The Times has a cover article today about conservative movements in education–specifically, initiatives to “work against the thrust of programs and courses in gender, race and class studies.” The programs, such as one at UT-Austin, want to “restore… a triumphal interpretation of American history.”
The initiatives “have a decidedly nonpartisan and nonideological face.”
In theory, “non-partisan” education sounds great. And re-examining texts that have been replaced could be useful. But the language the Times uses is of concern, particularly on a post-hunger strike campus. What, exactly, does a “triumphal” interpretation of American history mean? Does the Times really think there’s no ideology behind these classes? We are lucky to live here, but how can our history be triumphant and at the same time be, well, true? What’s actually behind the push for a return and reinforcement of the white male canon?