EdAction
Maple River Education Coalition PAC
105 Peavey Rd, St 116
Chaska, MN
55318
952-361-4931
http://www.EdAction.org
E-mail
July 7, 2003
Beware The New Civics
Independence Day is a fitting time to consider the interest in Civics studies
coming from just about every corner of late -- federal law, the White House,
education reformers, former U.S. Secretaries of Education, the National
Endowment for the Humanities, the National Education Association and so on and
on. What is it? Has everyone suddenly become very patriotic?
We've been treated to numerous news stories about how little students know about
America's founding -- for example, the Declaration of Independence. That riles
up the public in a big way these days, and, sure enough, the fix is right there,
ready to go. The federal government swoops onto the stage as the white knight to
save the day.
Can we be just a little cautious here?
When the NEA, Hillary Clinton, Bill Bennett, and Chester Finn, and Lamar
Alexander are all singing the same tune, maybe it's good to take a closer look!
Here's an example of what's being pushed in the new Civics. "Teaching
Democracy Globally, Internationally, and Comparatively: The 21 st -Century
Civic Mission of Schools"
"Looking forward, we can envision the 21st century as an age of global
democracy in which there will be coexistence and tension between international
and national or state-centered conceptions of democracy. And we can imagine the
slow but steady rise to prominence of transnational conceptions and institutions
of democracy.
"If so, then there will be a new civic mission of schools in the United
States of America and elsewhere: teaching democracy globally, internationally,
and comparatively will become the most important goal of civic education."
"In the past century, the civic mission of schools, at its best, was an
enlightened, open-ended, and thought-provoking education for democracy in a
sovereign state, such as the United States of America, France, Japan, or India.
The purpose was induction of each new generation into the democratic culture of
a particular society and country in order to maintain the political and civic
order or to improve it on its own terms. At its worst, the civic mission
involved heavy-handed and mind-numbing inculcation of uncontested political
loyalty to the state and society, democratic or otherwise."
"In this century, by contrast with the past, we may reasonably speculate
that education for citizenship in a democracy will, with each decade, become
everywhere more global, international, and comparative in curricular content and
processes of teaching and learning. And we ought to think now about how to
improve our current curricular frameworks and standards for a world transformed
by globally accepted and internationally transcendent principles and processes
of democracy." (pp. 1-2)
You might wonder what "transnational conceptions" and "globally
accepted and internationally transcendent principles and processes of
democracy" are. You might notice from the above quote that the new Civics
is NOT a promotion of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and
the U.S. Constitution, as the public thinks it is.
Well, what is it, then? And who gets to decide?
What the New Civics Is
The new Civics, translated, is about getting to one-world government. It is a
GLOBALIST view of democracy. While the U.S. bases its view of human rights, for
example, on self evident truths that all people are endowed by their Creator
with inalienable rights, and that government, first and foremost, exists to
protect them, other democracies, such as Latvia, claim that government alone
grants human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example,
states that none of the enumerated (and numerous) rights may be exercised
contrary to the purposes of the United Nations.
Those are two radically different views of human rights. One might expect in an
American Civics class, that students would be taught that rights which are
granted by governments are subject to whatever the state may determine is a
greater good. Or that "declaring" endowed, inalienable human rights is
the very justification for the right to life, liberty and property. That sort of
teaching, however, is what new Civics advocates would call "heavy-handed
and mind-numbing inculcation of uncontested political loyalty." Tell that
to the Chinese students at Tiananmen Square who carried copies of the U.S.
Declaration of Independence in their hands as they faced the tanks.
While the new Civics gives a superficial pretence of neutrality on which
approach to human rights is more accurate, it's not difficult to recognize the
higher value it places on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The U.S. model of democracy is referred to as "a long-standing
tradition" of inalienable rights, thus undermining the very meaning of the
Declaration. The Latvian model is simply a Latvian tradition. The new Civics
teaches that both ideas are equivalent models of democracy, and that we would be
doing students a disservice by suggesting that America's recognition of
inalienable rights deserves any superior place in the spectrum of world
politics.
Clearly, this is NOT what most moms and dads across America have in mind for
teaching our founding documents.
While the public is sold on the idea that it's past time to make a new
commitment to teaching American principles of freedom here and abroad, we're
actually being sold a bill of goods. For example, our Bill of Rights is now
taught as "negative rights." In Estonia, Lithuania, and the United
Nations they have "positive constitutionalism in regard to human
rights." That means that the government is required to provide a broad
array of social and economic entitlements. Human rights is defined as an
expansive social welfare state. This is now the definition of
"democracy," in the new Civics. Yet "inalienable" human
rights are nonexistent in Estonia and Lithuania.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is that sort of document -- enumerated
rights that put world government in charge of providing for and overseeing every
segment of public, family and personal living. The Universal Declaration is
taught with reverence in the new Civics.
In Minnesota, the 2003 legislature set up a process for replacing the state
standards that had been in place since 1998. The public found them to be
non-academic and radical. Legislators who supported the discredited Profile of
Learning standards got their way to have Civics as one of the new state
standards. This was a big deal for them and they fought hard for it.
