Patriot History: The Right’s Attack on Intellectual Freedom
Good history depends upon intellectual freedom and independence
On Thursday, President Trump announced plans to create a committee dedicated to ending critical portrayals of American history, which he dubbed “The 1776 Committee.” To Trump and his ilk, Universities, schools, and the like are indoctrinating students with ahistorical lies about American history that conceal and undermine the patriotic fervor they think should be present in American history classes. To them, this indoctrination requires legal action against universities and academics alike, with more restrictions on their ability to teach particular perspectives. Indeed, Senator Tom Cotton made similar boisterous claims about the 1619 project, threatening to withdraw funding from any school that used the project as a teaching resource. Such an inclination reveals a fundamental inability to understand how history works, much less consider the dangers of the federal government interfering in the free exercise of educational criticism. It is part of a broader attempt by the right to misinterpret and misunderstand academia while at the same time insisting on inserting their dogma into the curriculum. This time, however, it is being done by the highest in the nation: The Presidency.
As I have noted before, historical inquiry is not determined by assumptions, beliefs, or personal politics; evidence determines it. When a historian makes an error, it is almost guaranteed that someone within the historical discipline will remind them of it. Indeed, Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States is a perfect example of this. Despite what some claim, Howard Zinn is not the darling of academic or public historians, although some in the Revisionist school of history may sympathize with him. Stanford Professor Sam Wineburg has made very direct and to-the-point criticisms of the monograph, which would give any Zinn fan pause. And it isn’t as if others haven’t shared similar criticisms of Zinn’s work. Historian and cultural critic Kyle Williams has also taken shots at Zinn.
All of these critics have major platforms and have used them to critique the work. And they did it with all the intellectual freedom afforded to them by their respective positions and without the federal government’s interference. If traditional academia intended to debunk or undermine some self-evident truth about American history, then they are doing a terrible job of it. It is one thing to critique Zinn’s work, I am happy to do so, but it is another thing entirely to take such work and then treat it as though it were representative of the entire field of history. Such a position is patently absurd. It is beyond reason unless you consider intent.
If one is looking for an example of the inclination to assail academia needlessly, look at Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA. Kirk has consistently argued that Left-wing academics have been indoctrinating students, suppressing the free speech of conservatives. Kirk has gone out of his way to create DivestU, a campaign that seeks to encourage people not to donate to college campuses to fight this supposed leftist indoctrination. And Kirk doesn’t just target college’s money. He targets the professors. His infamous professor watchlist, which, according to a spokesperson for the organization, seeks to:
“post professors who have records of targeting students for their viewpoints, forcing students to adopt a certain perspective, and/or abuse or harm students in any way for standing up for their beliefs.”
Its consistent efforts to demonize professors for their opinions, both in and outside the classroom, have resulted in some concerning results. Professor Naomi Oreskes, who specializes in science history at Harvard University, was targeted for her academic work on how oil companies influenced the scientific consensus on climate change. Others have had their work misrepresented or their in-class exercises demonized irrespective of intent. All of these incidents are part of a broader set of attempts by right-wing activists who, despite claiming to fight for free speech, are the very antithesis of it.
To be clear, any professor or teacher who seeks to compel compliance with a set of ideas or beliefs is wrong and should be removed from their position. However, political organizations, and make no mistake, TPUSA is a political organization, and it should not be the arbiter of what is and is not acceptable for teachers, professors, and academics to teach. That is the role of the administration to handle. Attempts by Trump and the right at large to influence what is and isn’t said on campus will not make students better Americans, and it certainly won’t improve the state of our political system. It will only destroy the independence of our nation’s education system for partisan points.
And is that really worth the fight?