Prof. Brands, thank you for carefully analyzing the deleterious effects of the new Texas statute on teaching social studies. I think you are quite right about the likely chilling effects within schools. You omit--though I’m sure you have considered—the additional pressures on teachers and administrators from those parents outraged by whatever they consider to be deviations from their chosen beliefs. I taught social studies in a public high school during successive waves of test-driven mandates. I decided to use only excerpts from documents from “the founders” as texts in U.S. History I (hard to challenge politically): the internal struggles to prosecute the Revolutionary War documented in records of the Continental Congress; letters, speeches and drafts from the Constitutional Convention, newspapers and records from the state ratification debates, procedures from the first Congress that determined the legal and institutional structures of the new government, etc. There is abundant material available therein to highlight many of the subsequent themes and conflicts that we deal with to this day: the place of slavery in a "republic of liberty," the powers a government must have to operate effectively, class divisions and concentrations of wealth, regional and rural/urban divides, threats of nullification and secession, and so on. There was substantial student complaint: lots of long sentences, unknown words, references to unfamiliar issues, etc. But these complications gave room for close reading, questioning and research (“Yay! We get to use our phones!”). It was a lot work—also a useful lesson about understanding something. Interestingly, students often took sides on some of the conflicts that I did not expect, and a fair amount of the discussion ended up agreeing to disagree. This also made it easier for me to “remain impartial.” I am sure that a similar approach would work in “Modern” U.S. History as well—though maintaining impartiality might be more of a challenge. But teachers would indeed need to be bold, and this will be much more likely if their administrators boldly support educating for a skilled as well as knowledgeable citizenry. In the present context principals and superintendents are even easier to fire than teachers.
That's a great idea, Tom. I can almost hear your students complaining, but the exercise was good for them. And their parents would indeed have had difficulty alleging bias. I can imagine a problem, though, in trying to apply the same idea to later periods, namely that there is no such agreement on later documents. The Constitution is holy writ in American culture, but everything after is up for grabs. What would we use from the 1960s? MLK's "I have a dream speech," yes. But after that? Maybe a teacher could set the students to looking for documents, and have them try to decide what should be included. That would be a good exercise in itself. As for the principals and superintendents, I think you are quite right: that is where the new law will really pinch. For understandable reasons, they'll be tempted to nudge the teachers to avoid controversial material, lest they all get into trouble. Thanks for the comment.
I think your perspective of this new law is intriguing. I do agree it is possible that some teachers may not venture into highly politicized current events, however, when reading the law in its entirety, it is clear the intention is to protect children from the indoctrination of fringe leftist beliefs, and to keep education fact based as opposed to politically charged and provoked emotional reactions which would be counterproductive to learning. You state that some of the supporters of the law doubtless intent is to steer clear of substantive conversations that have political overtones. It is doubtless. Who exactly are these politicians? What facts do you have to substantiate this claim? If all you have is the law as it is written, then your statement of fact does not hold. The law does not steer away from some of the fieriest political movements and controversies in history such as the Ku Klux Klan, Civil Rights, slavery, and the Native American wars. These events are instructed to be taught along with many others that are thought provoking, political and can offer a segue into some substantive conversation. Why does the law not muzzle these issues if the intent of some of its writers is “doubtless” to stop conversation with political overtones? I believe the truest test of an educator today is impartiality. To be able to teach or discuss the most controversial of subjects without allowing one’s personal bias to bleed through. This will allow students to draw conclusions for themselves as opposed to being told what to think, which is what the rest of society is already doing. This law may not be perfect, but I believe it to be a step in the right direction of drawing academia back from the fringes of political rhetoric to one of learning and enrichment that will benefit the next generation.
Thanks for the long and thoughtful comment. It sounds like we agree on the basic point: that classrooms should be a place for fair and full examination of issues of importance in history and public life. I sincerely hope that you are right and I am wrong about the effects of the new law. I still have to wonder, though. When a substantial portion of the country thinks the 2020 election was stolen, on the basis of no persuasive evidence, how is a teacher going to be able to strike an honest position that one side or the other doesn't think is biased? What about abortion? Or climate change? Or vaccinations for covid? Again, I hope teachers are not deterred from addressing these and other issues. My piece makes clear I'm opposed to indoctrination; the problem is that in the current political climate, what one side sees as reasonable discussion, many on the other see as indoctrination. But everything at this point is mere conjecture (including my writing on this subject). We'll all be a lot smarter on this a year or two from now.
