Patriotism for grown-ups

The title for this post comes from Eric Liu, the founder of Citizen University and former White House speechwriter for President Clinton. It comes at the end of an article he wrote back in October of 2014 at the height of the fury in one Colorado school district over the new AP US history framework. It is my understanding that the College Board intends to review the feedback they received this year and will announce a new edition of the AP US history framework. But I don't feel like waiting for that.

Saturday is the 4th of July. And this has been an historic month-- the shooting in Charleston, Obama's intense eulogy, the historic Supreme Court decision of last Friday, and another black church in flames last night, even as Confederate flags have come down. All these events occurring just as we get ready to celebrate our nation's ideals as expressed in the Declaration of Independence....

And so I write this post to echo the points made by Eric Liu in the article mentioned above (which you can read here). His point is that is rather childish to hold to a view of our nation as one that can do no wrong. True patriotism cannot simply point out where our nation has gone wrong. But neither should patriotism lead us to blindly extol our nation's virtues and triumphs without mention of its flaws and defeats. If we are responsible for teaching patriotism to children, he suggests, we must "behave like adults. Which means admitting that even though we Americans have done good things, and still do, we have also done bad things and still do."

If you think about it, even kindergartners can understand that. Which makes me wonder why so many politicians and pundits think AP high school students wouldn't.

So whether you are teaching college students, high school students--in an AP class or not--or middle school, you are teaching young adults. And our young adults can handle the fact that our history has highs and lows, heroes and villains, and everything in between. If pretend otherwise, we are insulting their intelligence.

Furthermore, we risk losing their trust. Vaclav Havel, the Czech dissident who became the first president of Czechoslovakia after the fall of communism, writes, "Lying can never save us from the lie. Falsifiers of history do not safeguard freedom but imperil it."

Sometimes I think it is precisely because of the high ideals of the Declaration of Independence that Americans have such a hard time admitting the bad stuff. Every nation and every group of people has its dirty laundry. The U.S. is no exception. But the idea of American exceptionalism has perhaps made it harder for us to come to grips with that. The Declaration of Independence promises so much. It is uncomfortable when we see evidence of not living up to it.

Particularly this 4th of July, because of recent events, there will likely be quite a few interesting articles popping up about this American exceptionalism,and the meaning of liberty. Here is one --"Celebrate Liberty Month: Wanted: American Exceptionalism" worth a read. So keep a look out throughout the holiday weekend, as there are sure to be others. Perhaps one of them will be appropriate for sharing with students in the fall. It could even be a good first day/week activity: to what extent has the U.S. lived up to its ideals? Discuss. Revisit the question at the end of the year.

For ideas about teaching the Declaration of Independence, check out my post, "Ideas for Teaching the Declaration of Independence: Text, Storytelling and Long-term Significance." I'm especially fond of idea #6 and 7 in that post. But there is other good stuff there. Like the great story about Jefferson and Adams both dying on the same day, which happened to be the July 4th, 1826--the 50th anniversary of what became Independence Day.

I will conclude this post with a final thought from Frederick Douglass. In honor of the 4th, check out his famous speech, "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July" here. But the words I want to end this post with are from an earlier speech he gave in Syracuse in 1847. He defines--most brilliantly--the meaning of a true patriot. A grown up patriot.

I make no pretension to patriotism. So long as my voice can be heard on this or the other side of the Atlantic, I will hold up America to the lightning scorn of moral indignation. In doing this, I shall feel myself discharging the duty of a true patriot; for he is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins.

Happy Fourth of July. Here's to becoming an ever more perfect union.

And to a World Cup victory from the U.S. Women's team on the 5th!

What Gets Lost in the Controversy over the New APUSH Framework

Twenty years after Lynne Cheney criticized the U.S. National History Standards for their "grim and gloomy" view of American history, the Republican National Committee is now critiquing the College Board's new framework for AP US History as portraying "a consistently negative view of American history." Two days ago, James R. Grossman of the American Historical Association wrote a thoughtful op-ed piece in the New York Times about the controversy that was criticized yesterday by Stanley Kurtz in the National Review.

