analyze cause-and-effect relationships]

4. Examining the clash between the traditional moral values and changing ideas as exemplified in the 39 Scopes Trial and Prohibition. [Examine the influence of ideas] 5. Analyzing the emergence of the “New Woman” and challenges to Victorian values. [Examine the influence of ideas]

Grades 9-12 Example of student achievement:

…

 Gather evidence from a variety of sources including the Ku Klux Klan’s book of rules (The Khloran) and descriptions of Klan ceremonies to examine the purposed and goals of the “New Klan.” To what extent did the “New Klan” differ from the earlier Klan? How did the ritual and ceremonies of the Klan appeal to a need for community? To what extent were the immigration laws related to the revival of the Klan? What was the roe of women in the “New Klan”? *

* This one teaching example accounts for eight of the 19 references to the Ku Klux Klan as referred to by Lynne Cheney. The remainder were included in teaching examples for the same topic, but developed for younger grade levels.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Buchanan, Pat. Stump Speech Delivered on 30 January 1996. Waterloo, Iowa. Played on NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, 31 January 1996.

Christian Coalition. Contract with the American Family: A Bold Plan. Nashville: Moorings, 1995.

Muzzey, David. The United States of America: From the Civil War. New York: Ginn and Company, 1924.

National Center for History in the Schools. National Standards for History, Basic Edition. [Online] (http://nchs.ucla.edu/standards/), 1996.

------. National Standards for United States 40 History; Exploring the American Experience. Los Angeles, 1994.

------.. National Standards for World History; Exploring Paths to the Present. Los Angeles, 1994.

Nash, Gary, Charlotte Crabtree and Ross Dunn. History on Trial: Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1997.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. A Nation at Risk: The Full Account. Portland: USA Research, Inc, 1984.

New York State United Teachers, “Public Attitudes on the Debate over Multicultural Education in New York State.” 1991 Education Opinion Survey. Final Report (Fact Finders, 12 Nov. 1991), Section II.

U.S. Department of Education. Statement by U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley Regarding Proposed Revisions of National History Standards, by Richard W. Riley. Press Release. Washington, 11 October 1995.

Congressional Debates

U.S. Congress. Senate. 1995. Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island speaking against the Unfunded Mandates Bill Amendment Number 31. 104th Congress, 1st Session. Congressional Record S1032, (18 January 1995).

------. 1995. Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico speaking against the Unfunded Mandates Bill Amendment Number 31. 104th Congress, 1st Session. Congressional Record S1033 -S1034, (18 January 1995).

------.. 1995. Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut speaking for the Unfunded Mandates Bill Amendment Number 31. 104th Congress, 1st Session. Congressional Record S1032 -S1033, (18 January 1995).

------.. 1995. Senator Slade Gorton of Washington proposing Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Amendment Number 31. 104th Congress, 1st Session. Congressional Record S1026-S1028, (18 January 1995).

Newspapers Sources (Articles, Editorials, and Opinion Pieces)

“Dole Attacks ‘War on Values,’” The Times-Picayune, 5 September 1995., A3.

Fadness, Gene. “Knowing our History, Warts and All,” Idaho Falls Post Register. 27 September 1995, B7.

Greenberg, Douglas. “Face the Nation; Exposing the Chief Critic of the ‘American Experience.’” Chicago Tribune. 9 Jan. 1995.

Gugliotta, Guy. “Up in arms about the ‘American Experience.’” Washington Post. 28 Oct. 1994, A03.

Innerst, Carol. “Dole Fires Another Cultural Barrage; Slams Intellectuals for Siege on Values,” The Washington Time, 5 September 1995, A1. 41

------“Pro-Family Group Proposes History Standards,” The Washington Times, (21 Feb. 1995), A4.

Krauthammer, Charles. “History Hijacked,” Washington Post. 4 Nov. 1994, A25.

“Maligning the History Standards,” New York Times. 13 Feb. 1995, A18.

O’Brien, Joan. “Troubled Past Follows New History Standards,” Salt Lake Tribune, 4 April 1996, A1.

Rabb, Theodore. “Whose History? Where Critics of the New Standards Flunked Out.” The Washington Post, 11 Dec. 1994.

Ravitch, Diane, and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. “The New, Improved History Standards,” Wall Street Journal. 3 Apr. 1996, A14.

Rich, Frank. “Eating Her Offspring,” New York Times. 26 Jan. 1995, A21.

Cheney, Lynne. “New History Standards Still Attack Our Heritage,” Wall Street Journal. 2 May 1996. A14.

------. “ The End of History,” Wall Street Journal. 20 Oct. 1994, A22.

Gluck, Carol. “History According to Whom; Let the Debate Continue.” New York Times. 19 Nov. 1994, A23.

Secondary Sources

Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. New York: Verso. 1995.

Armstrong, John. Nations Before Nationalism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982.

Avery, Patricia and Theresa Johnson. “How Newspapers Frames the US. History Standards Debate,” Social Education. May/June 1999, Vol. 63, Iss.4, 220-225.

Bicouvaris, Mary. “National Standards for History: The Struggles Behind the Scenes,” The Clearing House Vol. 69, No. 3 (Jan/Feb 1996).

Breuilly, John. Nationalism and the State. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1982.

"Brookings Institution." Encyclopedia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 7 Apr. 2007.

Cohen, Robert. “Moving Beyond Name Games: The Conservative Attack on the U.S. History Standards,” Social Education Vol. 60, No. 1 (1996).

Diggins, John. On Hallowed Ground: Abraham Lincoln and the Foundations of American History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.

