The Ludwig von Mises Institute presents The Libertarian Tradition, an audio series with Jeff Brigenbach.
Late last week, the second week of March 2010, the Texas Board of Education, meeting in Austin, the state capitol,
made some preliminary decisions about what the next generation of students will learn
about subjects like history, economics and sociology when they take courses in those subjects in any of the Lone Star State's public schools.
The Board decided, for example, to make a fairly significant change in the existing official description
What a Successful Texas Student Should Know About the Influence of 17th and 18th Century Ideas
After Completing a Required Course in World History in a Texas Public School
The existing description stated that a student who completed that course would be able to
explain the impact of enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire,
Charles de Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions
from 1750 to the present.
The newly amended description states that a student completing the world history course
should be able to explain the impact of the writings of John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire,
Charles de Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William
Blackstone.
It may be difficult to understand at first why the members of the Texas Board of Education
consider Aquinas, Calvin and Blackstone more worthy of study than Thomas Jefferson, until
one recalls that, as the New York Times James McKinley succinctly put it, Jefferson is not
What is the significance of the board's vote in favor of this change and others like it?
Why are votes about teaching standards in Texas public schools making national news anyway?
Why should this be of concern to anybody outside of Texas?
Should it be of concern to anybody outside Texas?
Well, yes.
Anyone at the mercy of the public school system in any state, as well as anyone who wants to understand how the public schools work and why, should find these developments of interest.
You see, Texas's importance is directly connected with its size, its population.
It's the second most populous state right after California. It has roughly 25 million residents.
Combine that with California's 37 million and you get the following somewhat unsettling statistic.
One in every five Americans lives in either California or Texas.
Gather a hundred Americans into a big room and you'll find that 20 of them live in either
Both states set statewide standards for every course offered in their public school systems,
then provide copies of these standards to textbook publishers.
Who can really blame the publishers if they react by, first, producing textbooks that
meet the standards in Texas and California, and then providing those same textbooks to
to everybody else in the country, too, whether they like it or not, chalk it up to the unintended
consequences, or were they unintended, of turning schooling into a public utility instead
of leaving it in the hands of the market, which is to say, in the hands of individuals.
So then, exactly what is wrong with having textbooks that consider Thomas Jefferson an
is an unimportant figure in a discussion of the impact of 17th and 18th century ideas on later generations.
Well, to put it baldly, the history textbook he or she encounters in high school and or college
will very likely be the only thing the average product of our public education system ever reads on the subject of history.
If he or she actually reads that.
It does seem to be the case that these textbooks constitute 100% of the information that most high school and college graduates in this country will ever encounter on the subject of American history.
And is it not the case that what Americans know and understand about the history of the society in which they live will determine the degree of their willingness to honor and preserve that society's ideals and traditions?
More than that, it will determine what they regard as the ideals and traditions of their society.
It will determine nothing less than the kind of society they will seek to strengthen and perpetuate.
Gary J. Kornblith and Carol Lasser note in a recent report in the Journal of American History
that most teachers of United States history survey courses assign a textbook as core reading
Banking, and many assign only a textbook.
American history textbooks shape how American college students encounter their nation's
history and their society's cultural heritage.
Things have been this way for a long time, and not only for college students.
According to Francis Fitzgerald, in the 19th century a heavy reliance on textbooks was
the distinguishing mark of American education.
It was called The American System by Europeans.
The texts were substitutes for well-trained teachers.
In some parts of the country, they constituted the whole of a school's library, and the
only books a child would ever read on the subject of, say, American history.
More than a hundred years later, the story is little changed.
As of 2003, according to Diane Ravitch, textbooks are very important in American schools, especially
in history.
In most history classes, they are the curriculum.
Many teachers are dependent on their textbook because they have not studied history.
Today, most teachers of history in grades 7 through 12 have neither a major nor a minor
in history.
Instead, they have a degree in social studies education, some other branch of pedagogy,
a social science, or a completely unrelated field.
Early in 2005, the late Sam Weinberg, a Stanford University education professor, reported in
the Los Angeles Times that nearly a third of the students who apply to Stanford's
of the World's Master's in Teaching program to become history teachers have never taken a single college course in history, nor is this at all out of the ordinary, for, again in Weinberg's words, among high school history teachers across the country, only 18% have majored or even minored in the subject they now teach.
Most students of history in public secondary schools in this country, then, the implications
seem straightforward.
What they are taught will be the material in the textbook.
This is why special interest groups of all sorts have been struggling over the past hundred
years or so to get a chance to influence what appears in that textbook.
For it was just a little over a hundred years ago that public secondary schools first became
is an important force in American education.
Before the 1890s, according to Francis Fitzgerald, American history was not very widely taught.
The public grade schools had very little history of any kind in their curricula, and the private
academies that prepared students for colleges and universities concentrated on classical
studies and European history.
That as the 1890s dawned, the public high schools for the first time actually had more
students than the private academies.
And the question of what was written in the history textbooks used by those public high
schools therefore began to interest a great many people who had previously invested little
or no thought in such matters.
