When I first decided that I wanted to write an article about the changes to the AP United States History curriculum, I assumed I would be joining in the chorus of voices that has been protesting the over-patriotization of the curriculum in response to conservative criticism. I will not shy away from my identity as a liberal, nor will I try and skirt around my generally Democratic-leaning politics. However, after reading the new APUSH framework and several of the articles providing coverage of the debate on CNN, Newsweek, Seventeen, ThinkProgress, NPR, the National Review and the LA Times, I have to say that I’ve become not only disinterested in the argument because of its petty scope, but I'm also concerned about another issue.
The political leanings and potent language in the 2014 APUSH Framework, which the College Board released as its first update since 2006 and was criticized by the Republican National Convention (RNC), are considerably diminished in the 2015 update, which has caused recent uproar on social media and liberal news outlets. But a great deal of the language that is used by the new critics (both those who are syndicated and those who are on Twitter) is based on the idea that the College Board has taken fully to heart the robust demands of the RNC and then changed the curriculum accordingly.
Looking over the previous language, the RNC’s demands and the new version, the most noticeable difference is its diction. The central ideas behind each topic remain the same. There is still critical discussion of slavery, classism/inequality, anti-black racial doctrines, Japanese internment camps, etc. The language surrounding these topics is different, yes, and the jab at Reagan for being “bellicose” during the Cold War is removed, but how much should this really matter?
AP classes are designed to prepare students for college and exempt them from taking certain introductory college courses, but more than that, they are intended to teach students to think for themselves. The fact that both sides of the political spectrum are up in arms over changes to specific rhetoric in the College Board guidelines reflects a lack of confidence in the ability of the average AP student to be able to consider events and bias critically and then form opinions of their own.
I wish I could say these fears are baseless. I would very much like to write an article vilifying the demons of condescension and proclaim the intellectual triumph of today’s youth. But I believe that the true plague of history courses in the United States, Advanced Placement or not, is the reluctance on the part of educators and students to engage in the practice of critical thinking.
I would like to remind everyone of headlines that were published across the nation three years ago regarding the Texas State Board of Education and their relationship with the notion of critical thinking. I think the quote from their 2012 platform speaks for itself: “Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”
This approach to learning is the true evil in the education system. Now, this issue is not isolated to the comment above, nor is it isolated to Texas, the South, the GOP (the party with the dominant voice in the Texas State Board of Education) or social media outlets. It is not a political statement. This is a wider issue that is closely tied to soundbite journalism, an increasing reliance on Buzzfeed and its ideological brothers to form opinions, and the continual reluctance of American youth to read books, but for now I will set that much larger issue aside, and instead ask anyone still reading to stop nitpicking minor rhetoric.
It’s important for us to remember that a little bias is good. A little bias is inevitable. Bias means that the writer has an opinion. Bias means that the source you’re confronting is interpreting the events through the lens of his or her perspective, which is the only way any person has of interpreting events. Bias should be administered in moderation, absolutely, but I don’t believe anyone can read the new AP framework and declaim it as “immoderate." As students of any subject, particularly history, we have to be able to sift through the bias of our textbook, our teachers, our curriculum, primary and secondary sources, news outlets, our peers, our parents, and everything around us to create opinions and ideals that will define us as human beings with a meaningful and original voice.
I personally had an amazing APUSH teacher. He was a man who believed that history should be told as a series of narratives, and that the stories inherent in the study of human history are what make each topic so fascinating. He was also a noticeably biased man. He did not hide his bias; he made it clear to us. He was not ashamed of it, and he invited anyone who had a different viewpoint to challenge him. And I did, often, as we did not share similar ideologies in the slightest. Sometimes we would debate quite bitterly, but I always appreciated his dedication to his opinion. Our debates drove me to develop and articulate my own ideas; it encouraged me to do research outside the classroom; it encouraged me to think critically.
This is the kind of discussion that needs to occur. The revision of U.S. History curriculum will always be a way to write a cheap political article, but it can also be an opportunity to rejuvenate devotion to our unique perspective as young people.
