Inez and Jarrett Stepman both focus on on educational trends in the United States. They will discuss how history is being taught in our nation’s schools and how increasingly, teachers see themselves as activists. How has this affected history instruction in the United States and how does the 1619 Project fit into this issue?

Transcript

Julie:

Hi, everyone. I’m Julie Gunlock, your host for the fifth episode of The Bespoke Parenting Hour. For those new to this program, this podcast is focused on how parents should custom tailor their parenting style to fit what’s best for their families, themselves, and most importantly their kids. So today, we’re going to veer a little bit away from the traditional parenting topics. I mean, not really, maybe not, maybe not really. We are talking about education, which seems to be the number one thing on parents’ minds these days, so maybe it is fitting.

It’s certainly the only thing I talk about with other moms. My husband is really tired of talking about education. But it’s certainly on the forefront of my mind. Just to give you all a little update on the education front, at least, obviously, in my own home. And you’ll, after I say, after I explain this, you’ll probably understand why I’m so obsessed with it. I’ve decided to conduct my own experiment in my house. I pulled two children out of my local public school system because I’m so unhappy with it.

And again, I don’t want to get too far into that because that is a whole other podcast. But I pulled two of them out. The two oldest out and one is now going to be homeschooled. So that means I, the poor kid, I will be teaching him, and then one is in an online catholic school, which I’m actually very excited about. And then one is still in the public school. And the reason is because he’s got one more year of elementary school. He loves his school, and I actually don’t hate that school. So I’m going to let him sort of finish up there.

So, it’s really interesting though to consider the fact that I have kids in every kind of school system. I’m homeschooling. I have a private parochial school, and I have a public school. And so, what I’ve decided to do is every evening I write just a couple sentences about how the day went, and if something happened, or if something was frustrating. And so, it’s been five days and I’ve got a page of notes, and I know it’s early days, but holy cow, let’s just say the public school is not winning hearts and minds here. We’ve had major computer problems.

It’s funny because I wrote two of the teachers, and I used this reference. I said, “The audio is so bad on his school issued computer that you guys sound like Max Headroom.” And then it occurred to me, I mean, these guys are, I think they’re millennials. So, I realized they probably don’t know who Max Headroom is. But if you are of a certain age, you probably do remember and he had this… He would skip, so he’d be… And you’d have this sort of skipping in the audio. And so, that is what my child listens to for two full days.

It is just six solid hours on the computer. There’s very few breaks. There’s very little time off the computer. So, it’s not been great. Whereas the other schools, obviously homeschooling there’s no computer, and then with my child’s catholic school, it’s a lot of projects that are not computer based. So, we’re very happy with that.

So, I want to pivot to the topic of how public schools in the country are teaching American history. That is specifically what we’re going to be talking about on this podcast. And this has become a very controversial topic lately. Again, if you have very young children, this might not be something you’re really focusing on. Obviously, if your children have left the school system, you’re not thinking about it, but if you have middle school children or high school students this might be something you’re aware of. And if not, you should be paying attention to this.

Even President Trump is talking about this. President Trump said last month that schools that teach an alternative version of history, and what he means by that is sort of a negative version. The version that basically says, America is a bad country. It’s inherently bad. Its foundation is bad. It was founded on bad principles. It was founded on slavery, all of these things, which is actually captured in a brand new curriculum that we will talk about later. Trump said those schools might lose federal funding, and we’ll talk about that too with our guests.

The project, the 1619 Project is based on the premise that American history began in 1619, which is the year when African slaves first arrived in Virginia. Basically first arrived in the United States. It wasn’t the United States at that point, it was colonies. And the 1619 Project, again, this is a series of stories and essays, and articles in the New York Times. It says that everything following this, everything from the Declaration of Independence to Boston Tea Party, everything should be viewed through this lens of slavery. And this is an alternative history, and again, I’m going to talk more about that with my guests. But it is very dangerous, I think to be teaching kids this not as historical fiction or an alternative history, but as American history. This to me is very dangerous.

And most people agree, most historians agree, most scholars on the subject on American history, they agree that it is really an unfortunate turn of events. We’re seeing though this even pop up in the presidential race. I want to play this clip here of Biden saying that Thomas Edison didn’t invent the light bulb. That’s not actually true. Let’s play that clip.

Joe Biden:

We got a for example, why in God’s name don’t we teach history in history classes? A Black man invented the light bulb, not a white guy named Edison, okay?

Julie:

Okay. So, that happened in Kenosha, Wisconsin, the site of the recent police shooting of Jacob Blake, and he was addressing the way in which Black Americans are stripped from American history. He says they aren’t discussed in schools, and we can have a conversation about that. We can discuss the way in which Black Americans and their contributions to society have been discussed. I think that’s totally fair. But suggesting that Thomas Edison didn’t invent the light bulb is crazy. That is, of course, false. And who he was talking about, the Black man who he said did invent the light bulb he made it better. He took Edison’s invention, and he made it better. And that is wonderful. And he definitely deserves accolades for that. But he did not invent the light bulb. That is just silly.

