Texas Insider

If Gangsta Rap is In, is American Exceptionalism Out?

A Texas Insider Exclusive

In Part II of a three-day series, Bill Ames today exposes how he believes various left-leaning groups in Texas have damaged the Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills (TEKS) curriculum framework, and recommends changes necessary for the SBOE to insure Texas’ school children are taught  an overall positive view of America & Texas.  Tomorrow he will expose the ultimate political insult to the SBOE thus far. 

If Gangsta Rap is In, American Exceptionalism Out?
A negative view of U. S. history
By Bill Ames

If the leftist-dominated U. S. history since 1877 TEKS review panel has its way, 11th grade social studies teachers across our state may be playing gangsta rap CDs in the classroom – as a curriculum requirement – to educate students.  That is according to the panel’s negative view of U. S. history.

“If I act like a pimp ain’t nothin’ to it
If I call you a nappy headed hoe ain’t nothin’ to it
If I shoot up your college ain’t nothin’ to it
If I sell a little crack ain’t nothin’ to it.”

–  Lyrics from Ice Cube, “Gangsta Rap Made Me Do It”

On October 17, the U. S. history since 1877 review panel, by a 7 to 1 vote, included hip-hop “music”, of which gangsta rap is a major sub-genre, in the U. S. history standards. 

Their justification?  “It’s the culture”. 

It does not take a rocket scientist to conclude gangsta rap, which promotes degradation of women, violence, profanity, racism, promiscuity, rape, street gangs, drive-by shootings, vandalism, drug dealing, and alcohol and substance abuse, is an objectionable addition to the history curriculum.

This vote, a blatant promotion of negative “history”, is no accident. The current standards document is rife with statements meant to indoctrinate impressionable students that America is a terrible place. 

Minutes apart from the hip hop vote, the same group voted to reject my proposal, again by a 7 to 1 vote, to add a section to the citizenship strand of the standards, covering American exceptionalism.  Apparently the left does not believe we live in an exceptional country. 

The website Answers.com gives us a well referenced definition of American exceptionalism, some of which is included below:

“American exceptionalism” is a term used to describe the belief that the United States is an extraordinary nation; a nation that is not only unique but also superior. Alexis de Tocqueville was the first to use the term “exceptional” to describe the United States and the American people in his classic work Democracy in America (1835–1840).

“Three main elements of exceptionalist belief have remained relatively consistent throughout American history.

“First and foremost is the belief that the United States is a special nation with a special role to play in human history. Throughout American history there have been repeated claims that the United States is the promised land and its citizens are the chosen people, divinely ordained to lead the world to betterment.

“The second  element of exceptionalist belief is the New World’s separateness and difference from the Old World of Europe.  In contrast to Europe, the New World was committed to freedom, morality, and the betterment of humankind.

“The third  element of exceptionalism is the belief that the United States, unlike other great nations, is not destined to rise and fall. Americans will escape the “laws of history” which eventually cause the decay and downfall of all great nations and empires. Americans believe their nation is the leader of progress in the world. Practically everything that the United States does as a nation is regarded as pushing forward the boundaries of human achievement, be it in politics, industry, technology, sports, the arts, even warfare. Certainly there are some mistakes made, but they are few, they are learned from, and they are improved upon at the next attempt. No matter how many setbacks they may face along the way, Americans will continue forward resolutely, striving for progress toward forming an ever more perfect union. Americans think of themselves as exceptional, then, not necessarily in what they are, but in what they could be. For this reason the sense of exceptionalism can never die, no matter how     unexceptional the nation may appear in reality. Exceptionalism persists because of what it promises just as much as, if not more than, what it delivers. It is tied to what it means to be an American: to have faith in the values and principles that caused the nation to be founded and to continue to exist.”

It is beyond belief that review panel members would reject a proposal to teach these principles to public school students, and in almost the same breath, accept the decadence of hip hop and gangsta rap.

It is worth noting here that the left-leaning bloggers, from both across Texas & the nation, regularly accuse conservatives of being anti-teacher.  They have, in fact, gotten it all wrong. 

Conservatives support teachers.  But we adamantly and rightfully oppose those radical members of the education establishment who believe it is useful to celebrate licentious behavior while unanimously rejecting the notion that America is an exceptional place.

And, this rejection of American exceptionalism is not the only point of contention, to put it mildly.  The review panel, during its meetings in February, July, and October, went out of their way to focus on negative aspects of history.  Examples follow:

 1.)  “Celebrate Freedom Week” results from legislation passed by the Texas legislature in 2001.  Instruction includes the study of:

The intent, meaning, and importance of the Declaration of Independence and the United   States Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, in their historical context.

