Of, By and For -- Whom?

By Susan Tifft

The families of eight black students in New York City have filed a class action against state education officials, charging that the absence of a multicultural history curriculum perpetuates a "lack of self-esteem and self- worth" among African-American students. That, in turn, they argue, contributes to blacks' poor academic performance, high dropout rate and "antisocial behavior." By contrast, 28 prominent scholars, including historian William Manchester and educator and psychologist Kenneth B. Clark, are protesting a proposed revision of New York State's public school history curriculum, which, they say, risks reducing history to "ethnic cheerleading." In California, meanwhile, the state curriculum commission has rejected 16 of 26 new history and social-studies textbooks, asserting, among other things, that the books fail to focus enough attention on minorities.

Race and ethnicity, two of the touchiest issues in American life, have become an increasing source of friction and inspiration for the country's frayed public education system. Across the country, elementary, middle and high school curriculums are being revised to give a better accounting of the history and achievements of the nation's ever more diverse population. But, at the same time, there is growing concern that one of education's central goals -- the forging of citizens who share a broad, common culture -- is under assault.

At its best, the movement to rewrite history along broader racial and ethnic * lines is making for livelier and more accurate instruction. California's public school system adopted new history and social-studies guidelines in 1987. Now, for example, students study feudalism as it occurred in Japan as well as in Europe. In Portland, Ore., elementary school teachers can select African-American examples for their history, science or music lessons from materials prepared by experts in each field. "America is, and has been from the beginning, a multicultural and multiracial society," says Charlotte Crabtree, director of the UCLA-based National Center for History in the Schools. "Kids need to understand that."

But some reformers have a more assertive agenda. "History makes some people feel good and other people feel bad," says Joyce King, a California curriculum commissioner who protested the "racial stereotyping" in one proposed textbook because it implied that black ghettos were "naturally crime-ridden and dirty. If you create a curriculum that lauds the achievements of one group and omits and distorts the achievements of another, it has an effect."

The self-esteem issue is a "red herring," counters historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. "No minority group is doing better, at least as far as higher education is concerned, than Asian Americans. They don't have many models in our history books." Other educators worry about judging a curriculum solely on the basis of its treatment of racial and ethnic issues. "If you take this to its logical conclusion, you get Lebanon or Northern Ireland," says Bill Honig, California's superintendent of public instruction.

Perhaps what most rankles among politicians, parents and scholars is the angry tone of much revisionist rhetoric. Reformers who want to vilify Christopher Columbus because, they say, he slaughtered Native Americans may miss larger truths. "We don't study the Greeks because they had slaves and mistreated women," points out Honig. "Our job in education is to put ideals before kids." But the questions are, Whose ideals? and How should they be portrayed? -- all of which promises to inspire clashes in American classrooms for the foreseeable future.