Duea, James. “The Impact Upon the Social Studies Curriculum and the Classroom Teacher,” The History Teacher Vol. 28, No. 3 (May, 1995). 42 Evans, Ronald. The Social Studies Wars: What Should We Teach the Children? New York: Teachers College Press, 2004.

Fitzgerald, Frances. America Revised: History Schoolbooks in the Twentieth Century. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1979.

Foner, Eric. Who Owns History?: Rethinking the Past in a Changing World. New York: Hill and Wang, 2002.

Fuhrman, Susan. “Clinton’s Education Policy and Intergovernmental Relations in the 1990s,” Publius, Vol. 24, No.3 (Summer 1994).

Greenfeld, Liah. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992.

Jones, Arnita. “Our Stake In the History Standards,” OAH Magazine of History. Vol. 9 (Spring, 1995).

Keller, Clair, “A Methods Instructor’s Review of the National Standards for History,” The History Teacher Vol. 28, No. 3 (May, 1995).

Kennedy, David. “A Vexed and Troubled People,” History Teacher Vol. 28, No. 3 (May, 1995).

Nelson, Jack and Gene Roberts. The Censors and the Schools. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1963.

Meadows, Doris. “Constructing Standards: Bridging Gaps,” History Teacher Vol. 28, No. 3 (May, 1995).

Morris, Jacqueline. “A Review of the National Standards for United States History,” The History Teacher Vol. 28, No. 3 (May, 1995).

Orwell, George. “Notes on Nationalism.” In The Complete Works of George Orwell, ed. Peter Davison. London: Secker and Warburg, 1998.

Ravitch, Diane, ed. Debating the Future of American Education; Do We Need National Standards and Assessments? Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1995.

------. Developing National Standards in Education. Washington D.C.: US Dept. of Education, 1995.

------. Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.

------. National Standards in American Education; A Citizen’s Guide. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1995.

------. “Standards in US History: Solid Material Interwoven with Political Bias.” Education Week, 7 December 1994.

------. The Troubled Crusade. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1983.

Risinger, Frederick, “The National History Standards: A View for the Inside.” The History Teacher Vol. 28, No. 3 (May, 1995).

Saxe, David, “The National History Standards: Time for Common Sense,” Social Education, Vol. 60, No. 1 (1996). 43

Schrag, Peter. “The Culture Brawl,” The American Prospect, Vol. 14, No. 3 (March 2003).

Smith, Anthony. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. New York: Basil Blackwell, 1986.

Stotsky, Sandra ed. What’s at Stake in the K-12 Standards Wars. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc., 2001.

Symcox. Linda. Whose History: The Struggle for National Standards in American Classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press, 2002.

Tyack, David, and Larry Cuban. Tinkering Toward Utopia: A Century of Public School Reform. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Wiebe, Robert. Who We Are: A History of Popular Nationalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002.

Wills, Garry. Inventing America: Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. New York: DoubleDay & Company, Inc.1978.

Whelan, Michael. “Right for the Wrong Reasons: National History Standards,” Social Education, Vol. 60, No. 1 (1996).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

For a complete account of the standards project from beginning to end, see Gary Nash, History on

Trial: Culture Wars and the Teaching of the Past. Linda Symcox offers another useful overview of the project in Whose History: The Struggle for National Standards in American Classrooms. Both works can also be examined as primary sources, since the authors were very influential members of the NCHS task force and at times offer a spirited defense of their project. Diane Ravitch also touches upon the recent standards controversy in Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms. 44 A provocative analysis of History textbooks over the past century is offered by Frances

Fitzgerald’s America Revised: History Schoolbooks in the Twentieth Century. For a more in depth examination of the compromises struck between textbook publishers and critics, see: Jack Nelson and Gene

Roberts, The Censors and the Schools.

Benedict Anderson’s groundbreaking Imagined Communities offers an analysis of nationalisms growth and role in modern society. Liah Greenfeld offers an analysis of five countries’ experiences with the growth of nationalism, including America’s. Robert Wiebe’s Who We Are: A History of Popular Nationalism also comments on Americas dynamic relationship with nationalism. John Diggins’ On Hollowed Ground and

Eric Foner’s Who Owns’ History offer essays with competing interpretations of education’s role in the development of American national identity.

The most influential critics of the standards were presented in Lynne Cheney’s “The End of History,”

Wall Street Journal. Oct 20, 1994. Charles Krauthammer’s proposed his condemnation of the standards in

“History Hijacked,” The Washington Post, Nov. 4, 1994. Sources defending the standards include: Carol

Gluck, “History According to Whom; Let the Debate Continue,” New York Times, Nov 19, 1994; Theodore

Rabb, “Whose History? Where Critics of the New Standards Flunked Out,” The Washington Post, December

11, 1994; Douglas Greenburg, “Face the Nation, Exposing the Chief Critic of the ‘American Experience,’”

Chicago Tribune, Chicago, Ill.: Jan 9, 1995; and Frank Rich, “Eating Her Offspring,” New York Times, Jan

26, 1995.

The original drafts of the NCHS American History standards can be found at; National Center for

History in the Schools, National Standards for United States History; Exploring the American Experience.

The revised standards can be found online at (http://nchs.ucla.edu/standards/). Transcripts of speeches given by Senators Claiborne Pell, Jeff Bingaman, Joseph Lieberman, and Slade Gorton can be found in: U.S.

Congress, Senate., 1995, 104th Congress, 1st Session, Congressional Record S1026-S1034. Also, Pat

Buchanan’s stump speech criticizing the standards can be found in the transcript of NewsHour with Jim

Lehrer, 31 January 1996. 45

Load more

  45

Copy Link