The study of the Declaration of Independence should include the relationship of the ideas expressed in that document to subsequent American history, including but not limited to:

The relationship of its ideas to the rich diversity of our people as a nation of immigrants,

The American Revolution,

The formulation of the United States Constitution,

and the abolitionist movement, which led to the Emancipation Proclamation and the women’s suffrage movement.

During Celebrate Freedom Week, a school district may require students in grade levels 3 through 12 to study the text quoted below:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness–That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed …”

Although the review panels included the legislature-mandated “Celebrate Freedom Week” in the standards, they were only included in the introduction. 

This approach negates any requirement to test students on the principles of the mandate, with the result that the program becomes no more than a casual classroom exercise of going through the motions.

It is equally hard to believe that review panel members do not want students to be tested on our founding documents and principles.

2.)  In 1898, the U. S. acquired Cuba, Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, and the Philippines. In another example of promoting negative history, my review panel changed American “expansionism” to American “imperialism”, thus implicating the U. S. as an oppressor of indigenous “peoples”. 

SBOE conservatives, responding to the negativity, directed the reviewers to restore the “expansionism” term.  However, in its October work session, the reviewers not only refused to comply, but in an apparent attempt to insult the SBOE, changed “Soviet aggression” to “Soviet expansion” with respect to the Soviet invasion of Iron Curtain countries!

A double standard for multicultural inclusion
How unfortunate it was that a black New York fireman gained his fifteen minutes of fame by declaring: “I think the artistic expression of diversity would supersede any concern over factual correctness.”

“We’ve all seen the famous photograph of Firefighters Dan McWilliams, Billy Eisengrein, and George Johnson raising a flag, Iwo Jima-style, over the ground-zero wreckage of the Twin Towers.  It stirred pride in the hearts of most Americans, regardless of our race, color, creed, sex, etc.

”According to the Associated Press (‘Flag-Raising Statue Draws Criticism’, 1/11/02), ‘A statue based on the famous photograph of the flag-raising at the World Trade Center site is being criticized because the three white firefighters in the picture have been transformed into one white, one black and one Hispanic… Some firefighters and their families say the 19-foot bronze is political correctness run amok and an attempt to rewrite history’.

“As Carlo Casoria, who lost his firefighter son, Thomas, said: ‘They’re rewriting history in order to achieve political correctness’.”
                                                                                  -  from SixtySecond Activist

That fireman’s words echo the mindset of many members of my review panel. 

Their view is that diversity supersedes any requirement for a uniform set of high standards for inclusion in the history standards:  for minorities, for women, and for “dead white guys”, as one review panel referred to white males.

Need examples?

1.)  Witness the original wording of the student expectation in the current version of the standards:

“The student is expected to explain the roles played by significant military leaders during World War II, including Omar Bradley, Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, George Marshall, and George Patton.”

My review panel removed Generals Bradley and Patton (justification: too many generals), and added black colonel Benjamin O. Davis and Oveta Culp Hobby to the list of  “significant military leaders”.

Comments accompanying the changes justify Colonel Davis’ and Hobby’s inclusion as “firsts”.

This double standard for diversity even ignores the fact the General Claire Chennault and his Flying Tigers inflicted more far more pain on the enemy than did Colonel Davis’ Tuskegee airmen, (for example, the Flying Tigers shot down 286 enemy aircraft versus Tuskegee’s 111).

The good news is that Bradley and Patton are currently back on the list, dictated by the SBOE in its September meeting.  But still on the list are Davis and Hobby, their contributions falling far short of those of the generals.

2.)  Another example of misplaced diversity occurred with the finalization of:  “The student is expected to evaluate the contributions of political and social leaders in the United States, such as Andrew Carnegie, Dr. Hector P. Garcia, Barry Goldwater, Thurgood Marshall, Phyllis Schlafly, Hillary Clinton, and Billy Graham.”

The irony here is not so much the names, but that one member sighed and said, “Well now, we have at least one of each included”.

Only we don’t.  My review panel membership included an African-American, Hispanics, and women, as well as white males, but no, for example, Asians nor American Indians.  And guess what?  There is not one name of an Asian American or an American Indian in the U. S. history since 1877 standards document. 

On my review panel, parochial self-interest for inclusion outweighed the true spirit of diversity.

3.)  Finally, there was a proposal to add “sexual orientation” to the usual list of multicultural diversity classifications.  The proposal was defeated, if only by a narrow margin.  The homosexual movement will have to wait another ten years, until the next standards cycle, to join U. S. history’s multicultural parade.

Politicization of the Standards

The leftist majority on my review panel had no reservations about inserting their political bias into the history standards. 

