In his 1997 book History on Trial, UCLA historian Gary Nash reflected on his role in the crafting of the failed National History Standards. After his experience fighting this battle in the culture wars, Nash encouraged teachers, educators, professors, legislatures, and anyone else with a stake in American democracy to consider four things:
1. As a nation “we should commit ourselves enthusiastically and unreservedly to a history education that is fit for a democratic society.” For Nash, this meant “abandoning the notion that teachers or education authorities should designate certain historical facts, events, deeds, ideas, or interpretations as off limits to analysis or reassessment..” He added: “no historical representations or explanations–even those dearest to the hearts of liberals, conservatives, Afrocentrists, Eurocentrists, or postmodernists–should be held in public sacrosanct or indisputable.
2. As a nation “we should end the futile struggle among educators and policy makers over whether we should teach more historical “content” and less “historical thinking” or vice versa. This is a false dichotomy, as good teachers have always known.
3. As a nation “we must nurture the flourishing new alliances between schools and universities. He adds: “legislatures and school boards should insist that new history teachers be well trained in the discipline.”
4. As a nation, we must continue to “broaden the scope of history education to ensure that the experiences of all classes, regions, and ethnoracial groups, as well as both genders, are included in it.”
The other day, while teaching this book in my “Teaching History” course, I asked my students to assess whether Nash’s points are still relevant today. It made for an interesting discussion. While some students pointed to progress in all of these areas, most said that these core issues are still relevant in 2017, two decades after Nash published History on Trial.
What do you think?