The
American Story
Why
Failing to Teach American History is Bad for Democracy
A
few years ago, the National Constitution Center surveyed teenagers
and found that while only about four in 10 could name the
three branches of the federal government, fully six in 10
could name all Three Stooges.
Everyone
agrees we aren't teaching history well, but the direction
of reform is controversial. Philadelphia's public schools
have just announced they will mandate that all students take
an African-American history course in order to graduate from
high school. The theory is that the city's 185,000 public
school students, two-thirds of whom are black, will finally
become aware of their culture and gain self-esteem. Those
who are not black will gain an appreciation of black history
that is inadequately covered in current general social studies
courses.
John
Perzel is the GOP speaker of the Pennsylvania House and represents
a largely white Philadelphia district. He isn't so sure this
is the right approach. "I would like to see [students]
master basic reading, writing and arithmetic," he wrote
to city officials last week. "Once we have them down
pat, I don't care what they teach ... They should understand
basic American history before we go into African-American
history."
Other
critics note that schools already put on programs every February
for Black History Month, something not done for other ethnic
groups. They fear a separate course will diminish student
understanding of the overall American experience. Back in
the 1960s, novelist James Baldwin testified before Congress
that the triumphs and tribulations of black history should
be woven into all history courses, rather than segregated.
Diane Ravitch, a leading education reformer, agrees that African-American
history should be studied but hopes it will be "based
on the best scholarship, not ideology or politics."
Dream
on. What's more likely to happen is that the creation of a
specific African-American history course will fuel demands
from other groups, such as Hispanics or gays, for similar
history mandates.
What
will slip further down a memory hole will be the major reason
why it is important for students to study our history: America
is an exceptional country in that we were born out of a shared
set of ideas — human liberty and opportunity, accompanied
by a common set of values. It is often said that while being
a Frenchman or German is bound up in ethnicity and ties to
the soil, it is possible to become an American by adopting
this nation's creed and beliefs.
We
are risking something very basic by failing to communicate
the basic ideals of America and instead, as historian David
McCullough told me, "raising a generation of students
who are historically illiterate." But many of those students
will eventually become curious, and without a solid grounding
in the past, they could easily fall prey to revisionist history,
whether it be of the Confederate or Oliver Stone variety.
Yale
professor David Gelernter says that "ignorance of history
is destroying our judgment." He points to Sen. Dick Durbin's
ignorant comment comparing the actions of U.S. personnel at
Guantanamo Bay to those of Nazis and Soviets. His remarks
went largely unremarked upon by fellow senators until talk
radio made them an issue. Future leaders may make even more
horrific missteps: a 2003 survey of seniors at the top 55
liberal arts colleges found that over half thought Germany,
Italy or Japan had been a U.S. ally in World War II. The concern
about historical amnesia crosses the political spectrum. Bill
Moyers, the liberal PBS pundit, has said "we Americans
seem to know everything about the last 24 hours but very little
of the last 60 centuries or the last 60 years."
John Fund
Opinion Journal
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006877
--
The
Supreme Court’s Reverse Robin Hoods
The
Supreme Court's "liberal" wing has a reputation
in some circles as a guardian of the little guy and a protector
of civil liberties. That deserves reconsideration in light
of yesterday's decision in Kelo v. City of New London.
The Court's four liberals (Justices Stevens, Breyer, Souter
and Ginsburg) combined with the protean Anthony Kennedy to
rule that local governments have more or less unlimited authority
to seize homes and businesses.
No
one disputes that this power of "eminent domain"
makes sense in limited circumstances; the Constitution's Fifth
Amendment explicitly provides for it. But the plain reading
of that Amendment's "takings clause" also appears
to require that eminent domain be invoked only when land is
required for genuine "public use" such as roads.
It further requires that the government pay owners "just
compensation" in such cases.
The
founding fathers added this clause to the Fifth Amendment
— which also guarantees "due process" and protects
against double jeopardy and self-incrimination — because they
understood that there could be no meaningful liberty in a
country where the fruits of one's labor are subject to arbitrary
government seizure.