Biden wants to turn that into a race thing. But people who invent things usually get the sort of headlines, and then the people who improve on it don’t. That’s just the way it is. I mean, someone invented the vacuum cleaner, and you hear about him, but you don’t hear about the 50,000 people who followed who improved on the vacuum cleaner. This is just the way it works. So, to turn those kinds of things into a race issue is pretty annoying.

So, to talk about this whole big mess of an issue. How schools are teaching history, the 1619 Project, Biden being a total weirdo. I have two guests today to talk about it. That’s right, two guests. I feel very special. The dynamic duo, the Mr. and Mrs. Smith of the policy world, the heart to heart without the murders of the think tank world. A modern day Nick and Nora trying to figure out what in the hell is wrong in America today, Inez and Jarrett Stepman. Welcome, guys.

Inez:

Hi, thanks for having us.

Jarrett:

Thank you.

Inez:

I’m laughing my way through that intro.

Julie:

Well, I mean every bit of it because you guys are quite the dynamic duo and doing so much good for the country. So, I’m thrilled to have you here. So, I’m going to bore you, but I’m going to tantalize my listeners with your official bios. So if you just hold on a sec, let me read these. I think these are important because you guys are so impressive. Inez works with me at IWF. She’s our head scholar on all things education, and has worked in education policy for nearly a decade. Inez has authored numerous long form complicated, wonky policy papers that nobody reads, except Jarrett and her mother. But thankfully, she’s also written-

Inez:

My mother doesn’t read those.

Julie:

… numerous articles for magazines and newspapers that people do read. So, that’s good. She’s all over TV, and she frequently testifies in state legislators across the country. Her handsome and gallant husband, Jarrett is a contributor to The Daily Signal and co-host of the Right Side of History Podcast, which please don’t listen to because it’s my competition. He is also the author of the new book, The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past, that book you should definitely purchase right now. Right now pause the podcast, and get on Amazon and buy that. That is an excellent book. Thank you both for joining me.

Jarrett:

Well, thank you very much for having both of us on.

Julie:

Yes, this is very exciting. So, let’s see. Let’s start off. I talked about what we’re seeing in education, especially when it comes to American history, some really concerning things. I certainly have seen it myself with my own kids. And I know you have both written about the 1619 Project, which I think it’s really important that people understand just what that’s all about. And again, I know you both have written about it. So, Jarrett, please interject or add on, but Inez maybe you could give the listeners a quick overview. I tried not to do that too much in my introduction because I wanted you to really define it, talk about it a little bit. And then also, what is the 1619 Project’s curriculum, which is certainly attached, and why we’re so concerned about its influence in schools.

Inez:

Right. Well, the 1619 Project is a series of essays published by the New York Times headed up by Hannah Nicole Jones, who is employed over there at the Gray Lady. It came under fire from all corners of the political spectrum, from historians, and maybe Jarrett can talk a little bit about that in a minute for being just factually inaccurate. But the narrative is this, the United States was not really founded in 1776 on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and principles of liberty, and equality between men. It was actually founded in 1619 when the first African slave was sold on to our shores. And that central thesis, I think, very much informs the project as a whole.

I think that the real point is to remove any pride that Americans might have in their systems, in the constitution and declaration of independence, and our way of life, is to undermine that. And then to say that it’s not that human beings are fallible and that America has had its black marks in our own history. Certainly slavery, and Jim Crow, and discrimination, just as every society in the history of the world has had. But that in fact, these black marks form the cornerstone, the root of our system.

And therefore, we can never move beyond them. We can never be in their words “anti-racist” unless we take direct aim at the American system, the American governance system, and the way of life that all of us used to love. And so, that’s why I think it’s such a dangerous basis to be then turned into a curriculum to be fed into America’s high schools and middle schools. So, we know for sure that 4500 schools have already adopted the 1619 curriculum, but it’s probably much higher than that because those numbers are low.

Julie:

Wait, it’s so interesting. So, I was just writing down an additional question is where it’s been deployed. So it is already being used, and you said 4500… Is it high schools? High schools, obviously.

Inez:

High schools mostly, also middle schools. But it’s already been deployed in at least 70 schools. That is almost certainly a low ball number. Because that was the number that was investigated before the current round of riots and protests that we’ve seen. So, it’s more than likely that many schools and school districts have adopted this as a response to those riots. So this is definitely a low ball number. Unfortunately, the number is probably much higher than that. And I do want to emphasize that 1619 while it exploded into the news, and it got a Pulitzer Prize, and got all of the shiny medals that go along with the implement tour of the education establishment.

