Authoritarians owning history?

What is an “unproven concept?

Ray Rodrigues, chancellor of the state university system in Florida, believes he knows. He’s one of the many officials overseeing the censorship and government control of higher ed curricula in almost every state in the U.S. Florida was an early leader in this authoritarianism, so we can look at them in particular. In 2023, the state government issued undergraduate general-education requirements–in other words, the courses that people getting a bachelor’s degree in any Florida institute of higher eduction may be offered. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the state law “curtails ‘identity politics,’ distortions of major historical events, and ‘unproven, speculative, or exploratory content’ in the curriculum.”

As historians, we immediately see that second phrase, but all of these efforts are efforts to own history–to control what historical archives, artifacts, and other resources will be preserved and which will be gutted in order to be remade into authoritarian-friendly resources; which institutions offer degrees in history; and, of course, to control who writes history, what they write about, and how.

“Identity politics” is interestingly presented as obviously bad. There’s no need for them to explain why it’s harmful. The phrase has been rigorously bent by Republicans in this country to mean “ridiculous, untrue claims that there are many human identities (PS: there aren’t) that should be accepted as real and natural and not be discriminated against.” With this broad definition, authoritarian agents can go to war with almost any “claim” they like.

“Distortions” of historical events also requires, even begs for, clarifying detail. The horrid irony, of course, is that these authoritarian agents make their living distorting historical events.

Finally, “unproven content”… again, so broad as to be meaningless, unless it is to be wielded as an all-purpose weapon against anything that isn’t distorted to represent authoritarianism. But there’s little need for us to describe it when Ray Rodrigues is happy to do it for us:

“When a state like Florida can say we’ve eliminated these unproven concepts from general education,” thereby relegating them to electives and other courses that students opt to take, Rodrigues said, “that puts Florida in a position to say, ‘We are addressing the No. 1 concern the American public has expressed about higher education.’”

The “number one” concern he refers to in order to justify the entire censorship project is left completely undefined. Americans are “concerned” about “unproven concepts”. That’s it.

What are some of the harmful, specious “identity politics”, “unproven concepts”, and “distortions” that have been targeted in Florida? Here are examples an administrator at FIU shared with the Chronicle:

A course called “Labor and Globalization” is “too focused on struggles/challenges of those in low-wage jobs” and should be revised.
“The Basic Ideas of Sociology” and “Global Women’s Writing: Gendered Experiences Across Societies and Cultures” — are “too focused on women” and should be removed from the general-education curriculum.
“Theories of Black America” and “Global Gender Issues” deal with race and gender.
“Disability and Society” (no reason stated in the article)
“Sociology of Gender” and “Anthropology of Race and Ethnicity” – “our administration (provost and dean) has made clear that they do not think that either of these is a battle worth fighting”
World Regional Geography
The Basic Ideas of Sociology
Basic Communication Skills (“no Western canon”)
Introduction to Machine Learning (“confirm course meets the ‘natural-science criteria’ of the law”)
Perspectives on the Short Story

It’s obvious why courses explicitly focused on unproven concepts like race, sex, and gender were removed/banned. What’s more insidious are the seeming outliers. Sociology is clearly considered to promote “liberal” ideas by authoritarians; studying human societies from anything other than a religious standpoint will open the door to “identity politics.” Ditto studying world geography, where students would inevitably learn about other races. America-first is the curricular mandate here. Banning a communications course because it doesn’t include “western canon” seems like deliberate provocation by ignorant people drunk on their own power.

The story of what happened to the course “Perspectives on the Short Story” tells us all we need to know: after it was removed, the English professor teaching it contacted the chair of the department, Andrew Epstein. the ideally named person teaching it, Robin Truth Goodman, reports that Epstein: “told her he thought he could make a case for the short-story course by changing its title from ‘Perspectives on’ to ‘Introduction to the Short Story,’ which to me just means they didn’t like the idea of difference in perspective.”

Yes, Dr. Goodman is correct. A course was banned without anyone looking at what it taught or how. A word they have banned was in the title, and that was all it took. If “Labor and Globalization” changed its name to “Capitalism and how it Benefits Society” the course would be reinstated.

Every battle we face today in the U.S. is about owning history. Real historians do what they can to expand that ownership, by teaching real history to the general public, wherever they may be. Researching real events and people in the past and faithfully recording what they did, then thoughtfully and objectively hypothesizing about why what they did is important, how it shaped events and people that followed them, and impact us to this day, is what doing history is. It is always speculative and exploratory as hypotheses are formed. Established hypotheses–canonical history–can and must always be challenged by real historians doing the above, and not by authoritarian lackies making (white, straight, male, Christian) things up as they go along and saying it’s history.

Do whatever you can wherever you are to stand up to fake history. Every small action helps.

“A Template for Academic Freedom”

A shorter note than usual this time, to refer you all to a new weapon in the battle against censorship in education in the U.S.

Three faculty members–Valerie Johnson of DePaul University, Jennifer Ruth of Portland State University, and Emily Houh of the University of Cincinnati–wrote this two-page template for an Academic Senate Resolution that faculty at any institution can adapt to present to their own Academic Senate. The goal is to “get as many faculty senates as possible to adopt a resolutions called ‘Defending Academic Freedom to Teach about Race and Gender Justice and Critical Race Theory.'”

You can see the actual template here–it’s a Google doc that faculty can download to a local computer and edit for presentation to their own Academic Senate.

