[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 13 (Monday, January 23, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E155]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page E155]]
                  PROPOSED HISTORY STANDARDS CRITICIZED

                                 ______


                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, January 23, 1995
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, there has been much controversy 
surrounding the national history standards proposed by the National 
Center for History in the schools at the University of California, Los 
Angeles. As many others have pointed out, these proposed standards 
contain many obvious omissions and present a slanted view of American 
history. This Member commends to his colleagues an editorial which 
appeared in the Omaha World-Herald on January 19, 1995.
                 History Standards Are Far Off the Mark

       The academic committee that produced national standards for 
     teaching history will take another look at its work. 
     Certainly another look is in order. A number of historians 
     and teachers have condemned the standards as anti-European 
     and anti-American.
       Two sets of standards were produced, one for American 
     history and one for world history. Both have been widely 
     criticized. Gary Nash, a University of California at Los 
     Angeles history professor who was involved in both projects, 
     said, ``We will look for examples of ideological bias or 
     imbalance and will make appropriate changes.''
       The group shouldn't have to look far. Liberal academics in 
     the project snuffed attempts by others on the committee to 
     include time-honored mileposts in U.S. history and world 
     history. The resulting standards consist of a dizzying list 
     of politically correct concepts, including detailed attention 
     to marginal events and people who seem to have been included 
     mainly as examples of white, European, male imperialism.
       A gathering of early feminists in Seneca Falls, N.Y., is 
     mentioned nine times in the U.S. history standards. Nowhere 
     do the standards acknowledge the first meeting of Congress. 
     The Ku Klux Klan is mentioned more frequently than George 
     Washington. Sen. Joseph McCarthy, whose memory is hated 
     because of his often-imprecise charges of communist 
     infiltration in American institutions, receives more 
     attention than Thomas Paine and other early leaders whose 
     words continue to inspire freedom fighters around the world.
       However, other societies escape the harsh criticism 
     directed at the United States. In the world history 
     standards, the Aztec culture is praised for its achievements 
     in astronomy and agriculture. But the historians give the 
     Aztecs a free pass on the subject of their practice of human 
     sacrifice. It isn't mentioned.
       The world history standards focus disproportionately on 
     long-dead cultures that contributed little to life as it is 
     currently lived in most parts of the world. But the standards 
     treat almost as an afterthought the main sweep of 
     civilization that stretched from the Fertile Crescent through 
     Greece and Rome, through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance 
     and the Enlightenment to the ultimate flowering of democracy 
     across much of the globe.
       Defenders of the standards say that they are only a guide. 
     Even if adopted by President Clinton's Goals 2000 program, 
     the defenders say, the standards are merely advisory.
       But ``advisory'' standards have a way of becoming 
     mandatory. They need to be reviewed before they take effect.
       Eliminating anti-Western and anti-American bias, even if 
     the original authors were able to do that, wouldn't solve all 
     the problems. The standards also sneer at the traditional 
     process of learning facts about important people, ideas and 
     events. Rather, a sloppy, game-playing approach is 
     encouraged. Students are to ``learn'' by making up imaginary 
     conversations among historical figures. Or they are to 
     speculate about what it was like to be a member of an 
     oppressed group in the Middle Ages. One suggestion is to 
     conduct a mock trial of John D. Rockefeller.
       It is absurd to suggest that accurate historical insights 
     can be achieved by people who don't have their facts 
     straight.
       Indeed, as one critic suggested, the standards appear to be 
     ``seriously flawed in concept, in tone and in content 
     throughout.'' The drafters of the standards have far to go in 
     addressing the serious concerns that have arisen.
     

                          ____________________