It got all that attention, but I view it very much as a capstone rather than something very new that’s being introduced into our schools. Because Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of America, which of course, Howard Zinn was a communist, a card carrying communist. He didn’t actually deny being a communist. That book has been among the most popular textbooks in American high schools for a long time. And even some of the more mainstream textbooks about American history, I would say have long over emphasized America’s sins and downplayed her greatness. So, I see this very much as the logical consequence of a trend that started at minimum a couple decades ago, but in academia and universities well before that.

Julie:

One thing I’d like to… I feel like I have so many follow up questions from that, and it’s going to be hard for me not to veer off into a million tangents here, but I do want… And Jarrett maybe you can cover this too, talk to me about the criticism it has gotten. And this is significant because many times something happens in a school and you have the predictable figures on the right, who are complaining. But in this case, this is quite different. You have widespread criticism of this curriculum. Tell me a little bit about that.

Jarrett:

Yeah, I think one of the serious problems with the 1619 Project period is not just, I think, the ideology behind it, which is to not just undermine America’s pride, and I think a lot of its history, but also undermine some of the central ideas, which I think it’s created a lot of distortions about. I mean, including several essays attacking capitalism as essentially inherently connected to the institution of slavery. But beyond that, I think there are a lot of direct criticisms of the actual history involved. And I think there have been a number of important scholars, many of whom are I would consider on the left.

I mean, we’ve had people like Gordon Wood, one of the most famous American history historians who’s come out and been critical of the project, criticized many of its inaccuracies. James McPherson who’s written I think probably the greatest book on the American Civil War. They are countless. Another prominent liberal historian. I mean, he’s been an outspoken Bill Clinton supporter in the past has come out and criticized the specific claims that have been made in many of these articles. And some of them have been, I think, wild and fantastic, including Hannah Nikole Jones, and her lead essay as part of this project said that the founding fathers fought the American Revolution to protect and further slavery, which frankly there’s no evidence of whatsoever. It’s based on an incredible distortion has roundly condemned, I think, by serious scholars. I mean, across the spectrum.

Julie:

Yeah. It’s interesting, too, that you have, like you said, you mentioned some of those prominent historians. And you have just very prominent figures in general. I mean, John McWhorter, Clarence Page, there have been people… I think I’m correct about Clarence Page, who’s come out to criticize this curricula, or rather the 1619 Project. Is that right? Was he one of the vocal critics of it?

Jarrett:

He has. In fact, he’s been a part of the 1776 Project by Robert Woodson who’s a prominent Black educator-

Julie:

That’s right.

Jarrett:

… who has been highly critical of the ethos of the 1619 Project has put together, I think, an excellent series of essays that in many way counter I think a lot of the misinformation of 1619. I highly suggest that people check it out. They’re coming up with a lot of materials that I think are great, especially for students. I mean, frankly, for all Americans who are concerned about this, I think correcting a lot of errors, and Clarence Page was a part of this group.

Julie:

That’s great.

Jarrett:

I think that’s remarkably important at this time to counter disinformation with information for people because I think part of the problem is, especially for a lot of parents, students around the country they hear this and they say, “Well, this is the backing of a Pulitzer Prize. This thing has been highly celebrated. Well, it must be true, right?” I mean, they wouldn’t hand a Pulitzer Prize to somebody who’s come up with something that’s wildly wrong or inaccurate. But unfortunately, that’s not the case. I think the case has been that there are enormous historical inaccuracies with the project. It’s incredible that it’s been given the kind of accolades that it has been.

Jarrett:

And frankly a lot of the lead architects of this project were not themselves historians or experts in the matter. Many of them were journalists, and they’ve come under criticism from a lot of experts in these different fields. So, whether you disagree with the ultimate ethos of 1619, or I think, just as importantly, disagree with the simple facts of the project. I think both of those things are incredibly important, especially for parents of students who many of them are going back to school, things like these [crosstalk 00:18:55] lots of stuff in their classrooms.

Inez:

Can I just add to that?

Julie:

Of course.

Inez:

We’re seeing through the last couple decades a very interesting, divergence, or correlation, depending on which way you want to look at it. I mean, it’s to no secret that American civic knowledge has been trending downward for the last few decades to the point where, for example, the citizenship cast that my own parents and millions of others took to become American naturalized American citizens, which if anybody has actually read it. You can read through it online. It’s basic stuff. It how many years is a senator’s term? What are the three branches of the federal government? Real basic civic knowledge.

