1. Rejected History Standards Find New Life in Social Studies Textbooks Being Considered by the State Board of Education

Remember the old National History Standards that were so embarrassing to liberals and conservatives alike that they were rejected 99-1 in the U.S. Senate? The one dissenting vote felt the language of the Senate Resolution was not sufficiently strong. The original standards, among other things: (1) Promoted cults of ethnicity, dividing us into separate ethnic enclaves with ineradicable lines, intensifying resentments and cultural apartheid; (2) Attacked the concept of "e pluribus unum", one American people, promoting that we are no longer the American people, but have become the American "peoples", a mosaic of separate groups, each preserving and celebrating its apartness; (3) Promoted hostility toward Europe by dwelling upon the sins of the west while overlooking the sins of the rest of the world; (4) Promoted "feel-good" history in order to raise group self esteem, a task to which history, because of the intellectual demands made upon it, is uniquely unsuited.

The standards did not receive a kind reception. Many prominent Americans found them unsuitable:

"the history standards are anti-western and hostile to the main threads of American history". Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, professor of history and women's studies at the Emory University.

"the world history standards are more politically correct than U.S. history [standards]". Earl Bell President of Organization of History Teachers.

"the American people would be foolish to let it anywhere near the schools." John Leo, U.S. News and World Report.

The standards were revised under the leadership of prominent educators and historians, and in the new standards you will find little, if any, of the above, but the rejected standards are still alive and well in the social studies textbooks now being considered by the State Board of Education.

Back to Table of Contents