issues.rnMalvasi goes on from the Agrarians tornlink their thought with that of their bestrnsuccessors — Richard Weaver and M.E.rnBradford. And he connects this storyrnwith the failure of “conservative” politicsrnin recent years. Though the Agrariansrnhad pointedly refused to worship the godrnof Progress, that is precisely the rhetoricrnof the conservative coalition today, asrnwell as the o.stensible rhetoric of the organizedrnleft. The Old Right has beenrnput out to pasture, having served the purposesrnof others. Nevertheless, in the longrnrun, the truth will out; when it does,rnMalvasi’s analysis of the ultimate concernsrnof Ransom, Tate, and Davidsonrnwill prove most useful in assembling anrnagendum for the future.rnRichard M. Weaver, the subject ofrnJoseph Scotchie’s related study, is rememberedrnas an author and as an editorrnof National Review Viiho wrote for that periodicalrnfrom the time of its founding inrn1955 until his death in 1963. Readers ofrnthis journal are aware that The RockfordrnInstitute has bestowed The IngersollrnFoundation’s Richard M. Weaver Awardrnfor Scholarly Letters on such luminariesrnas Russell Kirk, Andrew Lytic, RobertrnNisbet, John Lukacs, Edward Shils, ForrestrnMcDonald, and Eugene Genovese.rnAnd some may remember that Weaverrnhimself received the Yoimg Americansrnfor Freedom Award at a rally at MadisonrnSquare Garden in 1962, for “service torneducation and the philosophy of a freernsociety.” He would not receive any suchrnaward today, any more than M.E. Bradfordrncould become the head of the NationalrnEndowment for the Humanities.rnWeaver’s Ideas Have Consequencesrn(1948) is one of the strongest reactionar)’rnstatements rendered in modern times.rnPossibly more than any other book, itrnstimulated the formulation of a philosophicalrnconser’atism in this country, asrnRobert Nisbet claimed. In those years,rnRussell Kirk and William F. Buckley, Jr.,rnjoined with Weaver in trying to preventrnthe self-destruction of civilization. IdeasrnHave Consequences is very much a usefulrnbook today, though I must say thatrnWeaver’s attack on jazz seems more thanrnquaint. Jazz today is museum music, sadrnto say, in need of nothing so much as arngovernment grant. Wliat has replaced itrnmakes Louis Armstrong seem likernBeethoven. In his other writings, such asrnThe Ethics of Rhetoric and Visions of Order,rnWeaver showed his connection withrnthe Agrarians. He had studied withrnCleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warrenrnat Louisiana State Universitv in thernearly 40’s, and went on to affirm a traditionalistrnview een though he himselfrnwas an apartment-dwelling urbanite whorndied alone in Ghicago.rnJoseph Scotchie’s book is bracing andrnprovocative. He sees Weaver clearly,rnand sees clearly too the repudiation of hisrnvalues bv the political forces with whichrnWeaer allied himself In that sense,rnthough he is less critical, Scotchie’s viewrnof the political prophet is much like thatrnof Malvasi. As Scotchie concludes,rn”Weaver, Davidson, Lytic, Bradford.rnSome days you get the feeling that thernSouth’s greatest export isn’t cotton, tobacco,rnpeaches, or sugar, but producingrnprophets without honor in their ownrncountrv’.”rnIndeed. But these books are neverthelessrnhonors to those prophets. And theirrncountry has never needed them (thernprophets as well as their visions) morernthan it does right now.rn].0. Tate is a professor of English atrnDowling College on Long Island.rnHijacking Historyrnhy Gerald ThompsonrnHistory on Trial: Culture Wars andrnthe Teaching of the Pastrnby Gary B. Nash, Charlotte Crabtree,rnand Ross E. DunnrnNew York: Alfred A. Knopfrn318 pp., $26.00rnThe most important thing to knowrnabout this volume is that its authorsrnwere the principal formulators of the infamousrnNational History Standards ofrn1995. The United States Senate was sorndismayed by the History Standards that itrnvoted 99 to I to reject the efforts of thisrntrio of historians from UCLA. History onrnTrial is an attempt to re-visit the HistoryrnStandards debate and show how “ultrarightrnwingers” managed to dupe the publicrnand sabotage the authors’ “moderate”rnstandards.rnA little background may be a usefulrnantidote to History on Trial. By the laternI980’s, many Americans were calling forrnreform of the histor)- curriculum. A criticalrnevent in the movement toward curriculumrnreform occurred when educationrnprofessors Chester Finn, Jr., andrnDiane Ravitch published What Do Ourrn17-Year-Olds Know?: A Report on thernFirst National Assessment of History andrnLiterature (1987). Drawing upon a standardizedrnhistor)’ test administered to overrn8,000 students, the report showed inrnalarming detail just how poorly many K-rn12 teachers were doing when it came tornteaching historical studies. The onern”positive” showing was that this historicalrnignorance cut broadly across boundariesrnof race and sex.rnA few examples from their study willrndemonstrate the depth of the problem:rnonly one-third of high school seniorsrncould date the founding of Jamestown asrnoccurring before 1750; less than a thirdrncould place the Civil War within the erarnof 1850 to 1900 or connect the Reformationrnwith the formation of Protestantrnsects; four-fifths failed to associate “Reconstruction”rnwith the post-Civil WarrnSouth or the “Progressive Era” with pre-rnWorld War I reform. Even long-standingrncliches went unidentified. Only 50rnpercent of surveyed students could namernthe person who said, “Ask not what yourrncountn,’ can do for you, ask what vou canrndo for your country.” Finally, only arnthird managed to link the phrase “wernhold these truths to be self-evident; thatrnall men are created equal” with the Declarationrnof Independence.rnThe general public, recognizing thatrnsomething awful had transpired in educationrnin the years since most of themrnhad attended high school, was appalled.rnThose of us teaching college surveyrnclasses in American history, however,rnwere hardly surprised. Almost anyrnsemester would confirm the results of thernFinn and Ravitch experiment. But withrnthe publication of What Do Our 17-Year-rnOlds Know?, history teachers at all levelsrnfinally possessed the hard evidence neededrnto declare that the “feel good”rnmethodologies developed in recentrndecades by professional educationistsrnhad not only failed to improve students’rngrasp on historical learning but had createdrnan intellectual wasteland in the attempt.rnThe observation in the halls ofrnhigher education that college professorsrnwere often expected to teach coursesrndumbed-down to the level of a good highrnschool history class from the 1950’s, orrnearlier, became commonplace.rnMany historians, including a substan-rn36/CHRONICLESrnrnrn