History is a contentious subject. What is taught, how it is taught and what is left out matters. But what all the reformers, textbook companies, the College Board, politicians and pundits forget about is how students see things. And all the fighting about whether we should include this famous person or another really begs the question of what students actually learn.

Larry Krieger and Jane Robbins, two vocal critics of the new APUSH Framework write that its redesign is "leftist nonsense." Krieger points out that "The redesigned Framework omits Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Dorothea Dix, William Lloyd Garrison, Theodore Roosevelt, Jonas Salk, Rosa Parks, Dwight Eisenhower, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and many other notable American heroes." (quoted here).

Let's examine this list in a little more detail. Take Jonas Salk, for example. I do not dispute that Jonas Salk is a "notable American hero" and we should know about him. But where, exactly, does he belong in a U.S. history curriculum? If we don't want our history classes to be focused on the memorization of facts and details, exactly what should be taught about Jonas Salk and when and where? Should he be mentioned in a lesson on F.D.R. in the context of Roosevelt's polio? And if he is merely "mentioned," does that does the subject justice? Should we instead include an in-depth, entire lesson on vaccination and the eradication of childhood diseases? Or should we just throw him in on a lesson on famous American inventors? And how will we avoid turning a lesson like that into a mere memorization exercise, where the teacher either lectures on a bunch of famous inventors and the students fill out a chart to accompany it? If students did research online to learn about different inventors would it be any better? Or would that still just be looking up a bunch of people and copying it down on a chart? I'm not disputing the profound significance of Jonas Salk--I just raise the issue of what we all mean when we say our curriculum should include famous person A or important event B or noteworthy document C.

Let's take another one: William Lloyd Garrison. Let's say you do a lesson in which students read the deservedly famous piece he wrote in his first issue of The Liberator. When the test or essay or DBQ or authentic assessment rolls around, let's say a student didn't remember that William Lloyd Garrison was the author, but the student offered a cogent discussion of this famous document and explain the impact of abolitionists on the antislavery movement and the eventual abolition of slavery? Wouldn't that be as (or more) important than being able to identify William Lloyd Garrison as its author? 

Let's take two more: the two that are trotted out every 3rd week in January or during Black history month in schools around the country: Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks. I'd be surprised that any U.S. history teacher would leave them out, but I am more concerned by the fact that too often, the Civil Rights movement is boiled down to ONLY Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks. And, to make matters worse, it is often a one-dimensional look at King and Parks. Year after year, in schools around the country, kids are taught the flawed and grossly oversimplified account of Rosa Parks being too tired to move to the back of the bus and--at least according to my 2 kids--every year they hear the same passage from King's "I Have a Dream Speech." They rarely hear the whole speech. And too few teachers go on to teach about how King's vision changed over time--how his experience fighting discrimination in Chicago and the expansion of U.S. involvement in Vietnam led to him to bring up economic inequality and broader issues? Why not have students hear or read other famous King speeches? I worry that by the time students make it to high school U.S. history class, King's "I Have a Dream Speech" has become a tired cliche because they hear it too often, with too little context. (Note: I have since elaborated on this particular set of problems in this post on "8 Mistakes Teachers Make When Teaching the Civil Rights Movement.")

So while the politicians and pundits debate what should be taught, let's think more carefully about HOW we teach what we decide to teach. And, if history is so critical to the future of our republic, let's involve our students in this controversy. Have students weigh in on whether a particular period is "grim and gloomy" or exemplifies America at its best, or--what is likely more accurate, something in between. Good history should be both dark and uplifting. But too many kids still say that history class is boring. If it's boring, they tune out. And if they tune out, it doesn't matter if you mention Jonas Salk or not, because they won't be paying attention.