By 1897, the Grand Army of the Republic, a veterans organization for soldiers who had
fought in the Union Army during the U.S. Civil War, had formed a School History Committee
and had begun issuing calls for a unified school book that would bind all sections of
the country together.
At around the same time, the History Committee of the United Confederate Veterans made a
similar demand.
By the 1920s, such groups had begun filing lawsuits or enlisting sympathetic public officials
to go after textbooks in court.
Thus, in 1927, Chicago Mayor William Big Bill Thompson convened a dismissal hearing for
Superintendent William McAndrew, whom Thompson accused of imposing treasonous and un-American
texts on the schools.
Everyone made these history textbooks, including especially The Rise of American Civilization
by Charles and Mary Beard, the centerpiece of his public case against McAndrew.
Nor was Chicago the only venue in which protests against the Beard's text were mounted during
the 20s.
They raged nationwide, from Boston and Baltimore to Seattle and San Francisco.
What the protesters found so objectionable about the Beards' text was its unduly pro-English
character.
The movement against this book drew most of its support from Irish and German immigrants,
neither of whom would have been too keen on any book that portrayed the English too favorably.
The Beards wrote, for example, that the high doctrines of the Founding Fathers were essentially
in English, being derived from the writings of John Locke, the philosopher who supplied
the rhetorical defense mechanism for the Whig Revolution of 1688, which ended in the expulsion
of James II.
In Locke's hands, the catechism of politics was short indeed.
The aim of government is to protect property, and when any government invades the privileges
The idea was almost a century old when Jefferson artfully applied it in a modified form to
the exigencies of the American Revolution.
The veterans of foreign wars was particularly indignant about this passage.
The inspired men, they complained, who startled the world with their new conception of human
and Rights are charged with having plagiarized it all from England.
The protests and official inquiries into the unduly pro-British textbooks of the 1920s
did have impact here and there.
The historian Andrew C. McLaughlin, for example, was forced to change a sentence in his account
of the Battle of Bunker Hill.
His original unduly pro-British sentence had read, Three times the British returned courageously
to the attack.
His new sentence read, Three times the cowardly British returned to the attack.
But by and large, the efforts of the reformers were not repaid with significant success.
The reformers kept trying, however, and eventually they began to enjoy significant success.
In 1962, for example, the Detroit chapter of the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People, NAACP, petitioned the Detroit Board of Education asking that a history text,
published by Laidlaw Brothers, which depicted slavery in a favorable light, be withdrawn
from the City School System.
The NAACP had been protesting textbooks for 30 years at this point, ever since 1932, the
year in which it established its first textbook committee and called on local branches to
examine their history, literature and civics textbooks and to protest the most offensive
texts.
But though the NAACP and other civil rights organizations had denounced racial prejudice
in the textbooks a number of times in prior years, they had had no real effect.
In 1962, however, the NAACP finally prevailed.
Francis Fitzgerald writes that, the Detroit Board withdrew the text and subsequently began
and to examine for racial bias all the history texts used in the school system.
The New Work Textbook Council soon followed suit.
The movement then spread to other big city school systems and was taken up by organizations
representing other racial and ethnic minority groups, Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans,
American Indians, Asian Americans, Armenian Americans, and so on, all of whom claimed
and with justice to have been ignored or abused by the textbooks.
Then the new movement, as Fitzgerald styles it, mushroomed.
Within a few years, a dozen organizations, from the Benet-Britz Anti-Defamation League
to a new Council on Interracial Books, were studying texts for racial, ethnic and religious
bias, and making recommendations for a new generation of texts.
What began as a series of discreet protests against individual books became a general proposition.
All texts had treated the United States as a white middle-class society when it was,
in fact, multiracial and multicultural.
The Detroit NAACP's modest protest of 1962 had made what seemed like massive changes
is in the nation's history textbooks, and it had wasted little time in doing so.
By the late 60s, Fitzgerald writes, the general proposition that all texts had short-changed
minorities had come to be a truism for the educational establishment.
And so was born the world we see around us today, a world in which political pressure
What is needed here, of course, is some revisionist history.
The basic reason libertarianism needs revisionist history is that the state pays court historians
is to prepare an officially sanctioned version of the public record that is designed to promote
the idea that the state holds our society together and protects it, and that our society
would be utterly lost were it not for the noble efforts of the state.
Anyone who seeks to become educated, anyone who seeks to promote an alternative to the
needs to know the truth, needs a sustained look at the country's history without the tacit assumption of the state's benevolence and central importance.
But it isn't only the state itself that promotes historical misinformation and historical ignorance.
In a democratic state, it is also members of aggrieved minorities who use the political process to force their particular delusions onto everyone else's children.
If you liked my brief discussion of the history of attempts to influence textbooks in public schools,
You might like to know that it was adapted from Chapter 6 of my book,
Why American History is Not What They Say, An Introduction to Revisionism.
You can get a copy of it right here on this website, either as a free PDF download or as a paperback book.
There's also a Kindle edition available at Amazon.com.
This is Jeff Rigenbach.
The Theory of Money and Credit