And indeed, past generations of Americans passed that at fairly high rates. So, for example, Baby Boomers passed that test at about a 77 or 80% rate. But my generation, the Millennials, and then the generation that’s coming after us, the Gen Z, fewer than one in five Americans under the age of 40 can pass this very basic civic test. So, what we’re seeing is that younger Americans are not being taught any of the actual civic facts about this country or its history. But what they are being taught and what shows up in poll numbers is you see anywhere from half to two thirds of Millennials and Gen Z are saying that they think this country is inherently racist and sexist. What they’re being taught is that ideology instead of any of the actual civic facts about our country.

Julie:

Right. Exactly. Well, it’s one other interesting thing, and it connects to just, I mean, the jaw dropping stupidity of this project being turned into a curriculum is that in reaction to the criticism. And I think it’s important to say that it is criticism from largely people on the left of this, and very respected historians who may not identify necessarily as being on the left. I mean, this is, you have very, very respect historians, and then scholars of various sorts on the left have criticized this project. And in reaction Hannah… Is Hannah B. Jones? Hannah B. Jones.

Inez:

Hannah Nikole Jones, I think.

Julie:

Oh, Hannah Nikole Jones. That’s right. She said, well, it’s not actually history. I don’t remember the exact quote. Maybe one of you know this, but didn’t she sort of quickly make excuses for the project by saying that, well, it’s like historical fiction. Is that correct?

Jarrett:

Yeah, she did. She did this on Twitter. In fact, she’s had a number of statements on Twitter that have been very peculiar and odd. In fact, one of the things that I think is quite remarkable, especially given that she’s been given so much attention and accolades is how nasty and aggressive she’s been to anybody who, frankly even makes very much good faith has questioned some of the facts of her project. She’s attacked people personally. She’s made faces at people, literally made faces at somebody on Twitter. Very strange behavior for somebody who’s treated with a great deal of seriousness, especially when it comes to educating the next generation of Americans.

I think that’s what’s really adds to how stunning this is and how ubiquitous some of the lessons from 1619 are suddenly becoming in our culture. It’s amazing the kind of weight given to something that has had so many inaccuracies where the lead architect has had so many problems and issues, and had been unwilling and incapable of dealing with any kind of criticism. It really is an amazing thing.

Inez:

So, we have been reversing her name, it’s Nikole Hannah-Jones.

Julie:

Oh, thank you.

Inez:

And what she said is that the 1619 Project is not a history. I’ve always said that the 1619 Project is not a history. It is a work of journalism that explicitly seeks to challenge the national narrative, and therefore For the national memory. I’m not sure how inaccuracy isn’t a piece of journalism is an improvement over inaccuracies in a history. But nevertheless, those are her words.

Julie:

Well, I really do think it is sort of historical fiction. It’s like man in the high tower, right? It’s one of these what if kinds of stories, and I think it is… I think the project itself is interesting. I think examining the year of 1619, I think examining slaves coming into the colonies at that point, I think that all of these things are worth examining. But to entirely change the sort of foundational beliefs of our country is extreme. And as you say, I’m glad, and as you guys very clearly stated, I’m glad that it is getting push back. But why is this? And maybe you… Two things I’m asking why about.

First of all, you have the most brilliant historical scholars, you have all this criticism of it, and then you have 4500 schools deploying this. I mean, it seems to me when Nikole Hannah-Jones says it’s basically a historical fiction. I mean, that alone should tell schools. I mean, it is it just because largely public schools have become so politicized, and they like this revisionist history. They like this. Is it just convenient to deploy this? I don’t really understand why schools are doing this. That does really show how naive I am. I’m sort of new to this educational stuff. And as you are amazing and know all the ins and outs of it, but I’m still kind of this… I feel like I’m this babe that has come out and been like, “Wow, gosh.” Why would schools adopt a curriculum like this?

Inez:

I think it does have to do with the underlying ideology. And as I said, I really do view this as an inevitable consequence, an inevitable radicalism from the underlying assumptions that I think have been part of K-12 education for decades. And look, the root of this, as always, comes from the universities. It comes from academia. It comes from critical race theory. It comes from all of the critical theories, and those departments. And it took a few decades from the late 1960s for those kinds of ideas to become mainstream enough that they were being taught in schools of education. They were being taught to teachers. They were being taught during teacher trainings.

I don’t know if your listeners are following Christopher Rufo. He has done some amazing work on these kinds of critical race theory trainings that have been happening for years in the federal government. Well, imagine that that’s not the only place that it happens. We know what happens in Fortune 500 companies, but it’s also been happening in teacher trainings forever. So, the entire educational establishment which is not to say that every teacher agrees with this, it’s absolutely not the case. But the entire weight of the educational establishment from the unions to school administrators to teacher trainings, the entire wheels of the system have been going in this direction for a long time.

And therefore, this kind of pushback where you have the author of this project saying it is not a history and yet is being adapted as history, curriculum and history supplementary materials in schools. Well, it’s not really that big a step from what they were teaching before. And again, as I said a minute ago, we can see the results of that over the last two decades just by looking at generational polls. How much less young Americans know about their country, and how much more they seem to despise it.

