On September 2, 2021, the Texas state senate passed SB 3, ”An Act Relating to the Social Studies Curriculum in Public Schools.”  The bill purports to provide “an understanding of the fundamental moral, political, and intellectual foundations of the American experiment in self-government.” What emerges from closer inspection is an act of censorship. Earlier, the Texas House submitted a draft (HB 3979) for the Senate to ratify. But the Senate gutted that more inclusive text. It could be argued that removal of a topic from a list of readings is not outright censorship. But teachers need guidance and eliminating useful suggestions is a denial of help — sabotage. The bill considers two areas: the subjects to be covered (or avoided) and how to discuss them (or not). Comparison of the two texts reveals the hidden purpose of this senatorial subversion. Please download Senate Bill 3 as a PDF from the link I have attached at the end of this post. It shows how the Senate added to and deleted from the text of the House bill.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PART I. SUBJECT MATTER.

First, in Section D comes what MUST be taught: “the history, qualities, traditions, and features of civic engagement in the United States; the history of Native Americans; the structure, function, and processes of government institutions at the federal, state, and local levels; the founding documents of the United States, including:

• the Declaration of Independence;
• the United States Constitution;
• the Federalist Papers including Essays 10 and 51;
• excerpts from Alexis de Tocqueville ’s Democracy in America;
• the transcript of the first Lincoln-Douglas debate.

So far, so good, but then we find modifications in the treatment of our country’s Founders. The next item includes the writings of the founding fathers but not material about them (e.g. their slave owning?) and not about the “mothers and other founding persons” of the United States.

Section E also seems inclusive. Schools shall teach “the history and importance of:

• the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964
• the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments
• the complexity of the historic relationship between Texas and Mexico; and
• the diversity of the Hispanic population in Texas.”

Who could complain about treating “complexity” and “diversity” in a state’s schools? But this section also omits some fundamental topics. Section E includes the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 but not the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Why does this section name the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments but not the Fifteenth, which affirms the right to vote to citizens of any “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”? And why does it imply that these amendments are separate from the Constitution, already included in Section D? The Constitution’s provision for its own amendment is part of its genius. Omission of the Fifteenth Amendment explains why the Texas Senate also skipped the Voting Rights Bill of 1965. Although the legislators of Texas pretend to treat “complexity” and “diversity,” they suppress the connection between race and voting rights.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

PART II. MANNER OF DISCUSSION.

Second comes what MUST NOT be taught. The bill professes great sensitivity to the feelings of all students. “A teacher . . . may not require, or make part of a course, concepts that serve to inculcate . . . the concept that:

• one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex;
• an individual, by virtue of the individual’s race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously;
• an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual’s race or sex;
• meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race to oppress members of another race;
• the advent of slavery in the territory that is now the United States constituted the true founding of the United States;
• with respect to their relationship to American values, slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to, the authentic founding principles of the United States, which include liberty and equality.”

Although it’s hard to imagine how legislators can require teachers to do more than show common consideration for all students regardless of the aspects of identity they mention, there are ways identity can be pursued: namely, by studying important explorations in history, literature, music, and art.

That, however, is the problem with this bill. So as to appear to advance their stated goal (that students should learn to “actively listen and engage in civil discourse, including discourse with those with different viewpoints”), they stipulate precisely how to achieve their unstated goal: to prevent such activity. The most prominent portion of SB 3 is the long list of primary sources and important topics the Texas House suggested but the Senate deleted. This amazing list of excluded works includes Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. For full disclosure, I am not familiar with all of the named documents, but the Jefferson letter contains his famous analogy comparing the First Amendment’s distinction between religious establishment and religious freedom to “a wall of separation between Church & State.” The exclusion of this fundamental statement reveals the Senate’s desire to destroy that wall and exposes the pretense that the legislators wish to foster engagement “in discourse with those with different viewpoints.”

The Senate’s version then deletes from the earlier draft mention of 44 different authors, writings, or topics. For a full list, please see the PDF of the act available from the Texas Education Agency website and attached below. A sense of how the senators eviscerated the House version appears from this sample of the subjects they deleted.