Prof. Brands, thank you for carefully analyzing the deleterious effects of the new Texas statute on teaching social studies. I think you are quite right about the likely chilling effects within schools. You omit--though I’m sure you have considered—the additional pressures on teachers and administrators from those parents outraged by whatever they consider to be deviations from their chosen beliefs. I taught social studies in a public high school during successive waves of test-driven mandates. I decided to use only excerpts from documents from “the founders” as texts in U.S. History I (hard to challenge politically): the internal struggles to prosecute the Revolutionary War documented in records of the Continental Congress; letters, speeches and drafts from the Constitutional Convention, newspapers and records from the state ratification debates, procedures from the first Congress that determined the legal and institutional structures of the new government, etc. There is abundant material available therein to highlight many of the subsequent themes and conflicts that we deal with to this day: the place of slavery in a "republic of liberty," the powers a government must have to operate effectively, class divisions and concentrations of wealth, regional and rural/urban divides, threats of nullification and secession, and so on. There was substantial student complaint: lots of long sentences, unknown words, references to unfamiliar issues, etc. But these complications gave room for close reading, questioning and research (“Yay! We get to use our phones!”). It was a lot work—also a useful lesson about understanding something. Interestingly, students often took sides on some of the conflicts that I did not expect, and a fair amount of the discussion ended up agreeing to disagree. This also made it easier for me to “remain impartial.” I am sure that a similar approach would work in “Modern” U.S. History as well—though maintaining impartiality might be more of a challenge. But teachers would indeed need to be bold, and this will be much more likely if their administrators boldly support educating for a skilled as well as knowledgeable citizenry. In the present context principals and superintendents are even easier to fire than teachers.
That's a great idea, Tom. I can almost hear your students complaining, but the exercise was good for them. And their parents would indeed have had difficulty alleging bias. I can imagine a problem, though, in trying to apply the same idea to later periods, namely that there is no such agreement on later documents. The Constitution is holy writ in American culture, but everything after is up for grabs. What would we use from the 1960s? MLK's "I have a dream speech," yes. But after that? Maybe a teacher could set the students to looking for documents, and have them try to decide what should be included. That would be a good exercise in itself. As for the principals and superintendents, I think you are quite right: that is where the new law will really pinch. For understandable reasons, they'll be tempted to nudge the teachers to avoid controversial material, lest they all get into trouble. Thanks for the comment.
I think your perspective of this new law is intriguing. I do agree it is possible that some teachers may not venture into highly politicized current events, however, when reading the law in its entirety, it is clear the intention is to protect children from the indoctrination of fringe leftist beliefs, and to keep education fact based as opposed to politically charged and provoked emotional reactions which would be counterproductive to learning. You state that some of the supporters of the law doubtless intent is to steer clear of substantive conversations that have political overtones. It is doubtless. Who exactly are these politicians? What facts do you have to substantiate this claim? If all you have is the law as it is written, then your statement of fact does not hold. The law does not steer away from some of the fieriest political movements and controversies in history such as the Ku Klux Klan, Civil Rights, slavery, and the Native American wars. These events are instructed to be taught along with many others that are thought provoking, political and can offer a segue into some substantive conversation. Why does the law not muzzle these issues if the intent of some of its writers is “doubtless” to stop conversation with political overtones? I believe the truest test of an educator today is impartiality. To be able to teach or discuss the most controversial of subjects without allowing one’s personal bias to bleed through. This will allow students to draw conclusions for themselves as opposed to being told what to think, which is what the rest of society is already doing. This law may not be perfect, but I believe it to be a step in the right direction of drawing academia back from the fringes of political rhetoric to one of learning and enrichment that will benefit the next generation.
Thanks for the long and thoughtful comment. It sounds like we agree on the basic point: that classrooms should be a place for fair and full examination of issues of importance in history and public life. I sincerely hope that you are right and I am wrong about the effects of the new law. I still have to wonder, though. When a substantial portion of the country thinks the 2020 election was stolen, on the basis of no persuasive evidence, how is a teacher going to be able to strike an honest position that one side or the other doesn't think is biased? What about abortion? Or climate change? Or vaccinations for covid? Again, I hope teachers are not deterred from addressing these and other issues. My piece makes clear I'm opposed to indoctrination; the problem is that in the current political climate, what one side sees as reasonable discussion, many on the other see as indoctrination. But everything at this point is mere conjecture (including my writing on this subject). We'll all be a lot smarter on this a year or two from now.
Another thought-provoking post, Bill. It reminded me of what you talked about at the end of your post on Critical Race Theory (https://hwbrands.substack.com/p/pro-wrestling-and-critical-race-theory) about how as teachers, we should be teaching our students how to think and not what to think (you also mentioned it in Monday's post https://hwbrands.substack.com/p/why-history). Does this third Texas law lay out the implementation of the Texas 1836 Project (https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-appoints-three-to-texas-1836-project-advisory-committee) that Governor Abbott is currently putting together?
The law doesn't mention the Texas 1836 project. Perhaps that awaits the next session of the lege.