tial number of conservatives, concludedrnthat standards should be developed to setrnhistorical education on track again.rnSurely, there existed a core of objectivernfacts related to histor’ (or any other subjectrnfor that matter) that an educatedrnAmerican could be expected to know.rnThis was admittedly an old-fashioned approachrnto education, pushing most complexrnarguments of interpretation back tornad’anced undergraduate or graduate-levelrncourses and testing first-year studentsrnprimarily on verifiable facts. Thus, thernopening vears of the history standardsrnmovement seemed to offer hope: educationalrnleaders, as well as the public, finallyrnhad decided to confront the reality ofrnwidespread historical ignorance.rnWhat was surprising in the early yearsrnof the history standards debate was thernnaivete of conservatives, many of whomrnsupposed that the historical and educafionalrnprofessions, long dominated by extremernleftists, would abandon their professedrnintent to employ history as arnmeans in the creation of a brave newrnworld. Practicing historians on the leftrnsaw history standards as a powerfulrnweapon with which to force a leftist versionrnof histor)’ upon an unsuspecting audience.rnFactual content under thernUCL History Standards was far less importantrnto them than politically correctrninterpretations were. Those of us whornbelong to the Joe Friday school of historiographyrn(“Just the facts, ma’am”) arernfrequently ridiculed in History on Trialrnand compared with Mr. Gradgrind at thernopening of his school in Dickens’ HardrnTimes: “Now what I want is the facts.rnTeach these boys and girls nothing butrnthe facts. Facts alone are wanted in life.rnPlant nothing else and root out everythingrnelse. . . . This is the principle uponrnwhich I bring up my own children. Stickrnto the facts, sir.” For the academic left, ofrncourse, it is interpretation, not factualrncontent, which reigns supreme. AndrnHistory on Trial never lets slip just howrndeep is the lack of factual understandingrnon the part of American students. Onernwould think that Nash, Crabtree, andrnDunn were addressing medieval peasantsrnin their condescending assertionrnthat facts and interpretations are two separaternand distinct ways of teaching. In reality,rna knowledge of events precedes interpretationrnof those same events;rnindeed, the greater the factual understandingrnof an incident, the less likelyrnthat an historian will be able to distort thernevent’s history, since facts have a way—rnoften disconcerting—of grounding readersrnin reality.rnBy the early 1990’s, the great historyrnstandards hijack was well under way.rnWhen grant money was awarded and thernproject fell into the hands of the threernfrom UCL, the leftist bias of the finalrndocument became a foregone conclusion.rnIndeed, the first version of theirrnstandards proved so extreme that thernGang of Three was compelled to rexisernthis document, the most importantrnchange being to uncouple the classroomrnexamples from the standards themselves.rnIn most eases the actual standards orrngoals, delineated by historical eras andrnstudent grade levels, are sufficientlyrnvague that both liberals or conservativesrnwill find little to dispute in them. However,rnit is in the examples section of thernstandards that a leftist bias remains evidentrn— and without the examples, thernHistory Standards are of little use tornteachers.rnThus the major criticisms of the standardsrnas a whole were directed againstrnthe examples section, from which thernnames of numerous prominent Americansrnwere omitted and where an ultraleft-rnwing tilt was perceptible overall.rn(Richard Nixon, for example, is presentedrnas an omnipresent, satanic being inrnthe part dealing with the post-World WarrnII era.) At the time, though, I was morernconcerned with factual errors than withrnsimple bias. Writing in 1995, ForrestrnMcDonald, one the leading historians ofrnthe constitutional era of American history,rnclaimed to have found “nine majorrnerrors, not to mention a total lack of understandingrnor familiarity with modernrnscholarship,” on one page alone of thernHistor}’ Standards proposal.rnFor an idea of how the revised standardsrnare supposed to work, let us look atrnStandard 2A, which asks students inrngrades seven and eight to evaluate thernsignificance of Columbus’s voyage andrnassess his relations with indigenous peoples.rnThe example asks students to respondrnto the question: “How, for example,rndid Columbus’s description of thernplayful and pleasant nature of the CaribrnIndians contrast with his treatment ofrnthem?” This is either another error onrnthe part of the authors or a fairlv cleverrntrick question. On his voyages, Columbusrnencountered two distinct indigenousrnpeoples —the Arawaks and the Caribs.rnHe described the former as peaceful,rngentie folk who would make ideal slavesrnor servants. In contrast, the Caribs werernhostile from the moment of first contact,rnand Columbus argued that they mightrnhae to be exterminated. In my classes atrnthe University of Toledo, I often usernColumbus’s view of the Arawaks andrnCaribs to make a general statementrnabout histor}’. Today, the peaceful, gentiernArawaks no longer exist, but the difficultrnCaribs continue to plague potentialrnmasters in the region—most recently thernSandinistas of Nicaragua. Errors such asrnconfusing the Caribs and Arawaks are inexcusablern—they are not matters of opinion,rnbut constitute the historical record.rnHaing provoked so much attentionrnin the popular press, the issue of NationalrnHistory Standards then faded away,rnpossibly leading readers of History OnrnTrial to believe that it had all been rightwingrnhoopla about minor differences.rnAnd though the federal government rejectedrnthe standards, many local schoolrndistricts went ahead and adopted themrnanyway. The standards and the accompan)’rning text have sold well. Those whorncontinue to battle the national standardsrnare still dismissed as “ultra-rightists” —rnthe term used throughout History on Trialrnto describe the project’s critics. Allrnmoderates, one is led to believe, willrnagree that the standards are balanced,rnmulticultural, and forward-looking.rnParents whose children are havingrnthe liistor)’ standards foisted upon themrnneed to read the detailed criticisms thatrnare available, such as the Spring 1995rnnumber of Continuity, which the editorsrndevoted entirely to “A Critique of the NationalrnHistory Standards.” In that symposiumrnForrest McDonald writes, “If thernhistorical revisionists have their way, thernentire heritage of Western Civilizationrnwill be swept awa’, and traditional Americanrnvalues will be consigned to the scraprnheap.” Like McDonald I believe thatrnwhile such a catastrophe is unlikely tornoccur, in the short run we may expectrncontinued academic unpleasantnessrnand—what is worse—continued historicalrnilliteracy. Big Brother is out there,rnwaiting in the wings to take over your localrnschool board. Beware.rnGerald Thompson is a professor of historyrnat the University of Toledo.rnFOR BACK ISSUES, please callrn1 -800-877-5459rnlUNE 1998/37rnrnrn