Jarrett:

Yeah, I mean, if I can follow up a little bit. I mean, this is to a certain extent a trickle down ideology from America’s elite. This has been going on for a long time when Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States came out in 1980. It was just like the 1619 project. A lot of serious scholars from the left, right, you name it, tore it apart. But what he was doing was he believed he was on a moral crusade for his ideology, which was communism. I think that had enormous effect, especially as a lot of high school teachers adopted his works. I mean, you can just check out amazon.com right now. It’s one of the most highly sold books. And it’s had a huge, enormous impact on generations of Americans. I mean, not just Millennials, Gen Z, and the like. I mean, I think this has been really glommed on to. It’s not just a part of how people see history, but how they see their moral assessment of history as well. I think it’s had an incredible impact.

I mean, I think that recent Fox News poll that showed that as far as how Americans view the founding fathers, 77% say they’re heroes compared to a tiny percent say villains. But when you look at the Millennial generation and younger, it’s nearly split. I think something like 39% said heroes, 32% said villains. That’s something dramatic. Of course, there’s a huge number of people who haven’t decided the matter. And I think those are the people hopefully that are persuadable, but unfortunately, because there’s so many now gaps in civics education that essential inform patriotism that were so important throughout this country’s history, the creation of a republic.

That’s so lacking that I don’t think a lot of students even have the knowledge to defend themselves for a lot of the claims that are made by people who have a lot of radical intent. And I think that is one of the big problems. And one of the things that’s really driving this movement is that there’s a lot of misinformation or just lack of information out there. We just simply aren’t… We don’t have the anesthesia to this that we would have had in my parents’ generation that might have existed at that time. I think that’s really created the crisis we have today.

Julie:

I want to… Jarrett, I actually want to talk a little bit more about your book, but before we move on from the 1619 answer to schools, I want to ask one last question. And I have a feeling that Inez is yet again going to rain on my parade, and tell me I shouldn’t get excited. But I think a lot of people are excited about President Trump who just a couple weeks, and I think it was maybe last week, maybe two weeks ago. Anyway, he said that schools that teach an alternative version of American history, which of course is like the 1619 curriculum, critical race theory, that kind of stuff. He said that might lose federal funding, but I have a feeling you don’t think that’s going to solve this problem, right?

Inez:

Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s going to solve this problem. But I will say a word in favor and praise before I critique the actual policy, which is President Trump I think has distinguished himself from other Republicans in a recent memory by understanding that the culture war matters. It is of utmost importance what our future citizens are learning. And that’s been a regrettable blind spot, I think for the right and for Republicans for a very long time. And I think it is the reason, the number one reason we find ourselves in the situation that we find ourselves today.

And so, I would say the intent there is important because it makes him different from the way that Republicans have traditionally thought about some of these issues. And I think that that’s a critical shift, if any semblance of the country that conservatives are trying to “conserve” is going to be conserved, and is going to be there for our children and our grandchildren. So, that that’s the very important praise.

In terms of actual policy, there’s a couple reasons why this makes me nervous. For one, I mean, the federal government has a terrible track record of interfering with curriculum. The last iteration of this we saw was the common core, and there was a huge backlash against that. And in some ways that was less specific, and on less controversial topics. But the second reason I just don’t think it’s going to be particularly effective is because of what we were talking about earlier. How the entire system is sort of geared towards leftist narratives. And I think we can learn here from the experience of some of the red states that passed these great historical curriculums. Like for example, the state of Texas revised its educational standards, social studies standards in 2010. And I read through those standards, they were fantastic. They were balanced. They were fair. They covered all of America’s sins, but they also covered in great detail the founding, and the great things that sprung from 1776 through to today. So, I thought it was a fantastic set of standards for social studies. [crosstalk 00:32:00].

Julie:

Yet another reason to move to Texas.

Inez:

And yet, we’re still not seeing that vision really taught even in Texas schools because you can pass a law that says all fourth graders have got to learn about George Washington. But once you pass that through the system, it’s going to end up being George Washington was a slave owner, and you shouldn’t respect him. And so, that’s why I don’t think these kinds of top-down mandates are particularly effective because once they get filtered through the system it ends up with the same sort of leftist narrative.

Whereas, in my mind, the most important thing that we can do is to actually challenge that system to break that monopoly. To give families the chance to make their voices heard, especially while I think the majority of school age parents are still Gen X. And I think that’s incredibly important to give families that freedom through school choice, through education savings accounts, through encouraging homeschooling. Not only for the percentage of families who are actually going to take advantage of those options, but also to shift I think just the underlying polarity of incentives within the education system.

