BY JOHN K. WILSON
Jonathan Zimmerman has an essay today attacking the 1619 Project, and since InsideHigherEd has eliminated comments on its articles, I wanted to discuss it here.
Zimmerman is obviously right when he writes that “we must also avoid imposing a singular interpretation or ideology that will prevent — not promote — a true and honest education around race.” As a historian, I probably agree with Zimmerman more than the 1619 Project about the history of racism and its legacy in America. But I am dismayed by his dismissive use of a right-wing trope like “indoctrination” to denounce a viewpoint he dislikes.
Zimmerman offers a twisted view of the world. In Zimmerman’s perspective, mainstream history was never indoctrination when it excluded the viewpoint of the 1619 Project. But the 1619 Project is indoctrination if it fails to include the views of people who denounce it.
Zimmerman condemns Ibram Kendi’s list of suggested books in the New York Times as part of this “single-minded indoctrination around race.” Since when is a suggestion list of books a form of indoctrination? Silly me, I thought it was just one person’s recommendation for some interesting books to read, but Zimmerman has discovered that these are the only history books we’re ever allowed to read.
To begin his essay, Zimmerman invokes James Baldwin’s “Talk to Teachers,” claiming that it is a refutation of the 1619 Project, which is like using one quote from Martin Luther King Jr. to denounce affirmative action. Baldman’s speech is precisely an argument for teaching the viewpoint of the 1619 Project.
Zimmerman is simply wrong to call Baldwin’s talk a critique of indoctrination. Baldwin wanted teaching to be honest about racism. He wasn’t demanding that white supremacist views be taught along with his view of racism. Baldwin explicitly says that if he were teaching black children, he would not expose them to a wide range of views about the world, but instead “I would try to make each child know that these things are the result of a criminal conspiracy to destroy him.” James Baldwin makes the 1619 Project sound like Newt Gingrich.
ZImmerman approvingly quotes James Oakes’ awful analysis about the 1619 Project that “The worst thing about it is that it leads to political paralysis … If it’s the DNA, there’s nothing you can do. What do you do? Alter your DNA?” Aside from being a bizarre overreaction to metaphorical rhetoric, the view that DNA is destiny is now most often expressed by those bigots who believe transgender people can’t exist. This view that we must not speak about the severity of racism or it will destroy the movement for reform is clearly false and incoherent, but worst of all it’s a betrayal of the job of a historian. A historian must be devoted to telling the truth, not selecting the best lie about history that they think will promote the social reforms they prefer. If people respond to the historical truth by feeling angry and hopeless, then the answer is to convince them to respond differently, not to manipulate the truth for your favored social cause.
ZImmerman argues, “surely any teacher using ‘The 1619 Project’ in class — as many have already begun to do — owes it to students to present contrasting perspectives on it.” I agree with that, although Zimmerman doesn’t offer any evidence that the 1619 Project is being taught anywhere as the only perspective. The problem is that Zimmerman doesn’t state the other side: Surely any teacher using the mainstream historical view owes it to students to present the contrasting perspective of the 1619 Project.
About 15 years ago, I taught an education class at Illinois State University where I assigned two critiques of textbooks, from the left and the right, James Loewen’s Lies My Teacher Told Me and Diane Ravitch’s The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn. For many of these future teachers, it seemed, almost no one had suggested to them that a teacher could encourage students to question the textbook rather than recite it as given truth.
I am a firm believer in what Gerald Graff called “teach the conflicts,” the idea that we can learn more from hearing opposing viewpoints than getting one side’s received wisdom taught as the truth.
As individuals and as teachers, I think we need to seek out opposing views, we need to read books and hear ideas that we disagree with, that challenge our dogmas. As educational institutions, we need to create structures that encourage more discussion in classrooms and everywhere else, to have more debates with speakers, to have “two book” programs with conflicting ideas rather than “one book” programs, and to encourage discussions of ideas outside the mainstream.
But the first step to a debate is actually hearing the other side and not denouncing it as “indoctrination” merely because its viewpoint is expressed.
If you only preach “teach the conflicts” when there’s a leftist idea you dislike gaining prominence, if you don’t think mainstream views should be challenged by opposing perspectives, then you are a hypocrite who embraces indoctrination by me but not by thee.
You know, the word “indoctrination” has had a long and storied history well before any right-wing movement latched on to it. In fact, more often than not indoctrination was actually PRACTICED by pseudo-leftist regimes in pseudo-Communist countries, or under fascist dictatorships. There is, of course, a more subtle form of “mind control” used in contemporary Western democracies: the Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs) identified by French Communist author Louis Althusser. These entities include the educational system (!), media, legal system, philosophy, etc., which do not COMPEL ideological obedience but nonetheless have an effect on the prevailing Zeitgeist and may have a strong influence on individual thought and even “group think.”