In setting parameters for the new standards, however, they most vehemently
opposed including a requirement that these standards would "promote and
preserve" certain of our founding principles, such as national sovereignty
and natural law as found in our Declaration of Independence. The mandate for
Minnesota standards to promote and preserve the Declaration was entirely deleted
from the parameters, because the Declaration "doesn't have any legal
standing." (See that
legislative debate)
That tells us quite clearly that the promoters of the new Civics are not
promoting the patriotism so many good American citizens think it is. Quite the
opposite.
Who Will Decide What the New Civics Means?
If the new Civics isn't about promoting the foundations of freedom, and if it is
about moving to one-world government, who defines that? Who has that incredible
authority to redefine for all what will be taught in Civics, and thus change the
direction of our nation?
The article quoted above ("Teaching Democracy Globally") is from the
Center For Civic Education (CCE), the federally funded group that has held the
sole contract for creating the National Standards for Civics and Government
since Goals 2000 was passed in 1994. The CCE creates the content of the National
Civics Standards, and they create the framework for the NAEP Civics questions.
(Under No Child Left Behind, for the first time, all states are required by
federal law to participate in the national NAEP test.)
Here's what the federal law put into place in the Education funding bill (HR6)
of 1994:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Title X, Section 10601 (a)
(1)(A) The Secretary is authorized to carry out a program to enhance the
third and sixth National Education Goals by educating students about the history
and principles of the Constitution of the United States, including the Bill of
Rights, and to foster civic competence and responsibility. (B) Such programs
shall be known as 'We the People...The Citizen and the Constitution'.
(2) The programs shall (A) continue and expand the educational activities of the
'We the People...The Citizen and the Constitution' program administered by the
Center for Civic Education; and (B) enhance student attainment of challenging
content standards in civics and government.
Title X, Section 10601
(b) The education program authorized by this section shall provide (1) a course
of instruction on the basic principles of our Nation's constitutional democracy
and the history of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights;
Title X, Section 10601 (c) The education program authorized by this section
shall be made available to public and private elementary and secondary
schools...
Title X, Section 10601 (d)...funds provided under this section may be used for
(1) advanced training of teachers about the United States Constitution and the
political system the United States creates; or (2) a course of instruction at
the middle school level on the roles of state and local governments in the
federal system established by the Constitution.
---------------------------------
All of this was re-authorized under No Child Left Behind.
The CCE creates the standards by federal law, creates a curriculum and
distributes it to schools and the public across the country -- by federal law
and with federal money.
The CCE also receives our tax money to train teachers. At their training session
this summer in St. Paul, one speaker wrote off the meaning of the Declaration of
Independence as simply a political declaration to justify a violent revolution.
That was typical of the tenor of the entire week's training.
With this in mind, we shudder to hear that the U.S. Senate has recently voted to
establish academies to teach American history and civics. Up to a dozen
academies would be funded with federal tax dollars to teach more of what the CCE
is spewing out.
Tapping right into the new spirit of patriotism, No Child Left Behind finances
nearly $100 million to "help schools improve U.S. history teaching."
-- TRADITIONAL American History. There's a federal
website just to promote it, and it sure sounds wonderful.
Unfortunately, much of the history these grants are funding is NOT
"traditional" at all. They, too, are based entirely on the national
standards. Many of the organizations referenced on the U.S. Department of
Education's Traditional History website elevate the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights to at least an equivalent position to our Declaration , if they
reference the Declaration at all.
"Facing History and
Ourselves" is one resource used for "traditional" American
History grants.
This website features a detailed curriculum called, "A
Critical Look at Sept. 11, 2001."
On this page is an article called, "The Power of Hatred," which asks
the question, "What Causes Violence?" It answers with the words of
philosopher Isaiah Berlin:
"Few things have done more harm than the belief on the part of individuals
or groups (or tribes or states or nations or churches) that he or she or they
are in sole possession of the truth: especially about how to live, what to be
& do -- & those who differ from them are not merely mistaken but wicked
or mad & need restraining or suppressing. It is a terrible and dangerous
arrogance to believe that you alone are right, have a magical eye which sees the
truth & that others cannot be right if they disagree."
"Nationalism ... is the strongest and most dangerous force at large
today. It is usually the product of a wound inflicted
by one nation on the pride or territory of another.."
The article then goes on to describe religion itself as the equivalent of Nazi
Germany. Unfortunately, there are those in this country who share that opinion.
But is this what the public thinks their getting with "traditional"
American history? Religion is accused of intolerance, dangerous nationalism and
teaching hate. "Religious fundamentalist parents in the United
States" are equated with religious extremism of the Taliban, noting home
schooling as an example.
That same curriculum concludes with a cry for a new world order that know no
boundaries. Students are asked to envision an analogy of a "global
mirror." Nowhere is there a hint that the foundation of our
constitution and our Declaration of Independence has anything to offer a world
that does not know the self evident truth that all are created equal, endowed by
their Creator with INALIENABLE rights, -- life, liberty the pursuit of
happiness. Is this "traditional" American history? This is the new
Civics.
A radical restructuring of our free system of government is being propagated in
our schools under the guise of the new Civics. It isn't patriotism, it isn't
traditional history and it isn't freedom. The federal government has invested
heavily in teaching that which is undermining our heritage of freedom to the
world, whether they know it or not. Pay close attention. Don't fall for the
nice- sounding propaganda.
For a review of the curriculum, "We The People: The Citizen and the
Constitution," see "Inside the Federal Curriculum," at: http://www.edwatch.org/shopping_cart.htm
Julie M. Quist
Maple River Education Coalition