I know Julie, you have so many unfortunate stories, personal stories of that polarity yourself. But the current system really doesn’t have any reason to value the voices of parents over sort of these leftist narratives that are coming through from the schools of education, the teacher trainings, from universities, there’s no reason for them to respect parents voices over those kinds of narratives. And so, that’s, I think, what we really have to change rather than trying some of these top-down sort of solutions that I think we’ve actually tried on the state level and have not been enormously successful.

Julie:

Well, as I mentioned, I’ve been writing about ed, but very, very different from you. And I’ve always made this distinction that when I write about ed, it’s very much personal essays. I don’t get deep into the policy because I don’t know, necessarily, the policy, but I talk from what it’s like to be a parent in the public schools. And they are painful to write. They’re truly tough things that I have faced as a parent being maligned and ignored and treated with such deep disrespect from… And to be honest with you, the least of the problem in my case had been the teachers. It’s been much more the administration, but we have had some issues, and even we actually have had some good luck too in that we’ve had some truly good teachers, which I think, boy thank goodness because you know my situation, and it would have been even… I often think it couldn’t get much worse, but it could have if we hadn’t had those good teachers.

But it was interesting to me. It’s been a real wakeup call as I’ve been writing those pieces and again, very, very sort of personal essays about what I’ve experienced. And recently I wrote a piece for a publication that a lot of public school teachers read, and boy, I’m getting some heat on Twitter, because they read my piece. They’ve read these pieces. If you post something in National Review. If you publish something in the Federalist, I’m sure there’s some public school teachers, but this isn’t actually almost like an education trade magazine. And the things that I was seeing over the last couple of weeks, the comments on Twitter that teaching is political. That you have to get political. That you can’t keep politics out of the question.

One guy said, I couldn’t believe this. He says, “I teach literature and it’s impossible to find books that aren’t political.” I mean, they’re 32 million books in the Library of Congress. That’s absurd. Lassie, which my middle son is now reading. I mean, that’s not political. You can find… And I know maybe it gets harder in high school, but I don’t even agree with that. I think there’s plenty of books that you can assign kids. So, it’s been a real wake up call. And I think you’re right in terms of it doesn’t matter how many highline policies or curriculums we come up with. The teachers in the classroom, many of them are just very political, and want to push a political agenda. So, it’s much harder to fix that.

Inez:

Yeah, I definitely think it’s not… It is some teachers, but when I say that the entire system wants to translate these things. It’s definitely not just teachers. It’s as I said, it’s administrators, it’s principals, it’s the district office, and then it’s curriculum experts. It’s all of the massive consultants. And it really does underline how much educating has become sort of a profession rather than a calling. And we can talk for… I think it would be too big of a digression, but we can talk about how the progressive era really cemented that idea about the expertise. That one could govern, for example, the country through pure neutral, apolitical scientific expertise. These folks think that teaching is an expertise, which certainly educators who have been doing it for years, they certainly learn things and improve upon their teaching techniques. But let’s not forget parents have been teaching their children and have been their children’s primary teachers for hundreds of years.

And so, we have completely flipped in my view the way we should think about these things compared to how they ought to be. It ought to be that the parent is the primary teacher, and the director of his or her child’s education. And then the relationship is okay I hire you. I hire you tutor, or teacher, or school, or pod director, or I purchase a curriculum for homeschooling. I’m forming out some piece of that job to you. I’m entrusting you with it. I’m paying you well for it. But I’m entrusting you with this job of educating my child and we just don’t think about education increasingly in that way.

And I think that’s a great loss and hopefully, one of the silver linings I think of this very challenging year, maybe that a lot of parent’s rediscover that they are able to direct their kids’ education. That you don’t need a PhD or a master’s in teaching or education to be able to really impart some very important educational lessons to your children. And not to sacrifice that driver’s seat position just because somebody throws a degree in your face or tells you that they know better because that’s just not the case.

Jarrett:

I think what Inez says is incredibly important. Especially, the parents’ active role in this. Look, I mean, yes, I think a large part of our public school system is working against you. The system itself, I think has become the malignant. It’s one of the reasons I support school choice. But parents are such the X factor there. I mean, for me my parents took me out of a public school at a very young age because of this very thing about patriotism, and teaching American history, things like these. And I was very fortunate. My parents were not history PhDs, far from it. My father was a firefighter. My mother was a nurse, but they cared about this country. They informed themselves, and they helped me inform myself.

Sometimes even as a young person when I disagree with my parents, those lessons still stuck. They had me read about World War II, read about American history. And that’s why I developed the ideas I have today. That is an X Factor. Even if all the schools and all the institutions let you down, you as a parent can still be that decisive factor in your child’s life.