More important, if the facts and assumptions of the 1619 Project are flawed, as my internet friend John K. Wilson admits, why focus so heavily on a one-word semantic issue that may just be hyperbole — or may even be accurate in describing the influence and effect on students and intellectuals who take in those outright mistakes and exaggerated “spin”? Why not spend more time and energy correcting those flaws, especially since the 1619 Project will probably be adapted as a course text throughout the U.S., and even internationally. This is NOT just a case of “not denouncing it as “indoctrination” merely because its viewpoint is expressed.”
Finally, as a Marxist (albeit a fair-minded outlier in many ways from my intellectual and activist comrades), I use the “teach the conflicts” approach and not just “when there’s a leftist idea you dislike gaining prominence,”
Just to add a footnote, and I do think it needs to be noted.
Inside Higher Ed’s decision to shut down its comments section — and now, of all times! — is one of the most embarrassing acts of intellectual cowardice by a publication I have ever seen. Shame on them.
I completely agree with Paul Canmis’s critique of the shutting down of the IHE Comments section. Without attributing nefarious motives to the Editors — one of the stated rationales was the number of ad hominem comments they had to sift through — I am saddened by the disappearance of this form of discussion and debate on academic issues.
Yes, occasionally someone would go off the rails but moderators could have enforced stricter rules. Furthermore, I would bet that many IHE acolytes would have been willing to pay a small annual fee for the privilege of reading and responding to fairly intelligent news stories and opinion pieces. However, that was not offered; instead, Letters to the Editors were substituted, a section that was extremely difficult to locate on the IHE website.
A paid subscription was also offered, but it did not include a “Comments” section, perhaps the best part of IHE.
I gladly would have paid a modest monthly online sub for their content with such a sub being required for posting comments. I have no problem using my real name, but I do not begrudge those who do. The “toxic cesspool” line is just a ruse anyway, imho. Yes, you know us, like drunken sailors on their first shore leave, looking for brawls. Come on.
Sorry, John Wilson! But you mentioned a sad recent event, and not many places we can signal protest about it! Would be interesting to look into, to be honest. I think a prominent voice in our thing should try to get a plain answer. Because, there were, and still are, alternatives. Why didn’t IHE choose them?
Mr. Wilson as usual, takes a balanced viewpoint, even while disclosing his ideological preferences; would that more academics take such a posture (of course, he went to UIUC, which is one of the few stand-out higher education institutions that is not saturated in ideological fervor, and its culture of science and engineering tends to permeate its academy with more disciplined thinking). He may overlook however, that Zimmerman has a quite coherent point, when he characterizes the so-called “1619” project as indoctrination. It is. It is, because it seeks to become institutionally embedded as an “official” institutional program, utterly racially defined for racial solidarity and public policy goals (e.g. the “reparations” agenda), rather than a viewpoint in a balanced mix of viewpoints. There is no doubt, as James Baldwin said, that “American history is longer, larger, more various, more beautiful, and more terrible than anything anyone has ever said about it.” The 1619 agenda however is a political special interest public relations initiative with highly biased individual and Foundation sponsorship, including the former president, whose entire tenure was centered in race and race agitation (and still is). The “1619” project is part of a very unhealthy social contention (and embedded with the larger corporate-funded BLM institution), as political opportunism, by political opportunists, for political and financial self-seeking. Teachers, as Mr. Wilson points out from his own experience, can otherwise write their own lesson plans, choose their own books and emphasize their source materials, without an official, institutional ‘proctor” hanging over their heads. That is what 1619 is: a tool of intimidation, attached to official State agency protection, rather than an honest work of debatable scholarship. It should be utterly rejected, and will be, by historians of mature and more professional judgment. That doesn’t mean it won’t be consulted or cited; but it won’t be turned into scripture. A sober observation by Mr. Tomasulo otherwise, in his first paragraph. Regards.
I can only hope that Matt Anderson’s crystal ball is accurate and that the 1619 Project “won’t be turned into scripture.” However, all that needs is for a few state school boards to adopt it as a text and then teachers will have little say about their lesson plans. Texas and California are particularly influential in selecting such textbooks and other states often follow suit.
The UIUC has been bought and paid by Chicago corruption. It is indeed a prime example of an institution saturated with rabid fervor; along with antisemitism, 9-11 conspiracy theories, and holocaust denial. Threats and bullying by the CFA are commonplace, and domestic terrorists are lauded.
“I am a firm believer in what Gerald Graff called “teach the conflicts,” ”
All right. Let me try you. Some social science textbooks have chapters on religions. They have sections or chapters on Hinduism, Islam and so on. Us idolators have tried to get our point of view into those textbooks. In particular, we want textbooks to say that Islam and Christianity have the truth claim that Hinduism is the Devil’s mischief, and this truth claim is the distal cause of many conflicts. This would be an example of “teach the conflicts.” Would you support us idolators?