• George Washington and Ona Judge (the enslaved woman who escaped from him.)
• Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings (his enslaved companion).
• Writings from Frederick Douglass’s newspaper, the North Star;
• The Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850;
• The Indian Removal Act;
• William Still’s Underground Railroad Records.

Also deleted are “historical documents related to the civic accomplishments of marginalized populations, including documents related to:

• the Chicano movement;
• women’s suffrage and equal rights;
• the civil rights movement;
• the Snyder Act of 1924 (by which Indigenous peoples won the vote);
• the American labor movement;
• the history of white supremacy, including but not limited to the institution of slavery, the eugenics movement, and the Ku Klux Klan, and the ways in which it is morally wrong.”

On the last point, the idea is not that the senators assert that white supremacy is correct, only that “the ways in which it is morally wrong” should be stricken from the list of topics taught.

The list goes on. Although the role of slavery and civil rights receive the most attention —or seem to require the most repression— the Senate version also deletes:

• The life and work of Cesar Chavez;
• The life and work of Dolores Huerta;
• The history and importance of the women ’s suffrage movement.

All these are crossed out, silenced, canceled.

I draw two conclusions from SB 3. First, it intends the reverse of what it claims. With a feint towards initiating students into a life of civic engagement and mutual understanding, it hobbles them by withholding crucial information. Second, amidst many complaints about political correctness, cancel culture, postmodernism, and the evils of Critical Race Theory (often misconstrued), the Texas Senate’s SB 3 demonstrates that there is excess at both extremes of our present cultural confrontation. The problem is not so much that each faction thinks the other is wrong, but that extreme positions, presented absolutely, prevent either from seeing the potentially legitimate perceptions of the other. Unless anyone is omniscient, we should each listen to those on the other side.

ATTACHMENT:

Texas SB 3. Rules for school boards-2021

A guest essay by Rick Katzenberg

“Why do the media keep saying this election was a loss for Democrats? It wasn’t.”

(Rebecca Solnit in The Guardian )

I honestly don’t care what they say/write or how dark they paint the picture. The Virginia election was a good day to learn a few important lessons, especially regionally, to work on messages , to check our GOTV efforts, and to get some practice in the minor leagues before the big league season starts. “Talking heads” need to be drama queens to sound smart and attract comments and  clicks. I don’t think even they believe everything that they hear themselves saying.

Mid-January the war begins. It will be expensive, dirty, filled with lies and bombast, and will drive critical thinkers crazy. It was a real wakeup call. Find a few  experts who speak the truth and pay attention to them and try to block the rest. But do not turn off the battle, hard as that might be. Help figure out what might sell our point of view and what won’t annoy or turn off the voters. Get each voter to think about the election, what’s in it for them, their families and their communities. There won’t be much in the way of gray, only black and white. 30% of our fellow Americans are lost causes, as they have swallowed the lies and haven’t the capacity to address the issues with thoughtfulness and logic. Another 30% of us are the exact opposite and will vote straight Democratic, up and down the ballot. It is that middle 40% that will decide the outcome and must be our target.

At risk next November, and in state primaries leading up to that vote, is simply the future of our country — no less than that. If we lose the House or the Senate, we are in huge trouble. 2024 will take care of itself (Trump will pretend to be running but he will not ultimately be a candidate!), but 2022 will define our future. More than 50% of Americans agree with us on every single issue. So, clear your desks and your minds. Prepare to be active and useful. Do  not leave this campaign to “other folks.” It is going to take each of us who can educate others not just how to vote but make sure they actually vote! Repeat — Our task is to make sure that 50% of eligible voters in every district actually vote! 

We will have way more ammunition after the passage of the BBB bill, which will, of course, eventually pass. The economy will be great, COVID will be under control, wages will keep climbing, unemployment will keep falling, a variety  of benefits from the two large bills will start to be received by families, etc. We may, just may, fall into the sweet spot of running a positive campaign with exciting results to show for our first 18 months in control. Remember, the  lies and meanness will be energy-sapping and might drive us crazy. Just ignore the BS and stay on message. Let’s hope someone in the next 60 days figures out what that message is. We didn’t have one in Virginia but, as I said before, that was just practice. 