Julie:

It’s interesting, Jarrett, to hear you talk about… Well, actually hear both of you talk about this. When Inez talked about how only one in five children can pass the civics test or have some semblance of civics knowledge. And then you talk about your own education, and what your parents gave you in terms of critical thinking. We have seen such a loss in critical thinking. And so, I think about these kids who are at school, who hear the 1619 curriculum, and many of them aren’t equipped to question because, again, we’re just really not teaching that today. How to think critically, how to ask questions, how to be skeptical about things. So, it is a trap.

Jarrett, I want to just touch really quickly on your book because you talk about this in much broader terms beyond the school. The War on History, I love that title. The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past. I love the book. I hope people go out and read the book. I think the publishing of this book right now is a perfect time. And I really think all parents, frankly, should read this book, but I want to get your sense of like, what do they want to rewrite it to? What do they want it to look like?

Jarrett:

Yeah, I think that that was one of my primary motivations for writing this book is to help average Americans deal with a lot of the attacks that they hear on American history. I mean, starting with Christopher Columbus, you name it, giving some ammunition to people to be able to defend American history. The thing that, frankly, we should have all been able to do from the beginning that I think a lot of our schools have let us down, let this country down, especially in the light of we now have a radical movement that is dead set on burying American history. Essentially, I mean, literally stripping it down in public places around this country. And I mean, we’ve seen such a, I think a radical slope.

I mean, gosh, a few years ago people were talking about Confederate statues. Now we’re talking about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson. Frankly, I have to say, I knew that this was ultimately where it was going to go. I mean, seeing it happen all in one summer, I think is stunning. But if you listen to the arguments of many of those who are inspired by people like Howard Zinn, who do believe in things like that 1619 Project, that’s ultimately where it goes. They’re not just targeting one part of what makes America or any single policy. They think America was ultimately rotten at its very root. That this is not an exceptional country, it’s an exceptionally bad country. That was always the message that came from Howard Zinn in his ilk. And those are the lessons that I think have seeped into every part of American culture.

One way or another that’s the challenge that we face today. And I wrote my book to be a counterweight to that. To say that, you know what, going back American history is not something that’s perfect, but is very defensible. This country is built on great things. We’ve always been great. Since the foundation of the United States, the seeds were planted long before America existed. But 1776 was that remarkable moment that just led to the strength and success of the United States through its history.

And frankly, these are lessons that a generation ago were no-brainers. Now we have to think about these. We have to think about them a lot because it’s much on a daily basis. And I do fear, especially as the United States we head into a world in which we have rising superpowers. We have challenges to America’s strength. Do we still have the ultimate belief that we had in 1776 that America was built to be something special, it was built to be something different? I think over time, it’s proven to be those things, but I think so many young Americans don’t know that, and they need that counterweight at this time for the real fight that’s going on in our culture, in our civilization. Is America ultimately a good and great country? Is it worth defending?

Obviously, what I say is yes. You can go down line by line and defend what this country has been. I think it’s important to put into context, the failings of this country and the way that all people have failed, all people are flawed, but I think that, that really highlights the triumphs that this country has made over the last two plus centuries that I think are remarkable. That have really, I think, no precedent in the history of this world. And I think that’s, again, it’s something that was, I think, almost universally understood by people of different political persuasions, and you name it across American society, a generation, a few generations ago. That’s no longer the case. And I think that really is the fight that we’re having in 2020.

Julie:

You guys are just, I mean, I can’t imagine what dinner conversation is at your house. You guys are the most interesting people. I swear I could listen to you all day. I will tell you this. I will tell you, I am now a new homeschooler for my oldest child, and we have completed our first week of homeschool. And as you will be happy to hear, my child is still alive. Actually, I think he’s smiling downstairs. He’s down in the living room. He’s happy, and had a great week, and he really loves… He actually told me last night he likes his new teacher. So, we have survived. And I will tell you both that The War on History is on his list, his reading list. We will be reading that together. I’ve already read it, but he will be reading it next. And Inez, I may even make him sit through your long form policy wonky papers too when he misbehaves.

Inez:

That would be unusual, but you’re the boss in your home school.

Julie:

That’s right. Stand in that corner and finish Inez’s article. I’m kidding. I love your articles. I love everything you do. But I usually end this… First of all, this has been a great conversation, and I’m really glad you guys came. And I think this is so, so important. I can’t wait to forward this out to a lot of folks. But I will tell you, I usually end The Bespoke Parenting Hour by telling some sort of horrifying story about what it was like to be a kid 100 years ago when kids died quite easily. Or something about child labor laws or kids in sweatshops.

But I thought it would be better to mention that we are actually recording this. So this will actually be… We will release this next week, but today is September 11th. And I thought it would be really interesting to hear just a quick story about where you guys were. I know you must have been very young. I was younger, but I certainly wasn’t living with my parents, and I thought it might be interesting to hear since it’s a parenting podcast to hear what when you were probably still living with your parents I would imagine, and what it was like for you. If you guys could just spend a few minutes on that topic.

