On the Revised Revision of the AP History Curriculum

The following is a short response to an article which appeared in Ed Week on the 2015 revision of the AP US curriculum guide. This revision was produced by the College Board after a barrage of criticism from the right about the 2014 revision. The author of the article praises the latest revision as "balanced, neutral and contextual" - ie, sanitized.


I wish to respectfully disagree with Mr. Stern. To teach history in a "balanced, neutral and contextual" manner is to rip out any real value in the study of the past (and probably to bore students to death in the process). That is precisely why the right has attacked the history taught, not only in AP classes, but in all public schools. Mr. Stern might want to "contextualize" that.

The study of history is only relevant if we can utilize it to understand the present. Those who seek to sanitize history do so because they want to control the narrative today. For example: to gloss over the immorality of slavery and to give Jefferson a pass when he writes "all men are created equal" while living off the backs of his slaves, to fail to address the why and how of the overthrow of Reconstruction, to fail to condemn the KKK (while excoriating their brothers-in-arms in Nazi Germany) gives cover to those today who continue to deny the legitimate demands of groups like BlackLivesMatter.

Speaking of "all MEN are created equal", was it merely an oversight that it didn't read "all women and men are created equal"? Nope. In fact, not only were women not considered equal in Jefferson's time, they actually experienced a well documented decline in status in the period following 1800 as a result of industrialization. Should we look at that as an unfortunate aide effect of "progress"? Too bad ladies, but our economic development necessitates 78 cents on the dollar.

What exactly is the "balanced" approach to the exploitation of workers in the Gilded Age? How can one be "neutral" when teaching about how settlers gave blankets laced with TB to Native Americans or find justification for "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" slogan that guided policy during westward expansion.

Speaking of expansion, what exactly is the "context" of American Imperialism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? All the other whites were doing it?

I taught APUS History for 18 years, scored tests for the College Board for 6 of those years. In the classroom I presented an obviously biased analysis of our history with lessons for today, while at the same time emphasizing to my students that they should not accept anything that I said, that they read in the text or that they heard outside of class without thoroughly analyzing it themselves. I hope that today's teachers will do the same regardless of the tea party attacks or the College Board cave.

George Vlasits
Wilmington, NC

The Progressive Pulse: A View from the Left: More punditryPost by Laird HarrisAnother month do...

The Progressive Pulse: A View from the Left: More punditryPost by Laird Harris Another month do...: More punditry Post by Laird Harris Another month down the road to the 2016 presidential election. What has changed since my last writ...

More punditry

Post by Laird Harris

Another month down the road to the 2016 presidential election. What has changed since my last writings about the likely events of 2016?

On the Democrats’ side, the inevitable has happened and the field is essentally down to Bernie and Hilary. This is about as surprising as seeing the sun coming up in the east. What is surprising, at least for the moment, is Bernie’s lack of momentum. I still think he will win in Iowa and New Hampshire but he will have to work harder in those states than I had thought. By most accounts, Clinton leads in Iowa and is in a virtual tie in New Hampshire.

Winning the first two states is absolutely essential to any chance Sanders has to gain the nomination. The weeks after New Hampshire are brutal. As I wrote last month, Clinton will almost certainly win the next two states, Nevada and South Carolina, and then comes Super Tuesday when candidates need to be present in multiple states at the same time.

The harder Sanders has to work to secure his needed wins in the first two states, the less he will have resources to lay the groundwork for a strong Super Tuesday showing.

Sanders has been an inspiring candidate and a huge contributor to the dialogue that needs to happen in  this country. The longer he can stay in the race, the better for all of us. And, of course, there is still the possibility he will be the nominee.

Bernie seems conflicted about how hard he should go after Clinton. I suppose his recent slippage in polls has led him to a more negative tone vis-a-vis Clinton. He should be careful with this since his attraction is as a different kind of candidate bringing positive messages. He has plenty of surrogates bashing her, not to mention the whole Republican party that is convinced that she will be the nominee. Bernie’s attraction is his positive message. He should be content to let others go after Clinton.

From a purely theatrical perspective, the Republican race is far more interesting than the Democrat’s.

I would not bet a nickel on any predictions for the ultimate denouement of their nomination process. Right now, the media is in love with Rubio and Cruz but the Republican voters still seem to like Carson and Trump.  The Republican establishment continues to believe that voters will come to their senses when they actually have to cast their ballots and will choose a substantive candidate.

My guess: the field will narrow a little between now and Iowa but there will still be seven or eight candidates working the first two states. If this is the case, it is almost certain that one of the protest candidates will win in these states. This is less important than is seems since Republican winners in Iowa and, to a lesser extent, New Hampshire have not fared well over the long run.

Super Tuesday is likely to be more of a watershed for the Republicans than the Democrats. Money will play a huge role and most of these primaries are in heavily red states. If Bush can hold out until then, his money may bring him back into the picture.

I’m going to be watching Rubio and Cruz over the next several weeks. The Republican establishment is trying to decide whether Rubio is their guy but I think he is really not their type. Cruz, on the other hand, is well positioned to reap Trump and Carson supporters as these candidates falter.

It will also be interesting to see how the next rounds of Republican debates play out. To this date, they have done nothing to help their nominee in the general election. I’ll be watching whether the so-called establishment candidates try to put forth a more positive vision rather than simply reiterating what they are against. This will be critical to their success in the general election but it may make nomination more difficult.

I admit to mixed feelings about all this. The longer the Republican field remains large and unruly, the better the chances of the Democratic nominee. The wonk in me, however, would rather have a legitimate debate about the future of the country. The danger, in my mind, is that the clown car may produce a candidate who is beaten badly by the Democrat but this will not be seen as a triumph of the progressive candidate but, rather, the failure of the other side.