As a writer, I've often heard about the importance of building a platform--getting your name out into people's minds so that you have exposure and a public image to build from when you're published. As such, I finally decided to start a blog. Now, I'm not sure if anyone will actually read this, or if it will make it past the censors of the country I'm currently staying in...but I figure I've nothing to lose by sharing a few of my thoughts.
Welcome to the Madhouse. The Harrison's Madhouse blog will be my way of chronicling my feelings and reactions to events that happen in the news, or to books or films that I come in contact with. In my fiction writing, I have developed the view that writers should ask questions, not answer them, and that stories should deal with real-life issues and consequences even if they are not set in the real, modern world. In my blog posts, I hope to achieve the same effect--to spark more thought and ask more questions than I answer.
Like the title says, this place is a madhouse--and believe me, when it comes to the madness of modern politics and economics and a lot of other areas, I'm just as confused as anybody else. So don't take my comments too seriously or personally...it's mainly just for fun.
That said, the topic of interest this week is an article that I found on the NY Times site about a Texas school board. Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?src=me&ref=general
Plus a related link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html?pagewanted=1&ref=education
Now, to start off, I believe that education is an important profession that is often overlooked in the modern era of exciting technological developments and scientific achievements. And in a society with such a vast supply of free time that some of its highest paid members are icons of the entertainment industry, the value of less glamorous occupations can be underestimated. I could do a whole post on this, but suffice it to say that parents, teachers, and spiritual leaders are critical to the development of the rising generation--after all, children are our investment in the future, and arguably humanity's greatest renewable resource.
Which is why I thought the first article about the Texas school board's vote to amend the social studies curriculum was so interesting. Due to the large population and unified curriculum of Texas schools, many publishers will follow their lead in writing school textbooks. As such, the school board's decision could impact millions of American students and what they learn in school.
At first glance, the changes appear harmless: the dominant social conservatives on the board wish to preserve Christianity's place in American history. They note what they perceive as a left-wing bias in academic curriculum and want to add in the perspectives of the right. But after reading through the article, I came to realize that some of their amendments don't just add conservative views--they simply eliminate the liberal views and replace them with their own. According to the article, no experts or historians were invited to the discussions on the school board's curriculum, only dentists and real estate brokers and others who had been elected to serve on the board. Some of the dissenting board members accused the conservatives of "rewriting history," saying that they let their own agendas dictate their decisions rather than accurate history.
But let's take a closer look at this. What is "history," exactly? It's the story of what happened in the past. Who tells this story? In ancient times, tribal or religious leaders kept histories; in our day, scholars write the history books. Yet history is inherently biased; there's no scientific method to prove someone right or wrong, just historical data that, to some extent, can be interpreted in various ways. Does modern academia have a liberal bias? It's certainly possible.
The real question, however, is this: what is the best solution for dealing with biases in history books? Is the Texas board right--should we turn the current historical narrative on its head to show the other side of the story instead? If this happened, though, would not this create a conservative bias in textbooks? It's ironic that the same types of people who frown on affirmative action as reverse discrimination would wish to reverse discriminate against the liberals of academia.
So what is the solution? Maybe there isn't one. But what if history textbooks presented the facts from both sides? A double bias, so to speak. The positive and negative impact of the Great Society polices of the Johnson era. The Christian and non-Christian inspirations for the Founding Fathers' establishment of the Constitution and the American government. The economic views of various schools--Smith, Keynes, Marx.
Of course, teachers will usually have individual biases. So will students--family background and culture determine a great deal. But by presenting multiple sides of the argument, by mentioning various viewpoints on issues or consequences, then perhaps students would gain a stronger grasp of not only history, but also the increasingly polarized world in which they live.
We can't keep students ignorant forever. Whether we teach them both sides of the argument or not, they'll learn eventually. And if they've been taught one dogmatic form of history or political ideology, then they generally have two responses to learning the other side--becoming further entrenched in their views and refusing to listen to the other, or completely abandoning what they were taught and accepting the polar opposite. And they have good reason to, since they probably feel cheated by educators who withheld truth from them.
Will teaching multiple views in history classes help students become more open-minded? Or will it destroy their ideological foundation and throw them out onto the shifting sands of uncertainty, questioning everything and never believing? And where do we draw the line between teaching the truth and teaching others' versions of the truth? It appears to me that this Texas school board has taken the religious principle of teaching proper doctrine and applied it to the school system. But while religions can have core, fundamental doctrines, is the same true for history--or any human-made field of study? Is there a right and a wrong way to look at history? And how do you decide which is which?
Anyway, I'm sure I'll come back to this subject eventually with more. Like I said, a writer's purpose is to ask questions. Make people think for themselves. Objectivity--or at least some attempt at it--gives people the information without ramming bias down their throat. Or with two biases that cancel each other out. I mean, why not give students the whole picture and let them sort through it? What are they afraid of?
At any rate, whatever the textbooks may say, I have a feeling that teachers' curricula will largely remain subject to forces beyond Texas's control--local school boards, parent groups, and personal biases--so I doubt this will change much in the education system. Let's face it--regardless of the material, individual teachers can slant the lecture however they want to. And the government has no power to stop them. Which, I'm pretty sure, is a good thing. After all, letting people have personal biases is part of being American, right?