It’s refreshing to see the legalese of “WHEREAS” used, for once, in the name of fighting censorship:

WHEREAS state legislative proposals are being introduced across the United States that target academic discussions of racism and related issues in American history in schools, colleges and universities.
WHEREAS the term “divisive” is indeterminate, subjective, and chills the capacity of educators to explore a wide variety of topics based on subjective criteria that are inapposite from the goals of education and the development of essential critical thinking skills;
WHEREAS educating about systemic barriers to realizing a multiracial democracy based on race or gender should be understood as central to the active and engaged pursuit of knowledge in the 21^st century to produce engaged and informed citizens;
…THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Senate resolutely rejects any attempts by bodies external to the faculty to restrict or dictate university curriculum on any matter, including matters related to racial and social justice, and will stand firm against encroachment on faculty authority by the legislature or the Boards of Trustees.

That’s just a short excerpt. If you are a faculty member at a higher-ed institution, go to the link and download it. If you know a faculty member, point them to it. This is a way to help do our part in this battle against censorship meant to shut down education on racism, sexism, and other ongoing human problems that have and do exist in the U.S.

This time it’s Nebraska: another state to ban teaching about racism?

This time it’s Nebraska. On July 26, Governor Pete Ricketts tweeted (because Twitter is where state policy should be formed and debated) that

I strongly urge the Board of Regents to pass the resolution opposing the imposition of Critical Race Theory on students, so we keep academic freedom alive and well at the University of Nebraska.
Additionally, the University of Nebraska should consider it an honor to be listed on the AAUP’s censure list alongside notable conservative institutions, including Brigham Young University, Catholic University of America, and Hillsdale College.

The AAUP is the American Association of University Professors. Nebraska is only the latest state to join the movement to censor K12 and college instruction:

On March 18 we wrote about the Iowa state legislature working to incorporate the anti-justice language and intent of the Trump Executive Order 13950 of September 22, 2020 (Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping), which we spilled so much ink on late last year. The University of Iowa is being pressured by the state legislature to end diversity education for students and staff.
Then on March 23 we posted about the Idaho state legislature attempting to do the same. Then, just over a month later came the terrible update: they did. On April 29 the Idaho House approved legislation aimed at preventing public and charter schools and universities from teaching critical race theory, which examines the ways in which race and racism influence American politics, culture and the law.
On May 14, we posted about New Hampshire, whose House Bill HB544–“An Act relative to the propagation of divisive concepts”–is yet another move to make teaching Americans about racism illegal.
On June 7, we posted about Oklahoma and Kansas: Oklahoma Governor Keven Stitt signed legislation to ban critical race theory, and department chairs at Pittsburg State received an urgent email summons to “inquire” whether Critical Race Theory is being taught in any PSU classes. “The specific information would be 1. yes or no and 2. if yes which course(s). The response needs a short timeline as I need to have this information to the Dean’s office by the end of the day.”

We believe at this point Nebraska makes 17 states that have passed or are considering legislation to censor instruction. The irony of using censorship to protect freedom is so grating; how can this transparently illogical strategy be so successful every time?

The resolution Ricketts speaks of was introduced by U of Nebraska Regent Jim Pillen. It reads:

Whereas the campus and facilities of a university are places for open reflection, discussion, study, research, and learning and
Whereas America is the best country in the world and anyone can achieve the American Dream here and
Whereas education, free speech, and sound learning are the keys to freedom and opportunity in this country and
Whereas we oppose discrimination in any form and
Whereas Critical Race Theory does not promote inclusive and honest dialogue and education on campus and
Whereas Critical Race Theory proponents seek to silence opposing views and disparage important American ideals
Be it resolved that the Regents of the University of Nebraska oppose any imposition of Critical Race Theory in curriculum.

The vague language is so insulting. “Any” “imposition” of “Critical Race Theory”? What’s an “imposition”? Isn’t any syllabus with required reading on it “imposing” that content on students? The word “any” allows just that–a definition of “imposition” so broad it becomes at once meaningless and an effective total ban on anything that anyone decides is “critical race theory”.

The University of Nebraska has been simmering ever since 2018, when a white grad student teaching adjunct flipped off a white undergrad campaigning on campus for the neo-conservative Turning Point USA organization. The two got into an argument, the grad student gave the undergrad the finger, it was filmed, and all hell broke loose as neo-conservatives claimed it as yet another proof that white Americans are under constant threat and attack on college campuses.

The AAUP censured UNL for suspending Lawton from teaching, and that’s the censure list that governor Ricketts says the state should be proud to be on.

U of Nebraska system president Ted Carter and four campus chancellors have published a defense of academic freedom, which reads in part “Issues around race, equity and the fight against racism are an important part of our country’s story and they have an appropriate place in our classrooms,” which says it as well as we ever could.

Once a term like CRT becomes widespread, it’s pretty reasonable to assume most people using it don’t know what it really means. That’s the way neo-conservatives and white supremacists want it: vague enough to be scary, broad enough to include anything they don’t like.

To allow an individual to define, on his own, what CRT is and does, and therefore to ban it for all, is something we would expect in a dictatorship, like when Viktor Orbán re-writes the Hungarian constitution on his lunch break to confirm his own dictatorial powers.

Our response?

Whereas a crucial component of any claim that America is the best country in the world is an appreciation of the Founders, and
whereas the Founders welcomed and dedicated themselves to open debate, and
whereas the Founders wrote in great detail and great specificity about how they thought this country should be governed, and
whereas the Founders did not hide behind vague wording to hide their agenda, and
whereas the Founders didn’t write threats into our founding documents, and
whereas the Founders didn’t impose censorship to protect any individual agenda,
Be it resolved that all of these vague, threatening censorship laws are un-American, and destroy anything that was great about America.

What makes a country great is its dedication and commitment to facing its problems honestly, in order to slowly but surely resolve them. Find out what your state legislature and state education system are doing and speak out against any attempts to introduce censorship defined as patriotism.