Honor knowledge

Banning ‘1619 Project’ a mistake

It is often said that history is written by the winner, meaning the victor tells the story of what happened, irrespective of any bias. Fortunately, America appreciates a marketplace of ideas that allow challenges to generally accepted perceptions and beliefs—a testament to the value of freedom of speech.

Here is a simple question: When was the United States founded? Was it when the Declaration of Independence was signed? Or when the British officially surrendered? Or the year colonists began importing slaves into the colonies?

The answer is that it entirely depends on the definition of “founded.” A contingency for formal organization may lead someone to look to the Declaration, while others may believe it only requires a societal organization of people, which would point to an earlier date.

The precise purpose of the First Amendment is to protect each person’s ability to express their belief; more importantly, it purposefully does not lean on whether a majority opinion exists, but a fundamental belief to speak in and of itself.

However, Arkansas Rep. Mark Lowery and Sens. Gary Stubblefield and Mark Johnson have proposed House Bill 1231, the “Saving American History Act of 2021,” which establishes a prohibition on public schools to teach any theory of America’s foundation other than July 4, 1776.

The New York Times’ 1619 curriculum argues that America’s founding began with the importation of slaves in 1619, and that the start of our nation propelled because of slavery. However, Representative Lowery takes issue with this perspective, especially it being taught in schools. Representative Lowery contends the project sows racial division and “threatens the integrity of the Union.”

Lowery says the United States was founded on the “self-evident truths set forth in the Declaration of Independence.”

Coincidentally, that same document has a preamble that defines the rights every person is entitled to, including “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.” Yet this proposal seeks to take some of that liberty away from students and teachers to discuss controversial historical positions.

Any educational institution found to violate the law would be subject to loss of funding equal to the amount used to teach the 1619 curriculum.

The sponsors admit the legislation’s inspiration is due to an “activist movement” that is “gaining momentum.” But isn’t the purpose of freedom of speech to allow challenges to modern perceptions? Societal views only advance when alternative perspectives emerge, but this bill seeks to entirely remove one of those alternative perspectives.

My purpose is not to advocate that either The New York Times’ “1619 Project” or the bill’s positions on America’s founding is correct, but that this debate between which is true belongs precisely in the classroom. Of course it is convenient if everyone agrees on America’s founding or other social issues, but it remains true that expediency does not merit what is right.

Silencing dissenting opinions does not get rid of the idea; it merely suppresses the dissenters’ rights. If Representative Lowery wants to find unity in America’s founding, then use speech and debate to convince others you are right.

In the early 1900s there was the Armenian genocide: a systematic plan the Turkish people implemented to kill and remove the Armenians. Approximately 600,000 to 1.5 million were killed, which does not include the many forced to flee. Still to this day, the Turkish government has laws against anyone teaching about the Armenian genocide; Turkey denies it ever happened.

For students, one of the valuable features of college and high school is the ability to choose what courses to enroll in. Expanding access to alternative theories and ideas does not equate to weakening our union or exacerbating division. It reflects a profound tolerance for knowledge and respect for individual thinking.

Representative Lowery makes sound arguments for why the “1619 Project” should not be accepted, but why should Lowery, Stubblefield and Johnson have the only say? This bill tells certified educators that they lack the ability and authority to discern what information is verifiable enough to teach in their classrooms.

Certain topics can’t be debated, such as basic algebra or gravity’s existence. But there are pieces within history that are prone to additional conversation, such as whether the U.S. was justified in using atomic bombs in World War II, or whether the U.S. still has institutional racism. I have my opinions, but equally so, each person deserves to have and express theirs.

The Saving American History Act, however, does not grant that same opportunity.