Inez:

Sure. I would first say, I think this particular anniversary has hit a lot of us, particularly deeply given the multiple crises that our country is experiencing now. I can’t recall another 9/11 anniversary where the memories were as sharp, except for perhaps obviously the first couple as they were for me this year. But I was in eighth grade. It was obviously the beginning of the school year, September. And both Jarrett and I were on the west coast. So, because of the time difference I watched the second plane hit. I think I was shelving books in the library. That was my first period job. So, I was shelving books, and instead of shelving books we ended up watching TV in every single class. And speaking of important things that a good teacher can do.

One of my teachers instead of teaching… Nobody was teaching normal class; everybody was just glued to the television. But one of our teachers had us journal because she said, you will want to have your memories of this day. You’ll want to be able to look back, and I do recall that my journal was extremely vengeful. I wanted to take revenge on the people who had hurt America so badly, but it’s been really interesting to see 9/11 transform from memory into past, into history, right?

And so, even though you say that we’re spring chickens, we’re not too young for spring chickens. We can clearly remember 9/11. Even those, let’s say five and certainly 10 years younger than us, they really can’t. It’s as imaginary to them as Pearl Harbor, which is perhaps a reminder of the importance of accurate history and storytelling more than anything else because otherwise we’ll lose those memories, and we’ll lose the accuracy. And one political side or the other will pick it up and run with it as part of a narrative rather than an accurate memory of that day.

Jarrett:

Yeah. Inez is right that I think it’s up to our generations to keep the memory of this event alive. It’s obviously one of the most incredible things that’s happened in American history. Something that I was a little older than Inez. I was a freshman in high school. Obviously, like many others the day remains incredibly vivid in my mind, and I was fairly politically savvy for somebody at that age, and knew that the world was going to change after that day. And I had the same feeling that somebody else did. It was first the absolute horror of what was happening. And then the anger about the people who had done that to the country that I love very much.

And of course, my father was a firefighter. He was on Urban Search and Rescue. I had thoughts maybe he’s going to be deployed. He never ended up being deployed, but understanding also the sacrifice of the people that day who responded. It’s still one of the most incredible parts of this is if war brings out the best and worst of humanity. I think we saw that on 9/11. The amount of heroism that existed there was truly incredible. I think that’s something that really struck me, and mixed with all those emotions of what had happened on that day.

Nobody who either was close to it or watched it on the news or who looked up in the sky and saw the planes were gone, nobody can really forget that. And I think it’s a part of what this country is. And of course we have endured as a country. Everything that we cared about was under attack that day. The terrorist attacked, they were very direct in what they were attacking. They were attacking American capitalism. They tried to attack the Pentagon, American military. They tried to attack the White House, the capital, American democracy, those are the things that were under siege that day. Everything that made us special and made the Islamists hate us and want to end us.

Ultimately, I believe that what America stands for as always, I think will stand those challenges, and has withstood a lot of those challenges. I think the Islamist ideas that I think undergirded will eventually be washed away to the sands of time. I think what America stands for will stand that test is something truly good and great. And I think that even though we are now nearly 20 years away from this event is something that we do need to all remember, that whole never forget, we should never forget. It’s so tied up with who we are.

When we think of our, even our national anthem, which in some ways is very much perfect for this. It’s about enduring in the face of incredible adversity. Burn our back heels, but we’re going to get back up again. Our flag is still there, and it is still there. The idea of America and what we are survives through this, and it will, again. Even the challenges that are incredible today in some ways more comprehensive throughout our society, I think that’s who Americans are. We will triumph over whatever challenge comes our way.

Julie:

I can’t tell you how happy I am. To be honest with you, I had not planned this out. I did a schedule of a podcast and you guys landed on this day, but I can’t think of two better guests to come on and talk about America, American history, a history though there have been… Our has pockmarks. We have sins, but there is a lot to be proud of. And we are the best country in the world, the freest country in the world. And I can’t thank you enough for coming on and talking about it. Talking about that and talking about how our country really is worth fighting for, and reminding us of the rich history that I really hope young people in this country learn about and learn to appreciate. So, thank you both so much for coming on.

Jarrett:

Thank you very much.

Inez:

Thank you so much for having us, Julie.

Julie:

Thanks, everyone, for being here for another episode of The Bespoke Parenting Hour. If you enjoyed this episode or like the podcast in general, please leave a rating or review on iTunes. This helps ensure that the podcast reaches as many listeners as possible. If you haven’t subscribed to The Bespoke Parenting Hour on iTunes, Spotify, Google Play or wherever you get your podcasts, please do so, so you won’t miss an episode. Don’t forget to share this episode and let your friends know they can get Bespoke episodes on their favorite podcast app. From all of us here at the Independent Women’s Forum, thanks for listening.