Most readers of this essay aren’t kids anymore.  Some of us were activists once upon a time and many of us still are. What have we each learned? What are we prepared to admit about the world we are leaving behind to our offspring and theirs? What can we do now to make our next commitment to a better, more thoughtful, healthier, and peaceful world?  It is time for reflection. We are either serious about our life’s work or pretenders. The tops of the mountains and the seats by quiet streams should be busy places while we each figure this out for ourselves. In the end, we must get emotionally involved and help create the change we  wish to see!  

The Danger is not imaginary. Republican-controlled state legislatures are even now drafting and passing laws to limit what can be taught in schools. I begin by quoting a message from Jim Grossman, Executive Director of the American Historical Association, from the “Fortnightly News,” an online publication dated June 29, 2021. Beneath Grossman’s statement, I attach a letter from Heather Cox Richardson, one of the country’s foremost political bloggers. 

Grossman and Richardson have identified the danger to American freedom posed by Republican state legislatures. These lawmakers are stipulating what can and cannot be taught about American history. These provisions do not merely violate the First Amendment. They represent in America the kind of thought control Right Wing theorists employ to frighten us about the dangers of socialism in particular and government intervention in general. They, themselves, are injecting at the state level the very tyranny they fear coming from the federal government. 

Grossman puts it like this.
“The state of Idaho has recently mandated that no public educational institution “shall direct or otherwise compel students to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to” such “tenets” as “that any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin is inherently superior or inferior; that individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin; or that individuals, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.
“Many readers of this newsletter are teachers. If you have directed or otherwise compelled students “to personally affirm, adopt, or adhere to” just about anything please let me know. I doubt I will receive many responses. I also doubt that our members themselves “adhere” to these tenets. Moreover, a recent AHA survey indicates that depending on how the question is asked, between two-thirds and three-fourths of Americans consider it acceptable to make learners uncomfortable by teaching the harm some people have done to others. Yet legislation like this has now passed in at least five states and has been introduced in twenty others.
“The last edition of Fortnightly News linked to a statement, now endorsed by over 120 organizations including six higher education accreditors, explaining how “the goal of these efforts is to suppress teaching and learning about the role of racism in the history of the United States.” The AHA not only opposes this legislation; we are committed to helping our members and other history teachers to participate in the process of healing divisions in American society by studying, learning, and teaching the evolution and impacts of those divisions. This edition of Fortnightly News includes a link to the AHA’s resources for teaching about the history of racist violence in the United States. We are also working on additional related resources. Everything has a history, including the deep and continuing divisions in our nation.”

It will be argued in response that in fact no one supports compelling a state’s students to personally affirm anything . Therefore, defenders of this legislation will say, the AHA is exaggerating the danger. However the most extreme offense –actual compulsion–  has a wide penumbra in which a chilling effect could (and is intended to) discourage frank treatment of difficult issues. Even though the worst case scenario would be a rare occurrence, the legislation inserts a fear of discipline, if not prosecution, in a classroom environment that should enjoy and promote free inquiry.  Students must be allowed to encounter oppressed peoples and repressed truths. The topics that Idaho’s legislators do not want forcibly affirmed (debates stemming from issues of “sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin”) must be introduced into the curriculum and integrated into a full understanding of our country’s history, warts and all. Unidentified wounds cannot be treated and, left untended, they will bleed us dry.

Heather Cox Richardson’s letter of July 7 advances the same thesis but with different data. In brief, she refers to the forced cancellation of a historical conference on the interpretation of the notorious battle of the Alamo in 1836. Research over the last few decades has substantially revised the glamorous, “patriotic” view of the story taught for so long. It seems that the  holdouts at the Alamo were not defending American freedom but the Texas cotton farmers’ desire to hold slaves. Not everyone, though, is happy to have us learn the truth. See her account.

A prerequisite to protecting freedom of speech is the accurate and equitable administration of all elections, but the warnings from Grossman and Richardson indicate what will be lost if we fail to protect our voters.