That
protection was immensely diminished by yesterday's 5-4 decision,
which effectively erased the requirement that eminent domain
be invoked for "public use." The Court said that
the city of New London, Connecticut, was justified in evicting
a group of plaintiffs led by homeowner Susette Kelo from their
properties to make way for private development including a
hotel and a Pfizer Corp. office. (Yes, the pharmaceutical
Pfizer.) The properties to be seized and destroyed include
Victorian homes and small businesses that have been in families
for generations.
Opinion Journal
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006862
--
RESPECT
For the Law, For the Court, For the Constitution, For the Nominee
It
wouldn’t be summertime in Washington if speculation weren’t
running rampant about the possibility of a retirement announcement
from the Supreme Court. But whatever the time frame for a
Supreme Court vacancy, the process for selecting the next
associate or chief justice should reflect the best of the
American judiciary — not the worst of American politics. We
deserve a Supreme Court nominee who reveres the law — and
a confirmation process that is civil, respectful, and keeps
politics out of the judiciary.
History
affords us some important benchmarks for determining whether
the Senate has undertaken a confirmation process worthy of
the Court and of the American people. There is a right way
and a wrong way to debate the merits of a Supreme Court nominee.
The Senate’s past record, unfortunately, has been mixed.
Whoever
the nominee is, the Senate should focus its attention on judicial
qualifications — not personal political beliefs. Whoever the
nominee is, the Senate should engage in respectful and honest
inquiry, not partisan personal attacks. And whoever the nominee
is, the Senate should apply the same fair process that has
existed for over two centuries: confirmation or rejection
by majority vote.
Whoever
the nominee is, the Senate should focus its attention on judicial
qualifications — not personal political beliefs.
We should not be surprised if a
person of the stature and legal ability to be considered for
appointment to the Supreme Court has spent at least some time
thinking, and perhaps speaking and writing, about the important
and sensitive issues of the day. But a nominee should not be
punished simply for exercising his talents. After all, judges
swear an oath to obey and to apply the law — not their own personal,
political views.Senator
John CornynNational
Review Online
--
Father’s
Aren’t TV Dunces
Father's
Day comes and goes without the same warmth and celebration
as Mother's Day. The phone companies do not strain nearly
as much with the prerequisite calls. The florists? Forget
it. As for gifts in general, it's not the hottest holiday
for retailers. Eight out of 10 people wait until the week
before Father's Day to buy Dad a gift, according to the Mass
Retail Association. What's the most popular gift for Dad?
The survey shows that 42 percent of shoppers buy their father
... a card.
Let's
allow that this condition exists because it's not easy to
buy for fathers, and besides, fathers generally don't make
a fuss about gifts. What is important is the recognition that
fatherhood is a vital support for our culture. We readily
agree with that simple proposition, correct?
But
if that's so, why is father absence such a major social problem?
The National Fatherhood Initiative's "Father Facts"
include this sad statistic: Children who live absent their
biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three
times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience
educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to
be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior
than children who live with their married, biological (or
adoptive) parents.
The
opposite is also the obvious. Children with involved, loving
fathers are significantly more likely to do well in school,
have healthy self-esteem, exhibit empathy, and avoid high-risk
behaviors such as drug use, truancy and criminal activity
compared to children with uninvolved fathers.
The
NFI has also taken a particular interest in the way fathers
are being portrayed on entertainment television, which regularly
present dads as laughingstocks and lamebrains. There is reason
for concern, too. Hollywood has taken the typical image of
Dad from Ozzie Nelson to Ozzy Osbourne. As NFI's Roland Warren
puts it, "Too many TV shows today tag fathers with the
'3-D' image — dumb, dangerous and disaffected. Such images
must be reversed to demonstrate to viewers that fathers are
there for their children and/or need to be."
Back
in 2000, the NFI's eye-opening study of fathers on 31 prime-time
TV shows showed dads were portrayed as as involved, but incompetent.
They were eight times more likely to be portrayed negatively
than mothers.
Brent Bozell
Parents Television Council
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20050624.shtml