The populist and progressive eras, the New Deal, the civil rights era, and the Great Society are all presented with a leftist bias.  The negativity of social-related issues during these eras took precedence over positive stories of America’s achievements.  Given the reality of the politically leftist bias in most topics, during our July meeting I was able to insert Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly, and the Moral Majority into the standards, as a plea for at least some ideological balance.

Those who have been following this know that the state’s liberal newspapers went crazy!  Newspapers called for inclusion of organizations such as Planned Parenthood, Sierra Club, MoveOn.org, and the Daily Kos to provide “balance”. 

In fact, Gingrich, Schlafly, and the Moral Majority WERE the balance. 

The education establishment initiated a letter-writing campaign, inundating the public input document with dozens of similarly composed, anti-conservative emails.  Obedient to their own, the review panel removed my student expectation during the October meeting.

The review panel further exposed its bias by ignoring many changes requested by the SBOE during its September meeting.  I have already discussed the American “imperialism” issue.

In addition, the panel refused to add the actual Congressional votes on civil rights legislation, in which Republican members of the House and Senate voted for passage by a margin wide enough to overcome the votes of the southern Democrat bloc, which overwhelmingly voted against civil rights for minorities.

The SBOE asked the panel to change “propaganda” to a less negative word.  It did not.

The SBOE asked the panel to significantly rewrite the section covering civil rights.  It did not.

The SBOE, noting the predictable leftist condemnation of Senator Joseph McCarthy for his anti-communist activity, requested the inclusion of the Venona papers, which revealed that the U.S. government was in fact infiltrated by communists.  The review panel I serve on declined to provide the balance. 

Other small, but politically significant indications of bias appear in the document. 

One is the different description of how presidents FDR, Nixon, and Reagan handled the issues of their time:  According to the standards, FDR exerted “leadership” (WWII), but my review panel refused to allow the “leadership” quality to describe Nixon (relations with China), or Reagan (winning the Cold War).  Further, the item that Reagan “restored national confidence” after the malaise of the Carter administration got removed as “too political”.

My review panel was not the only group that produced bizarre input to the standards.

Speaking for her kindergarten review panel at the September SBOE meeting, the presenter revealed that her group’s overriding objective was to create little “global citizens”. Then there was the 6th grade panel’s elimination of Christmas as a religious holiday (Now back in per SBOE direction).

In Parts I and II of this series, we have reviewed how the left has:

• first hijacked the process; then
• continued on to create a negative, revisionist view of American history.

Worth noting here is that this battle over history standards content is not new.  Rather, it is an ongoing battle for the hearts and minds of public school history students. 

The first national history standards, developed in 1994 by TCSS (described in Part I) ally, the National Center for History in the Schools at the University of California, were so anti-American that they were rejected by the U. S. Senate, Democrats and Republicans alike, by a vote of 99 to 1.

In her excellent book, Left Back, education expert Diane Ravitch describes the uproar that followed the release of the national standards.

The national standards of 1994 created a firestorm of protest.  Walter A. McDougall of the University of Pennsylvania complained that the standards wrongly represented the nation’s history as a struggle of minorities and women against white males.  McDougall further revealed the standards’ biased, negative view of the Founding Fathers:  “If the Founding Fathers invoked human rights, it was to deny them to others.”  McDougall went on, concluding, “The only embarrassment to liberal academics was that their quiet conquest of America’s schoolrooms had been revealed by the controversy”.

The Washington-based Council for Basic education set up review panels of historians to evaluate the standards.  The panels concluded that the standards presented “a disproportionately pessimistic and misrepresentative picture of the American past”.

The panels also found that the standards gave inadequate attention to science, medicine, and technology, and tended to portray technological advances in terms of their negative social impact. Twentieth-century Democrat presidents were described positively, while Republican presidents were described negatively.  Americans and Europeans “invaded” other countries, but non-European/American countries “expanded”.

Does all of this sound familiar to what is going on in Texas? 

“The Left’s War on U. S. History” never ends.

So how can the SBOE, and Texas citizens, win this battle in the ongoing standards war?

Tune in tomorrow.

_________________________________________

Tomorrow, Ames writes about the ultimate left-leaning political insult to the State Board of Education (SBOE) thus far. He will also cover the comments of one expert reviewer, and his support for what he termed “Diversity of Opinion”.  He will talk about the past and recent actions of the SBOE in various curriculum areas, so that mainstream Texans realize how the SBOE shields us from the bizarre actions occurring in public education in liberal dominated states across the country.  And he will offer guidance on how Texas citizens can support the SBOE in its efforts.

Ames welcomes reader feedback at billames@prodigy.net