Back when I was in college which is now some sixty years ago, I had a luxury that many of my fellow-students did not enjoy. Due to my excellent high school preparation I entered college with, essentially, two full years worth of credits. I took no introductory classes in English, chemistry, mathematics, physics, or foreign languages. However, since were I to graduate I would probably be drafted and I was basically paying my own way (1/3 scholarship, 1/3 student loan, 1/3 out-ot-pocket which I paid by working nearly 40 hours a week) I allowed myself to take four years to graduate.
One of the things I did with the extra time was audit courses simply to gain knowledge. Isn’t that what college is supposed to be about? One of the courses I audited was Contemporary African History. The professor was a prominent black South African activist. I was very nearly the only white kid in the class.
Is there a word that means something between amused and appalled? That was my reaction to the course. It was informative, largely because I was so ignorant of the material but the class was something between a struggle session and a consciousness-raising exercise.
Towards the end of the class, one of the teaching assistants approached me on behalf of the professor. Noting that I probably had the best attendance record, I was asked to take the final exam despite my just auditing the class and not required to. I agreed. Somewhat to their surprise (I think) I aced it.
All of this to highlight that I am intimately familiar with ideology being taught as history. That didn’t start in the last few years, you know.
At City Journal Max Eden declaims about the protests over the College Board’s African American History Advanced Placement test:
The final framework for the course has excised the ideology-laden units and replaced them with the type of lessons that Americans of all races want students to be taught. Here’s what’s gone: “The Black Feminist Movement and Womanism,†“Intersectionality and Activism,†“Black Feminist Literary Thought,†“Black Queer Studies,†“‘Post-Racial’ Racism and Colorblindness,†“Incarceration and Abolition,†“Movement for Black Lives,†“The Reparations Movement,†and “Black Vernacular, Pop Culture, and Cultural Appropriation.†And here’s what’s new: “The Growth of the Black Middle Class,†“Black Political Gains,†“Demographic and Religious Diversity in the Black Community,†and “Black Achievement in Science, Medicine and Technology.â€
The recommended readings no longer contain a parade of far-left academics. No more Angela Davis, bell hooks, Audre Lorde, Michelle Alexander, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Robin D. G. Kelley, Patricia Hill Collins, or Kimberlé Crenshaw.
The perspective of comparable units has also changed dramatically. In the earlier framework, the unit on religion focused exclusively on black liberation theology. The final framework emphasizes religious diversity. In the earlier framework, the section on science and medicine focused on “inequities.†The final framework emphasizes “achievement,†recommending the study of a “wide range of African American scientists and inventors.†The “Black Political Gains†unit features not only Barack Obama and Kamala Harris but also Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, specifically recommending an excerpt of Rice’s 2012 speech at the Republican National Convention.
It is, in short, exactly the sort of unsparing yet aspirational, mainstream, apolitical African-American history course that DeSantis’s critics accused him of opposing. And now that the College Board has tacked back to the middle, DeSantis’s far-left critics have dropped their masks.
I think the complaints have multiple facets. To some extent they’re a turf battle. How dare anyone who isn’t himself an academic criticize what we, the specialists, have decided should be taught! To another extent it’s battlespace preparation. If they can define Ron DeSantis before he can define himself, it will be an enormous advantage.
But I suspect it’s also because they’re chagrined that ensuring that high school African American History classes can’t just be something between a struggle session and a conscious-raising exercise.
Ironically, I think that African American History is a legitimate academic pursuit. It really is distinct from ordinary American history in a way that other interest studies history classes are not.
I do think that facts should be emphasized in such history classes and clearly distinguished from opinions. Also, mainstream thought should be distinguished clearly from fringe thought, cf. the “1619 Project”. One can always dream.
My impression is that all of the bogus stuff was included in the first round of possible to stuff to include. They then omitted that stuff and had a final list of topics finished in late December. All of the objections are about the initial version. The final version was not released until February but objections were being made about the version that was not going to be released anyway.
Steve
Your impression is wrong.
Lawsuits were filed by numerous advocacy groups trying to retain obviously ideological content. Attempting to characterize the situation as a bland voluntary final editing is a bald faced lie. As Dave points out, emphasize facts, not opinions, especially fringe ideological opinions. Queer theory and BLM indoctrination belong on courses on queer theory and BLM opinions, not American Black History.